Hope for Justice is calling on the UK Government to prioritise safeguarding survivors of modern slavery as they consider improvements to the system for identifying victims.
This is one of our key recommendations in response to the Home Office consultation on the process of identification for victims of modern slavery, known as the National Referral Mechanism, or NRM.
Our submission draws on insights from our team of Independent Modern Slavery Advocates (IMSAs) and consultations with lived experience experts to highlight the barriers to identification and make recommendations for improvements.
Euan Fraser, our Senior Policy and Research Adviser, said: “We are pleased to see that the Home Office is looking to reform the National Referral Mechanism. We need to remove the barriers to identification and ensure survivors of modern slavery have access to the support they require for their long-term recovery.
“We want to see a compassionate, survivor-centred approach to identification. When decision-makers consider evidence and weigh up information as part of this process, their priority should always be to safeguard and protect the survivors of modern slavery who their decisions will impact. Our model of independent advocacy ensures that survivors’ needs are prioritised. Independent Modern Slavery Advocates (IMSAs) are a consistent, trusted accredited advocate for survivors, ensuring they feel safe and supported.”
Euan Fraser, Senior Policy and Research Adviser at Hope for Justice
Challenges with current NRM system
While the Home Office’s NRM process is currently a critical step in allowing survivors to access support and protection to help their recovery, it also has serious flaws. For example, many foreign national survivors are wary of engaging with the Home Office because of the department’s role in immigration enforcement. Consecutive Governments have, wrongly in our view, treated modern slavery primarily as an immigration issue, leading to negative changes to law, policy and practice which have raised the threshold for being identified as a victim. They have also created a scenario where survivors have to “prove” their exploitation – victims of other crimes never have to prove they are a victim before gaining access to safeguarding and support. This pressure on survivors to disclose traumatic experiences so soon, and to provide evidence they may not possess, is deeply inappropriate and troubling.
This has made it even harder to identify survivors, coupled with a lack of resources for first responder organisations like police, councils and authorised charities, to refer people for support.
We welcome efforts to reduce the backlog of cases awaiting a decision in the NRM, but an emphasis on swift decision-making can cause problems too if done without care, for example placing inappropriate pressure on survivors to disclose their abuse early.
Whilst the number of people referred to the NRM continues to grow, so do the number of people who refuse to be entered into the NRM (last year saw the highest-ever number of decisions by potential victims not to enter the NRM, going through the alternative anonymous ‘Duty to Notify’ process instead, which does not come with support nor safeguarding). There has also been a sharp increase in negative NRM decisions (e.g. where the Home Office deems there is insufficient information, poor quality of evidence or does not believe a survivor’s account), in part resulting from the higher threshold. These negative decisions are often overturned when appealed, when the evidence is examined more thoroughly.
Our response and recommendations
We therefore welcome steps to improve the process of identification. It is important that we consider the language used, criteria imposed, resources allocated and the governance of victim identification.
One of our key priorities as the Government looks to reform the system for identifying victims via the NRM is a focus on safeguarding. Foreign national survivors must be protected from immigration enforcement to enable them to access support. It is only by addressing survivors’ needs and supporting their long-term recovery that we will successfully break cycles of exploitation and hold traffickers to account.
A survivor-centred approach with safeguarding at its heart should recognise and respect the survivor’s own account of their exploitation. It should also recognise that trauma may impact a survivor’s ability or willingness to engage with Government authorities.
Access to support is dependent on the Home Office determining that there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that the person is a victim of modern slavery. Whilst this was intended to be a low threshold, the bar has been raised and now many survivors are not able to access safeguarding and support. We recommend changes to law and policy to facilitate identification and swift access to support.
Survivors should also have early access to an Independent Modern Slavery Advocate (IMSA) who is a consistent point of contact, helping them to navigate and access complex systems and services which are necessary for their recovery.
