Written evidence from the Human Trafficking Foundation

1. The Human Trafficking Foundation (Registered Charity no. 1134448) was established in 2010 with three clear objectives:

• to equip policy makers with a greater understanding of the rapidly changing realities of human trafficking, by connecting them directly with those working ‘at the coal face’ to support survivors
• to provide a sustained and collective voice for all the very different organisations working in the sector and use this expertise to inform anti- trafficking policy
• to increase public awareness of trafficking (notably through an annual Anti-Slavery Day campaign), so that a greater weight of public concern makes the UK increasingly hostile to traffickers

The Human Trafficking Foundation does not provide direct services to people who have been trafficked. Instead we use our expertise and our learning through our work with the statutory and non- statutory sectors to identify key issues and gaps in provision and to identify policy responses. This varies from high level recommendations on national policy to working directly with councils to support them to develop systems and pathways to respond to modern slavery and its victims.
 

How effective is the National Referral Mechanism in identifying victims of modern slavery?

2. 3,805 potential victims were referred into the NRM during 2016, a 17% increase on 2015. In December 2017 1,075 of these referrals had resulted in positive identifications of victims.[1]

However the Home Office estimates that there are between 10,000- 13,000 victims of slavery in the UK. These figures alone make clear that many victims remain unidentified.

This failure to identify potential victims of trafficking is for a combination of reasons. Adults need to give informed consent to a referral into the NRM. It is difficult in practice to see how the majority of First Responders can achieve informed consent as there is no government funding available to support victims, in the form of accommodation, food, legal aid, or translation before they receive a positive Reasonable Grounds (first stage) NRM decision.

3. In reality many First Responders are not necessarily specialists in dealing with slavery cases themselves and are unlikely to have been trained in how to identify potential victims or how to complete an NRM form. Therefore most victims even when they reach services such as police or social care or other services in local authorities, are not recognised as victims of slavery. And even in those few cases where they are recognised, the police officer or social worker for example, may not know they are first responder or even that the NRM exists. 

4. A victim once identified, even if the first responder knows about the NRM, will also in many cases not be immediately housed or supported. On average the RG decision takes 14 days rather than the formalised 5 days.  First  responders anecdotally say they are unable to find housing/income for the individuals in that time and so having maybe carried out a raid and found multiple victims, many if not all can go missing before they are even able to enter the NRM.

5. Furthermore First Responders are trying to secure informed consent from someone who is potentially scared, hungry and cold. These are not conditions which are conducive to disclosure. Even if the victim consents to a referral under these circumstances it is unlikely that the information contained on the referral form will be comprehensive, of a high standard or even accurate, yet it is this upon which the initial NRM decision is based. 

6. The Foundation is also anecdotally aware that potential victims are declining a referral into the NRM for fear of homelessness and/or deportation at the end of the identification process. Some potential victims are known to be afraid to leave a situation where they may at least have a roof over their heads, just to enter a safe house for a short period of time, in different city, with no long-term support or community. There is a real risk that at the end of the ‘45 days’ support, that they may left destitute and anecdotally there is evidence that victims are right to be worried as some victims have been rendered homeless and then been re-trafficked.[2] Another flaw with the NRM is that it doesn’t register if someone has been through the NRM more than once – so we have no way of knowing this but police have told us they have referred the same victim multiple times into the NRM in some cases

There is also concern about insecure immigration status, particularly in light of Brexit, and so many do not want their names taken by the authorities.

7. For victims who are undocumented or subject to immigration enforcement there is a conflict of interest when the first responder also has an immigration enforcement function. This is outlined it the report ‘Trafficked into Detention’ by Detention Action which collected evidence between December 2016 and June 2017 looking at a sample group of 16 Vietnamese men encountered in detention with indicators of trafficking.[3]

8. The Foundation remains concerned about the distinction drawn between EEA and non-EEA nationals in the identification process. The decision as to whether an EEA national is a victim of trafficking is made by the NCA, whereas decisions relating to non-EEA nationals are made by UKVI. The National Office stated that EEA nationals are “more likely to be recognised as confirmed victims of modern slavery compared with non-EEA nationals”.  In 2016, 88% of UK nationals referred to the NRM were positively identified, compared with 31% of potential victims from Albania. In October 2017, the Home Office announced a single unit will make decisions on all victims of trafficking. It is unclear when this unit will be in place and become operational, and concerns remain that immigration status may affect decision making.

9. There are also delays in the decision-making process. In two-thirds of cases referred to the NRM in 2016-17, the decision as to whether or not the individual had been trafficked took longer than 90 days, and decisions took on average 134 days. For individuals, such delays create anxiety and uncertainty while waiting for a decision. The NAO stated: “NCA and UKVI are taking longer than they expect to make decisions, causing further distress and anxiety to the vulnerable people in the system”.

What is the quality and suitability of government support provided to identified victims of modern slavery?

10. Government-funded support provided specifically to identified victims of modern slavery is through the NRM. Potential victims become eligible for support following a positive Reasonable Grounds, or first stage decision, that they could be a victim of slavery or trafficking. Support continues until either two weeks following a positive final stage, or Conclusive Grounds trafficking decision or 48 hours following a negative decision. In October 2017 the Government announced this would be increased to 45 days and 2 weeks but it is not clear when this will be implemented or what move on support will be provided during this time.

11. There is no system to appeal a negative decision. The First Responder or accommodation provider can request a reconsideration of the decision but support for the potential victim is not guaranteed during this time. The other option is Judicial Review. Both options are too reliant on individuals involved being proactive and on their capacity to challenge a decision rather than there being a system of protections in places which allow decisions to be revived more easily. The Government have committed, in the context of promised reforms to the NRM, that negative CG decisions will be reviewed by an ‘independent panel. However we do not know any of the detail for this process, the timing of this and we have been told that the review by the panel will be advisory only, they cannot overturn the decision themselves.

12. At present government-funded support is contracted to The Salvation Army who subcontract to different NGOs who run safe houses throughout the UK. There is no external monitoring of the Safe houses or the standards of care, including advocacy support. There are not clear needs-led pathways for victims either into the NRM or beyond this. Instead the care and support victims receive very much depends on chance and what happens to be available locally. Under the Council of Europe Convention for Action against Trafficking in Human Beings victims are entitled to legal advice, physical and mental health care, education and compensation. In practice their access to all of these things is very much dependent on availability and capacity locally and the networking and advocacy skills of their support providers.

13. “At the end of the year to June 2017 only 21% of clients were accommodated in safe houses. Most clients (79%) received only outreach support.”[4] There are concerns that housing is provided on the basis of availability rather than according to need. For some survivors outreach support may be sufficient. However, for many victims with complex needs the basic safe house provision is not sufficient, meaning people with high needs - i.e. mental health issues or addictions - are not being housed adequately if at all in some cases. We are aware anecdotally that some of these most vulnerable of people are being exploited while they are within the NRM but only receiving  ‘outreach’ support. Considerable questions also arise as to the suitability of what accommodation they are in if not a safe house (eg NASS accommodation is widely considered unsuitable to trafficking victims).

14. If a victim cannot take a compensation claim directly against their exploiter, for example because they have left the UK or moved their money, the other primary route is through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). However CICA was not designed for victims of trafficking and does not take account of psychological injuries. It is slow- claims take years, and there is no legal aid available to take the claim. There have been no reparation orders, as made available under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.  Those in safe houses are also not always automatically being referred to legal advice to fight for compensation.

15. There is currently no attempt to measure to outcomes of government funded support for victims who have been in receipt of it. There is no national data as to what happens to victims once they have left support.

16. Even victims who receive a positive final stage decision having been identified as trafficked get no guaranteed access to support beyond the 2 weeks to leave the safe house. There is a strong argument that even those with a negative decision should be referred appropriately within adult services as vulnerable adults. The risk, with no such system in place, is the vulnerabilities which led to them being referred into the NRM initially will worsen until they are again referred in. There is worrying anecdotal evidence of victims becoming destitute, actively entering exploitation to get a roof over their heads, or even not consenting to enter the NRM in the first place as they cannot see how it will improve their circumstances, and instead could put them at risk as they disclose their treatment to the authorities and are then left with no support. There is also a lack of support pre NRM and pre an RG decision - this is a gap where first responders are at risk of losing the victims of trafficking before they even enter the NRM.

17. The Home Office Guidance does provide for victims to be issued a residence permit when either:

 they have particularly compelling personal circumstances which justify a grant of discretionary leave to allow them to remain in the UK for a temporary period of time

 they need to stay in the UK in order to pursue a claim for compensation against their traffickers (the fact that someone is seeking compensation will be relevant to the consideration but does not in itself merit a grant of leave - leave must only be granted where it would be unreasonable for them to pursue that claim from outside the UK)

 the victim needs to stay in the UK to assist with police enquiries (the victim needs to have agreed to cooperate with the enquiry, and the police must make a formal request for them to be granted l eave on this basis)[5]

18. However in spite of the fact that it is difficult to imagine how someone can have been found to have been trafficked up the UK’s Competent Authorities and not have ‘compelling personal circumstances’ in 2015 only 12% of confirmed victims were granted a residence permit.[6] A recent Court of Appeal Judgement has found the guidance does not comply with obligations under the Council of Europe Convention for Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings.[7]

19. As the 2017 Work and Pensions Select Committee’s Inquiry into Modern Slavery heard in evidence, even those with a residence permit struggle without associated support.

The Human Trafficking Foundation supports Lord McColl’s private members Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill which would put victim care on a statutory footing and ensure that confirmed victims of slavery would be granted a year’s residence permit and support to allow them to begin to recover, reflect, seek legal advice, healthcare, education opportunities, pursue compensation and rebuild their lives.

How successful has the 2014 Modern Slavery Strategy been so far in tackling modern slavery?

20. It is very difficult to assess the extent to which the Government’s 2014 Modern Slavery Strategy has been successful. The Strategy sets out several principles and themes which lack specificity and are not easily measurable. Whilst the Strategy has presumably focused attention on the various aspects of tackling modern slavery, from the perspective of NGOs its impact is difficult to discern. The Home Office established a Modern Slavery Strategy Implementation Group, consisting of stakeholders from across the anti-trafficking sector, however this Group has only met very infrequently with no clear course of action following from meetings.

The Strategy was published prior to the 2015 Modern Slavery Act. It is possible, therefore, that the Strategy may benefit from being updated to reflect changes in practice and lessons learned in recent years.

How effective is the governance system that government has put in place for tackling modern slavery?

• The system is not linked up with local authorities at all – for example the NRM referrals and safe houses do not inform local authorities, therefore safeguarding opportunities may be missed.

• There are no Ofsted like checks on safe houses to ensure good practice is always taking place.

• However reports like the HMIC report and NAO report have provided good oversight of some of the areas of concern.

What more could be done to identify, prosecute and convict perpetrators?

22. The current provision of short-term support for survivors of trafficking is not only detrimental to the individual concerned, it can also hinder the law enforcement response to modern slavery. Without specialist support to help survivors engage with a complex and daunting law enforcement system it can be extremely difficult for survivors, who may still be recovering from traumatic experiences, to act as key witnesses against their exploiters. The lack of support to guide the individual through police interviews and appearances in court means that survivors may struggle to articulate their experience in an accurate or coherent way or they may choose to abscond. This in turn makes it extremely difficult for prosecutors to secure convictions. Providing long-term specialist support for survivors of modern slavery would therefore assist police and prosecutors secure convictions of traffickers.
     
23. There are also concerns that the MSA can’t always be used in cases. Police Officers have explained to HTF that they have been unable to use the Modern Slavery Act ( MSA) to help British child victims of so-called ‘county lines’ cases from being criminalised or safeguarded, or use it to target their traffickers; and that the law wasn’t working.

County lines cases involve children as young as 11 being used to traffic drugs across the UK by adults and criminal networks, who use violence or  getting them into debt etc. to control them.

There has only been one ‘county lines’ case that has been convicted using the MSA so far and they said is a rare one off. They noted that the NCA might now be ‘prioritising’ this but said that the NCA is ineffectual and has no impact on the ground for police.

24. They said the ‘misuse of drugs act’ legislation is very clear on guilt and the MSA does not do enough to address this in the case of children who have been trafficked to carry or sell drugs.

Alongside the MSA not working for British children in courts, the NRM of course also doesn’t give you anything  if you are a British child.

25. Recommendation:

Police have said we need an amendment to the MSA that could be a section on drug trafficking (or criminal exploitation more broadly) and bring back “doli incapax” (common law presumption of incapacity of children aged 10 to 14)  just for these types of cases.

This would

(a) immediately pushes police down a safeguarding route when they encounter a case – something few forces do currently when dealing with British children found with large quantities of drugs

(b) force police to prove the child is not being exploited – hence force the investigation to focus on the adults not the children which would

(c) lead to more of the actual traffickers instead being arrested.