It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and, in particular, to support the principles in new clause 11. Some good points have also been made about new clause 5. As was evident on Second Reading, the House has coalesced around the principle of providing
transparency of supply chains. It has taken a while to get there. I pay particular tribute to the Minister for the work she has done and the leadership she has shown in bringing together the Government in this way. That takes some doing.
The importance of the integrity of basic human rights in supply chains has not been recognised until now, unlike—shamefully, in some ways—the integrity of products in supply chains of hardwood, tobacco and pharma- ceuticals. Today represents a big and important step change in recognising the integrity of those human rights.
New clause 11 covers the principles of accountability and reporting, which are also addressed by new clause 5. We can deal with the qualms and queasiness surrounding burdens by saying that any responsible business will welcome new clause 11 as an empowering measure that can help them disclose any issues and root out slavery.
I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). When I said that we should name and shame, I did not mean that this is about good guys and bad guys. This is about disclosure. We should take a rounded approach. There needs to be full, transparent disclosure all the way along the chain so that everyone can shine a light to see what is happening and then deal with it appropriately. By shining that light all the way down and up, the most responsible businesses will expose some things that they are not happy about. They will then be able to say, robustly and confidently, “We’ve done that.” We should ensure disclosure by naming those who are disclosing in a proper and full way, and shaming those who are not disclosing, which is an issue of concern.
Once this measure is on the statute book, compliance and enforcement must be effective. From a light-touch point of view, I agree that transparency and accountability can happen through individual company websites, but we need to go further and enable all concerned to access information centrally. That is why I suggested in an intervention that the independent anti-slavery commissioner should have a portal. The responsibility for maintaining it would not be the commissioner’s alone, but people would be able to look at that independent website and see the names of those companies that have complied with the manner, spirit and intention of the statutory guidance. That is important and I think it would help. Given the timing involved with this measure and the need to get the office of the anti-slavery commissioner up and running, it is important that we make progress, possibly through the Home Office website, ahead of any parliamentary processes, including secondary legislation, and give people the opportunity to show that they are very much on the side of full disclosure.
I must say that I have one or two concerns. I am concerned about whether new clause 11 may be unduly complex, particularly in relation to enforcement via civil enforcement injunctions. Are such injunctions to expose the fact that a company is not up to speed on disclosure, or are they to get to the root problem of exposing its supply chain? The provision may be unduly bureaucratic and costly, and it may well not serve the purpose that everyone wants.
2.30 pm
To deal with that concern, we need to consider encompassing the approach covered by the Companies Act 2006. That has been suggested as an alternative, but
we should consider how to embrace it. Last autumn, Parliament’s intention was that quoted companies must report on human rights issues, and it was plainly our intention that those issues must include supply chains. In its response to the Joint Committee, the Home Office stated that
“there is no specific requirement, rather an expectation, that companies report on supply chains…under the current rules.”
We need to ensure that the expectation is made a requirement, so that that indeed happens.
One alternative, as the Joint Committee said, is to add supply chains as a reporting requirement, so let us at least make it clear that Parliament’s intention is to ensure that when public companies report on human rights issues, they include supply chains. Why would that be very useful? The Companies Act route is a top-down approach from public companies and does not cover the offshore issue—the Government have certainly embraced a much more comprehensive reporting obligation—but it imposes duties on directors and such reports are audited. The approach therefore already has independence or teeth at an early point. We cannot simply have companies reporting on their website; it is important to have auditable reporting. Companies Act processes ensure that directors, accountants or lawyers make sure that reports are up to speed, and we need to find a practical way to embrace that advantage.
We want to ensure that the Bill leads the way internationally and is world-class, as the Home Secretary has said. The Companies Act approach gives it portability across different legal systems. New clause 11 is important, but it relates to our country’s legal system in the relief that it provides through injunctions. The Companies Act approach would allow other corporate governance ways to ensure that our lead is followed internationally. At the very least, we now have consensus, and I appreciate the direction in which the Government have gone.