A recent BBC documentary exploring the early life of Sir Mo Farah revealed that he had been trafficked as a child into the UK for forced domestic service, his real name having been Hussein Abdi Kahin. In the response to the documentary from a number of ‘official’ and Home Office sources, it was quickly confirmed that Sir Mo would not be subject to immigration proceedings, despite incorrect information having been given in his original asylum application.
It was also heavily implied that had the young Hussein been trafficked 20 years later, post Modern Slavery Act (2015), there would have been a vastly improved response and mechanism for support than had existed at the time. The Modern Slavery Act is often described as ‘landmark legislation, yet in terms of the support, protections and rights that it offers to survivors, it offers little beyond what was already available.
Since 2009, if it is suspected that an adult or child is a victim of human trafficking (or what we now refer to as ‘modern slavery’, which includes forced labour and domestic servitude) they are referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), an administrative/enforcement process that investigates whether it is probable that the individual is a victim (an initial ‘reasonable grounds’ decision) and makes a final ‘conclusive grounds’ decision. While ‘in’ the NRM (the time between reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions being made, originally intended to be 45 days), they are entitled to accommodation and subsistence, appropriate legal advice and relevant medical care. Unfortunately, research has shown that often not all these entitlements are adequately met. If it is concluded that the person is a victim, they were initially entitled to 14 more days of support, which was updated to 45 days in 2017. What follows has been frequently described as a ‘cliff edge’ of support. The individual had no automatic right to accommodation, support or legal advice, and no special claim to immigration rights, leaving them at risk of destitution, homelessness, detention and deportation.
In 2019, the case of NN and LP v Secretary of State for the Home Department successfully challenged the practice of providing time-limited support to survivors, forcing the Home Office to admit that it was in breach of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive and commit to working towards ending time-limited support. This has taken the form of the Recovery Needs Assessment (RNA), which theoretically allows access to support until it is no longer needed, and for the creation of tailored ‘transition plans’ for survivors. Again, there has been concern from stakeholders that support for survivors could be withdrawn inappropriately, and that existing factors that made the individual vulnerable to trafficking will not be addressed. Whether or not the RNA successfully allows for the appropriate length of support remains to be seen. However, it is important to note that it will not change the nature of the support offered.
There are two vital elements necessary to understanding modern slavery and human trafficking: the trauma caused by the experience of survivors, and the role that immigration systems have in creating vulnerabilities to trafficking and ongoing issues after trafficking. Survivors have experienced a deep physical and mental trauma that in some cases has taken place over a prolonged period. They often, therefore, have complex physical and mental health needs, are at significant risk of substance misuse, and experience social isolation, among other issues that would be expected in cases of complex trauma. A conclusive grounds decision from the NRM does not entitle the person to specialist trauma support or specialist substance-misuse support. They are left to navigate the overstretched NHS mental health services, which in many cases do not have advanced complex trauma recovery provisions.
While the number of UK nationals referred to the NRM has increased significantly in recent years, the importance of immigration status in the experiences of many survivors cannot be overstated. The role immigration systems can play in creating the circumstances in which trafficking can thrive has been discussed extensively, but the role it plays post-exploitation can be as significant in causing harm. Those who have been trafficked to the UK frequently have irregular immigration status, often having wanted to come to the UK but not had the means to do so; then being subject to a traumatic and harmful experience of being exploited.
As there is currently no automatic provision for leave to remain in the UK, survivors can receive temporary discretionary leave to remain while cooperating with law enforcement, or can enter the asylum system, as increasing numbers have done. However, the asylum system is not designed for those who have been trafficked – emphasis is often placed on the overall safety of a country, the fact that it may have become deeply unsafe for that individual due to having escaped from traffickers, or due to a risk of honour-related violence or rejection, is often not considered. Delays in decision making, and inadequate timely legal advice, mean survivors can be trapped in the asylum system for years, an experience described by some as being as traumatic as their original exploitation. Even more egregiously, it has been estimated that between 2017 and 2019, 2,580 individuals with ‘reasonable grounds’ decisions and 373 with ‘conclusive grounds’ decisions had been held in immigration detention at some point. The irony of the home of the ‘world-leading’ legislation on modern slavery incarcerating its victims is perhaps lost on the Home Office.
While the Modern Slavery Act provided an opportunity to protect and rehabilitate survivors, it is clear that on victim protection it falls short. Although some progress has been made in recent years, the UK is still far from adequately addressing the needs of victims. A focus on understanding the structural problems faced by survivors, the complexity of their circumstances and that of the systems they must navigate, as well as a comprehensive training initiatives for front-line professionals would allow the UK to move towards its aim of having a ‘world-leading’ response to modern slavery.
Alexandra Williams-Woods is Research Associate at the University of Liverpool Management School.
This article is based on a paper from the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice by Alexandra Williams-Woods and Dr Katarina Schwarz of the University of Nottingham: ‘Protection and support for survivors of modern slavery in the UK: assessing current provision and what we need to change’.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount on all books – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Hussain Badshah via Unsplash