Forced labour in UK supply chains: Joint Committee on Human Rights report

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion on 4 September 2026:

Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench) to move that this House takes note of the report from the Human Rights Committee ‘Forced labour in UK supply chains’ (6th report, HL Paper 159 of session 2024–26).

1. Background: Forced labour

1.1 Definition and size of the issue

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has categorised forced labour as a form of modern slavery and defined it as:

All work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily.^[1]

In 2022, the ILO along with Walk Free and the UN’s International Organization for Migration published a report setting out global estimates of modern slavery.^[2] This focused on both forced labour and forced marriage. On forced labour, the main findings included that:

• There were 27.6 million people in situations of forced labour on any given day.^[3] This translates to 3.5 people in forced labour for every thousand people in the world.
• The problem has grown in recent years. Between 2016 and 2021, the number of people in situations of forced labour increased by 2.7 million.^[4] The ILO said this increase was driven entirely by forced labour in the private economy, both in forced commercial sexual exploitation and in other sectors.
• Forced labour is an issue that affects all regions of the world, regardless of a country’s wealth.^[5] The ILO reported that Asia and the Pacific was host to more than half of the global total of people in forced labour (15.1 million), followed by Europe and Central Asia (4.1 million), Africa, (3.8 million), the Americas (3.6 million) and the Arab States (0.9 million). However, this ranking changed when forced labour was expressed as a proportion of the population. By this measure, the Arab States (5.3 per thousand people) was the highest and Africa (2.9 per thousand) was the lowest. The ILO also reported that more than half of all forced labour occurred in either upper middle-income or high-income countries. However, after taking population into account, the ILO reported that forced labour is highest in low-income countries (6.3 per thousand) followed by high-income countries (4.4 per thousand).
• Most forced labour takes place within the private economy.^[6] Within the 86% of cases imposed by private actors, 23% were in forced commercial sexual exploitation with the remaining 63% in other sectors. State-imposed labour accounted for the remaining 14% of people in forced labour. Within the private economy, the five sectors which accounted for the majority of total adult forced labour (87%) were services, manufacturing, construction, agriculture (excluding fishing), and domestic work. Other sectors had a smaller share but still accounted for hundreds of thousands of people. These included those digging for minerals or performing other mining and quarrying work, those trapped on fishing vessels, people forced to beg on the street and people forced into illicit activities.
• There is a gender dimension to forced labour in the private economy. Women were more likely to be in domestic work while men were more likely to be in the construction sector.^[7] In addition, of the estimated 6.3 million people in situations of forced commercial sexual exploitation at any time, nearly four in five were found to be girls or women.
• State-imposed forced labour is also an issue. In 2021, global estimates indicated that 3.9 million people were in state-imposed forced labour at any point in time.^[8] Men made up more than three in every four of those in such situations while 8% were children. Over half of such cases (55%) involved some form of abuse of compulsory prison labour, 27% involved the abuse of conscription and 17% involved forced labour for economic development or for work beyond normal civic obligations.
• Children are also subject to forced labour.^[9] the ILO said that 3.3 million were in such situations.^[10] This accounted for 12% of all those in forced labour. However, the ILO said that due to data constraints, these numbers could “just be the tip of the iceberg”. It also highlighted that over half of all children in forced labour were in commercial sexual exploitation. Other sectors where children in forced labour were found included domestic work, agriculture and manufacturing.
• Migrant workers face a higher risk of forced labour than other workers.^[11] The ILO reported that the prevalence of adult migrant workers in forced labour was three times higher than that of adult non-migrant workers.
• People in forced labour are subjected to multiple forms of coercion to compel them to work against their will.^[12] The systematic and deliberate withholding of wages, used by abusive employers to compel workers to stay in a job out of fear of losing accrued earnings, was the most common form of coercion experienced by those in forced labour (36%). Abuse of vulnerability through threat of dismissal was the next most common and was experienced by one in five. More severe forms of coercion, such as forced confinement, physical and sexual violence, and the deprivation of basic needs, were less common “but my no means negligible”.
• There is also a gender dimension to the forms of coercion experienced.^[13] Women were more likely to be coerced through wage non-payment and abuse of vulnerability, and men through threats of violence and financial penalties. In addition, women were more likely to be subjected to physical and sexual violence and threats against family members.
• Qualitative reports have indicated that children can be subjected to severe forms of coercion and abuse.^[14] The ILO reported this included abduction, drugging, being held in captivity, deception and manipulation of debt. Some of the worst abuses were found to have occurred in armed conflicts.

1.2 Supply chains

The international human rights group Walk Free has said that two-thirds of all forced labour is linked to global supply chains.^[15]

A ‘supply chain’ refers to a range of suppliers that provide goods or services to a company. In general, the further down the chain a supplier is the harder it is for a retailer or other buyer to assess the risks of forced labour and human rights violations in their operations.^[16] Industry experts have also advised that supply chains are not linear and could be more accurately described as a ‘supply network’.^[17] For example, some electronic products require thousands of suppliers to produce a single unit, with some components going from one supplier to another and then back to the original supplier. Some companies are both suppliers and customers to the same commercial organisation.

1.3 UK’s legislative framework

The government’s position is that no company operating in the UK should have any forced labour whatsoever in its supply chain.^[18] The UK has ratified international treaties and conventions and created domestic legislation to support this aim.

1.3.1 International treaties and conventions

The UK has ratified a number of international treaties with relevance to forced labour. These include:

• The European Convention on Human Rights: Article 4 prohibits slavery and forced labour. It declares that “no one shall be held in slavery or servitude” and that “no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour”.^[19]
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 8 states that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude and that “no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour”.^[20]

It has also ratified various ILO conventions. This includes the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) under which the UK undertook to “suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period”. In 2014, the UK also ratified the protocol to the convention.^[21] In addition, the UK has ratified the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105).

These international agreements created legal obligations for the UK as a matter of international law.^[22] However, they are largely unenforceable in the UK because of a lack of recourse to courts that can be used by individuals to enforce their rights. The rights in the European Convention on Human Rights are an exception because they can be enforced by the UK’s domestic courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 and by the European Court of Human Rights. However, they usually only apply to events that took place in the UK and are therefore of limited use in addressing forced labour in global supply chains.

1.3.2 Domestic law

The UK has a “patchwork” of domestic laws to address the use of forced labour in supply chains that extend outside of the UK.^[23]

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is the key piece of legislation. It introduced the UK’s first corporate reporting requirements for slavery and forced labour practices in supply chains by requiring corporations with £36mn or more in annual turnover to declare the actions they have taken to address modern slavery in their supply chains each year.

Other relevant statutes include:

• Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
• Procurement Act 2023

There is also sector-specific legislation in place to help address modern slavery in some public sector supply chains.^[24] For example, one of the objectives of the Great British Energy Act 2025 was facilitating, encouraging and participating in measures to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in Great British Energy’s business or supply chains.

2. Work of the committee

2.1 Inquiry into forced labour in UK supply chains

In January 2025, the Joint Committee on Human Rights announced a new inquiry into forced labour in UK supply chains.^[25] The committee said it would examine the legal and voluntary frameworks underpinning the UK’s response to forced labour in international supply chains. It also said it would consider if change was needed to improve the effectiveness of the UK’s response to this form of exploitation.

The committee received both oral and written evidence from a variety of individuals and organisations. Copies of this evidence can be found on the committee’s website.^[26]

2.2 Findings

The Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report ‘Forced labour in UK supply chains’ in July 2025. The committee found evidence that, counter to the government’s stated position, goods which are produced or part-produced with forced labour are being sold to consumers in the UK.^[27]

The committee argued that the UK’s patchwork of domestic legislation relating to forced labour and supply chains had not prevented goods linked to forced labour from entering the UK market.^[28] It also said that international agreements ratified by the UK usually only extended to the UK’s jurisdiction and are therefore “currently of limited practical use” in tackling forced labour in supply chains occurring outside of the UK.

Examining the actions of the UK’s main international trading partners, the committee argued that in comparison the UK had fallen behind in its approach to tackling the problem.^[29] It said the UK’s partners were taking steps to address forced labour in their supply chains. This included enhanced due diligence requirements in the EU and the enactment of a targeted import ban for goods with a footprint in the Xinjiang region of China which had been in place in the US since 2021.

Considering potential responses to the issues raised, the committee discussed several measures. It noted that the UK currently takes a voluntary approach to due diligence in supply chains.^[30] The committee argued this risked putting responsible businesses at a disadvantage and called for mandatory requirements to drive “a more consistent approach across business”. It also said that import bans for goods linked to forced labour could send “a strong message” that forced labour in supply chains would not be tolerated. In addition, the committee said that such bans could be an appropriate response to state-imposed forced labour, “where conventional due diligence approaches may be inappropriate”. On enforcement, it said that there were opportunities for domestic law enforcement agencies to use existing legal powers to investigate goods potentially linked to forced labour.^[31]

The committee also highlighted issues relating to the UK’s international agreements post-Brexit, the green energy transition and cases brought by survivors of forced labour in UK courts. It said that although the UK had included clauses on human rights and labour rights in some international agreements made since Brexit, there was no stated policy on this approach or effective mechanisms in place to assess the impact of such clauses.

On the green energy transition, the committee said that there were specific risks due to the required technology’s reliance on critical minerals and polysilicon. It said that although recent legislation would go some way to addressing the concerns, the recently published ‘Solar roadmap’ was not sufficient to tackle the supply chain risks and should therefore be addressed.^[32]

Highlighting that some cases have been brought by survivors of forced labour in UK courts, the committee said that they were often being brought under tort law and could be protracted, complex and expensive. It said that providing a dedicated route for civil claims to be brought against companies would benefit survivors and place the burden on companies to demonstrate that they have taken measures to prevent forced labour in their supply chains.

2.3 Recommendations

Concluding, the committee argued that the UK’s current framework does not effectively address the problem and new legislation is needed.^[33] It said that this should establish:^[34]

• that it is unlawful to import or sell goods linked to forced labour in the UK
• new mandatory human rights due diligence duties for businesses
• a right for those who have suffered forced labour to bring a claim for civil liability against those responsible
• regulatory arrangements for imported goods, the sale of goods, and ensuring business compliance with the new due diligence duties
• how such regulations would be enforced and how those responsible for enforcement would be resourced

The committee argued that such legislation should be introduced within one year of the publication of its report (by July 2026). It also said that the government should consider how it could provide visible leadership and coordination on tackling forced labour in UK supply chains, stating this was lacking.^[35]

In addition, the committee set out a number of conclusions and recommendations which built upon its call for new legislation covering:^[36]

• corporate responsibility (transparency reporting and mandatory human rights due diligence)
• import bans and restrictions
• free trade agreements
• public procurement
• access to justice for survivors

The committee’s report did not focus on issues of forced labour within the UK itself, nor human trafficking to or within the UK.^[37]

3. Government response

The government responded to the committee’s report on 16 October 2025.^[38] In an introduction, the then minister for trade, Sir Chris Bryant, said the government had launched a review into the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct (RBC), focused on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK.^[39] Sir Chris said the review would assess the effectiveness of the UK’s current RBC measures and alternative policy options to support responsible business practices, including measures to tackle forced labour. He said it would also consider the best way to promote a coordinated approach to corporate responsibility to ensure that any changes are proportionate and consistent with the then prime minister’s commitment to reduce the administrative cost of complying with regulation by 25% over the parliament.

On the committee’s call for new legislation, the government said it shared the committee’s concerns about the presence of forced labour in global supply chains and was committed to working to ensure that the UK market is not complicit in such practices.^[40] It said that building on the principles of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the UN’s ‘Guiding principles on business and human rights’, the government was “actively exploring options to strengthen protections”.^[41] The government also again noted the review of the UK’s approach to RBC, stating that “a range of measures are under consideration as part of the review, including many of those referenced by the committee”. In answer to a parliamentary written question in July 2026, the government said it was considering the review’s findings and would set out its plans in due course.^[42]

4. Recent development: US tariffs

On 23 July 2026, the US government announced that it would impose new tariffs of either 10% or 12.5% on 60 trading partners, including the UK (10%), citing concerns that these countries had failed to tackle forced labour.^[43] US trade representative Jamieson Greer said that the policy would “begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere”. However, commentators have argued that these tariffs, which replaced an identical levy that had been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court and was due to expire, are not genuinely related to the issue of forced labour. Caroline Freund, dean of the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy, claimed that the decision was “not about forced labour” and that the US government was “looking for a legal reason to put the tariffs in”. She argued that the tariffs were instead about US manufacturing and a trade deficit.

5. Read more

• Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, ‘Strengthening the UK’s forced labour and human rights legislative framework’, December 2025
• House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, ‘The Modern Slavery Act 2015: Becoming world-leading again’, 16 October 2024, HL Paper 8 of session 2024–26; and ‘Government response’, 16 December 2024
• Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘Human rights and business 2017: Promoting responsibility and ensuring accountability’, 5 April 2017, HL Paper 153 of session 2016–17; and ‘Government response’, 12 January 2018

---

Image by Ali Mkumbwa on Unsplash.