Baroness Hamwee (LD)

My Lords, we started the week by giving a Second Reading to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, and we end it with a debate on the JCHR report. So ethics have permeated the week, as they should, but there is quite a crossover between specific issues as well. I was not a member of the committee when it held its inquiry. I was a member in the previous incarnation—of the committee, not me—in 2017, when it published its report on Human Rights and Business. Its summary said: “When UK companies source or manufacture goods in less developed countries where there are weaker mechanisms for protecting human rights … serious violations can occur. Human rights are just as important abroad … The Modern Slavery Act in 2015 has raised the profile of … modern slavery within UK companies and their supply chains abroad. However, more action is needed … the Government could make a positive start by facilitating the passage of Baroness Young of Hornsey’s Modern Slavery (Transparency in Supply Chains) Bill”. Well, that was then and this is now. It went on to urge the Government to “consider what extra resources” various organisations may require. As the Minister will realise, that is Lords-speak for, “They are badly underresourced”. We also commented on human rights being a matter for so many government departments, which should be communicating with each other on this. A lot of the 2025 report, therefore, was familiar to me. In the course of many debates, noble Lords have remarked that, at the time of the 2015 Act, we regarded our country as world leading on modern slavery and that, over the years, we have not kept up with international partners. I recall that, when that legislation was going through, I made the rather naive point that public awareness was valuable. We talked about business following the example of the most ethical and best organised, without properly acknowledging that they cannot be precisely emulated by those with smaller margins. I am not making an excuse for unethical behaviour, but I am taking up a point referred to by other noble Lords. In the context where you can be disadvantaged by doing the right thing—as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asks a very pertinent question on this. Promoting a product on, or partly on, the basis of green credentials is easier than of there being no forced labour, although I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said on this, reporting what evidence has shown. The sector still battles the notion that it does not happen here. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, who so skilfully chaired our post-legislative inquiry, brought that out very strongly. It does happen here; it happens here, and it happens there. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is difficult when you do not see it starkly and immediately, and it is difficult when you cannot really envisage it, which is perhaps a difference from the green credentials point, which I think we find a bit easier to get our heads around—or perhaps allow ourselves to think about. We do not want to think about modern slavery. The predecessor committee visited an office where we were given a presentation on the UN guiding principles, and it felt like completely unfamiliar territory to all of us, I think. Was that because of a failure to promote the UN GPs or because of our own lack of awareness? Maybe it was both. The Minister, whom I welcome to his position—although I think he must already feel a bit of an old hand after having been thrown into it yesterday—will discover that the middle name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is “indefatigable”. He will also find an impressive level of determination in the current Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, as with her predecessors. Most noble Lords have had a very restricted speaking time today. Although I could take quite a lot longer, that feels a bit rough on them, so I will discard the notes that I made a couple of weeks ago. I want to pick up on just a couple of the points made by Eleanor Lyons, the IASC, in her annual report of last December. She points out: “Exploitation not only harms victims but also imposes significant financial costs on the British economy and responsible businesses. Modern slavery costs the UK an estimated £60 billion each year—around 2 per cent of GDP”. She reminds us of the model legislative drafting, “drawing on the engagement and expertise shared by stakeholders demonstrating how legislation could be introduced in the UK”. As she puts it: “The public expect decisive action: 80% want retailers to be legally required to remove products linked to forced labour, and the same proportion support tougher government rules … only 9% fully trust companies to act without oversight, while most believe profit takes priority over worker protection”. One might say that many people would not want to be recorded as taking a different view, but these are significant figures—even allowing a reduction for my scepticism. I was very struck by the foreword to the IASC’s report, which was written by a “survivor consultant” working with, and no doubt supported by, the charity Unseen. I quote: “Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence … is not simply another regulatory requirement … When the law draws clear lines, exploitation has fewer places to hide. When those lines are backed by accountability, oversight, consequence, and guaranteed pathways to appropriate remedy”— as I say, there is real crossover with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which has extensive support and will soon become law— “we move from reacting to harm to preventing it, and from inadequate responses to just and restorative ones”. If we as a country are to feel good about ourselves, forced labour in supply chains badly needs attention. I very much support the report, in which I had no hand.