Anti-slavery campaigners outside parliament. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

During an unexpected boom in the industry, David Cameron is fumbling on slavery

As slavery all over the world is more prolific and lucrative than ever, a new British abolitionist movement is beginning. Just like 200 years ago, however, it is encountering “dark forces” at the top.

The 35 Afghans found in a shipping container on Tilbury Docks this month will provide ample grist for the government’s "Slavery Is Closer Than You Think" campaign. Yet such incidents represent only a tiny fraction of the globalised networks of exploitation that put food on our plates and clothes on our backs.

With as many as 29.8m slaves all over the world today, generating $150bn in illegal profits every year, slavery is more prolific and more lucrative than ever. Increasingly, this new globalised slavery has been found running through the supply chains that lead directly to our high streets and supermarkets.

After the numerous exposés of slavery and child labour on West African cocoa farms left a such bitter taste in the mouths of Cadbury’s, Mars, Nestlé and the other confectionary giants at the top of the chains, the Centre for Social Justice released its landmark report It Happens Here: Equipping the United Kingdom to fight modern slavery. The report made recommendations for a new Transparency in UK Supply Chains Act.

The proposed Act was modelled on its American predecessor, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010, according to which large companies doing business in California are required to disclose publically their efforts to eradicate modern slavery and human trafficking from their supply chains. Yet when the Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill came before parliament in 2012, it was soon kicked quietly into touch.

Despite support from church leaders, business groups, anti-slavery organisations and MPs on all sides, the debate on the Bill was deferred and failed to be heard before the end of the 2012-13 parliamentary session. Britain’s would-be Transparency in Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Act therefore made no further progress.

Later that year, when the government unveiled its plans to introduce a new all-inclusive Modern Slavery Bill before the end of the current parliamentary session, many believed Britain was making its triumphant return to the forefront of international abolitionism. Yet, nowhere in the Bill were supply chains mentioned.

Ignoring protests from the evidence review team, commissioned by the government to gather intelligence for the legislation, the Home Office issued a statement explaining that supply chain auditing would remain voluntary, because mandatory requirements would be an “additional burden” on businesses.

On the same day, the Guardian released its exposé of the Thai prawn industry. With memories of the Rana Plaza factory disaster still reverberating in the consumer conscience, the report revealed a picture of slavery, in the most traditional sense of the word, at the bottom of seafood supply chains that led directly to supermarket giants Walmart, Carrefour, Costco and Tesco.

After the cocoa farm scandal of 2010, the Rana Plaza disaster of 2013 and the Thai prawn-fishing exposé of 2014, public opinion in the UK is primed to bring companies to account for their actions on the world stage. 82 per cent of Britons polled last year would support a law requiring large companies to report on slavery in their supply chains.

Moreover, MPs from all major parties have expressed their support for supply chain legislation. Business leaders have come forward to argue that legislating on supply chains would “level the playing field” and ensure that companies taking action against supply chain slavery are not being undercut by unscrupulous competitors. Even the Home Secretary, in a letter to The Sunday Times, said the Modern Slavery Bill should “encourage companies to make a commitment that their suppliers do not use slave labour”.

Politicians have been prompted, therefore, to look towards the top and argue, in the words of Michael Connarty MP, that “the Home Secretary is involved in a contest against some dark force in Number 10 Downing Street that is trying to stop the government moving all the way forward on the Bill, particularly on questions such as supply chains.”

Be that as it may, the fact remains that unlike two hundred years ago, when Britain led the global abolitionist movement by example, the UK government is now content to let America take the lead. British civil society has shown itself to be as strong as ever. Think tanks, journalists and opposition leaders have brought this issue as close to the top as they can. We still meet resistance, however, when we demand that the government makes demands of businesses.

In 2011, David Cameron expressed his ambition for the UK to “lead the world in eradicating modern-day slavery”. Until and unless the Prime Minister addresses this issue in the appropriate context, and recognises that slavery does not just happen in the UK, but for the UK all over the world, the country will remain a one-time enemy and long-time friend of the immortal international trade in slaves.

Michael Pollitt works on the Transitions Forum and The Culture of Prosperity programmes at the Legatum Institute. He tweets @MJPollitt

Nicola Sturgeon. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

For the first time in decades, there is genuine dissent in Scottish Nationalist ranks

The First Minister is facing pressure to talk less about independence - and bring on new talent in her party.

She so recently seemed all-powerful, licensed to reign for as long as she chose, with the authority to pursue the return of our national sovereignty. We would then have the ability to strike our own deals on our own terms, a smaller, smarter, leaner nation freed from the stifling constraints of partnership with a much larger neighbour. There was, she repeatedly told us, nothing to be afraid of.

Now, suddenly, she is the victim of her own miscalculation: having misread the public mood, having raced too far ahead of moderate opinion, she finds herself at bay. The voters have delivered a public humiliation, while an opposition party until recently lampooned as unelectable is on the march. There is, suddenly, talk of her departure sooner rather than later.

Yes, this is a tough time to be Nicola Sturgeon…

Let’s not overstate it. The position of Scotland’s First Minister is considerably more secure than that of the UK’s Prime Minister. Theresa May wants out as soon as is feasible; Sturgeon, one suspects, will have to be dragged from Bute House. Sturgeon retains enough respect among the public and support among her colleagues to plough on for now. Nevertheless, things are not what they were before the general election and are unlikely ever to return to that happy state.

It’s all because of Scexit, of course. Sturgeon’s unseemly sprint for the indy finishing line left enough Scottish voters feeling… what? Mistreated, taken for granted, rushed, patronised, bullied… so much so that they effectively used June 8 to deliver a second No vote. With the idea of another referendum hanging around like a bad headache, the electorate decided to stage an intervention. In just two years, Sturgeon lost 40 per cent of her Westminster seats and displaced half a million votes. One could almost argue that, by comparison, Theresa May did relatively well.

For the first time in decades, there is genuine dissent in Nationalist ranks. Tommy Sheppard, a former Labour Party official who is now an influential left-wing SNP MP, published an article immediately after the general election calling on the First Minister to ‘park’ a second referendum until the Brexit negotiations are complete. There are others who believe the party should rediscover its talent for the long game: accept the public mood is unlikely to change much before the 2021 devolved elections, at which point, even if the Nats remain the single largest party, Holyrood might find itself with a unionist majority; concentrate on improving the public services, show what might be done with all the powers of an independent nation, and wait patiently until the numbers change.

There are others – not many, but some – who would go further. They believe that Sturgeon should take responsibility for the election result, and should be looking to hand over to a new generation before 2021. The old guard has had its shot and its time: a party with veterans such as Sturgeon, John Swinney and Mike Russell in the key jobs looks too much like it did 20 years ago. Even the new Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, has been on the scene for donkey’s. There are more who believe that the iron grip the First Minister and her husband, SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, have on the party is unhealthy – that Murrell should carry the can for the loss of 21 MPs, and that he certainly would have done so if he weren’t married to the boss.

The most likely outcome, given what we know about the First Minister’s nature, is that she will choose something like the Sheppard route: talk less about independence for the next 18 months, see what the Brexit deal looks like, keep an eye on the polls and if they seem favourable go for a referendum in autumn 2019. The question is, can a wearied and increasingly cynical public be won round by then? Will people be willing to pile risk upon risk?

As the hot takes about Jeremy Corbyn’s surprise election performance continue to flood in, there has been a lot of attention given to the role played by young Britons. The issues of intergenerational unfairness, prolonged austerity and hard Brexit, coupled with Corbyn’s optimistic campaigning style, saw a sharp rise in turnout among that demographic. Here, Scotland has been ahead of the curve. In the 2014 referendum, the Yes campaign and its can-do spirit of positivity inspired huge enthusiasm among younger Scots. Indeed, only a large and slightly panicked defensive response from over-65s saved the union.

That brush with calamity seems to have been close enough for many people: many of the seats taken from the Nats by the Scottish Tories at the general election were rural, well-to-do and relatively elderly. The modern electorate is a fickle thing, but it remains rational. The Corbynites, amid their plans for total world domination and their ongoing festival of revenge, might bear that in mind.

Chris Deerin is the New Statesman's contributing editor (Scotland). 

0800 7318496