PRIMARK has been praised by the Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Revd Vivienne Faull, for its “effective human-rights due diligence” in tackling the evils of contemporary slavery and human trafficking.
The high-street retailer was as vigilant within the UK because it was in China, she said within the House of Lords last week, referring to its decision to ban suppliers’ “using and sourcing products, materials, components or labour originating from the [Xinjiang] region. Primark has taken equally decisive motion when UK suppliers have been found to be non-compliant.”
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee Report debate on Friday — Bishop Faull sits on the committee — was intended to “take note” and consider immigration laws, the care sector, and provide chains, within the words of its proposer and the committee’s chair, Baroness O’Grady (Labour).
Bishop Faull was keen to focus on “the Modern Slavery Act on this tenth anniversary week. . . It was world-leading laws. . . I also rise within the week that the Church commemorates Harriet Monsell, founding father of the Anglican Community of St John Baptist, Clewer, a community which, from its Nineteenth-century inception, had as a core vocation the care of female victims of human trafficking.”
She wanted to handle statutory guidance and sanctions for non-compliance: “The issue of contemporary slavery and exploitation in supply chains raises questions on corporate accountability. Although consumer businesses are exposed to a greater level of transparency and accountability, their lesser-known competitors can get away with publishing weak statements, or not publishing in any respect, within the knowledge that any penalties are unlikely to be forthcoming.”
Bishop Faull suggested that a majority of the general public wanted “a recent law to stop exploitative practice . . . and implement the Modern Slavery Act by imposing financial penalties where corporations fail to publish an announcement and supply swift access to justice for victims. . .
“The Modern Slavery Act was truly ground-breaking when it was introduced, but it surely must keep pace with changes to business practices by recognising the increasing complexities of supply chains. . . The law because it stands discourages businesses from doing anything however the bare minimum and leaves the UK’s record on human trafficking, once so powerfully pioneering, now profoundly blemished.”
Lord Bates (Conservative) followed her with an acknowledgment: “The Church has been an important voice within the campaign to finish modern slavery, and lots of of us will remember the numerous role played by the previous Bishop of Derby, Alastair Redfern, through the laws’s passage.” He wanted the Government’s “reassurance on adequate resources” to effect change.
Lord Kempsell (Conservative) described slavery as “against the law which is having a terrible impact on a number of the most vulnerable people within the United Kingdom and in communities more widely. . . The impact of contemporary slavery runs far beyond its immediate victims into the economy, into standards in employment, into health care and into many sectors. . . we must do the whole lot we are able to to redouble our efforts to eradicate this crime.”
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat) said that “all exploitation is about money”, and “there are more structural issues . . . data-sharing between departments . . . responsibility and accountability.”
Lord McInnes (Conservative) spoke of how “now we have gone from world-leading on this area to identifying significant gaps over a time period. . . The Act can work to guard people only when the specter of repercussions is effective. ” He saw it as “built on a consensus across all political parties . . . not for use as a political football. . . The Government need to indicate leadership in working to uncover and tackle the scourge of contemporary slavery.”
Responding for the Government, Lord Moraes (Labour) said: “This is a serious report doing two serious things: recommitting this Government — any government — to the fight against modern slavery and, more importantly, to improving that response.” He outlined recent measures to “support such broad reform”, and attempts “to handle all of the areas within the shadows where persons are suffering”.
He agreed with a consistent concern raised in the controversy: “The care sector has change into central since it is our current focus in where we see the exploitation. . . The Government imagine everyone deserves to be treated fairly at work and rewarded for his or her contribution to the economy. . . We at the moment are within the technique of making a fair-work agency through the Employment Rights Bill.”
Baroness O’Grady concluded with appreciation for “a excellent debate”, and that “none of us will be confident that the garments we wear and the food we eat are free of contemporary slavery, and that makes us complicit. I’d add that it makes those of us with some power obligated to do something about it and take motion.”
The motion was agreed.
