• Accessibility
• Email alerts
• RSS feeds
• Contact us

The Modern Slavery Act 2015: becoming world-leading again Contents

---

Chapter 7: Other issues

263.The length of our inquiry into the Modern Slavery Act was always likely to be restricted due to the electoral cycle. We express our regret that, within the time available for our inquiry, we have not been able to address all issues relating to the Modern Slavery Act. We hope these other issues will be taken forward by others for further review. We do not diminish their importance.

Changes to definitions

264.We received several written evidence submissions that explored the issue of definitions of modern slavery. Many witnesses suggested that the current definitions of modern slavery needed to be expanded.

265.A number of witnesses wrote to us about the need for new definitions of child exploitation and child criminal exploitation. Elizabeth Burrows, on behalf of HACE: Data Changing Child Labour Limited, told us that the Act would “be improved by its extension to include child labour within its scope and definition.”328 Dr Ella Cockbain wrote to us that “the lack of a clear strategy or statutory definition of child criminal exploitation is concerning.”329 This view was supported by Hope for Justice, who noted that it was “particularly problematic” in relation to “growing recognition” of county lines cases.330

266.We received multiple written submissions calling for further definition of offences relating to criminal exploitation331 and cuckooing.332 Cuckooing is “a tactic used by criminals, typically drug dealers, to take over the homes of vulnerable individuals, such as care leavers or those with addiction, physical or mental health issues, and use the property as a base for criminal activity.” It is a common feature of county lines exploitation.333 The Joint Modern Slavery Policy Unit of Justice and Care and the Centre for Social Justice told us that “criminal exploitation is now the most prevalent among identified victims and new forms such as cuckooing are emerging, but these are not adequately reflected in legislation.” They advocated for a definition of criminal exploitation to be added to the Act, and a specific criminal offence of cuckooing to be introduced.334 Some witnesses advocated for an expansion of the definitions relating to sexual exploitation. ASE Partnership told us that the Modern Slavery Act “does not adequately define the sexual exploitation of adults”335 Dr Paul Andell told us that there was a need to clearly define “newer forms of exploitation” such as online sexual exploitation.336

267.We also received suggestions that current definitions be expanded to apply to financial exploitation337, cult coercion338, forced marriage339, illegal adoption340, debt bondage341, online exploitation342, and the dependents of victims343.

268.Witnesses also suggested that wider issues of labour exploitation have been impacted by modern slavery definitions. The Work Informalisation and Place Research Centre at Nottingham Trent University told us that “many enforcement agency and regulatory actors thought that the definitions of modern slavery are too broad and crowd out issues relating to labour market coercion and exploitation.”344 Dr Ella Cockbain similarly told us that current supply chains legislation “compartmentalises the vague and ill-defined extremes of ‘modern slavery’, which further exceptionalises this issue and detracts from seeing extreme abuses as part of a broader picture of labour market non-compliance and work-based harm.”345

269.Several witnesses noted the differences between UK and international definitions of terms such as “modern slavery” and “human trafficking”. Wilson Solicitors wrote to us that “the term ‘Modern Slavery’ is quite confusing” as opposed to the definition of “trafficking”. They told us that “many within the legal sphere have found it unhelpful to have this new term which is ill-defined.”346 Hope for Justice also told us that the definition of human trafficking in the Modern Slavery Act “did not align with the definition contained in international law.”347

270.The Modern Slavery Act requires travel to have taken place in order to meet the definition of human trafficking. The Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham told us that “Section 2 of the Act requires travel or movement to constitute trafficking, a requirement which is not consistent with international law.” However, they also said that “in practice, for prosecutors and investigators this definitional issue has not been a problem.”348

271.Other witnesses felt differently. The Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation told us that “the focus on travel in the definition of human trafficking in the MSA is a massive failure within the legislation and requires immediate rectifying, to bring the UK in line with international standards”.349 Nordic Model Now wrote to us that the Modern Slavery Act’s definitions mean that cases that would be recognised as sex trafficking under the international definition would not meet the definition of human trafficking in the Modern Slavery Act.350

Problems with types of exploitation

272.We heard about problems with labour exploitation that could use further exploration, beyond the care sector. Phil Cain of the GLAA described modern slavery as “an iceberg situation where the tip of the iceberg is visible to us”, but below the “threshold” for modern slavery is labour exploitation. It is difficult to tackle this labour exploitation in sectors that are not regulated. In the agricultural sector, Phil Cain described there being “a real challenge” in resources for the GLAA. He said that with their current model they are “probably maxed at the number of compliance activity inspections and the like that we can do”, but that this “max” level could only “cover about 25% of licence holders per year.”351

273.We heard about issues relating to child exploitation, including a need for increased support, problems with identification, legislative gaps, and expunging convictions. Officials from the Home Office told us that they “are conscious of the number of children who are being referred into the national referral mechanism”, and that they were trying to “make progress” in this area.352 Rabiya Ravat told us that there should be “safeguarding legislation” to protect children going through the NRM.353 Major Kathy Betteridge told us that under the Modern Slavery Act, it is the “responsibility of the local authority” to support child victims, but that this does not “happen smoothly”.354 This same issue was discussed in our roundtable with people with lived experience of modern slavery, where one participant indicated that more funding was needed for local authorities to support child victims.

274.The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee’s 2023 Human Trafficking report looked closely at the issue of sexual exploitation. This Committee opted not to do so due to this previous work done, and the constraints on our time that would not allow us to do the topic justice. However, we received a number of written submissions raising issues relating to sexual exploitation, including calls for sexual exploitation online such as through adult services websites355 and pornography356 to be better regulated.

275.We also received some comments on the impact of the Act itself on sexual exploitation. Dr Ella Cockbain wrote to us that “English and Welsh law has not kept pace with the evidence-base on sex work policy” and advocated for decriminalisation to aid anti-trafficking efforts by reducing the fear that trafficked victims have in approaching the police.357 The English Collective of Prostitutes wrote to us that “police regularly conduct raids on brothels on the premise that human trafficking or modern slavery is taking place there”, and that the Act is “being used to target sex workers … for arrest and deportation.”358 Nordic Model Now, in contrast, wrote to us that the “MSA and the modern slavery strategy implicitly position prostitution as a form of normal work and obfuscate the fact that the ultimate cause of sex trafficking is men’s demand for prostitution.”359

276.We heard about the use of the Act to tackle exploitation. The National Crime Agency wrote to us that investigators seek to prove “force, threats and deception” in order to charge “lesser offences like Controlling Prostitution”, rather than seeking to charge a Modern Slavery Act trafficking for sexual exploitation Section 2 offence, which only requires them to prove “facilitation of travel with a view to commit an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003”.360

Problems with the National Referral Mechanism

277.We heard about the lack of capacity of First Responder Organisations (FROs). Major Kathy Betteridge told us that the Salvation Army have experienced an increase in referrals, which they are required to take on the NRM as many other FROs “are either not available or they do not understand that they are a first responder organisation.” She said that “there is definitely still a lack of understanding among statutory bodies about their role as an FRO, which impacts the NGOs, who are smaller in number.” 361 Rabiya Ravat told us that Migrant Help has been dealing with “an extra burden of work” due to the increase in the number of reconsideration requests following reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds decisions. She said that “there are victims who do not want to engage with law enforcement and immigration enforcement because of fear and mistrust, so there is an absolute need for NGOs to operate in this space, but there needs to be the resource support for them to do that.”362

278.We heard that certain groups experience particular disadvantages in relation to the NRM system. Euan Fraser told us that analysis by the IOM showed that “women were waiting on average twice as long as men”363. He also told us about the different impacts on foreign and British nationals, as “only 35% of those referred by the Home Office received positive reasonable grounds decisions, compared with 81% of those referred by local authorities, who are probably more likely to be British nationals … When it comes to requiring objective evidence, a UK national encountered by the police might have a bit more to be able to point to, whereas someone who is exploited elsewhere probably does not have a paper trail that they can point to.”364

279.Timescales were repeatedly raised as an issue. The Home Office told us that they acknowledged current timescales are “too long”, and that they “are trying to bring the timescales down for decision-making.”365 We heard from Euan Fraser that the median time for RGMs was “23 days, rather than the target of five. At points during last year, the waiting time was closer to 50 days.” He said that people waiting for decisions “are effectively in limbo, and there is a real risk of retrafficking.”366 Rabiya Ravat told us that “the higher evidentiary threshold impacts everybody across the board, irrespective of whether they are UK nationals or not.”367 She also said that, based on her view of the statistics, “only one decision has been inside 90 days since NABA was introduced, out of the 10,000-plus individuals referred into the system.”368

280.A number of written evidence submissions explored the quality of the support provided to victims. Justice and Care and the Centre for Social Justice wrote that “victims need holistic support beyond the narrow parameters of the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract (MSVCC)”.369 Causeway, which is a sub-contracted support agency within the MSVCC wrote that while they and other services “provide high quality support within the NRM through the MSVCC”, they have had to respond “to gaps in support at the pre and post-NRM stages” with their independently funded support service LifeLine. Causeway suggested changes to the Act to introduce a “clearly defined duty” on authorities to support survivors outside of the NRM, changes which “could mirror” those already in legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland.370 The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group wrote that the support provided through the Recovery Needs Asessment (NRA) is “failing survivors … who are not being able to access vital support when they need it, increasing their vulnerability to further exploitation.” Survivors “told of getting lost in … bewildering bureaucratic demands, of feeling untrusted and upset during invasive questioning, being destitute and at risk of re-exploitation, of impossible dilemmas regarding childcare, and of losing essential financial or emotional support through no fault of their own.”371

281.We heard about the need for victims of modern slavery to have better access to legal aid from a number of witnesses.372 Julian Bild told us that

“We are seeing the competent authorities writing to unrepresented people asking for legal statements. Of course, some of them will be illiterate. Very few of them will understand trafficking law, and therefore what they need to put in that statement, or the need for accuracy, finding professional interpreters and what have you. A competent authority will sometimes ask support workers to provide those statements, which puts them in conflict with the people they are trying to support. They have to take that quasi-legal role, asking them in detail about their background, their life, their trauma and any discrepancies that might have arisen in their accounts. … There is no mechanism for providing that additional information or for getting doctors’ reports or psychiatric reports. Yes, where someone is effectively represented they can provide that, but otherwise they will not get off the starting blocks. They will get a negative decision. We are seeing a large increase in negative decisions. Authorities do not say, “You’re lying”. They simply say, “We don’t have enough information to decide that you’re telling the truth”. We say, “Why not interview them?” They are not doing that. They will not interview victims. They will make a decision on the basis of information that lands on their file, but it will not land on their file if no one is supporting the victim.”373

282.Professor Louise Waite told us that allowing foreign national survivors of modern slavery to have the right to work is “imperative to ensuring that dignity remains at the heart of the NRM and that transitioning out of the NRM does not leave survivors with a cliff-edge drop-off of support.”374 This view was supported in written submissions by Dr Ella Cockbain,375 Hestia,376 the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group,377 FLEX,378 Kalayaan,379 and the Salvation Army.380

283.Some witnesses commented on whether victims should be given leave to remain. Christian Action Research and Education (CARE) felt that modern slavery victims “who have received a positive conclusive grounds decision should have a statutory right to a minimum of 12 months support and be entitled to temporary leave to remain” for a minimum of 12 months, “so they can access support to help them recover from their ordeal and rebuild their lives.” They noted that Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of ECAT was previously the basis of the “discretionary leave to remain”, and was replaced by Section 65 of NABA. CARE also recommended that there should be a “requirement” for the Government to report on the number of victims who do receive leave to remain.”381

284.The issue of public awareness came up frequently in the process of taking evidence. The Home Office told us that “we would be interested in the views of the committee and others … about what more we can do to raise public consciousness of modern slavery, because it is complex and a crime that is harder to understand if you are not an expert of an official in the field.”382 Eleanor Lyons told us that “public perception has not always shifted to catch up with the changes in exploitation type that we have seen … I do think that the public are not aware of the extent and the fact that it is happening in communities that they live in across the entire United Kingdom”. She said that she would be “looking at when [she] can do to improve awareness and understanding in this space.”383

285.We heard from Professor Louise Waite that the “government narrative” influences the public’s view of modern slavery. She said that the “Brexit referendum put immigration right at the top of the political agenda. As that continued through various administrations, there is now a more strident strategic conflation of modern slavery with immigration. Public perception cannot be seen aside from that.”384 Professor Alex Balch supported this view, telling us that “the public hear the message from politicians that people are lying about their exploitation, and they suspect that the modern slavery system of protection is being used to avoid or evade immigration controls … It is potentially harmful and dangerous, particularly for the most vulnerable individuals who have been exploited in the UK or outside the UK and need protection from the Modern Slavery Act but who are now at risk of not getting it because of the change in tone.” 385 However, Julian Bild told us that while the government messaging is perpetuating a “hostile environment”, ATLEU “are not seeing those perceptions among the public.”386

286.We have heard evidence to suggest that the Government should consider how to improve the operation of the National Referral Mechanism for groups who are currently disadvantaged by it. These include UK nationals, victims of sexual exploitation, children, women, vulnerable adults, those with no recourse to public funds, and those without legal immigration status.

287.The Government should improve the National Referral Mechanism guidance and ensure it is adhered to, including by its own agencies. It should draw on the latest operational experience and clarify how to make good quality referrals so that victims are not disadvantaged by being handled by particular First Responder Organisations.

288.The Government should ensure that First Responder Organisations have adequate capacity. Aside from providing additional resourcing to existing organisations, it should do this by increasing the number of FROs and ensuring that non-informing FROs meet their obligations.

The number of victims

289.We heard about the difficulty of quantifying the number of victims in the UK. Sir Bernard Silverman told us that “there are lots of different ways of measuring, but none of them are all that reliable—let us be honest—because they all have assumptions, drawbacks and so on behind them. Normally, when you measure crime, you do it by victimisation survey and ask people whether they have been burgled or even attacked. With modern slavery it is very difficult to do that.”387 He told us about the difficulty to “establish the difference between what you might call exploited labour and modern slavery.”388 Dr Rowland Seymour told us about the difficulty of quantifying forced marriage and domestic servitude and that when these cases arise, they are not always “tagged as modern slavery”.389

The challenge that lies before us

290.We have found throughout our inquiry that combatting modern slavery is a difficult but urgent challenge, which is constantly changing. Having listened to victims and survivors, our recommendations are designed to achieve a step change towards that end. The new government now has an opportunity to make the UK, once again, a world-leader in the fight against modern slavery and to make a profound difference to many lives.

---

• A-Z index
• Glossary
• Contact us
• Freedom of Information
• Jobs
• Using this website
• Copyright