Bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade

The range of speeches in the debate has shown a balance between dwelling on the offence and commemorating its abolition. I was born within 5 miles of Pier Head, I lived briefly in a tobacco baron’s house in Glasgow, and I now represent a constituency in Aberdeenshire, from which some of the richest plantation owners originated. I guess that I have made a journey through the UK that has quite a lot of close connections with slavery and the slave trade. In light of the speeches made by the hon. Members for Brent, South (Ms Butler) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), it is worth recording that, in 1796, 30 per cent. of the estates in Jamaica were owned by Scots. In 1817, 10 years after the abolition of the trade, 32 per cent. of the slaves in Jamaica were owned by Scots. We must acknowledge and face up to that. On the back of that trade, Glasgow claimed to be the second city of the empire, but I guess that, in that context, it is a pretty close call between Liverpool and Glasgow. Subsequently, Glasgow became one of the great powerhouses of the campaign to abolish slavery altogether, so there was some recognition among the population of Scotland that abolishing the slave trade was not enough; the condition of slavery needed to be abolished. It is a slight irony that some of the campaigners—not Wilberforce—wanted to abolish the slave trade only because they thought that the lack of supply might make the slave owners treat their slaves better. I guess that one must start with half the argument before the other half becomes the logical conclusion. Having read up on the subject, it is probably worth putting on record some of the arguments put forward. James Ramsay, a cleric, made the following ironic comment against slavery:"““Had nature intended negroes for slavery, she would have endowed them with many qualities which they now want. Their food would have needed no preparation, their bodies no covering; they would have been born without any sentiment for liberty; and possessing a patience not to be provoked, would have been incapable of resentment or opposition””." Because they are just like us, however, they did not comply and fought for and ultimately won their freedom, as has been pointed out. The arguments put forward in the campaign still make pretty harsh reading. The committee on behalf of the plantation owners stated:"““the African trade is so blended with our commerce, and so interwoven with our general interests, that if at any time, through neglect, mismanagement, or misfortune, this nation should be deprived of its benefits, it will then suffer a very great and irreparable loss, a maim in its commerce, dignity, and power, of which it is impossible it can ever recover.””" That is a damning comment, and it was an argument put forcefully in defence of slavery and the slave trade at the time, with, I guess, campaigning zeal. That shows why it took more than 20 years to secure abolition. Like other Members, I am grateful that Scotland is acknowledging its role, and that several events are taking place in and around Glasgow and my city of Aberdeen that will enable the present generation to focus on that. Another legacy of the way in which African slaves were treated is racism. They were treated as sub-human: the animals were probably better looked after than the slaves in transit. It is heart-breaking to read that not only were the conditions abominable but that family connections and loyalties were totally disregarded: families were split up, sold and moved around different plantations, never to see each other again. Slavery has a long history. Greek and Roman civilisation—in which the origins of European civilisation lie—were founded on slavery and slave ownership. It is probably true that Aristotle and Socrates would not have had the time to think their philosophies through if they had not had the labour of slaves. We must acknowledge that. Sadly, as others have said, slavery has not been abolished. The United Nations estimates that 27 million people are effectively enslaved today. The International Labour Organisation says that 12.1 million people are in forced labour of one form or another. In the spirit of the commemoration, we must take that issue forward and give a lead on it. With regard to trafficking, a lot of the focus, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) pointed out, is on the sex trade and sex traffic. In fact, about 50 per cent. of those who are trafficked are men and 50 per cent. women. In the sex trade, it is 98 per cent. women and 2 per cent. men. Men and boys are still being sold into slavery in a variety of different ways, and that needs to be addressed. Clearly, however, this country is at the receiving end of a great many women who have been trafficked or sold into slavery. It is shocking to read that women from eastern Europe and the Balkans, including places such as Moldova, have effectively been sold into slavery for cash by their own families—their brothers, fathers and supposed husbands. That is knowingly done on the clear understanding of what is happening. The girls are deceived and told that they are going to take up a job or opportunity. Only when it is too late do they realise into what they have been sold. In some cases, they might have had a good idea that they were being sold into some dubious activity, but they probably thought that they would have free choice and opportunity, not be imprisoned, brutalised, beaten and denied any of the revenue generated. Even worse, they can effectively be sold into slavery and then be told that they owe the slave owner money for the cost of getting them where they are and for their keep. Therefore, all the money that they earn is taken, and their reward is to be beaten, raped and denied their basic requirements. I do not wish to be misinterpreted, but I want to press the Government a little harder on the issue of the UN convention on trafficking in human beings. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, the cross-party advisory group that he has put together discussed the importance of signing that convention. It would be impossible to commemorate the abolition of slavery and not be a signatory to the convention. Forty-six or, if we count Montenegro, 47 countries are potential signatories. At present, 34 have signed, and Britain is one of those countries that have not. It is true that only five countries have ratified, and that 10 are required to do so for the convention to be implemented. If one looks at the countries that have not signed, however, one sees that we are not in the best of company. The major countries that have not signed are Russia, the United Kingdom and Spain. France, Germany, Italy, all the Scandinavian countries and most of the countries where the trafficking originates have signed. I very much welcome the fact that we are going to sign the convention, but having tried to find out exactly what the Government’s reservations are, I hope for clarification soon of their timetable for ratifying and of the final legal framework. Until the convention is ratified, people who are trafficked do not appear to have any recourse. They are constantly told that they are illegal immigrants and have no rights, and that is one of the threats used to keep them quiet. They are told, ““No one is going to help you, because you should not be here anyway.”” They need to know and understand, if we can communicate with them at all, and if they can gain any information, that the United Kingdom has ratified a treaty that gives them rights: at least 30 days’ grace plus, possibly, reflection time, and no conditions on whether they testify in relation to how they are treated. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us a little more in her reply. We need to find out shortly what the conditions are and what will be the passage of time between the signing and ratification of the convention by the United Kingdom. That would make a good and sound connection between the commemoration and the current situation. The parliamentary campaign that led to the abolition of slavery has rightly been acknowledged as a model, which has probably never been equalled. It required such extraordinary expenditure of effort that perhaps it inevitably gained a resonance, whereas nowadays there are so many campaigns and means of campaigning that it is difficult to raise one above the rest and achieve such change. Nevertheless, engagement that involves people on the ground matters more than anything if a campaign is to be effective. Points have been made about the inequalities that persist between Britain and Africa, and the descendants of slaves and the countries in which slavery operated. Much remains to be done. The International Development Committee, which I chair, had an informal briefing this morning from the Strategic Foresight Group. Its ideas about and analysis of the causes of division, terrorism and extremism are interesting. It also makes some practical suggestions about tackling that. It pointed out that, in the United States, which, as nobody needs telling, is the world’s largest economy, a significant proportion of households in 29 states have an income of less than $25,000—a per capita income of $10,000 to $15,000. Of course, the group acknowledged that that would be a high salary in African terms, but it is a low income in the United States. The group made the point that Pentecostal Christianity and white supremacist groups have grown in precisely the states where such pockets of low-income earners are abundant. That shows that the legacy of slavery survives where there is racial discrimination and deprivation. We heard the example of the British version of the free-trade state, next door to the American version, which has also been racked by a destructive civil war. It can be difficult to know where blame lies when there is poor quality local leadership. I believe that we should apologise unreservedly and show shame for our actions, but that we must also challenge, and acknowledge that the world cannot go on trading apologies instead of delivering leadership and action that move things forward and create change. There must be a partnership between us and the leadership in the communities that we are considering. Our approach is not to tell countries what to do—we are not neo-colonialists—but to work with them and help them achieve what they want to do. That requires integrity, good governance and transparency. The good news is that, where that exists, we are beginning to see benefits. Some countries in Africa clearly provide the beginnings of potentially sustainable growth. I hope that that example will persist, and that people perceive the benefits of a partnership that provides real money from developed to developing countries, gives genuine ownership to developing countries and adds to open, transparent good governance, so that those countries that do not benefit realise that they must follow the same route. We cannot have a position whereby people are enslaved by their leadership and the elite does not understand the need to share and include. One of Africa’s tragedies is that it remains probably the richest continent on the planet yet it has a high concentration of the world’s poorest people. More poor people live outside Africa, but the proportion of the population of Africa that is poor is much higher than elsewhere. Those people live in the middle of great wealth, which is not properly shared in some African countries. Partnership between the Department for International Development and other international agencies will flourish only if we get the balance right. One of the least edifying spectacles in the world at the moment is the continual bickering between the two great developed trading blocs about who is to blame for the failure to deliver a trade deal that constitutes a development round for the poorest countries. The best testament to the end of slavery that we could provide is to drop our protectionist barriers, if we genuinely believe in free trade, and open our markets. We should also provide the capacity, through aid for trade, for developing countries to flourish in their own way so that they can access their markets in real terms, not only in theory. That means delivering the Doha round. If that does not happen, we must find another, better way of ensuring that such partnership can continue. Whether the colonial legacy or that of slavery is to blame, we cannot look at the state of Africa and feel anything other than shame. It may not be all our fault—I believe that we have now got our approach right—but we must deliver our part of the bargain before we can honestly expect the countries of Africa to get their fair share of the world’s resources and an ability to participate as full and growing partners who are not dependent on aid. Dependence on aid is neither in their interests nor in ours. Escape from aid dependency restores dignity, and the restoration of dignity abolishes aid dependency. It is a perfect circle, if we can only break the current cycle. It is up to us to deliver—we have not yet done so.