Sir Edward Braham’s Keynote Address

It is a privilege to be here tonight, among such a well informed audience. 

Many of us came to modern slavery the same way, by being sickened about what is  happening and the realisation that it is all around us. I also come at this with my  experiences as a businessman and former corporate lawyer, and I am someone who  looks for root causes and lasting solutions. 

I am going to outline what we mean by modern slavery; touch on the challenges in  dealing with it; and explain why the Global Commission was established, what it has  done, and what it is seeking to do. I will then explore how we might clean up supply  chains, touch on some interventions that give me hope and finish with some concluding  thoughts. 

WHAT IS MODERN SLAVERY? 

When we talk about modern slavery, we mean the exploitation of labour, of freedom  and autonomy, and of vulnerability — from forced labour and debt bondage to sexual  exploitation, forced marriage, domestic servitude, and the abuse of children, including  child soldiers. Modern slavery is global but not distant — it exists all around us, often  hiding in plain sight. 

It can be people working on construction sites, people caring for our elderly relatives in  care homes, people working in nail bars, people washing dishes in our favourite  restaurant, and people working in private homes across the country. And because  modern slavery operates in global supply chains, it can also be found in the clothes we  wear, the mobile phones we rely on, and the food and drink we consume.  

Vulnerability drives exploitation, and vulnerabilities come in many forms – such as  homelessness, financial desperation, insecure immigration status, and other forms of  structural vulnerability. Trafficking amplifies vulnerability. And vulnerability is  increasing — driven by armed conflict, inequality, climate change, and weak  protections. 

The defining feature is the exploitation of vulnerability where systems fail to protect, not  the form of exploitation.

A DEFINING CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME 

The UK’s Modern Slavery Act of 2015 was pioneering. It strengthened offences,  increased sentences, improved victim protections, and required large companies to  report on what they were doing in their supply chains. And yet today, an estimated  130,000 people are living in conditions of modern slavery in this country. That is roughly  the adult population of two parliamentary constituencies — living in slavery in the UK  today. Globally, the figure is estimated to exceed 50 million, probably by quite a lot. 

The technical and practical legal issues are complex, such as the CPS decision on  whether and what to prosecute, availability of the partial defence of section 45 and the  common law defence of duress; persuading vulnerable victims to engage with the  authorities; and the difficulty of getting vulnerable victims to give reliable evidence. 

The result is a justice gap, in which complexity, fragile evidence, and victim vulnerability  combine, to the advantage of perpetrators. 

THE GLOBAL COMMISSION ON MODERN SLAVERY AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING 

The paradox is this. At precisely the moment when the problem is growing, efforts to  end modern slavery have lost momentum. Politically — and I mean that with a small “p” — the issue has slipped down the agenda. And at the same time the debate is being  distracted by popularist sentiment, by the conflation of illegal migration and trafficking,  and by the geopolitical tensions that demand our attention. 

But it should not be an either/or. As one economist put it to me recently — we simply  are not talking about it enough. When I think about it that way, we can make some  progress. 

Indeed, that is why the Global Commission was established. To push global  momentum. And to drive action towards eradication. We bring together political  leaders, civil society, business, researchers — and, critically, people with lived  experience. I say “critically” because I have seen first hand the insights that people who  have experienced these crimes bring, and the importance of those perspectives on any  effective policy intervention. 

THE COMMISSION‘S WORK 

Last year, we published our report, “No Country is Immune,” alongside a Prevention  Framework. The core insight was simple: modern slavery does not begin randomly. It thrives where instability, inequality, and weak protections intersect. And policy that  focuses on prevention — not just response — works better. 

If you haven’t seen them, please do look on the website at both the Commission’s  report and the Prevention Framework. 

So what is the Commission doing? We focus on three things: persuading businesses to  tackle forced labour in their supply chains; helping countries turn international  commitments into effective domestic law; and working on integrating anti‑trafficking  efforts into humanitarian responses — because trafficking thrives in crises, and  trafficking amplifies vulnerability. 

How do we actually do that? Again, three things: we provide international leadership;  we build the evidence base; and we set up collaborations that would not otherwise  happen. 

Tonight, I want to focus on supply chains and some interventions that give me hope.

ACTION ON SUPPLY CHAINS 

I’ve chosen supply chains partly because we are in this world-famous Court in the City  of London, so the relationship between law and economics feels an appropriate topic;  and partly because it is an area where everyone in the room can have influence. 

No country is immune 

Businesses need supply chains to function and they are often long and complex. If you  think of a product moving from source to final use, the chain as a whole is  contaminated if exploitation exists at any point along that chain. And if the product is  used to deliver a service, that service is contaminated. 

There are any number of high risk industries around the world: agriculture,  construction, manufacturing, cobalt mining, take your pick. But you may also  remember the revelations from Leicester — where thousands of mostly migrant  workers were paid far below the minimum wage to produce clothes for major brands. It  had been happening for years, right under our noses.  

These are not isolated abuses — they are symptoms of systemic, societal,  vulnerabilities that require co-ordinated action. 

At heart, this is about the practical limits on what the private sector can do alone, and  what the public sector can do without the support of the private sector. The Modern Slavery Act introduced reporting requirements and other countries adopted similar  approaches. But transparency alone has not been enough. 

Transparency alone will never be enough 

The Commission’s conclusion is simple; transparency alone never will be enough, and  prevention must come before enforcement. Among other things, police time is finite,  and if you are trapped in a modern slavery situation, slow justice will feel like no justice  at all. 

That is why we support a clear legal duty on companies to identify, prevent, and  address forced labour risks. The key defence to such a duty would be to show that you  had taken reasonable steps to prevent modern slavery. A core element of the defence  would be due diligence. 

So is mandatory human rights due diligence a miracle cure? No, of course not. We  already impose similar duties to prevent bribery, corruption, and fraud — and those  crimes persist. Critics are also right to say that due diligence can become a compliance  exercise rather than a protective one. That is precisely why prevention,  intelligence‑sharing, and enforcement design matter. 

The objective should be changing behaviour before harm occurs. There are three  achievable interventions that would make a profound difference: changing the  narrative; sharing intelligence; and fighting trafficking like organised crime. 

Changing the narrative 

So starting with the narrative. Modern slavery is emotionally painful for us all. It is  reputationally risky for anyone seen to be associated with it — whether or not they are  guilty of misconduct. In that context, it is perhaps no surprise that virtually all modern  slavery statements conclude that nothing has been found. Yet we all know that the  business is highly unlikely to be immune from modern slavery. 

If governments and NGOs want behaviour to change, their rhetoric must make clear  that identifying and taking action on exploitation is to be commended. Or to say it in a  different way, it is a sign of integrity to find and take action on modern slavery. But  failing to do so could be a sign of indifference, or worse, complicity. 

The best companies understand this, and are clear and robust in their communications  and actions, and Governments already understand this logic in areas such as drugs enforcement, where success is measured by supply chain disruption, not by claims of  immunity. Shifting attitudes will not be easy, but it is essential. 

Sharing information 

The second intervention is for Governments and international organisations such as  Interpol to share information in the way that they do with money laundering and cyber crime. Those too are problems with no respect for borders. And in both cases there are  longstanding and effective public-private partnerships that cover training, live  information sharing, and co-ordinated enforcement.  

Doing the same for modern slavery would turbocharge the impact of supply chain  diligence. Encouragingly, there are experiments along these lines, one of which is in  Thailand. 

Fight trafficking like organised crime 

The third line of attack is to fight trafficking like organised crime. More specifically, we  need to task law‑enforcement teams who target drugs and guns also to look for  trafficking. 

These crimes operate along the same routes. And within the same networks. If you look  for people as well as weapons and drugs, finding one will often lead you to the others.  Organised‑crime approaches help because they allow prosecutors to rely less on  traumatised witnesses, and more on financial, communications, and conspiracy  evidence. There may also be an option to select among a wider range of charges with a  view to minimising the risks associated with vulnerable witnesses, and thereby  maximising conviction rates. 

It is one of the few areas where widening the task increases the likelihood of success. Individually, each of those interventions would be impactful. In combination, changing  the narrative, sharing information, and fighting trafficking like organise crime feels to  me game changing. 

PROMISING INTERVENTIONS 

I said I would touch on some interventions that give me hope. 

Bahrain — systems that are fast, visible, and trusted save lives 

The first is Bahrain, which relies heavily on migrant labour, and like many countries has  experienced serious exploitation. What matters is not that exploitation exists, but that the response focused deliberately on changing victim and employer behaviours, by  changing system design. 

Two interventions are worth noting: reforms to the visa system that allowed eligible  workers to self‑sponsor, thereby reducing dependency on a single employer; and their  Expatriate Protection Centre, that provides rapid access to advice, shelter, and  coordination with embassies and civil society. 

I have visited the Centre, where staff see around 150 people a day. In one case, a  woman trapped in domestic forced labour contacted the Philippine authorities, who in  turn alerted the Centre. Twenty‑one minutes later, the Bahraini authorities confirmed  she had been located and was safe. 

The lesson is that speed, accessibility, and credible protection fundamentally alter  incentives. Victims come forward when they believe reporting will lead to immediate  safety, rather than prolonged risk. Systems that are fast, visible, and trusted save lives. 

Fair Work Agency 

Moving on, the creation of the Fair Work Agency here in the UK presents a significant  opportunity in the search for forced labour, provided it is fully integrated into the wider  enforcement landscape. 

The Agency will enter workplaces with statutory powers, and a remit that gives it routine  access to sectors where exploitation is known to occur. That matters, because modern  slavery is rarely uncovered through complaint alone. If those inspections are properly  supported — through intelligence‑sharing, referral pathways, and coordination with  other enforcement bodies — the Agency can surface forced labour that would  otherwise remain hidden. 

Routine powers, exercised at scale, can be one of the most effective tools we have — provided victims are identified, protected, and not lost in the system once discovered. The principle is simple: exploitation is found when enforcement is designed to look for  it. 

Education 

Finally, education has an important role to play, targeted both at the workplace and at  vulnerable people. Birmingham has done some very good awareness raising, with  results to show for it. And many of you will be familiar with the No Knives, Better Lives  programme run here at the Old Bailey for children with referral orders, and the same team is trialling a new Be Heard as One programme, targeted at children in the final  year of primary school. As well as the direct impacts programmes like these have, there  is a broader benefit that they encourage us to talk more about modern slavery, which  itself increases the political momentum. 

CONCLUSION 

Let me end with three final observations. 

First, the real test of any anti‑slavery framework is whether victims trust it enough to  use it. Where systems are slow, fragmented, or perceived as unsafe, they will fail in  their primary purpose — regardless of intent. That exposes a persistent policy tension as Governments must safeguard victims, but they must also enforce the criminal law,  and maintain immigration control.  

How you resolve the tension is important, as the investigation and prosecution of  modern slavery usually depends critically on the participation of victims, who will be  vulnerable and fearful of what the authorities might do. 

Second, modern slavery persists because it is easy to ignore. It thrives where  accountability is diffused and visibility is low. It weakens when responsibility is clearly  allocated and enforcement is designed to surface exploitation rather than wait for it to  be reported. That is the standard we must apply when assessing institutions, laws, and  enforcement models. 

Finally, there is a historical perspective worth recalling. Two centuries ago, ending  slavery required courage, sustained funding, and collective will. Ending modern slavery  today demands the same — albeit in systems that are more complex and with harms  that are often more hidden. But the moral imperative is unchanged. If our response is to  be judged fairly, it should be judged by one measure alone: which is whether it changes  outcomes for those at risk.  

Anything less is not fit for purpose. 

Sir Edward Braham 

23 March 2026