Session 2024-25
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Written evidence submitted by Justice and Care (BSAIB35)
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Public Bill Committee
1. About us
1.1. Justice and Care is a charity that joins forces to end modern slavery. We work with police and others to help identify victims, empower them to walk free and support them to rebuild their lives. We also work to bring justice to the criminal networks responsible and use our front-line experience and expertise to create large-scale, replicable change; partnering with governments and key stakeholders to strengthen the anti-slavery fight. We have direct work in the UK, Romania and Bangladesh and work with around 150 partners worldwide.
1.2. Our Policy and Advocacy Team aims to ensure strong political focus and leadership on the issue of modern slavery in the UK. Taking the experience of survivors of exploitation, learning from our own frontline work and that of other organisations we advocate for policy and legislation change that helps keep individuals and communities safe, puts survivors first and helps bring exploiters to justice.
1.3. This submission reflects our perspective on the impact of immigration legislation on victims of modern slavery only.
2. Summary
· We welcome the bill’s repeal of provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) that created a blanket exclusion from support for modern slavery victims arriving in the UK ‘illegally’.
· We remain concerned that other changes introduced through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA) (and amended by the IMA) continue to limit victims’ access to support and leave to remain. Specifically:
o Mandatory public order disqualification under section 29 IMA and the original disqualification under section 63 NABA.
o Barriers to identification of victims caused by section 58 and 59 NABA
o Narrowing of access to support and leave to remain in sections 61, 64 and 65 NABA
· We recommend there is an urgent review of NABA and its impact on modern slavery victims and certain sections should be amended through this bill.
· Wider provisions in the bill also risk unintended negative impact on modern slavery victims and must be mitigated.
3. Clauses 37 & 38: Repeal of sections of Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) and Safety of Rwanda Act 2024
3.1. We welcome clause 38 which repeals sections 22-28 of the IMA which would have required many modern slavery victims who entered the UK illegally (within the terms of the Act) be detained and removed from the UK without support. This meets our own previous recommendations and those of the House of Lords Committee on the Modern Slavery Act 2015. [1]
3.2. These provisions (had they been brought into force) would have put modern slavery victims at high risk of continued and re-exploitation by increasing their fear of the authorities, deterring them from seeking help and support and denying support to any who did come forward.
3.3. It would also have made prosecuting modern slavery offenders more difficult because as our research and frontline work shows, it is support that enables victims to engage with prosecutions. [2] The Act presumed that removed victims would be able to engage with the police from overseas, which is difficult and costly, and there is a high risk of losing contact with victims.
3.4. We also welcome clause 37 repealing the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024. We lacked confidence in the capacity of Rwanda to fulfil its commitment on treatment of modern slavery victims in the partnership treaty. Moreover, it did not apply to anyone removed while awaiting an RG decision. [3]
4. Other recent immigration legislation impacting identification and support of modern slavery victims that has not been repealed
4.1. Public order disqualification
4.1.1. Section 63 of NABA introduced criteria for disqualifying potential victims from the NRM after a positive RG decision on the grounds of public order or bad faith. Section 29 of the IMA amended section 63 of NABA to make disqualification on public order grounds mandatory rather than a discretionary power (changing the text from ‘may’ to ‘must’). If brought into force, this will reduce the possibility for officials to assess each case on its own individual merits.
4.1.2. Section 29 IMA also widened the definition of ‘public order’ related to prior convictions to include foreign nationals convicted and imprisoned for any period of time not just those convicted for 12 months or more (the definition in the UK Borders Act 2007 section 32 relied on in the original section 63).
4.1.3. The mandatory exclusion from the NRM of all non-British potential victims with a prior conviction is likely to catch genuine victims who pose no risk to the public including where those convictions made them targets for slavery or resulted from their exploitation.
4.1.4. Our analysis of Home Office NRM data held by the UK Data Service for 2023 and 2024 since the current section 63 NABA public order disqualification has been operating shows: [4]
· Criminal exploitation (alone or with other forms of modern slavery) is the most common type of exploitation reported by potential victims disqualified on public order grounds (63%). Most of these (222 out of 348) reported exploitation in the UK only. This highlights the risk that victims whose UK convictions are a result of exploitation are being excluded from support.
· Most disqualified potential victims report modern slavery that took place in the UK in full or in part (55% in the UK only, an additional 25% in the UK and Overseas). There should be the potential for a UK prosecution of their exploiters, but prosecutions will be made virtually impossible because victims are unable to engage due to removal from support and deportation.
· 49% of all public order disqualifications have been of Albanian nationals. The second largest group is Vietnamese (8%). No UK nationals have been disqualified. The predominance of Albanian is likely to reflect that Albanians are the most numerous nationality of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) in the UK (11% of FNO population in 2024 [5] ) and the largest foreign national group of potential victims in the NRM during these two years and in 2023 made up 24% of all NRM referrals. [6] [7]
· 74% of all potential victims disqualified on public order grounds had their decisions made by the IECA not the SCA suggesting they were already on a pathway to deportation at the point of referral to the NRM.
· Although most potential victims disqualified have been adults, 11 victims who were aged 15-17 when referred to the Home Office have also been disqualified.
· The vast majority of potential victims disqualified were male (96%).
4.1.5. Recent human rights analysis has concluded that this presumption in favour of disqualification and reliance on the victim to demonstrate that it should not apply is "contrary to human rights obligations enshrined in domestic and international law, which require that public authorities identify and protect victims of modern slavery on their own initiative." [8]
4.1.6. It is disappointing that the extension of section 63 of NABA through section 29 of IMA has not been repealed, although we acknowledge it has not been brought into force. We retain concerns that the original definition of public order in NABA is too wide and is likely catching victims who received a conviction for committing a crime as a result of their exploitation
4.2. Barriers to accessing NRM
4.2.1. Section 58 of NABA introduced Slavery and Trafficking Information Notices (‘STINs’) that would require an asylum seeker to disclose information about their modern slavery within a certain time period. Section 59 of NABA further creates a presumption that late disclosure of modern slavery will damage the person’s credibility regarding a statement of exploitation, i.e. if they do not disclose their exploitation within the time period stated they may not be believed if they do so at a later date. This presumption fails to take account of the severe trauma suffered by some victims which statutory guidance recognises can prevent or delay victims disclosing their slavery experience. [9] We acknowledge that these provisions have not yet been brought into force but are concerned about the impact if they were.
4.2.2. Section 60 of NABA changed the test for identifying someone as a victim of modern slavery from determining that they ‘may’ be a victim to that they ‘are’ a victim. Alongside this amendment to the Modern Slavery Act, the Home Office amended statutory guidance in January 2023 to require objective evidence for a positive reasonable grounds decision. This has resulted in a substantial drop in the proportion of positive reasonable grounds decisions from 89% in 2022 to 53% in 2024 and a significant increase in the number and proportion of negative decisions that were made on the grounds of ‘insufficient information to meet the standard of proof required’ from 3% in 2022 to 52% in 2024 (and 54% in 2023). [10] This means that only one in two people referred to the NRM get access to support.
4.3. Narrowing of support and leave to remain
4.3.1. NABA put support for potential victims during the recovery period into the Modern Slavery Act (MSA) which we welcomed. However, the legislation also narrowed the boundaries of the support provided.
4.3.2. Section 61 NABA reduced the minimum recovery period from 45 to 30 days. Whilst at present delays in the decision-making process mean many victims continue to receive support beyond this period, it is disappointing that the period has been reduced. For many victims 30 days is insufficient to even begin to attain the stability needed for recovery. Reducing the recovery period highlights the absence of guaranteed support for confirmed victims after the recovery period ends (see para 4.3.8 below).
4.3.3. Section 64 NABA added support provisions during the recovery period to the Modern Slavery Act. Disappointingly, it also narrowed the provision of support to only that ‘necessary’ for recovery from any physical, psychological or social harm arising from the victim’s exploitation. This is problematic because needs that arise from exploitation cannot easily be separated from pre-existing or wider vulnerabilities. [11] Such pre-existing vulnerabilities or harms may have made someone vulnerable to exploitation or have been exacerbated by that exploitation. If left unaddressed these needs can hinder a victim’s recovery and increase risks of re-exploitation.
4.3.4. Our research shows victims need holistic support beyond the narrow parameters of the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract (MSVCC) -often met by providers through partnerships or charitable funds. [12] Seven core outcomes identified in other research also point to wider recovery needs of modern slavery survivors. [13] Narrowly, providing support for recovery needs that arise directly from exploitation only is unlikely to achieve the resilience victims need to break the cycle of re-exploitation.
4.3.5. Section 65 of NABA created special temporary leave to remain for confirmed victims after the recovery period ends with a positive conclusive grounds decision (known as ‘VTS leave’). In doing so section 65 narrowed eligibility to victims with (a) physical or psychological recovery needs arising from their exploitation, (b) seeking compensation through the courts or (c) assisting with criminal proceedings.
4.3.6. These criteria are narrower than those previously available in the discretionary leave policy operating prior to the passing of NABA, including a policy decision to no longer offer leave under both criteria in the Council of Europe convention. [14] We are particularly concerned that the risks of re-exploitation are no longer considered in assessing whether a victim needs to remain in the UK as they had been under the previous discretionary leave guidance. [15]
4.3.7. The guidance for caseworkers and the appendix to the Immigration Rules implementing section 65 further narrow the first of these criteria by defining that "’assisting the person in their recovery’ for psychological or physical harm means that the applicant requires support either through the National Referral Mechanism or other services to assist in their recovery from their exploitation (this support does not need to accomplish recovery)". [16] The guidance also specifies that the victim "should provide evidence from a registered healthcare professional, that they need or are receiving medical treatment" to aid their physical or psychological recovery. To be eligible the victim must also not be able to access the necessary services in their country of return. [17]
4.3.8. Section 65 itself makes no requirement that the person has need of support from the NRM or other services. Nor does it (or section 64) provide support to victims after the recovery period. We have long advocated that all confirmed victims should receive 12 months’ support after the NRM and that those with insecure immigration status should receive temporary leave to remain during that period. [18] When NABA was being debated by parliament, we supported amendments proposed that would guarantee support for confirmed victims for a minimum of 12 months after a positive conclusive grounds decision and welcomed a ministerial commitment during passage of the bill to provide 12 months support to confirmed victims who need it. An announcement was made in late 2023 that this commitment had been dropped which we consider to be shortsighted. [19]
4.3.9. We welcome the recommendation of the House of Lords Committee on the Modern Slavery Act in October 2024 that "The Government should provide rights to modern slavery victims including temporary immigration status, recourse to public funds, and access to work, providing a route to permanent settlement in the UK."
4.3.10. No official data has been published on the number of victims who have received temporary leave under section 65 of NABA. Data released under an FOI suggested the numbers are very low: The Helen Bamber Foundation who submitted the FOI report that "In 2023, 3,139 adults were confirmed as victims of trafficking but only 113 received a grant of VTS [Victims of Trafficking and Slavery] leave to assist with their recovery and fewer than 10 received a grant to assist the authorities. This is around half of the grants of leave made in 2022." [20] Regular official publication of data would allow greater understanding of the number of victims that have been able to benefit from this provision.
4.3.11. There are wider issues with the National Referral Mechanism (‘NRM’) and support provision which need to be reviewed to ensure the right pathways to support are in place, but that may not be within scope of this bill. [21]
4.4. We recommend the Government urgently reviews the impact of NABA on victims of modern slavery and introduces amendments to this bill to address them. Specifically:
· Repealing section 29 of the IMA.
· Assessing the impact of section 63 of NABA on any specific groups of victims.
· Repealing the presumption against late disclosure of modern slavery in section 59 and greater weight given to the genuine reasons victims may make late disclosures (including trauma).
· Amending section 65 of NABA at the very least to widen the criteria for leave to ensure risk of re-exploitation is considered and guidance is amended to remove the burden of demonstrating a need for support. Our preferred amendment is to provide 12 months’ support to all confirmed victims with a positive conclusive grounds decision with leave to remain for those who have insecure immigration status.
5. Potential impact of wider Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill on modern slavery victims
5.1. We would like to draw attention to the potential for unintended negative impacts on modern slavery victims of other aspects of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. Namely:
5.1.1. Chapter 1: Victims of modern slavery may arrive in the UK through irregular means (such as in small boats across the channel or the back of lorries) or on falsified documents. This may include individuals exploited outside the UK before arriving in the UK or those being brought to the UK for exploitation here. They are, nonetheless, victims of modern slavery and need to be treated as such. Therefore, it is essential that the Border Security Commander and their staff receive comprehensive training and operate with clear policies on modern slavery, its intersection with organised immigration crime, how to spot the indicators and the appropriate safeguarding and referral pathways for potential victims.
5.1.2. Clauses 13 – 18: There is a risk that victims of modern slavery will be prosecuted under the new offences (related to articles or information for use in immigration crime or endangering others during a sea crossing). There must be clarity that victims who are compelled to engage in the offending behaviour will have access to the statutory defence under s45 of the Modern Slavery Act.
5.1.3. Clause 41: There is a risk of re-traumatisation of victims who are detained pending a decision to deport them under the new powers in clause 41. We would argue that dentition of modern slavery victims should be rare due to their vulnerability and experience of trauma. At the very least the existing ‘Adults at risk: Detention of potential or confirmed victims of modern slavery’ policy must also be applied to potential victims being detained under the new provisions in clause 41 and there must the option not to detain them. [22]
March 2025
[1] Centre for Social Justice and Justice and Care, A renewed vision for the fight against modern slavery in the UK: a programme for government, May 2024 ; House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee Report of Session 2024–25 HL Paper 8 The Modern Slavery Act 2015: becoming world-leading again, October 2024
[2] Centre for Social Justice and Justice and Care, Slavery at Home, February 2023; Centre for Social Justice and Justice and Care, A path to freedom and justice: a new vision for supporting victims of modern slavery, February 2022; Justice and Care, Victim Navigator Pilot Final Evaluation: From victim to witness to survivor, November 2022
[3] UK-Rwanda treaty: provision of an asylum partnership, December 2023
[4] Our analysis of Home Office, Modern Slavery Research & Analysis. (2025). National Referral Mechanism and Duty to Notify Statistics, 2014-2024. [data collection]. 15th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 8910, DOI: http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8910-15
[7] There was a significant drop in the number and percentage of Albanian nationals referred to the NRM in 2024 however they were still the largest foreign national group. Referrals for Vietnamese nationals rose in 2024.
[10] Our analysis of Home Office, Modern Slavery Research & Analysis. (2025). National Referral Mechanism and Duty to Notify Statistics, 2014-2024. [data collection]. 15th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 8910, DOI: http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-8910-15
[11] The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner at the time NABA was going through parliament highlighted this issue in a letter to the then Home Secretary in 2021
[12] Centre for Social Justice and Justice and Care, A Path to Freedom and Justice , 2022; Good practice beyond contractual requirements was also noted in the CQC's inspections of safehouse and outreach support services delivered under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract January 2021 to June 2022, January 2023
[13] King's College London et al, The Modern Slavery Core Outcomes Set Research Summary, February 2023 identifies the following seven core outcomes as a minimum standard for assessing interventions to support modern slavery survivors: Secure and suitable housing; Safety from any trafficker or other abuser; Long-term, consistent support; Compassionate, trauma-informed services; Finding purpose in life and self-actualisation; Access to medical treatment; Access to education.
[14] Under the previous discretionary approach Home Office policy sought to offer leave to confirmed victims under both criteria in Article 14 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (‘ECAT’) that is where a residence permit is necessary owing to the victim’s ‘personal situation’ and where it is needed to facilitate their cooperation with criminal investigations and proceedings. The new guidance spells out that Home Office policy has changed so that it not longer seeks to provide leave to remain under both criteria and only under the criteria related to facilitating participation in the criminal justice process. It expressly states that other provision of leave (i.e. criteria (a) and (b)) is under domestic legislation only.
[19] Official Report 8 December 2021, Column 427, Home Office NRM Reform Newsletter 1 December 2023. The Home Office confirmed its conclusion that the current RNA process is adequate in House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Human Trafficking: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report HC566 at paragraph 98