Modern Slavery Bill

Public Bill Committee, 21 July 2014.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. First, please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

Today, the Committee will be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, on which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then consider a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence session, followed by a motion to report written evidence. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally. Assuming agreement, we will then move into private session to agree questions. Witnesses and members of the public will then be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will begin.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

The deadline for amendments to be considered in the Committee’s two sittings on Tuesday 2 September is 4.30 pm on Thursday 28 August.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be made available in the Committee Room. We will now briefly go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.

Examination of Witnesses

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

We will now hear oral evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions and from the National Crime Agency. Before calling the first hon. Member to ask a question, I remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we only have until 4 pm. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I want to start by referring back to the Joint Committee that looked at the original Bill and came up with a suggestion about the drafting of the offences. It talked about a hierarchy of offences that could be used when prosecuting. Ms Saunders, could you explain whether you think that that way of addressing the problem of modern slavery has any merit and why it was dismissed in the drafting of the Bill before us today?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

May I move on, then, to the way the clauses are drafted and, in particular, defining exploitation as a stand-alone offence? I am led to believe that the drafting means that particular circumstances such as using children for begging, using children to get benefits or putting children on the street to steal would not be an offence, because of the exploitation linking with the trafficking. Can you explain that and say whether it is actually the case?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

From some of the written evidence that we have seen, there seems to be confusion about the number of offences that are actually on the face of the Bill—whether it is two or three. My reading of it is that exploitation is linked with human trafficking, so if there is no way of showing that someone has been trafficked, you cannot then move on to show that there is exploitation. For instance, if a child is begging on the street and you cannot show that a trafficking offence has been committed, you will not be able to make an offence of exploitation stand up. Have I got that right?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

So those particular scenarios that I just mentioned would not be covered unless you could show that there had been trafficking?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Do you think you would be able to bring forward an offence under clause 1?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

With situations such as illegal adoption and miracle babies, how would you be able to make a case against people who were involved in that form of trafficking exploitation?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Are you saying that the Bill would not cover those particular circumstances?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Where does the United Nations convention on the rights of the child fit in with all this? If a child is brought into this country for an illegal adoption, there are surely issues about the child’s rights that the Bill should deal with.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Why are there not separate offences in the Bill for children?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Do you think there should be separate offences?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Why do we have specific sexual offences relating to children? I think we have separate offences because we recognise that sexual exploitation and abuse of children can be far worse. In the evidence given to the Joint Committee when it was looking at the draft Bill, Lord Judge referred to the need to recognise that the level of abuse a child undergoes if exploited may be worse in some circumstances. Do you have any sympathy with that view?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

The aim is to ensure more successful prosecutions for modern slavery. You make the case that this would be more acceptable in relation to the jury, but what about before the case gets to court? There are issues in trying to ensure there is a prosecution in the first place. How will consolidating these offences and the way they are shaped to the Bill support getting the cases to court?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

What do you think will be the impact of a sentence of life imprisonment on prosecutions and on efforts to prevent and eradicate modern slavery?

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

I know it is a large room, but could the witnesses speak up a little?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

May I ask questions on two issues? First, Mr Cruxton, clause 13(3), which is about the enforcement powers in relation to ships, states:

“The authority of the Secretary of State is required before an enforcement officer may exercise Schedule 1 powers”.

Could you give an indication of how the relationship between the Secretary of State and the enforcement officer on the ground is going to work in practice?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If the witness could formally submit a note, that would be helpful, because, at the moment, the Secretary of State’s authority is required before a ship in domestic or international waters can be examined for slavery or trafficking purposes. That may be bureaucracy or it may be a formality but I am interested in how that happens between a Secretary of State on a Saturday night at midnight and a ship in the channel or, potentially, off the African coast or in the Mediterranean, and how that is dealt with and the powers that you have. I would welcome some detailed information about that because it is important.

My second question is to both witnesses and relates to clause 23, which is about the slavery and trafficking risk orders. There is a power in the Bill to give, via the magistrates court, a chief officer of police, an immigration officer, or the director general of the National Crime Agency the power to apply for an order if that officer thinks that

“there is a risk that the defendant will commit a slavery or human trafficking offence”,

and that the order is necessary to protect persons generally. I am interested in what both the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime Agency think is the remit of not having evidence to prosecute, but having sufficient evidence to apply for an order. As I see it, there is no particular definition yet in the Bill of what that risk might be.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I support the general principle of that, but I am interested in what those circumstances would be because the challenge to that order in the magistrates court would be very specific. Perhaps you could think about submitting evidence about that because it is an area we will want to test in Committee.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The Joint Committee took a lot of evidence that suggested that there were gaps in the way that the existing offences were built up, and that prosecutions were often not proceeded with on that basis. You have suggested that what we have here is a recategorisation; cases would be more clearly identified, but there would not necessarily be more of them. Do you think more cases are desirable? The cases are slipping through so what needs to be done to ensure those are trapped?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Are you satisfied that there are no gaps?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

I have two questions. There is a 45-day period of reflection for victims, though obviously it can take months or years to charge and come to court. What measures are in the Bill to compel the witnesses to stay in the UK?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Should there be?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

My second question is that I welcome the presumption of age in the Bill, but should there be a definition of what a child actually is? It seems unclear if the age is 16 or 18.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

This will probably be the last question, but we never know.

Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford)

May I ask a question of Mr Cruxton? It seems to me that one of the challenges for the National Crime Agency is going to be on the detection of crimes and the education of the law enforcement officers. What is your role in ensuring that there is maximum understanding of the powers that this Bill will give to law enforcement officers, to police, to ensure maximum detection of offences?

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

Michael Connarty: 45 seconds for question and answer.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

The fact is that all we have done is pull together all the offences that already exist in other Acts. Quite frankly, the record so far has been pretty abysmal in terms of prosecutions. What will be different under this Bill?

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

For this session we have until 4.45 pm. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

I ask the witnesses to speak up a little. This is rather a large room and the sound is not brilliant, so please shout if necessary.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

The Bill as drafted does not contain any measure on corporate supply chains. Should it contain a measure on corporate supply chains? Will you say why, and what it should be?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

May I follow up? You said, Dr Reed, that it would be enough. There has been quite a bit of evidence, from Luis CdeBaca, the US ambassador at large on human trafficking, for example, and others, that it requires something much stronger—something like the California Act. That is quite clearly a mandatory imposition on companies to audit and report on their supply chains. Others argue that the Companies Act is too weak, and that it is only for quoted companies, so the measure will not get the attention it requires if we put it into the Companies Act. How do you feel? It should be mandatory, but should it be stronger than just the Companies Act?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

Do you want to respond to the same question?

Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)

I want to ask both witnesses a couple of questions on the anti-slavery commissioner. The functions of the proposed commissioner are restricted to galvanising law enforcement and identifying victims. Should the commissioner also have responsibility for victim support, do you think?

Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)

Do you think the commissioner’s role is sufficiently independent from Government, as laid down in the Bill?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

I thank our witnesses for coming along today. May I pick up on the point you just made? Clause 35(2)(f) states that the commissioner may co-operate with or work

“jointly with other persons, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”

May I take your views on the extent to which the Bill promotes the right level of work across Government? Domestically, what do the commissioner, the Secretary of State and the relevant authorities need to do to work together inside the British Government, and what do they need to do in relation to the “elsewhere” part? You both have extensive international experience. What does Britain need to do to co-operate internationally to make this kind of work a reality?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

May I press you on the domestic nature of the issue? Clause 42 states:

“The Secretary of State must issue guidance to such public authorities”

in order to do the three things set out in the clause. What do you think is the domestic requirement there? What authorities need to be involved?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

When we are outside this room, it would be helpful if you could tell us whether you have a sense of what steps we should be looking at right now.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

I have two questions on identification and support for victims. Does clause 41, on advocates, make adequate provision for the representation and support of child victims of trafficking?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Should the Bill put the national referral mechanism on a statutory footing?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Thank you for attending. I want to look at two areas: one is UK focused and one is cross-border. You referred to other commissioners—we have the Children’s Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner—but how do you envisage an anti-slavery commissioner interacting with the existing commissioners to ensure that the existing support is passed out to the victims as needed?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

How do you see that working with the Victims’ Commissioner and Children’s Commissioner? Obviously we do not want to duplicate and recreate the roles of the existing commissioners, but we must ensure that the victims are supported.

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

Do you have any views on that, Dr Reed?

Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands)

On the international side of things, there have been several discussions on the transparency of supply chains, about which we legislated to ensure that human rights are respected within supply chains, and since October last year all companies have to report on that. What else do you think needs to be done from a legislative perspective, and how much can be done through working with businesses? Linked to that, how much can both Churches help businesses to identify forced labour within the supply chain, and also help to identify victims before they are trafficked into the UK, particularly as both of you have international networks?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

May I ask whether you are at all concerned about the fact that the definition of human trafficking in the Bill is not compliant with the definitions of the EU and the International Labour Organisation, in terms of the international perspective that you are both obviously aware of? The question is about the terms that are used, which are not the same as what other EU states would be looking at when referring to human trafficking offences. We recognise that the problem is worldwide, so it is about getting some consistency. Do you have anything to say on that?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

May I ask Cecilia the question that my colleague asked earlier about child advocates? Can you say something about your understanding of child guardians? A lot of people think that a child guardian would be able to act in the best interests of a child, which is different from a child advocate, who acts on the instructions of their client, the child. Can you say whether you think that is an issue?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

May I interrupt? I am referring to the legal definition of guardian. I understand what you are saying about that particular case involving a guardian, but what I am trying to get at is the legal definition used by local authorities currently of a child guardian who can act in the best interests of a child. A child advocate is slightly different because they act on instruction of the child. I am trying to tease out, under clause 41, whether you feel that having a child advocate is sufficient for children who have been trafficked, or whether you think a guardian might be a better way forward.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

May I ask about the victims’ defence, under clause 39? I wondered what your views were about schedule 3, which lists all the offences where the statutory defence would not apply. The Bill is about offering support and protection to victims. What do you feel about clause 39 and schedule 3?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Do you feel that there should be specific offences in the Bill relating to children?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

May I say that the cross-party joint Committee took the view that the Bill should contain offences specifically to do with children? There was cross-party agreement on that. My colleague here was on the Committee, so I am sure that he could speak to that.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I wanted to make a remark on maintaining consensus. Sir Andrew and I sat on the Committee, and what was drafted, in fact, was all of those offences. After quite learned submissions from Peter Carter QC, who we will hear from later, and from Lord Judge, it was quite clear that they both thought that the offence against children was much stronger and should be marked out as a specific offence with, probably, a higher tariff. That was in the joint submission, about which there was consensus across the House and across the parties. That has been broken by the Government, not by the joint Committee.

Can I ask a broader question? Aspirationals and devotional, faith-based organisations such as your own are talking about compromises. It has been said a number of times in the debate—I have said it a certain number of times—that if we want to carry on the work of Wilberforce, we must have the strongest international element to the Bill. Do you think that it chimes with the aspirations of faith-based organisations to talk compromises, when maybe you should in fact be setting heights for us to reach?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

When considering the Bill, the Joint Committee made some suggestions about revisiting the issue of the overseas domestic worker visa, which was changed by the Government two years ago. Do you have any view on the change or whether the Bill should revisit some of those issues?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Some of us have received representations—maybe all of us have; I do not know, but I certainly have—about the potential for the Bill to consider the extension of the gangmaster legislation to other areas, particularly hospitality, tourism, catering or construction. Do you have any views on that potential extension?

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

There are no further questions from Members, so I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

We have until 5.30 pm to hear from this set of witnesses. Before I call Members to ask questions, will the witnesses please introduce themselves?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If I may, I would like to focus my question on Kate. The Joint Committee considered the question of overseas domestic workers and made recommendations about the reintroduction of some mechanism to examine how we can improve the situation for them, based on the changes made two years ago. What is your view on the effect of those changes? Are there any recommendations that the Committee should examine to improve the situation?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

What is your assessment of how many people are affected by the current regulation change? What is the potential for the regulation change to increase some of the challenges they face? You have mentioned poor levels of pay, but are there other things that potentially affect domestic workers?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Do you have any indication of the number of such individuals?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

What would you say about that?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The 2012 regulations were regulations. They were not primary legislation.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Do you see a role for the Bill in overturning those issues?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

On that point, what is your view of the defence set out elsewhere in the Bill? It strikes me that that defence may be possible for a person leaving tied employment in this scenario. If they did so and stayed in the UK, they would be committing a crime under immigration law. Is it your view that the defence would help that individual? I am referring to the defence dealt with in part 4 of the Bill.

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

Do you think the other aspect of the previous regulations that enabled the person to be employed for longer periods ought to be reinstated?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

Moving away from the visas question and on to other protections that need to be afforded to victims of slavery or trafficking, you have already said that you think part 4 of the Bill is not enough. How do you think it should be improved?

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

Do the other witnesses want to add anything to the questions that have been asked?

Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)

I have some questions for all the witnesses about the anti-slavery commissioner. The function of the proposed anti-slavery commissioner is restricted to galvanising law enforcement and identifying victims. Should the commissioner also have responsibility for victim support?

Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)

I think part of the answer to that question has sort of pre-empted what I am going to ask next about the independence of the commissioner. I want to ask all three of you so I might as well roll these three questions into one. Do you think that, as it is laid down in the Bill, the commissioner is sufficiently independent from Government? Clause 34(4) says that the commissioner’s remuneration, staff and accommodation would be provided by the Secretary of State as they see fit. Is that right and appropriate?

The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to approve the commissioner’s plans and reports and determine permitted matters for the commissioner to report on. Should the commissioner have greater autonomy in planning and reporting?

Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)

Kate, do you want to add anything?

Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)

Do you think clause 34 does not offer the anti-slavery commissioner the independence that they would require for them to do the job properly?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Mr Wallis, you spoke of the enormity of this crime and having your hands tied behind your back. Looking at the Bill, are there specific areas that we should be building, enhancing or strengthening, and are there omissions that we need to be tackling as well? I ask you, but also the panel.

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Would you support guardianship, rather than advocates, for children for that reason?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

To what extent is the problem of successful prosecutions down to a lack of clarity in the definition of modern slavery? Clause 1 refers to article 4 of the human rights convention, which describes essentially what it is not. Do you want to see a wider definition of exploitation that covers not just what we see now, but what we might see in future years—the ongoing issues in modern slavery that go beyond the traditional forms—and the issue of compulsion and consent?

David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate)

I appreciate your comments about bringing it all into one Act, but in your evidence did you hear concerns from prosecutors or agencies about there being a problem of lack of understanding and definition?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

As you know, my interest in the Bill is specifically in what I consider to be a major omission. First, a simple question: should the Bill include a mandatory, rather than a voluntary, measure on corporate supply chains?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

Lucy?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

The Government’s reply has consistently been they will build voluntary ethical partnerships with business. Is that adequate?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

Lucy, do you have a similar view?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I recognise that line of argument from when Rathbones gave evidence to the Joint Committee on business risk and benefits. My last question is, what kind of legislation should be in the Bill? It has been argued that an amendment to a section of the Companies Act would be sufficient. Others have argued that there should be something more along the lines of the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act or the private Member’s Bill that was unfortunately talked out in this House. What amendments should we table to enable the Bill to deal with the international aspects of human trafficking and slavery in a manner akin to Wilberforce’s aspirations 200 years ago?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

I have an extremely quick follow-up question on that point. I am interested in what you have just said. Linking back to the way that the overseas domestic workers regulations are very micro—they are about one person and an employee—why would you leave small business out of what you have just articulated?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

But it’s okay for small businesses?

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

For this session we have until 6 pm. We will now hear evidence from Nadine Finch of Garden Court Chambers and Peter Carter, QC, of Red Lion Chambers.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

The aim of the Bill is to get more prosecutions. From the offences drafted in clauses 1 to 3, do you think we will see more prosecutions? Also, can you comment on the Joint Committee’s proposal for a hierarchical list of offences? Would it cause confusion in the court, particularly to juries, if that was adopted?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Could I just ask about—

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

Quite a few hon. Members want to ask questions, so can we keep the questions short and the answers brief?

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I just wonder what you think about clause 39 in terms of schedule 3 and the list of offences that are not covered by the statutory defence, particularly in relation to children and how they would use clause 39.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Earlier in the sitting, I asked the DPP whether she thought that there were any gaps in the offences in the Bill and she replied that she did not. She also said that she thought that the main effect of the changes would be a re-categorisation of prosecutions that were taking place anyway. Would you like to comment on her observations?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

So can I summarise that as: you believe there are gaps in the Bill as it is?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Would you be able to write a note for the Committee to express that more precisely?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Ms Finch, does clause 41, on advocates, contain adequate provision for the representation and support of child victims of trafficking?

Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham)

Should legal guardianship be tested within the Barnardo’s pilot that is going on?

Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford)

May I just take you back to your comments about the possibility of having an age-specific offence in the Bill? What would you say to those people who say that if you are prosecuting an offence—any kind of offence—there is a series of hurdles that you have to overcome, and that putting in an additional hurdle of having to prove the age of the person who is being enslaved would simply require more work to secure a conviction? You said earlier that there are already offences on the statute that require the prosecution to prove that someone is of a specific age. It is normally under a particular age; I guess you were thinking about sexual offences.

However, I think we can agree that, for the vast majority of offences, you do not have to prove the age of an individual, for good reason—it is dealt with in sentencing as an aggravating feature. For example, for an assault or a murder, it seems unnecessary to require the prosecution also to show that someone is of a particular age. It would not be desirable for any prosecutor to have to prove the age of the individual in addition to everything else, when that could be dealt with as an aggravating feature on sentencing.

Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford)

If I may, if a judge is looking at sentencing, he can say, “This person is around 17 to 19 years of age. I will treat the sentence on that basis.” However, for a conviction, the case could fall or stand on that finding. It would create unnecessary obstacles if we asked someone to prove also what age they are.

Also, when a prosecutor is deciding what charge to bring, if they are not 100% sure of the age of an individual, they seem to have two choices: either charge for what you would describe as a lesser offence, or charge for both offences. That creates greater confusion for the jury. In your striving to simplify this, you could actually end up making this more complex.

Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford)

But if you say to a jury, “You need to look at this particular charge. If you find this person of such and such age, then that charge goes, and we look at another charge,” you are creating a step process, which is not found to be necessary when you deal with any offences against the person—any kind of assaults, or murders. If you burgle the house of a particular age person, it may be an aggravating feature, but it is not necessarily the case.

There is a whole range of offences where you could, if you want to, make the law more complex, bringing in an age requirement that is not necessary. The courts deal with it quite adequately on sentencing.

Gareth Johnson (Conservative, Dartford)

I think we could be here all day, Mr Chairman, so I am not going to continue on this.

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

So going back to your earlier point about the way that, in your words, children may not understand the chain that they have been through, in what way is clause 2 inadequate, which seems to me to go through the different aspects of a chain fairly clearly?

Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North)

I am happy to stop there, Chair. I assume others want to talk.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

I recall, in written notes and evidence to the Joint Committee, that you, Mr Carter, had a very strong view about how supply chains should be policed or enforced, in terms of getting rid of slavery. You suggested an amendment similar to the Bribery Act 2010, which I have heard again through Anti-Slavery International, which has written to me in similar terms before. Why not just a company’s supply chain or the transparency in supply chains, like California—why the Bribery Act?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk)

Okay, that’s clear.

David Crausby (Labour, Bolton North East)

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. That concludes our business for the afternoon.