6th Report - Forced Labour in UK Supply Chains

The government's response discusses the RBC review and the Small Business Plan, focusing on reducing administrative costs for businesses, and then addresses different recommendations (13 and 14), failing to engage with the specific request to remove s.54(4)(b) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The government response discusses the rebuttable presumption model for import bans, the need for coordination in tackling forced labour, and trade agreements, but does not address the recommendation regarding the Supply Chain Centre providing HRDD support.

The government response discusses various tools and mechanisms related to preventing forced labour in trade agreements, but does not address the recommendation to establish effective regulatory arrangements and proportional penalties for new mandatory human rights due diligence rules.

The government response discusses general challenges of identifying forced labour and existing trade agreement provisions, but does not address which body will lead the specified regulatory function or how it will be resourced.

The government's response details how the Procurement Act allows public sector contracting authorities to exclude and terminate contracts with suppliers using forced labour, which does not address the recommendation for a general import ban on goods produced by forced labour.

The government response focuses on strengthening procurement rules for public sector bodies, particularly Great British Energy, to address forced labour in supply chains, rather than directly clarifying the scope of an import ban as recommended.

The government's response did not directly address empowering Border Force officers to search out consignments of goods linked to forced labour, instead providing a general statement about ongoing cross-government work and a Responsible Business Conduct review.

The government recognizes the complexity of the solar supply chain and is working with stakeholders and monitoring the Solar Stewardship Initiative, but does not address the specific recommendation to include a rebuttable presumption in an import ban.

The government's response did not directly address the committee's conclusion supporting the establishment of a body to assist businesses with forced labour risks, instead providing a general statement on opposing forced labour and assessing means to address it.

The government's response discusses import bans and then addresses different recommendations (JCHR Recommendation 15 and 16), failing to engage with the committee's conclusion regarding the benefits of verified supply chain data and uniform supportive materials for businesses.

The government's response discusses POCA powers for law enforcement and then addresses a different recommendation entirely (JCHR Recommendation 18), failing to engage with the committee's conclusion about imposing penalties for non-compliance with mandatory human rights due diligence.

The government response provides general statements about human rights and trade but does not specifically address the committee's conclusion regarding the inadequacy of the UK's current approach to preventing forced labour goods from entering the UK.

The government response describes the Procurement Review Unit's (PRU) processes for debarment investigations and its plans for regular review, but this does not address the committee's conclusion about the impossibility of buyer leverage in cases of state-imposed forced labour.

The government's response discusses critical minerals strategy, solar procurement, and access to justice for survivors, completely failing to address the committee's conclusion about the need for effective data sharing and coordination for a forced labour import ban.

The government response discusses the Solar Stewardship Initiative, procurement decisions under the Procurement Act 2023, and a separate recommendation regarding a civil cause of action for failure to prevent forced labour, but does not address the committee's observation about modernising Border Force detection capabilities.

The government's response discusses support for survivor voices and existing Lived Experience Advisory Panels, which does not address the committee's conclusion about the underuse of POCA powers by law enforcement.

The government details the existing Procurement Act, stating it is the responsibility of contracting authorities to use discretionary exclusion grounds, but does not address the committee's specific concern about their capacity to do so effectively.