review of the national referral mechanism for victims of human€¦ · were referred to the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Review of the National Referral Mechanism for victims of human trafficking
November 2014
2
3
Review of the National Referral Mechanism for victims of human trafficking
November 2014
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
1 PREFACE 6
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7
SUMMARY 7
RECOMMENDATIONS 8
3 CONTEXT 11
INTRODUCTION 11
BACKGROUND 11
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT SYSTEM 13
4 IDENTIFICATION 16
ISSUES 16
FINDINGS 17
OPTIONS 20
RECOMMENDATIONS 21
5 ACCESS TO SUPPORT 22
ISSUES 22
FINDINGS 23
OPTIONS 28
RECOMMENDATIONS 31
6 SUPPORT 33
FINDINGS 33
OPTIONS 35
RECOMMENDATIONS 38
Table of Contents
Tab
le o
f co
nten
ts
4
SECTION PAGE NO
5
7 CONCLUSIVE GROUNDS DECISION 40
ISSUES 40
FINDINGS 40
OPTIONS 45
RECOMMENDATIONS 46
8 GOVERNANCE 48
ISSUES 48
FINDINGS 48
OPTIONS 51
RECOMMENDATIONS 52
9 DATA AND INTELLIGENCE 54
ISSUES 54
FINDINGS 54
OPTIONS 57
RECOMMENDATIONS 59
10 CHILDREN AND THE NATIONAL REFERRAL MECHANISM 61
CHILDREN “AS IS” PROCESS 61
ISSUES 61
FINDINGS 63
OPTIONS 68
RECOMMENDATIONS 70
11 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS 72
PROPOSED SYSTEM 72
NEXT STEPS 73
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS 73
Table o
f contents
SECTION PAGE NO
6
Thetopicofhumantraffickingcreatesstrongfeelingsinpeople;italsogenerates
potent commitment from those working in this complex field. That is what
stoodoutformeinthisreview,thecommitmentacrosssectors,organisations,
disciplinesandgenerations.Everyonewantstoerasetheeviloftraffickingin
people. Everyonewants to see victims regain control of their own lives and
yettherearepassionatedifferencesofopinionastohowtoachievethatgoal.
Thisreviewseekstosetoutapathwecantreadtowardsachievingthatgoal.
Whatiscleartomeisthat,inconsideringsystems,rules,supportmechanisms
andtherest,thecriticalissueisthatpeopleworkingwithinorganisationsand
agencies develop a collaborative culturewhich focuses on victims;who are
firstandforemostpeople.Theyarealsodiverse,opinionatedandhaveawide
varietyofneedsandwants.Thephrase,towhichthereviewteamreturnedover
andover,is‘noonesizefitsall’.
Since its introduction in 2009 the National Referral Mechanism has grown
somewhatwildlyovertime.Itisnowacomplexsystemoperatinginachallenging
andpainfulareaofpubliclifewhichis, inthemain,hiddenfromview.It isa
difficultsystemtogripbecauseournatural reaction is toshyaway fromthe
atrocities,anddisbeliefprovidesapowerfuldefenceagainsttheanxietiesthese
raise. Many level criticismat the current systemandwehave found that it
doesneedtochange.Givenitsoriginaldesignwasbasedonasetofuntested
assumptionsmadenearlysevenyearsago,thatisnosurprise.
Thisreviewhasbeenastrongteameffort,andwehavedependedonpeople
frommanybackgroundsandsettings.WhilstthecorehasbeenmainlyHome
Officebased,wehave reliedheavilyonmanyothers fromacross theUnited
Kingdomtoprovideevidence,passion,data,experienceandchallenge.
JeremyOppenheim
Nov2014
Pre
face
1. Preface
7
2.1 Summary2.1.1 The National Referral Mechanism Review was commissioned by the Home
Secretary in April 2014 as part of the Government’s wider commitment to
eradicateslaveryandprotectvictims. TheReview’sstartingpointhasbeen
the victim and their experiences; the lens we have used has been focused
onthem.Wehavebeenenormouslyhelpedbyawiderangeofpractitioners,
Parliamentarians,campaignersandcruciallyvictimswhohavebeenwillingto
talkandtellusoftheirappallingexperiences.
2.1.2 Betweenitsinceptionin2009andSeptember2014approximately6,800people
were referred to theNational ReferralMechanism (known as theNRM). It
isacomplexmechanism, involvingawidegroupofdedicatedprofessionals,
statutoryandvoluntaryorganisations.
2.1.3 TheReviewwasaskedtoexamineandmakerecommendationstotheHome
Secretaryonsixkeyareas:
• identificationofvictims
• howtheyaccesssupport
• thelevelofsupportthatvictimsreceive
• decisionmaking
• governanceoftheNRM
• collectionandsharingofdata
2.1.4 Inrecognitionofthespecificissuesaffectingchildrenwehaveinvestigatedand
providedrecommendationsfocusedonthemandtheirparticularneeds.
2.1.5 The Review found many areas of good practice; however, we also saw a
disjointedsystemwhereawarenessofhumantraffickingwasoftenlowandof
theNRMprocessesstilllower.Weheardofthedifficultiesfacedbysupport
providers in moving people on from the support provided under the victim
care contract. Thereweremany critics of decisionmaking, the quality and
communicationofdecisionsandtheabilitytomanageandshare information
effectivelyinthebestinterestofvictims.
Executive S
umm
ary and R
ecom
mend
ations
2. Executive Summary and Recommendations
8
2.2 Recommendations
2.2.1 TheReviewfoundseveral issuesthatneedtoberesolvedtoensurethatthe
processof identifyingvictims ismoreeffective. Identificationasavictimof
trafficking and subsequent referral to the NRM is dependent on where the
victimisfoundandwhotheycomeintocontactwith.The review recommends
developing, with key partners, a comprehensive awareness strategy
leading to increased recognition of human trafficking by the public and
professionals.
2.2.2 Support foradults isaccessed following referralbyaFirstResponderanda
‘ReasonableGrounds’ decision taken by a competent authority (UKHuman
TraffickingCentre, UK Visas and Immigration and Immigration Enforcement.
86%ofreferralsreceiveapositivedecisionatReasonableGrounds1.Wethink
that First Responders, with appropriate training and feedback, can refer to
theNRMonthebasisofthereasonablegrounds level“Isuspectbutcannot
prove”.ThustheReviewrecommendsan overhaul of the referral process
of the National Referral Mechanism by professionalising the current First
Responder role, replacing it with Slavery Safeguarding Leads2 and replacing
the reasonable grounds decision with an alternative referral mechanism
once the successful implementation of accredited Slavery Safeguarding
Leads has occurred.
2.2.3 Thelevelofsupporttovictimshasbeenmuchdebated.Supportisnotintended
toproviderehabilitation,whichcouldtakemanyyears.Itistoallowtheperson
to begin to recover and to go on to rebuild their lives following 45 days of
reflectionand recovery. The reviewhasnotmade recommendationson the
varyingmethodsofsupport;howevertherearesomeissueswithinthesystem
thatshouldbelookedat.Thereviewrecommendsproviding support based
on an assessment of the individual needs of the victim. Consideration
should be given to entry and exit timescales, support following conclusive
identification, and the audit and inspection of support provision.
2.2.4 The area of decision-making has provoked much debate within the sector.
Wehaveheardofconcernsovertheconflationofhumantraffickingdecisions
with asylum decisions, elongated timeframes for decisions, lack of shared
responsibility and provision of relevant information for decision-making, the
complexityofthesystemandthethresholdsfordecision-making.Thereview
recommendsa process of conclusive identification of trafficking victims
1 74% NRM data 2013 (as of 08/09/14) and 85-90% based on NRM data January-March 20142 The name of these leads may differ in the devolved administrations
Exe
cuti
ve S
umm
ary
and
Rec
om
men
dat
ions
9
through regional multi-disciplinary panels should be tested with a view to
ceasing the sole decision-making roles of UK Visas and Immigration and
UK Human Trafficking Centre and Immigration Enforcement.
2.2.5 Although the National Referral Mechanism is managed and funded by the
HomeOffice,thesystemisfragmentedandthereisnoonebodyresponsiblefor
governance.Severalissueshavebeenhighlightedincludingtheindependence
oftheNRMfromtheHomeOfficeandUKVisasandImmigration,adesireto
place theNRMon a statutory footing and the absence of a formal appeals
system. Amulti-disciplinary, decision-makingpanel as suggested above, in
which local representatives take responsibility for thedecisionsof thepanel,
shouldreducetheneedforchallenge,aswouldastrongsystemofgovernance.
Thereviewrecommendsa single management process for trafficking cases
should be put in place and accountability for this system should lie with
the Home Office.
2.2.6 Thecurrentdatacollectingandcollatingprovisiondoesnotsupporteffective
identification of victims, assist with prosecutions or support the production
ofmeaningfulmanagement informationonhow theprocess isworking from
end to theend. Whatdoesexist isdifficult tomanageandunreliable. The
reviewrecommendsimproving the collection and collation of data in order
to facilitate the progression of cases and the management of the system
and to contribute to intelligence.
2.2.7 The report includes some additional recommendations specifically for child
victimsoftrafficking.TheserecommendationsrelatetoEnglandandWales;
they will need amending to reflect the child protection systems, structures,
processesandtimelinesinScotlandandNorthernIreland.Recommendations
arefocusedaroundimprovingawarenessoftheindicatorsoftraffickingandthe
additionalsafeguardingthatisrecommendedforchildvictims.Thereviewalso
recommendsthatthevariouschildprotectiontimelinesaretakenintoaccount.
Executive S
umm
ary and R
ecom
mend
ations
10
Co
ntex
t
11
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 The National Referral Mechanism Review was commissioned by the Home
SecretaryinApril2014.TheHomeSecretaryaskedseniorcivilservantJeremy
Oppenheimto leadtheworkaspartoftheGovernment’swidercommitment
toeradicateslaveryandprotectvictimsthroughlegislativeandnon-legislative
work.TheintroductionofaModernSlaveryBill3,thefirstofitskindinEurope,
willfurtherstrengthenlawenforcementefforts,increaseconvictionsandbetter
protectvictims.
3.1.2 TheReviewwasaskedtoexaminewhethertheNationalReferralMechanism
providesaneffectiveandefficientmeansofsupportingandidentifyingpotential
victimsofhumantraffickingandwhetheritcan,orshould,coverallvictimsof
ModernSlavery.
3.2 Background
3.2.1 TheNationalReferralMechanism(knownastheNRM)istheprocessbywhich
peoplewhomay have been trafficked are identified, referred, assessed and
supported by theGovernment of the United Kingdom. The process, set up
in2009 following thesigningof theCouncilofEuropeConventiononAction
against Trafficking in Human Beings (2005) (the trafficking convention), has
maturedduringthesubsequentyears;asat30September2014approximately
6,800peoplehadbeenreferredintotheNationalReferralMechanismsinceits
establishment.
3.2.2 Themechanismisintricateandhandlesarangeofpeoplewithawidevarietyof
needsandexpectations.Itisnotinfactasinglesystembutcomprisesalarge
groupofdedicatedpeople,professionals,immigrationstaff,policeandothers
workingalongsideavibrantandpassionatevoluntarysector. Ithasdifferent
3 In March 2014 the Scottish Government announced that it would bring forward bespoke human trafficking legislation.A Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill is progressing through the Northern Ireland Assembly.
3. Context
Co
ntext
12
approachesacrosstheUKwiththedevolvedadministrationshavingdeveloped
avarietyofsupportsystemsforthosethoughttohavebeentrafficked.
3.2.3 For many years stakeholders and Non-Governmental Organisations have
requestedchangestotheNationalReferralMechanism.Variouspublications
havesoughttoprovideevidenceoftheneedforchange,oneoftheseisthe
Anti-TraffickingMonitoringGroup’sdocument‘Wrongkindofvictim’.
The Review was asked to consider six main areas:
• Identification-identificationofpotentialvictims
• Accesstosupport–victimaccesstosupportthroughtheNationalReferralMechanism
• Levelofsupport-thelevelofsupportprovided
• Decision-making - the current decision-making process, including thequalityandconsistencyofdecision-making
• Governance-oversight,accountabilityandwhoisbestplacedtoadministerthesystem
• Data-victimdatacollectionanddatasharingbetweenrelevantagencies
3.2.4 TheReview’sstartingpointhasbeenthevictimandtheirexperiences;thelens
wehaveusedhasbeenfocusedonthem.Wehavebeenenormouslyhelped
byawiderangeofpractitionersincludingthepolice,localauthoritiesandNon-
GovernmentalOrganisations,Parliamentarians,campaignersandvictims.We
consulted over one hundred organisations, received written evidence, and
visitedsafehouses tounderstand the realityboth for the victimsand those
workingcloselywiththem.WemetwithrepresentativesfromaroundtheUK;
andwehaveattendedeventstopublicisethereviewandinvitecomments.A
listofthosewithwhomwehaveengagedisatannexA.
3.2.5 Wehavebeenparticularlyinterestedintherolesofthedevolvedadministrations
and the insight they bring to trafficking. The team has visited a range of
organisationsandpublicbodiesinScotland,NorthernIrelandandWaleswhere
someexemplarsofbestpracticehavebeenidentified.
3.2.6 The team also reviewed the written material produced by a wide range of
organisations, including thoseproduced for theJointCommitteeonModern
Slavery.
3.2.7 Consciousoftheneedtogaintheviewsandinsightsfromstakeholdersacross
thewholesystem,theReviewhostedfourthemedworkshops4.
4 Covering children, case studies, first responders and decision-making.
Co
ntex
t
13
3.3 Overview of current system
3.3.1 TheNationalReferralMechanism is theprocesswhichwassetuptocomply
withtheCouncilofEuropeConventiononActionagainstTraffickinginHuman
Beings5andspecifically:
• Article10–Identificationofthevictims
• Article12–Assistancetovictims
• Article13–Recoveryandreflectionperiod
• Article16–Repatriationandreturnofvictims
3.3.2 Thecurrentprocessisshownandincludesthreedecisionpoints:
3.3.3 Referral:adecisiontoreferapersonintotheNationalReferralMechanism.This
decisionismadebyaFirstResponder6.
3.3.4 Reasonable Grounds:adecisionbya ‘CompetentAuthority’,ofwhich there
arecurrentlythree:theUKHumanTraffickingCentre,UKVisasandImmigration
and,inaverysmallnumberofcriminalcases,ImmigrationEnforcement.The
CompetentAuthoritydecidesiftherearereasonablegroundstobelievethatthe
5 And the subsequent Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings Explanatory Notes6 The First Responder may be a police or immigration officer, social worker, other government official or someone working for a support organisation or other Non-Governmental Organisation.
Co
ntext
Identification (First responders)
Referral (First responder)
Reasonable grounds decision Support Contract Conclusive
grounds decision
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)Home Office
(42% cases)
Police(25% cases)
Reasonable grounds
CareNon Governmental Organisation (21% cases)
Referral
Local Authority(9% cases)
National Crime Agency(2% cases)
Gangmaster Licensing Authority(1% cases)
Supporting data: ■ 1,746 cases referred to NRM
■ 9% rejected due to errors
■ Reasonable grounds decision normally made within 5-10 days of referral
■ 74% referral achieve reasonable grounds decision (2013 data, as of 08/09/14)
■ Minimum 45 days ‘reflect and recover’ period
■ 30% of positive reasonable grounds decisions do not result in conclusive grounds decision
UK Visas and Immigration(Non EEA)
Reasonable grounds
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)
Conclusivegrounds
UK Visas and Immigration (Non EEA)
Conclusivegrounds Exit
Exit
‘As-is’ process
14
personreferredmaybeavictimoftrafficking,usingthe“suspectbutcannotprove”
test.
3.3.5 Conclusive Grounds: a balance of probabilities decision that there is sufficient
informationtodecidethatthepersonisavictimoftrafficking.Thisdecisionistaken
bytherelevantCompetentAuthority7.
3.3.6 Thetraffickingconventionisframedaroundtheidentificationofvictimssothatthey
can be given the benefit of themeasures to protect and promote their rights8. It
is recognised that the identification process is onewhich can take time, from first
consideringtherearereasonablegroundstobelieveapersonisavictimoftrafficking
throughtocompletionoftheidentificationprocesswhichestablishes,onthebalance
ofprobabilities,whetherornotthepersonisavictimoftrafficking.
3.3.7 Duringthisperiodofidentificationavictimisentitledtoassistance-areflectionand
recoveryperiodof30daysasaminimum(45daysisappliedintheUK)oruntilthe
identificationprocessiscomplete9.
3.3.8 Following conclusive identification of a person as a victim of trafficking there is a
numberofpossibilitiesforvictims.
UK citizen/EU/EEA nationals (limited rights)
Non-EEA nationals with existing or new immigration status
Non-EEA nationals with outstanding asylum claim
Non-EEA nationals not granted immigration status
Accesstoservices(healthandbenefits),labourmarket,vocationaltrainingandeducation,accesstoassistancetoreturn home for EU/EEA
Accesstoservices(healthandbenefits),labourmarket,vocationaltrainingandeducation,accesstoassistancetoreturnhome
Accesstohealthcareandasylumsupport,accesstoassistancetoreturn home
Noaccesstoservices,accesstoassistancetoreturn home
Figure1
7 The Competent Authority is UK Human Trafficking Centre for UK and EEA nationals and by UK Visas and Immigration for non-EEA nationals and Immigration Enforcement for criminal cases 8 Article 3 – non-discrimination principle in the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in human beings: “The implementation of the provisions of this Convention by Parties, in particular the enjoyment of measures to protect and promote the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”Chapter 3 of the convention is entitled “Measures to protect and promote the rights of victims” 9 Support during this period, in England and Wales, is provided by a support contract currently held by the Salvation Army and which includes a network of sub-contracted safe houses. Scotland has arrangements with Migrant Help and TARA and in Northern Ireland the system is overseen and managed by the Community Safety Unit with the Ministry of Justice and contracts let to Migrant Help and Belfast and Lisburn Woman’s Aid.
Co
ntex
t
15
3.3.9 Assistanceprovidedtovictimsisnotconditionalonthevictim’swillingnessto
actasawitnessandisprovidedonaconsensualandinformedbasis.
3.3.10 The number of people identified as potential victims of human trafficking is
comparatively small; the National Crime Agency estimated10 that, in 2013,
therewere2,744potentialvictimsofhumantrafficking,andtherewere1,746
referrals to the National Referral Mechanism. This compares with 23,507
asylumapplicationsin201311oraround269,000domesticabuserelatedcrimes
between2012and201312inEnglandandWales.
3.3.11 Thenumberofpeopleidentifiedaspotentialvictimsofhumantraffickinghas
risenyearonyear,since2009.ThenumberofreferralsbetweenJanuaryand
Marchof2014(566)was39%higherthanthenumberofreferralsinthesame
quarterin2013(407).ThegeneralviewisthatreferralstotheNationalReferral
MechanismarelikelytocontinuetoincreaseasawarenessofModernSlavery
grows.
Figure2
10 National Crime Agency (2013) NCA Strategic Assessment: The Nature and Scale of Human Trafficking in 2013 http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/399-nca-strategic-assessment-the-nature-and-scale-of-human-trafficking-in-2013/file 11 Immigration Statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-october-to-december-2013/immigration-statistics-october-to-december-201312 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/improving-the-police-response-to-domestic-abuse.pdf
535714
946
1186
1746
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2009* 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number of potential victims referred to the National Referral Mechanism 2009 - 2013(*2009 figures cover April-December only)
Co
ntext
16
4.1 Issues
4.1.1 Pleasesee10forchildren.
4.1.2 Victimscanbeencounteredanytime,anywhere.Avictim,havingescapedtheir
trafficker,maymeetamemberofthepublic,whocannotifythepolice,callthe
ModernSlaveryhelplineorthesupportcontractorhelpline13.Alternatively,they
may approach a local authority for accommodation, or claim asylum and be
identifiedduringtheasylumassessmentprocess.Avictimmaybefounddirectly
intheirsituationofexploitation;exhibitthesignsoftraffickingtoaBorderForce
officerwhenseekingentrytotheUK;orbeachildwho,overtimeandastrustis
built,revealsexploitationtotheirsocialworkerorcarers.
“It is a travesty that any potential victim of modern slavery may lose the opportunity for assistance simply because the authorities with whom they come into contact do not know what provision is available or how to access it.”
CSJ report - It happens here
13 Scotland and Northern Ireland both have their own separate helplines run by support contractors.
Identification (First responders)
Referral (First responder)
Reasonable grounds decision Support Contract Conclusive
grounds decision
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)Home Office
(42% cases)
Police(25% cases)
Reasonable grounds
CareNon Governmental Organisation (21% cases)
Referral
Local Authority(9% cases)
National Crime Agency(2% cases)
Gangmaster Licensing Authority(1% cases)
UK Visas and Immigration(Non EEA)
Reasonable grounds
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)
Conclusivegrounds
UK Visas and Immigration (Non EEA)
Conclusivegrounds Exit
Exit
Iden
tifi
cati
on
4. Identification
17
4.2 Findings
4.2.1 We have heard from many people that awareness of the National Referral
Mechanismandtraffickingislesswellestablishedthanitshouldbeamongst
frontlinestaff.Fartoooftenavictimisdependentonwhomtheymeet,howwell
trainedthosepeoplemightbeandwhereintheUKtheyare.
4.2.2 There is evidence that staff employed by public bodies may not recognise
victims when they encounter them or may not refer them into the National
ReferralMechanism.Thecountrywidefiguresontraffickingindicatethatsome
areasproduceastrongflowofreferrals;othersdisarminglyfew14.
4.2.3 Stakeholders consulted from across the system agree that victims may be
seenintermsoftheirotherneeds.Forexampleasocialworkermayseean
unaccompanied childprimarily as a victimof sexual exploitation rather than
avictimof trafficking,an immigrationenforcementofficermayseean illegal
workerandapoliceofficermayseeanoffender.
4.2.4 There are somegoodexamplesof collaborativeworking: Unseen, aBristol
basedcharity,whichworksonthepreventionoftraffickingandwithsurvivors,
toldusof theproactivework theydo to identify victimsand theirworkwith
the police to provide support to victims when initially identified. Avon and
Somersetpolice(coveringtheBristolarea)referred22potentialvictimstothe
NationalReferralMechanismin2013.InCambridgeshire,thereisajointworking
operationbetweenthosewithinthelocalauthority,thepoliceandGangmaster
LicensingAuthoritytoidentifyvictimsthroughawarenessofprofilesoftrafficking
victims.Cambridgeshire referred43potentialvictims to theNationalReferral
Mechanismin2013.
4.2.5 However,whilst theseareexamplesofeffective jointworking, it isclear that
thereisaninconsistentapproachtotheproactiveworkbybothpublicbodies
andNon-GovernmentalOrganisations tosearching forandfindingvictimsof
trafficking.
14 For example, in 2013, nine police forces in England and Wales did not refer any potential victims to the NRM and seven police forces only referred one potential victim per force. 28 police forces referred 1% or less of total police force referrals.
Identifi
cation
18
Iden
tifi
cati
on
19
4.2.6 Thereisaplethoraofidentificationtoolsbeingdevelopedbymanyinvolvedin
traffickingsupport.Asimplechecklistortrafficlightapproachthatcanbeeasily
deployedandunderstoodwouldbenefitprofessionalsandvictimsalike.Many
organisationshavetheirowncheckliststhattheydisplayontheirwebsites.The
NorthernIrelandDepartmentofJusticehasproducedamousematwhichgives
thesignsofhumantraffickingandcontactnumbers,reproducedhere.
4.2.7 Aconsistentandagreedgroupofindicatorsusedbyalliscrucialtoensuringa
dependableandcoherentapproach.
4.2.8 Overall, the number of potential victims referred to the National Referral
Mechanism seems low given what we know about human trafficking, thus
suggestingthereneedstobeagreaterawarenessofthecrimeoftrafficking.
TheHomeOffice launched a campaign,which ran until the end ofOctober
2014,toincreaseawarenesswiththepublicthatslaveryexistsintheUK,inform
peopleofthesignstospotandencouragethereportingofslaveryviathenew
helplineandwebsite. TheModernSlaveryBillproposes toplaceadutyon
specifiedpublicauthoritiestonotifytheNationalCrimeAgencyofthosewhom
theybelieve tobe victimsofmodern slavery. This includesbasicdetails of
thosewhowishtoremainanonymousandthosewhodonotwantassistance;
this,alongsidethecurrentcommunicationsplan,willbepartofthesolutionto
thisproblem.
4.2.9 Once identified, potential victims may not consent to entering the National
ReferralMechanism15 for various reasons. TheReviewhasheardanecdotal
evidenceastothereasonswhyvictimsdonotconsenttobereferredtothe
NationalReferralMechanism. Victimsmay experience conditioning by their
traffickerswhichcaninsomecasesresultin:
15 This is not the case for children who do not need to give consent.
Identifi
cation
HumanTraffickingcanaffectanyone,ofanyage,genderornationality.
KNOW THE SIGNS:
Is someone:
• Workingagainsttheirwill?• Havingtheirmovementscontrolled?• Subjecttoviolenceorthreats?• Distrustfulofauthorities?• Unabletocommunictefreelywithothers?• Unsureofwheretheyare?• Notintergratedwiththelocalcommunity?
Thesearejustsomeoftheindicatorsthatsomeonemayhavebeentrafficked.Youcanfindmoresignsbysearhingforhumantraffickingat:wwwnidirect.gov.uk
Ifyouhavesuspicions,reportthemtothePSNIon999oranonymouslytoCrimestopperson0800555111.YoucanalsocontacttheMigrantHelp24/7referrallineon07766668781.
Do they appear to:
• havelittleornotimeoff?• Liveinovercrowdedaccommodation?• Havebruisesorunexplainedinjuries?• Besubjecttosecurityattheiraccomodation
orworkpremises?• Havenoaccesstotheirearnings?• Workexcessivehours• Beinasituationofdependence?
20
• victimsnotappreciatingthattheyarevictims
• victimsbeingtooafraidofinvolvingthe‘authorities’
• victimsfearingtraffickersandpossiblerepercussions
4.2.10 In 2013, the National Crime Agency strategic assessment identified 1,649
potentialvictimsofhumantraffickingwhohadnotenteredtheNationalReferral
Mechanism16,butitislikelythatthisisonlyasmallfractionofthosevictimswho
wereencounteredbutnotrecognisedorreferred.Aseniorofficialatamajor
porthassaidthatunderhalfofthepeoplethathisstaffsuspectarevictimsof
traffickingwillconsent to referral to theNationalReferralMechanism.Whilst
weareawaretherearevictimswhohavebeen identifiedandnotreferredor
notconsentedtoreferral, there isnoconsistentapproachacrosstheUKfor
recordingtheseinstancesandthusnoclearpictureofthescaleofthisissue.
4.3 Options
4.3.1 Awarenessandidentificationarenotstatic.Runningonecampaign,onetraining
course,islikelytohaveimpactbutonlyforalimitedperiod.Webelievethere
isnoone‘right’approachtoraisingandmaintainingawarenessthatleadsto
reliableandconsistentidentification.Wehaveseenanumberofapproachesin
othercountries,focusedonparticulargroups(i.e.taxidrivers,hotelreception
staff,airlinestaff).Allmayhavetheirtimeandplace.
4.3.2 One placewhere victims often have an opportunity to escape traffickers is
whenaccessinghealthcare.Traffickersmaytakevictimstoabortionclinicsor
toAccidentandEmergencyiftheyareinjuredwhilstbeingexploited.Victims
intheiraccountsofescape,tellofusinganopportunityaffordedtothemby
accessingessentialhealthcare. Better trainingon indicatorsforhealthcare
workerscouldresultintheprovisionofsupporttothesevictimsatthiscrucial
time.
4.3.3 Immigration Enforcement officers and others involved in the inspection of
premises should be encouraged to identify potential victims of trafficking
particularly when they enter multi-occupancy housing and work premises.
ImmigrationEnforcementofficersmayarrestimmigrationoffenderswhoshow
nosignsthattheyarevictimsoftraffickingbutwhomayhavebeensmuggled
intotheUKandbeworkinginconditionswhichbreachemploymentlawbutare
notsuchastoconstitutetrafficking.
16 National Crime Agency (2013) NCA Strategic Assessment: The Nature and Scale of Human Trafficking in 2013 http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/399-nca-strategic-assessment-the-nature-and-scale-of-human-trafficking-in-2013/file
Iden
tifi
cati
on
4.3.4 InthesesituationsitwouldbehelpfulforImmigrationEnforcementtodocument
theirfindingsatthetimeofmeetingthepersonsothatthesecanbereferredto
shouldthepersonlatersaythattheyhavebeentrafficked.
4.3.5 VariousNon-GovernmentalOrganisations run trainingcoursesaimedat front
line professionals, but there is no system for approval or standardisation of
training. Training is generally not compulsory but reliant on local priorities.
Exemplarsofgoodpracticeinclude:
• Trainingandawareness-raisingwithinsecondaryschoolsandhospitalsinthedevolvedadministrations
• BorderForcehavetrainedstaffatLondonHeathrowandarerollingoutlearninganddevelopment
4.4 Recommendations
4.4.1 The Home Office should develop with key partners, a comprehensive
awareness strategythatencompasses:
4.4.2 Targeted awareness-raising campaigns for the public, government and third
sectorworkerswitharegularlychangingfocuswhichtargetsthegroupsmost
likely tomeet trafficking victims including cab drivers, postalworkers, hotel
staff.
4.4.3 A checklist of trafficking indicators, to accompany campaigns, to support
workersinidentifyingpotentialvictimsoftrafficking.
21
Identifi
cation
22
5.1 Issues
5.1.1 Following identification, the First Responder makes the decision to refer a
potentialvictimoftraffickingintotheNationalReferralMechanism.Currently
manypublicbodiesareFirstResponders,buttrainingandawarenessispatchy.
Non-Governmental Organisation First Responders are appointed through a
NationalReferralMechanismoversightgroupchairedbytheModernSlavery
UnitattheHomeOffice.
5.1.2 WebelievethetermFirstResponderisamisnomer;theroleistoactasalynchpin
between communities, front line workers in voluntary sector organisations,
hospitals, police, social services andmanyothers and theNationalReferral
Mechanism itself. The quality of the information provided and assessment
madebytheFirstResponders iscritical insupportinghighqualitydecisions
furtheronintheprocess.
5.1.3 When a potential victim is seen by a First Responder, between them they
completeareferralform.Theformisfirstlyaseriesoftickboxesfollowedby
spaceformoredetail;asmuchinformationshouldbegivenaboutthepotential
victimandtheircircumstancesaspossible,fullydetailingthereasonsforthe
referralandcircumstancesinwhichthepersonwasidentifiedandaddingany
Acc
ess
to S
upp
ort
5. Access to Support
Identification (First responders)
Referral (First responder)
Reasonable grounds decision Support Contract Conclusive
grounds decision
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)Home Office
(42% cases)
Police(25% cases)
Reasonable grounds
CareNon Governmental Organisation (21% cases)
Referral
Local Authority(9% cases)
National Crime Agency(2% cases)
Gangmaster Licensing Authority(1% cases)
UK Visas and Immigration(Non EEA)
Reasonable grounds
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)
Conclusivegrounds
UK Visas and Immigration (Non EEA)
Conclusivegrounds Exit
Exit
23
additionalindicatorsofhumantraffickingnotlistedontheform.Tickingboxes
alonedoesnotprovidesufficientinformationforareasonablegroundsdecision
andfurtherinformationisgenerallyrequiredtosupporttheCompetentAuthority
tomakeatraffickingdecision.
5.1.4 FirstRespondersarerequiredtoobtainthevictim’sconsentforreferral17.The
FirstRespondershouldexplaintheformandtheinformationonittotheadult
victimwhichthevictimthensigns.Ifavictimdoesnotindicateconsentwith
asignatureonthereferral form,thereferralcannotbeconsidered. TheFirst
RespondersendstheformtotheUKHumanTraffickingCentrewhichlogsthe
formandforwardsittotheappropriateCompetentAuthority18forareasonable
groundsdecision.
5.1.5 Ifthevictimisdestitutethedecisiontoreferresultsinthevictimbeingeligible
forinitialsupportfromtheserviceproviderincludingaccommodation.Victims
whoarenotdestitutearerequiredtowaituntilapositivereasonablegrounds
decisionismadebeforereceivinganysupport.
5.1.6 TheCompetentAuthorityappliesa‘reasonablegrounds’testtodecidewhether
apersonislikelytobeavictimoftrafficking.The‘reasonablegrounds’testisa
relativelylowthreshold19.Thisdecisionisnormallymadewithin5to10daysof
referral20.
5.1.7 Ifapotentialvictimreceivesapositivedecisiontheywillbeeligibleforsupport
andaccommodationifrequiredandeligibletoregisterwithaGPandreceive
NHScare.Theymaybeeligibleforlegalaid.Thevictimwillbegivenaminimum
of45daysto‘reflectandrecover’andawaitaconclusivegroundsdecision.If
theyreceiveanegativedecisiontheserviceproviderwillhelpthemexitsupport
within48hours.
5.2 Findings
5.2.1 TheReviewhasheardfromFirstRespondersthatthereferralprocessiscrucial
butatpresentbothill-timedandclumsyasitdoesnotallowforthedevelopment
of trust and confidence in the First Responder by the victim to support full
17 Consent is not required for children 18 UK Visas and Immigration in the case of Non EEA nationals with a current immigration application or the UK Human Trafficking Centre for UK, EU and EEA nationals and to embedded UK Visas and Immigration staff in UK Human Trafficking Centre for non-EEA nationals with valid immigration leave19 The test applied is whether the statement “I suspect but cannot prove” the person is a victim of trafficking is true and whether a reasonable person would think, having regard to the information in the mind of the decision-maker, there were reasonable grounds to believe the individual concerned had been trafficked. Reasonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of personal factors alone (e.g. the appearance of the suspected victim) without reliable supporting intelligence or information or some specific behaviour by the person concerned. It should normally be connected to precise and up to date intelligence/information.20 NRM data 2013 (as of 08/09/14) average 7 days for all decided cases
Access to
Sup
po
rt
24
disclosure.Theresultisoftenanincompletepictureofthecircumstancessurrounding
thetraffickingandamoredifficulttaskfacingtheCompetentAuthoritywhichmakes
aninformeddecisiononwhetherthevictimhasbeentrafficked.
5.2.2 Victimsmaynotbeclearwhattheyhavebeenreferredtoanddonotunderstandthe
needforthreeseparatedecisionpoints.Onevictimtowhomwespokesaidshewas
unsurewhat theNationalReferralMechanismwasandasked if itwas “that form I
signed”.
5.2.3 Wehavebeenmadeawareofanumberofissueswiththisimportantgate-keepingrole
withintheprocessbyallstakeholdersconsulted.Theseinclude:
• Role:alackofclarityontheroleofaFirstResponder,particularlywithinpublicbodieswhereallstaffareautomaticallyfirstresponders
• PurposeofNationalReferralMechanism:alackofclarityonthepurposeoftheNationalReferralMechanismandhowreferralcanbeofbenefittoavictim
• Process:alackofunderstandingoftheimplicationsofreferralortheprocesswhichhamperstheFirstResponders’abilitytoadviseapotentialvictimonthenextsteps
• Qualityofreferral:thequalityofreferralsisinconsistent;someFirstRespondersprovidecomprehensiveinformationandothersverylittletosupportadecision.
5.2.4 The training and oversight of First Responders is not prescribed and they are not
providedwithstructuredfeedbackon,oranyassessmentof,theirreferrals.
“It is a matter of concern for GRETA that a number of persons identified by support organisations were reportedly not referred to the NRM for a variety of reasons, but primarily because they did not see the benefit of being referred or were fearful of the consequences of being brought to the attention of the authorities because of their irregular immigration status.”
GRETA - Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention onAction against Trafficking in Human Beings by the United Kingdom
5.2.5 TheReviewcommissionedadetailedanalysisofthecurrentprocess. Thisanalysis
highlightedanumberofissueswithreferrals:
• Somereferralformsprovideonlythebasicinformationrequired.Incorrectormultipleindicatorsaretickedwithoutanynarrative.
• AdetailednarrativeisnotalwaysprovidedtoexplainthereasonwhytheFirstResponderconsidersthepersonmaybeavictimoftrafficking.
• 9%(99/1072)ofreferralssubmittedinJanuary-June2014werereturnedtotheFirstResponderbecauseoferrors.Formsbeingsubmittedunsignedbythepotentialvictimwasthemostcommonreason(64%).
Acc
ess
to S
upp
ort
25
5.2.6 Theseissueshaveanadverseimpactonthewholeprocesswith:
• referralformerrorscausingadelayinthetimetakenforacasetoentertheNationalReferralMechanismprocess
• repeatworkoccurringfortheUKHumanTraffickingCentreandFirstRespondersinaddressingtheerrors
• timelinessandqualityofdecision-makingaffected
• thenecessaryinformationnotalwayscapturedonthereferralformtoassistthedecision-makerinreachingareasonablegroundsdecision
5.2.7 We heard, from some, that those making referrals to the National Referral
Mechanismprefertogivethepersonthebenefitofthedoubtastheyfearitwill
‘reflectbadly’onthemifthey’miss’avictimoftrafficking.
5.2.8 Clearlythisstageintheprocessneedstightening.
Figure3
5.2.9 Referralscomefromseveralsources.ThePoliceandHomeOfficearethemain
FirstResponders;HomeOfficereferralsareprimarilyUKVisasandImmigration
referring thosemet at asylum screening or during asylum interviews. Local
authorityreferralsreflectsomeofthechildrenreferredtotheNationalReferral
Mechanism.
5.2.10 Thereasonablegroundsdecisioncurrentlyactsasthegatewaytoservices.A
highproportionofreferrals21receivedapositivereasonablegroundsdecision.
Thenumberssubsequentlyreceivingpositiveconclusivegroundsdecisionsare
lower(45%ofallreferralsin2013).Thisresultsinprovisionforvictimsbeing
21 74% NRM data 2013 (as of 08/09/14) and 85-90% based on NRM data January-March 2014
42%
25%
21%
9%2%
1%
Proportion of referrals to the NRM by first responderorganisation type in 2013
Home Office (n=732)
Police (n=428)
Non Governmental Organisation(n=368)
Local Authority (n=153)
National Crime Agency (n=41)
Gangmaster Licensing Authority(n=24)
Access to
Sup
po
rt
26
availabletoasignificantnumberofindividualswhoaredeemed,later,nottobe
victimsoftrafficking.
Figure4
Figure5
5.2.11 Ascanbeseeninfigure5thereisadifferenceinlikelihoodofentrytotheNational
Referral Mechanism and conclusive identification as a victim of trafficking
dependingonFirstResponder.Thisislikelytoreflectthedifferentsituations
forencounteringvictims.UKVisasandImmigrationreasoningisthat,priorto
September2013,itwasrefusingmostcasesof‘historic’trafficking,thosewhich
hadhappenedsometimebefore,wherethevictimhadescapedtheirtrafficker
and in somecircumstanceshadevenmanaged to restore theirown lifebut
later had been identified as a potential victim of trafficking. Following the
legaljudgmentinthecaseofAtamewan22UKVisasandImmigrationchanged
22 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/2727.html
62%
86% 85%78%
56
100%
74%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Home Office(n=732)
Police (n=428) NonGovernmentalOrganisation
(n=368)
Local Authority(n=153)
National CrimeAgency (n=41)
GangmasterLicensingAuthority
(n=24)
Total (n=1,746)
Proportion of potential victims identified by each first responder organisation type that received positive
reasonable grounds decision in 2013
% potential victims that received positive reasonable grounds decision
Acc
ess
to S
upp
ort
26%
71%
51%
37%46%
100%
45%
0102030405060708090
100
Home Office(n=732)
Police (n=428) NonGovernmentalOrganisation
(n=368)
Local Authority(n=153)
National CrimeAgency (n=41)
GangmasterLicensingAuthority
(n=24)
Total (n=1,746)
Proportion of potential victims identified by each first responder organisation type that received positive
conclusive grounds decision in 2013
% potential victims that received positive conclusive grounds decision
27
itsdecision-makingandnow86%ofcases23 areaccepted into theNational
ReferralMechanismatthereasonablegroundsdecision.
5.2.12 ManyNon-GovernmentalOrganisationshavetoldusthattheyhavedeveloped,
throughyearsofexperience,theabilitytoidentifyagenuinevictimoftrafficking.
However,wehavealsoheardthatsomeNon-GovernmentalOrganisationsare
reluctanttoidentifythosewhomtheydo notbelievetobevictimsoftrafficking,
once they have been provided with support, because of the individuals’
vulnerabilityandaconcernastowhatwillhappentothemiftheyarenotinthe
NationalReferralMechanismprocess
Figure6
5.2.13 Non-GovernmentalOrganisationshavesuggestedthatthereisanationalitybias
inacceptanceintotheNationalReferralMechanismasidefromthedifferencein
acceptancebetweenUK/EEAandnon-EEAnationals.Othersarguethisisoften
duetohowandwhenvictimsare identifiedand lackofevidenceofacrime.
GenerallyahigherpercentageofEEAnationals receivedpositive reasonable
grounds,with theexceptionofLatvia (53%),webelieve thefiguresare fairly
similaranddonotsuggestanationalitybias.
23 January-March 2014 NRM data
74%
62%
70%
62%
77%
95%
99%
89%
84%
53%
74%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Albania (n=270)
Nigeria (n=189)
Vietnam (n=181)
China (n=76)
Romania (n=104)
United Kingdom (n=92)
Poland (n=86)
Hungary (n=75)
Lithuania (n=61)
Latvia (n=59)
Total (all countries, n=1,746)
Proportion of potential victims referred to National Referral Mechanism from top 10 countries of origin that received a
positive reasonable grounds decision in 2013
Access to
Sup
po
rt
5.3 Options
5.3.1 Werecognisethatitisimportanttoraiseawarenesswithinthoseorganisations
encountering victims, but it is not realistic to assume that all staff in large
institutions will have the in-depth knowledge required tomake referrals. It
mightbeappropriatetoencourageorganisationstohavealeadwhocanbe
asourceofexpertiseandalsohelptrainotherstaff.Thisapproachhasbeen
usedinNorthernIrelandtogoodeffect.
5.3.2 WebelieveamoreprofessionalapproachfortheroleofFirstRespondershould
bedeveloped.Webelieveitwouldbevaluabletoexploreacorecurriculum
forallSlaverySafeguardingLeadswhichhelpsdevelophighstandardsinthe
identification, decision-making, data capture and interaction with potential
victimsoftrafficking.
5.3.3 Alargemajoritybelievesomeprocessneedstobeestablishedthatassuresa
levelofqualityandprovidesfeedback.Weheardevidencefrommanypeople
about options for accrediting First Responders. Some thought accrediting
trainers in organisations would be effective, others thought that individuals
withinpublicbodies,notthebodiesthemselves,shouldbeaccreditedtorefer
totheNationalReferralMechanism.Webelievethatalighttouchprocess,that
providesassurancethoughtrainingandfeedbackandwhichplacestheonus
onthepublicbodytoaccreditSlaverySafeguardingLeads,isappropriateand
theleastcostly.
5.3.4 WebelievethetermFirstResponderhaslittlemeaningtomostpeople;Slavery
SafeguardingLeadsmayexplaintherolemoreeffectively.
5.3.5 TheReviewheard frommanywhobelieved information tosupporta referral
couldbecollectedinslowertimeafterapotentialvictimhasbeenextricated
from their trafficker and placed safely. Thiswould help those forwhom the
jumpfromtheirtraffickingsituationintotheNationalReferralMechanismfeels
toogreatorwhoaresotraumatisedthatdisclosureisdifficultandrequiresthe
developmentofatrustingrelationship.
5.3.6 The form used for referrals needs revision to support Slavery Safeguarding
Leadsincapturingthenecessaryinformationforahighqualityreferraltothe
NationalReferralMechanism.
5.3.7 The professionalising of the Slavery Safeguarding Lead role (see 5.3.2) will
provide high quality and more accurate referrals into the National Referral
28
Acc
ess
to S
upp
ort
29
Mechanism. Weareaware thatsomevictimsof traffickingarenot identified
untiltheyareinprisonordetention;wewanttheawarenessraisingdescribed
at4.4.1 to reduce thepossibilityof thishappening. There ishowevera risk
thatsomeinprisonordetention,mighttrytopresentthemselvesasvictimsof
humantraffickingifacceptanceintotheNationalReferralMechanismmaylead
torelease.Wesupportaseparateprocessforthoseindetentionandprison,
involvingamanagerwithinthecasemanagementunit(see8.4.3)endorsingthe
referral.
5.3.8 Thethreestageprocess(referral,reasonablegroundsdecisionandconclusive
groundsdecisions)couldremain.Webelievetheevidencedemonstratesthat
thecurrentprocess isover-engineeredandcostly. Improving thequalityand
robustnessofreferralsappearskeytomostofthoseinvolved–betterreferrals
willresultinbetterdecisions.
5.3.9 Wehavedebatedtheneedforaseparatereasonablegroundsdecisionifthereis
aproperlyconstructedreferralbyatrainedandaccreditedSlaverySafeguarding
Lead.OncereferralstotheNationalReferralMechanismareofaconsistently
highstandard,thereisanargumentforendingtheseparatereasonablegrounds
decisions.Whilsttheremaybeanargumenttoretainaseparatecheckpoint
toensurethatthereisnoinformationheldwhichmightinfluenceadecisionto
referintotheNationalReferralMechanism,therearealsostrongargumentsfor
onlyhavingonedecisionforentrytotheNationalReferralMechanism.
5.3.10 Theseinclude:
• Thelowpercentageofnegativereasonablegroundsdecisionsatthispoint(between10-15%24)
• Qualityreferralswithfollowupcheckssimplifiesthesystem
• Itwillremoveacostlydecisionpoint
• Itprovidesagreaterlevelofcertaintyforvulnerablevictims
• Itretainstheabilitytoprovideafastconclusivegroundsdecisionwhereappropriate,includingwherethepersonisclearlyavictimorwherefurtherinformationdemonstratesafraudulentclaim
5.3.11 Webelievethatwithinareasonableperiodoftimeandfollowingsometraining,
theskillsofSlaverySafeguardingLeadswillensurethattheirreferralswillmeet
therequirementsofthetraffickingconvention.Then,thereasonablegrounds
decisionshouldbephasedout.
24 NRM data January-March 2014
Access to
Sup
po
rt
30
5.3.12 FollowingdiscussionswithcurrentFirstRespondersandourproposalsregarding
reasonable grounds decisions many Non-Governmental Organisations have
indicated that they would prefer the responsibility of Slavery Safeguarding
Leadstofallonpublicbodiesduetotheconsequencesofreferraldecisions
beingchallenged.Thisroleneedstobefulfilledbyanemployeeofapublic
body,oranaccreditedbodyworkingonbehalfoftheHomeSecretary.
5.4 Recommendations
5.4.1 ThereferralprocessoftheNationalReferralMechanismshouldbeoverhauled
byprofessionalisingthecurrentFirstResponderroleandreviewingthereferral
andreasonablegroundsprocess.
5.4.2 TheFirstRespondershouldbereplacedbyanaccreditedSlaverySafeguarding
Lead,whoshouldbeanemployeeofapublicbody,andprovidedwithguidelines
forreferraltotheNationalReferralMechanism.
5.4.3 Feedback should be available for these leads on their referral quality and
outcomes.
5.4.4 Webelieveit importantthattheSecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartment
retainsanoversightfunctioninrelationtothesereferrals includingtheability
torejectareferralintotheNationalReferralMechanisminrareandexceptional
circumstancesandshouldprovideoversightofdecisionswhereadecisionto
refercouldleadtoreleasefromprisonordetention.
5.4.5 The reasonable grounds decision can be replaced by an alternative referral
mechanism once the successful implementation of accredited Slavery
SafeguardingLeadshasoccurred.
“NGOs continued to report that UK authorities focused on the credibility of a potential victim too early in the identification process, noting that most victims who have only recently escaped control of their traffickers do not always reveal the truth about their experiences when first questioned; this continued to
result in victims’ detention and imprisonment, including forced repatriations of trafficking victims, putting them at great risk of hardship or retribution upon their return.”
United States Department of State: 2012 Trafficking in Persons Report - United Kingdom
Acc
ess
to S
upp
ort
31
Access to
Sup
po
rt
32
Sup
po
rt
33
6.1.1 Support is available for those who receive a positive reasonable grounds
decisionthroughtothepointwheretheyreceiveapositiveconclusivegrounds
decision. This support varies ranging from safe house accommodationwith
live-insupportworkersthroughtooutreachsupportforthoselivingwithfriends
orinasylumsupportaccommodation.Supportforchildrenwillbediscussed
laterinsection10.Forthosereceivingapositiveconclusivegroundsdecision
support iscurrentlyavailablefor45days,oruntilthisdecisionismade,after
whichtheyhave14daysto leavesupportwiththehelpofserviceproviders.
Thosewhoreceiveanegativeconclusivegroundsdecisionarerequiredtoexit
supportserviceswithin48hours.
6.1.2 ThedescriptionofcontractedsupportrelatestoEnglandandWales;therewill
besomedifferencesforScotlandandNorthernIreland,howevertheprinciples
remainbroadlysimilar.
6.2 Findings
6.2.1 EntrytotheNationalReferralMechanismprovidesforthemaininterventionfor
victims.Wehavebeenaskedtoconsiderprovisionofsupporttoallvictimsof
modernslavery.Somevictimsofthesection1offenceintheModernSlavery
Billarealready referred into theNationalReferralMechanism.However,only
thosewhoarealsovictimsofthesection2offencemeetthecriteriaforsupport
undertheConvention.
6.2.2 TheanalysisofsubmissionsreceivedbytheReviewfromNon-Governmental
Organisations working in this area shows overwhelming support for the
preservationoftheNationalReferralMechanismsolelyforvictimsoftrafficking.
6.2.3 Thecurrentarrangementsforsupportarevaried. Support isnot intendedto
providerehabilitation,whichcouldtakemanyyears.Itistoallowtheperson
tobegin to recoverand togoon to rebuild their lives following the45days
reflectionandrecovery.Thisperiodshouldprovideinitialsafetyandpreparation
forwhathappensnext.Itisuniversalopinion,amongstthoseconsulted,that
supportshouldberelatedtoneed.
Sup
po
rt
6. Support
34
6.2.4 Thecontractforsupportdetailsthatasupportproviderwillprovideappropriate
accommodation and subsistence, and access to services including but not
limitedto:medical(includingmentalhealthanddetox),dentaltreatment,sexual
health services, specialist counselling, resettlement support, signposting at
post-serviceexit,supportwithapplicationsforimmigrationandlegaladviceor
forbenefits,ESOLclassesandpreparationforwork.
6.2.5 We noted with concern that, apart from the measures service providers
undertakethemselves,thereisnoformalauditorinspectionofservicesprovided
tovictimsunderthecontractoranygatheringofdatatoreviewwhetherdesired
outcomeshavebeenachieved.
6.2.6 Practically, at present victims within a safe house are accommodated or
supportedbyoutreachforthelengthoftimetomakeatraffickingdecision.The
tablebelowshowsaveragetimesforsupportforcasesenteringtheNational
ReferralMechanismin2013andinthefirstthreemonthsof201425.
Year of referral
Average days in safe house
Average days in outreach support
Average days outreach support to those in asylum support accommodation
2013 69 121 118
Jan-Mar2014 68 103 103
Figure7
6.2.7 Thecurrentcontractallowsforaccommodationwithoutreachsupporttothose
livinginotheraccommodation.
6.2.8 We heard concerns about the suitability of asylum support accommodation
for some victims of trafficking. This accommodation is used regularly to
supplementthesafehouseprovisionforthosevictimswhoalsohaveanasylum
case.Thismaybesuitableforsome,butnotall.Sharedroomsormixedgender
accommodationarenotsuitableforthosewhoarehighlytraumatisedorwho
havebeen victims of sexual exploitation for example. The accommodation
needsofvictimsmustbeaccuratelyassessed.Noonesizefitsall.
6.2.9 Manytowhomwespokethoughtthatvictims“arefailed”attheendofthe45
dayperiod.Manyarestillprofoundlyvulnerableandare lefttonegotiateon
their own a return homeor re-integration into the community alongside the
accessingofanymainstreamsupport.
25 Data from the Salvation Army
Sup
po
rt
35
6.2.10 Thetransitionbackintothemainstreamfollowingsupport isessential forthe
victim. There are pockets of goodpractice.Wehave seen inWest London
that the support provider,Hestia, hasmade contactswithinHillingdon local
authority to facilitate transition to mainstream accommodation. In Sheffield,
CityHeartsandAshianahavemade linkswith theCouncil. However, this is
notastandardapproachacrosstheUKandresultsinvictimsnottappinginto
the varied support available throughNon-GovernmentalOrganisations, local
agenciesandauthorities.
6.2.11 It isclear thatsomeprovidersofsupportduring the reflectionperioddonot
seehelpingavictimprovideevidencetothepoliceasbeingavitalcomponent
oftheirwork.Thereisevidencethatprosecutionandpotentialreparationhelp
victimsandmaystemtheflowofabuse.Withamoreconcertedandcoordinated
effortfromeveryoneinvolved,thecriminalsbehindthisabusehaveagreater
chanceofbeingbroughttojustice.
6.3 Options
6.3.1 Wehavereceivedmanyrecommendationsfromthoseworkingtosupportvictims
onhowthesystemforsupportmightbeimproved.Thesehaveincluded:
6.3.2 Increasingtheperiodofsupportfromthecurrent45daysto90days.
6.3.3 Theexittimesfromsupportarecurrently48hoursifnotconclusivelyidentified
as a victim of trafficking and 14 days if conclusively identified. These are
shorter than the times forexit fromasylumsupportedaccommodationof14
daysand28daysrespectively.Thetimetakentoobtainabiometricresidence
cardand/oranationalinsurancenumberissignificantlylongerthanthecurrent
exittimefromsupport.Forthosewhohavebeenintheprocessofidentification
itisoftenonlypossibleforthemtostarttothinkoftheirnextstepsfollowing
notificationofadecision.Itmakessensetoprovidemoretimeafterthedecision
hasbeenmadeforintegrationorreturnforanonEEAnational.
“The Panel recommends that a ‘survivor support pathway’ should be developed in the UK in order to ensure that outcomes for survivors are improved and that their long-term recovery is protected and maintained. This could include a ‘mentor’ who would ensure that the individual is, for example, gaining access to work and housing – there is a significant need for ongoing support beyond the 45-day reflection period.”
Establishing Britain as a world leader in the fight against modern slavery: Report of the Modern Slavery Bill Evidence Review
Sup
po
rt
36
6.3.4 Followingconclusive identificationof a victimof trafficking focusshould fall
on supporting a return home or integration and, where a victim is eligible,
consistentlyprovidingsupporttofindwork,Englishlanguagelessons,training
and housing. This would be particularly helpful to those who may find
themselveshomelessafterthe45daysreflectionandrecoveryperiod.Wealso
suggestthatprovisionshouldbemadeforthedevelopmentofaninfrastructure
to support victims beyond the National Referral Mechanism reflection and
recoveryperiod. This couldbeprovided in a variety of cost-effectiveways
whichalsooffercontainmentforthevictimsuchasamonthlydrop-incentre
availableforsixmonthstoayearafteravictimhaslefttheNationalReferral
Mechanismoraregularcatch-up‘phonecall.
6.3.5 Tounderstandoutcomes forvictimswesuggest theoptionof regular follow
upsforuptotwoyears.Atthistimestandardquestionsshouldbeaskedto
monitorandreportontheoutcomeforthevictim.
6.3.6 Wehaveheardfrommany,ofvictimsleavingtheNationalReferralMechanism
andbeingfoundagain.Thereisnoprocessforconsistentlycapturingbiometric
dataofvictims26.Webelievethatcollectionofsuchdatawillhelpthelocation
andlateridentificationofvictims.Itmustbeensuredthatthevictimconsents
andwillnotexperiencere-traumatisationinsuchaprocess.
6.3.7 Wethinkitimportanttoensuretheprovisionofsafe-housingtoallvictimswho
need it so that they canbeeffectively supportedduring their reflectionand
recovery.Inthatperiodthevictimshouldhaveafullneeds-basedassessment
carried out by the provider; this assessment should reflect the types of
intervention, including accommodation, that are most appropriate for that
individual.
6.3.8 Weweresurprisedatalackofcoreskillsrequiredtoworkwithvictimsofhuman
traffickinginhostelandotheraccommodation.Wewerepleased,duringthe
courseof the review, to seepublished27 apractical handbookon standards
for accommodation and staff employed within such settings. We strongly
believethatstaffworkinginthissensitiveandcomplexareaneedappropriate
trainingandregularsupervisionandsupport.Wesawgreatexamplesofthisin
operationinsettingssuchasCityHeartsinSheffieldandTarainGlasgow.
6.3.9 Weproposethatsafehouseprovidersareaskedtoconformtoastandardaudit
oftheirpremisesandtheirmethodsofemotionalsupportfortheirstaff.
26 Fingerprints or photographs27 Trafficking Survivor Care Standards, The Human Trafficking Foundation 2014
Sup
po
rt
37
6.3.10 Weheard frommanysources thatorganisationsarenotable todeliverwhat
thevictim requireswithoutamulti-agencyapproach to thecoordinationand
deliveryofsupport. Building local linkswithGovernmentdepartments, local
authorities,housingassociations,localhealthprovisionandNon-Governmental
Organisationswillprovideformoreholisticsupportforthevictim.
6.3.11 TheproposedchangestotheNationalReferralMechanismrequireconsideration
of provision of legal advice on referral rather than at reasonable grounds
decision.Accesstolegalaidisavailableforasylumseekersonapplicationfor
asylumandasaresulthumantraffickingvictimsmayclaimasylumasaway
ofobtainingearlylegalaid.Thereisunlikelytobeahugeincreaseinthecost
oflegalaidbecausealargemajorityofnon-EEAvictimsarealreadyclaimingit
throughtheasylumprocess.28
6.3.12 Non-Governmental Organisations have asked for provision of a fixed grant
of immigration leave to all conclusively identifiednon-EEAvictimsof human
trafficking. The discretionary leave provisionwhich currently exists ismore
flexiblethanafixedgrantofleave,allowingforagrantofleavewhichreflects
the needs of the victim. In addition, it is not considered that all victims of
traffickingneedorwishtoremainintheUKonceextricatedfromtheirtrafficking
situation.
6.3.13 Weweretoldofsignificantproblemsforpeoplewhoaredeemedtobevictims
ofhumantraffickingwhoaregrantedaperiodof leavetoallowthemtogive
evidenceinaprosecution.Therenewalofthatleaveisnotsimpleandthevictim
mayhave lost touchwith thosewhooriginallysupported them.Weheardof
significantanxietycreatedunnecessarily forpeoplewhennoone is in touch
withthemandtheirleaveisabouttolapse.Accesstosupportisatriskandthis
forcessomebacktotraffickers.Prosecutionsmaytakemorethan12months
tomountandthuswethinkthecasemanagementteam(see8.4.3)shouldkeep
atrackofsuchcasesandcontact thevictimtoremindthemtoapply toUK
VisasandImmigrationtoensureleaveisnotsimplyallowedtolapse.
6.3.14 There are assisted voluntary returnprogrammesavailable for thosewhoare
identifiedasvictimsof trafficking. There issomeavailabilityof reintegration
supportbutthisneedstobetailoredtomeetthespecificneedsofvictims.
28 Legal aid is made available to victims of trafficking in relation immigration matters if either a reasonable grounds or conclusive determination has been made. This is specific to immigration matters, victims of trafficking’s access to criminal legal aid or other civil matters (such as damages claims in relation to their exploitation) are not dependent in any way on the NRM process. In the event that reasonable grounds determinations were to be phased out and the preferred replacement criteria was a referral to a first responder, Paragraph 32 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 would need to be amended. This is done through the making of an Order under Section 9 of the Act. Such an Order requires affirmative resolution and six months should be allowed for drafting this process.
Sup
po
rt
38
6.3.15 Webelievesomeworkneedstobeundertakenquicklytomakebetteruseof
Europeanandotherfundingtoaffordvictimstheoptionofreturningsafelyto
theircountryoforigin.
6.4 Recommendations
6.4.1 Supportshouldbeprovidedbasedonanassessmentoftheindividualneeds
of the victim. Consideration should be given to entry and exit timescales,
supportpost-conclusiveidentification,andtheauditandinspectionofsupport
provision.
6.4.2 National Referral Mechanism support:tobeprovidedtoallvictimscovered
bytheModernSlaveryBill.
6.4.3 Outreach support: to provide outreach support to prisons and detention
centreswhereapotentialvictimhasbeenidentified.
6.4.4 Accommodation: provision of accommodation, during the reflection and
recoveryperiod,shouldbebasedonanassessmentoftheneedsofthevictim.
6.4.5 Alignment of exit timescales:weshouldseektoaligntheexittimescalesfrom
servicesfornonEEAnationalswiththoseforasylumsupport.
6.4.6 Support provider role:thesupportprovidershouldconcentrateonaccessing
localservices,aswellasprovidingasafe,professionalenvironmentforsupport
andcare.Werecommendthatsupportprovidersbuildstrongrelationshipsin
theirlocalareawiththosewhocanprovideservicesforvictimsoftrafficking.
6.4.7 Audit and inspection:anauditorinspectionofprovisionwithinthecontract
should confirm that the standards of support are provided at the agreed
level.Thisshouldincluderegularinspectionsofaccommodationandauditof
qualificationsforthoseprovidingcounsellingservices.
6.4.8 Integration services:victimsshouldbeprovidedintegrationassistanceeither
in the UK, by facilitating access to mainstream support and assisting with
applicationsforeducationorwork,orpreparethevictimforreturntotheirhome
countryliaisingwiththeproviderofsupportedvoluntaryreturns.
6.4.9 Post conclusive identification support:thereshouldbeprovisionofsimple
outreachservicesforuptotwelvemonthsaftertheexitofaneligiblevictim,
withapositiveconclusiveidentificationandtoprovideasystemformonitoring
Sup
po
rt
39
andtrackingserviceusersforuptotwoyearsafterexitfromtheservicewhich
linkswiththecasemanagementteam.
6.4.10 Biometric identification:aslongasthevictimconsentsandwillnotexperience
re-traumatisation,thecollectionofbiometricidentificationshouldbeencouraged
withinthereferralorsupportprocess.
Sup
po
rt
40
7.1 Issues
7.1.1 The conclusive grounds decision ismade by UKHuman Trafficking Centre,
UK Visas and Immigration or Immigration Enforcement (Criminal Casework
Directorate).Itisbasedonthereferralformandanyotherevidenceavailable.
Ifthereisinsufficientevidencetomakeadecisionthecaseworkerisexpected
togatherevidenceormakefurtherenquiriesduringthe45dayrecoveryand
reflectionperiod.Relevantagenciesareconsultedinordertoreachaconclusive
decisiononwhetherthepersonhasbeentrafficked.
7.1.2 Policeandintelligencereportsrelatingtotheallegedcrimecanprovideobjective
evidencetostrengthenaclaimanddueweightisgiventothereportsandviews
of:
• localauthoritychildren’sservices(forchildvictims)
• theorganisationsupportingtheindividual
• anymedicalreportssubmittedareconsidered
7.2 Findings
7.2.1 Stakeholdersagreecurrenttimescalesfortheconclusivegroundsdecisionare
aproblem.
Co
nclu
sive
Gro
und
s D
ecis
ion
7. Conclusive Grounds Decision
Identification (First responders)
Referral (First responder)
Reasonable grounds decision Support Contract Conclusive
grounds decision
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)Home Office
(42% cases)
Police(25% cases)
Reasonable grounds
CareNon Governmental Organisation (21% cases)
Referral
Local Authority(9% cases)
National Crime Agency(2% cases)
Gangmaster Licensing Authority(1% cases)
UK Visas and Immigration(Non EEA)
Reasonable grounds
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)
Conclusivegrounds
UK Visas and Immigration (Non EEA)
Conclusivegrounds Exit
Exit
41
7.2.2 UKVisas and Immigration isworking to bring conclusive groundsdecisions
withinaservicestandardof98%ofstraightforwarddecisionswithinsixmonths.
In2013theUKHumanTraffickingCentremadeaconclusivegroundsdecision
inanaverageof5629days.
7.2.3 Itiscleartherearesituationswheredecisionswillbereachedmorequicklyor
slowly thantheaveragedueto theparticularcircumstancesofan individual.
Wherethereisevidenceasaresultofpoliceactivitywhichhasfreedthevictim
fromtheirsituationofexploitation,itmaybepossibletomakeanearlydecision.
Aconclusivelyidentifiedvictimoftraffickingwillstillbeeligibleforthefull45day
recoveryandreflectionperiod,includingsupportevenifidentifiedearly.
7.2.4 Weheardofbarrierstospeedydecision-makingincludingobtaininginformation
fromotherorganisationswherethevictimisunabletogiveanaccountoftheir
trafficking,orifthevictimneedstimeandsupporttoenableco-operation.
7.2.5 Weheardofdecision-makingbeingdelayedwhenawaitinginformationabout
whetherthepolicearepursuingaprosecutionoracourtoutcome,neitherof
whicharenecessaryundercurrentguidelinestodeterminewhetherapersonis
avictimoftrafficking.
“Strip the UK Border Agency of its Competent Authority status. This will ensure that the first decision made about a victim of modern slavery is not related to their immigration status, but is a welfare decision based solely on their need for support. They are victims first.”
CSJ report - It happens here
7.2.6 Wehaveheardfromthosesupportingvictimsthatanydelayindecisionscan
exacerbateasenseofconfusionandfearabouttheirfutureandimpedethem
makingarecovery. Itshouldbepossibleinmostcases, ifevidenceismade
availablebyallpartiesinvolved,foradecisiontobemadeinaround30days.
Thiswouldprovideabenefit to thevictim (whowouldnotbekeptanxiously
waiting)andcouldbesupportedbyalongertimepostdecisionformovingto
thenextphaseoftheirlives.
7.2.7 Therehasbeenwidespreadconcernaboutanassessmentofavictim’scredibility
beingusedtosupportadecision. Inparticulartheuseoftraveldocuments,
whichmayhavebeengenuinelyissuedbuteitherdonotrelatetothevictimor
aboutwhichthevictimhaslittleknowledge.
29 NRM data 2013 (as of 08/09/14) time from referral to conclusive decision for those cases getting a positive reasonable grounds decision
Co
nclusive Gro
unds D
ecision
42
7.2.8 Stakeholders have said “It isworrying to see howmuchweight is given to
informationgiveninvisaapplications,likelytohavebeengivenunderduress”
andare“concernedaboutanoverreliance...ondocumentsusedfortravel.
It iswidelyaccepted that thesedocumentsmaybe forgedandareusedby
traffickers”.
7.2.9 Whenmakingadecision,UKVisasandImmigrationtestsallrelevantmaterial
facts,considerobjectiveevidenceand,whereappropriate,appliesthebenefit
ofthedoubt.TheNationalReferralMechanismguidanceallowsforanegative
decision to bemade on adverse credibility, and UK Visas and Immigration
emphasisesthatitsdecision,whetherornotsomeoneisavictim,isassessed
tocivilstandardofproof.
7.2.10 Victimswhoescapeandpresentthemselvesmaynotknowwheretheyhave
been held or the names of those holding them and the only evidence they
haveisthestoryoftheirexperience.Researchhasshownthatthosewhoare
severelytraumatisedhavedifficultyinprovidingacoherentstory.Thesefactors
togethercancreateaperceptionthatdecision-makingisheavily(andwrongly)
basedoncredibilitywhereasthedecision-makermayfeelconstrainedbythe
lackofevidenceofacrime.
7.2.11 TherehasbeenconsiderablechallengefromNon-GovernmentalOrganisations
regardingthelanguageusedindecisionletters.Itisarguedthatlettersdonot
takeintoaccountthatapersonreferredtotheNationalReferralMechanismis
likelytobevulnerableevenifnotavictimoftrafficking.
7.2.12 Useoflanguagesuchas‘...xxhasclaimedtobeavictimoftrafficking’isseen
as unhelpfulwhen the victim is likely to have been referred to theNational
ReferralMechanismbyaFirstResponderorganisation.Lettershavecontained
thephrase‘whilstyouraccountisinternallyconsistentthereisalackofexternal
corroboration;’ this isconfusing forbothvictimsandstakeholderswhere for
examplethevictimdoesnothavethenamesofthosewhotraffickedthemor
thelocationinwhichtheywereheld.
7.2.13 The template for communicating that a person has not been conclusively
identifiedasavictimcontainsthefollowing:
Co
nclu
sive
Gro
und
s D
ecis
ion
43
‘Consideration has been given as to whether there are any mitigating circumstances in relation to your account. No evidence has been received to suggest that you are suffering from any mental, psychological or emotional trauma and you have not received any counselling. It is considered that there are no mitigating circumstances in your case.
Due to the internal inconsistencies in your account, your credibility has been damaged to the extent that your claim to have been trafficked cannot be believed and is rejected below.’
7.2.14 Yetaccesstocounselling isdifficulttoobtainandisnot inanyeventalways
appropriateintheearlystagesofrecovery.Itiswelldocumentedthatsomeone
suffering from trauma may produce an inconsistent account of his or her
experiences30.
7.2.15 Our consultation and analysis of stakeholders’ responses has found a deep
concern among Non-Governmental Organisations on the consideration of
asylumandtraffickingdecisions.Theseincludetheconflationofasylumand
trafficking,thetimelinessofdecisionsandtheuseofargumentsaboutcredibility
whichfocusonminordiscrepancies.
7.2.16 Toobtainallperspectives,theReviewhasspentasignificantamountoftime
anddedicated resources to understanding how theprocess currentlyworks
acrossUKHumanTraffickingCentreandUKVisasandImmigrationlisteningto
manystaff.
7.2.17 UKVisasand Immigrationmakes the reasonablecase that itsproductionof
twoseparatedecisionsforasylumandtraffickingbasedononlyoneinterview,
streamlinestheprocessforvictims.Decision-makersarekeentoemphasise
thattheyneverlosesightofthefactthat“claimantsarepotentialvictimsfirstand
foremost”.Theyareawareofthedangersofre-traumatisingvictimsthrough
processesthatinvolvethevictimrepeatingtheiraccountoftheincidents.
7.2.18 However,wethinkitisdifficulttomaintainconfidenceinmakingtwodifferent
decisionswhenusingthesameinformationandstaff.
7.2.19 Intheprocessofourownreviewofthesystem,wehavefoundanumberof
issueswith thecurrentapproach todecision-making forvictimswithasylum
claimswhichhaveincluded:
30 There are many articles on this subject including: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Assault: The Role of Cognitive Processing, Trauma Memory, and Appraisals Sarah L. Halligan, Tanja Michael, David M. Clark, and Anke Ehlers 2003
Co
nclusive Gro
unds D
ecision
44
• traffickingvictimsbeingaskediftheywantasylumandtraffickinginterviewstogether
• decisionsbeingmadeatthesametime,thesamelanguageandphrasesbeingusedinbothdecisionsanddecisionlettersbeingsenttogetherinthesameenvelope.
7.2.20 WehaveseenmanyimprovementsachievedwiththecreationoftheUKVisas
andImmigrationhub,butwebelievetheUKBorderAgencylegacysignificantly
damagesthecredibilityofmakingdecisionsinthisparticulararea.Ifwewishto
createaneffectiveandefficientsysteminwhichallstakeholdersworktogether
collaborativelyandtransparentlyweneedtoaddressboththeperceivedlack
ofcredibilityandtherealityofthewayinwhichcasesaremanaged.
7.2.21 Figure6showedthedifferenceinacceptancetotheNationalReferralMechanism
forpotentialvictimsbynationality.Figure8showsthedifferenceatconclusive
decision. Thedata isbroadlysimilar,althoughChinahasaparticularly low
acceptanceatbothreasonablegroundsandconclusivegroundsdecision.
Figure8
Co
nclu
sive
Gro
und
s D
ecis
ion
33%
32%
29%
25%
60%
88%
83%
75%
79%
49%
45%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Albania (n=270)
Nigeria (n=189)
Vietnam (n=181)
China (n=76)
Romania (n=104)
United Kingdom (n=92)
Poland (n=86)
Hungary (n=75)
Lithuania (n=61)
Latvia (n=59)
Total (all countries, n=1,746)
Proportion of potential victims referred to National Referral Mechanism from top 10 countries of origin that received a
positive conclusive decision in 2013
45
7.3 Options
7.3.1 Thebenefitofmakinganasylumdecisionandconclusivetraffickingidentification
onthesamematerialisthatthevictimonlyneedstohaveoneinterview.The
Reviewhasnotseencompellingevidencethataninterviewisalwaysnecessary
toprovideevidenceforatraffickingclaimifallagenciesprovidetheinformation
theyholdaboutavictim.TheUKHumanTraffickingCentredoesnotinterview.
7.3.2 UKVisasandImmigrationalsobelievesthatthisjointdecision-makingapproach
givesfasteraccesstorefugeestatuswhereappropriate;thatthereisanexplicit
linkbetweentraffickingandimmigrationstatus;andseparatingtheconclusive
identificationfromtheimmigrationdecisionwouldslowdowntheprogressof
non-EEAnationals.
7.3.3 Wehaveheardthereasonswhyaconclusivedecisioncanimpactonanasylum
decision,butarenotpersuadedthatthismeansthetwoneedtobeconsidered
by thesameperson. Weunderstand that if conclusive traffickingdecisions
are easy toobtain andmean that an individual ismore likely tobegranted
asylum,thenthiscouldactasaroutebywhichunscrupulousindividualsabuse
thesystem. However,webelievetherearebetterwaysofensuringthat the
NationalReferralMechanismprovidesonlyforvictimsoftraffickingratherthan
bylinkingthetwodecisions.
7.3.4 Wegaveconsiderationtowhetherornotthethresholdforconclusivegrounds
decisionsshouldchange.
7.3.5 Conclusivegroundsdecisionsaremadeonthe‘balanceofprobabilities’-the
testused incivil courts,and thishasbeenclarifiedand tested legally. The
balanceofprobabilitiesmeans‘thatthevictimismorelikelythannottobea
victimoftrafficking’.Inmanysituationsit isimpossibletosaywithabsolute
certaintywhetherornotapersonisavictimoftrafficking.Inaddition,human
traffickingisacrimewithasignificantpenalty. Astandardofproofwhichis
used forcivilproceedings isappropriate for theallegationofsuchaserious
crime.
7.3.6 Theremay be occasionswhere on the balance of probabilities a person is
deemed,ornot,tobeavictimbutatalaterstagenewinformationcomesto
lightwhichchangestheevidencethatwasbeforethosemakingtheconclusive
identification.Weconsiderthatanyidentificationorotherwiseofavictimof
traffickingmayberevisited,indefinedcircumstances,ifnewevidencebecomes
available.
Co
nclusive Gro
unds D
ecision
46
7.3.7 All stakeholders consulted have supported a processwhich ensures that a
widerangeofinformationisavailabletomakeadecision.Wehaveconsidered
variousoptionsforthisincludingusingcurrentsafeguardingmechanismswithin
LocalAuthoritiesandregionalanti-traffickingmonitoringgroups.
7.3.8 We scaled our approach based on the number of victims and the need for
thosemakingdecisions togain the requiredexpertise. After examining the
variouspossibilitiesthereviewhasconcludedthatthebestoptionwouldbe
asmallnumberofregionalpanels(around7or8)acrosstheUKwhichmeet,
‘virtually’,aboutonceaweek. Thepanelwillbechairedbyan independent
chairappointedbytheHomeSecretaryandincluderepresentativesfromkey
disciplineswhohave theexpertise tounderstand theevidencepresented to
them,makejudgementsaboutwhetherthisevidencemeetsthethresholdfor
trafficking,andcanprovideadviceonwhathappensnextforthevictim.The
panels should include public bodies and representation from relevant Non-
GovernmentalOrganisations.
7.3.9 For the avoidance of any doubt, one body with evidence pertinent to
considerationoftraffickingcasesisUKVisasandImmigration.Weconsider
itmustbeamemberofthemulti-disciplinarypanels incaseswhere ithasa
valuableroletoplayinprovidingevidenceofimmigrationhistoryandpatterns
ofbehaviourthatcould,whererelevant, informatraffickingconsiderationfor
non-Britishcitzens.
7.3.10 Theadviceandanystrategicfeedbackcanbesharedwithlocalsafeguarding
boardsandmulti-agencysafeguardinghubsasappropriate.
7.4 Recommendations
7.4.1 A process of conclusive identification of trafficking victims through regional
multi-disciplinary panels should be tested with a view to ceasing the sole
decision-making roles of UK Visas and Immigration and the UK Human
TraffickingCentre.
7.4.2 Multi-disciplinary panels: a multi-disciplinary decision-making approach is
adoptedwithregionalpanels.
• WerecommendpanelsarechairedindependentlywithchairsappointedbytheSecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartment.ForScotlandandNorthernIrelandweconsiderajointpanelcouldoperatewiththechair’sappointmentbeingmadeinconjunctionwiththoseadministrations.ForWalestheappointmentcouldbemadebytheSecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartmentinconjunctionwiththeWelshAssemblyGovernment.
Co
nclu
sive
Gro
und
s D
ecis
ion
47
• HavingpanelsacrosstheUKthatmeetvirtuallywouldallowforareasofspecialismtodevelopsothatpanelmembersandespeciallychairs,couldwhenrequired,adviseotherpanels.TheAnti-SlaveryCommissionershouldmeetwiththepanelchairsatleasttwiceayear.Werecommendthisapproachistestedinoneortwoareas.
7.4.3 Separation of the traffickingwherethereisanasylumapplicationinaddition
totheNationalReferralMechanismreferralthesearenotconsideredtogether
orbythesameperson.
7.4.4 Service Providers and Panels:supportprovidersshouldprovideinformation
torelevantpanels.
7.4.5 Quality assurance:whereareviewisrequestedanotherpanelchairwillactas
a‘secondpairofeyes’31.
31 Legal advice is that a route of challenge for procedural failings could be an administrative one, allowing for consideration of whether the panel had followed due process rather than reconsideration of the decision itself and this requirement could be fulfilled through the ability for a decision to be administratively reviewed or by way of judicial review if necessary
Co
nclusive Gro
unds D
ecision
48
8.1 Issues
8.1.1 TheNationalReferralMechanismismanagedandfundedbytheHomeOffice.
Theresponsibility for theappointmentofFirstResponderscurrently lieswith
theModernSlaveryUnit through theNationalReferralMechanismoversight
group.Twomainbodiesareresponsibleforcaseworkanddecision-making-
UKVisasandImmigration(partoftheHomeOffice)andUKHumanTrafficking
Centre(partoftheNationalCrimeAgency).SupportserviceswithinEngland
andWalesareprovidedviaacontractlet,atpresent,totheSalvationArmy.
8.1.2 ThestructureoftheUKVisasandImmigrationhandlingofreferralswaschanged
during2013withthecreationofacentralhubwhichnowhandlesthemajorityof
NationalReferralMechanismcasescomingtoUKVisasandImmigration,with
afewexceptionsoftheCriminalCaseDirectorate,DetainedFastTrack(asylum
process)andThirdCountryUnit(asylumapplicationswheretheapplicationfalls
tobeconsideredbyanothercountrynottheUK).
8.1.3 The devolved administrations’ case work is undertaken under the same
arrangements as those for England and Wales but Scotland and Northern
Irelandlet,fundandmanagesupportservicesseparately.
8.2 Findings
8.2.1 The governance of the current system is fragmented and lacking an overall
performanceframework. Ithasevolvedsincethesystem’s implementation in
2009and,whilstimproved,cannotbedescribedasefficientoreffective.
8.2.2 There is insufficient accountability for the outcomes of the process or
the appropriate management of the process itself. This includes a lack of
accountabilityfor:
• ensuringthevictim’sneedsaremet
• themanagementoftimescalestominimiseunnecessarycosts
• thequalityofreferralsintothesystem
Go
vern
ance
8. Governance
49
• thequalityofdecision-making
• thequalityandprofessionalismofservicesprovided
• thedevelopmentandmanagementofaperformancemanagementframework
• thegatheringofintelligence
• thecollaborationwithothersstakeholdersacrossthesystem
• understandingtheoutcomeforavictim
8.2.3 TheReviewhasheardtheviewsofthemanyvoluntaryorganisationsthatwork
withvictimsoftrafficking.Theirviewsonthegovernancearrangementsforthe
NationalReferralMechanismcanbesummarisedasfollows:
8.2.4 Independence: a majority press for the removal of responsibility for the
NationalReferralMechanismfromtheHomeOfficeandtheestablishmentofan
independentbodyoutsideofUKVisasandImmigrationandthePolice.
8.2.5 Multi-disciplinary approach:amulti-disciplinaryapproachtodecision-making
thatincludestheNon-GovernmentalOrganisationsworkingwithinthearea.
8.2.6 Statute: a desire to place the National Referral Mechanism on a statutory
footing.
8.2.7 Appeal: providing a right of appeal to challenge those decisions which are
believedtobewronglymade.
8.2.8 It isclear from thewideranalysisofstakeholdersandourownobservations
thatthecurrentsystemisinneedofasingleaccountabilityandmanagement
structurethatwillsupportanoverallimprovementinthesystemwhilstallowing
forlocalinput.
8.2.9 It isvitalthatanysystemisproperlymanagedsothatcasesarenotdelayed
unduly.Thetimelinessofdecision-makinghasbeendiscussedat7.2.2.Clearly
any effective process needs tight performance management with agreed
outcomes.WebelievethatthemanagementoftheNationalReferralMechanism
should includeanescalationprocesswhich seesall casesbeing referredat
agreeddecisionpointsifthecasehasnotreachedtheexpectedstage.
8.2.10 Therearesignificantdependenciesbetweenorganisationsthatareinvolvedin
theidentificationandsupportofvictimsbutweweresaddenedtonotethereis
someantagonismbetweentheorganisationsinvolvedintheworkofsupporting
traffickedpeople.Thisisnotinthebestinterestofvictims.Someexamplesof
Go
vernance
50
thishaveincludedasupportprovidertellingusoftheirreluctancetogivefurther
informationforfearofitbeingdenigratedbyUKVisasandImmigration.Equally
UK Visas and Immigration andUKHuman TraffickingCentre have reported
profound difficulties in obtaining information about potential victims from
keyserviceproviders.Thisisunacceptableandwemakerecommendations
relatingtothisbelow(see9.4.4).
8.2.11 Any changes to the current Governancemodel need to be victim focused.
Differences between stakeholders should be put aside in the interest of
supportingextremelyvulnerablepeopleandprovidingthemnotonlywithsafety
andsecurity,butalsowithasystemwhereallpartiesworktogether.
“The Panel recommends that the Modern Slavery Bill include a provision for an appeal or review mechanism against an NRM decision. It is appreciated by the Panel that a full appeal procedure may be cost-prohibitive. But at the very minimum the Panel would hope for the establishment of an independent person (who is experienced in the field of modern slavery) or body outside of the decision-making Competent Authorities who, in the event of an appeal from a refusal, could review the decision.”
Establishing Britain as a world leader in the fight against modern slavery: Report of the Modern SlaveryBill Evidence Review
8.2.12 There isawidelyheldbelief that theonlywaytomaketheNationalReferral
Mechanismworkeffectivelyisforittobeputonastatutoryfootingwitharight
ofappealeffectivelyproscribinganadversarialsystemwhich is laiddown in
lawandcanbechallenged througha legalprocess. Thoseadvocating this
systemconsiderthatitwouldbeeasiertoholdGovernmenttoaccountonthat
basis.
8.2.13 Theprovisionswithin thealternativeModernSlaveryBill put forwardby the
Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group32 are concerned firstly with placing the
CouncilofEuropeConventiononActionagainstTraffickinginHumanBeings
intostatute.Theyfocusonpublicauthoritieshavingadutytoidentifyvictimsof
humantraffickingandprovidingthemwithassistanceandsupport;andforthe
SecretaryofStatetoprovideguidancetospecifythestepspublicauthorities
musttake.Secondly,fortheSecretaryofStatetospecifytheprocedurestobe
followedtoimplementtheNationalReferralMechanismandtheproceduresto
beappliedbytheNationalReferralMechanismincludingtogiveeffecttothe
righttoarenewableresidencepermit.’
32 http://www.antislavery.org/includes/documents/cm_docs/2014/a/atmg_modern_slavery_human_trafficking_and_human_exploitation_bill.pdf
Go
vern
ance
51
8.2.14 Thisapproach,inpart,issuggestedasaremedytoanexistingandsomewhat
flawed system. The question also exists of how tomake organisations co-
operate effectively andwe believe strongly that to put theNational Referral
Mechanismonastatutoryfootingnowwouldnotguaranteethis.Further,itis
worthnotingthattheexistingModernSlaveryBillincludesadutyontheHome
Secretarytoissueguidanceaboutindicatorsoftrafficking,victimidentification
andarrangementsforassistanceandsupporttovictimswhichgoessomeway
toaddressingtheseconcernswhilstprovidingmuchneededflexibility.
8.2.15 Simply putting the Council of European Convention on Action against
TraffickinginHumanBeingsintostatutewillnotchangetheUK’scommitment
and obligations to abide by the trafficking convention or methodology with
whichitisimplemented.Anyprocessputonastatutoryfootingcanbecome
inflexibleandunresponsivetochangingdemandsandindeedimprovements,
duetotherequirementtofurtherlegislatebeforemakingchanges.Pinningthe
NationalReferralMechanismdownnowwouldnotbeaneffectivemethodology
particularlywhentheNationalReferralMechanismisgoingthroughaperiodof
significantchange.
8.2.16 Arightofappealisseenasgivingarighttothevictimtochallengeanydecision
madeandis,inpart,beingcalledforbecauseofthehighnumberofnegative
decisionsfornon-EEAvictimsandtheperceivedconflationwithasylumclaims.
However,we are proposing a different decision-making processwith a high
levelofindependentscrutinyandmulti-disciplinarydecision-making.
8.3 Options
8.3.1 AlthoughthereismuchsupportforplacingtheNationalReferralMechanismon
astatutoryfootingorprovidingarightofappeal,thesemaynotbenecessary
ifwehaveawellgovernedNationalReferralMechanism.Amulti-disciplinary,
decision-making panel in which local representatives take responsibility for
thedecisions,should reduce theneed forchallenge. Inadditionputting the
NationalReferralMechanismonastatutoryfootingwouldenshrineaprocess
whichisevolving.
8.3.2 ConsiderationwasgivenastowhethertheNationalReferralMechanismwould
sit best in another Government department. For adults, consideration was
giventowhetherthisprocessfittedbestwithothervictimserviceswithinthe
MinistryofJusticeandforchildrenwithintheDepartmentforEducationorLocal
Authorities. However,webelieve thatwith theworkbeing ledby theHome
OfficeontheModernSlaveryBill,thepotentialtoexpandtheNationalReferral
Go
vernance
52
Mechanism to all victims ofModern Slavery and the key role of the police
and theHomeOfficeasFirstResponders, theNationalReferralMechanism
sits bestwith theHomeOffice. Much of thework aroundModern Slavery
pertains topeoplesubject to immigrationcontrol;and thedevelopmentofa
strong intelligence-led process to prevent, pursue, protect and prepare sits
appropriatelyintheHomeOffice.
8.3.3 WeconsideredthebestoptiontoensureendtoendgovernanceoftheNational
ReferralMechanism to be a casemanagement unitwithin theHomeOffice
wherethecasemanagersundertakethemanagementofallcasesthroughout
their lifecycle. This should include the receipt of the referral form, risk
assessments,thegatheringofdatafromotheragencies,supportprovidersand
victimsandtheliaisonandco-ordinationwithallpartiesdealingwithavictim.
Thisunitwouldalsoprovideadministrativeandsecretarialsupporttothemulti-
disciplinarypanelsandstrongsupportforthedevolvedadministrations.
8.4 Recommendations
8.4.1 Asinglemanagementprocessfortraffickingcasesshouldbeputinplaceand
accountabilityforthissystemshouldlaywiththeHomeOffice.
8.4.2 Accountability for the end to end system:astrongergovernanceframework
headed by the Home Office is required. This framework should contain a
definitionofclearaccountabilitiesandresponsibilitiesforallbodiesinvolvedin
theNationalReferralMechanism.
8.4.3 A single case management unit:werecommendthecreationofasinglecase
managementunit, locatedinthemostappropriateHomeOfficeDepartment,
withasmall investment inacasemanagementsystem thatwill support the
managementofcasethroughitscompletelifecycle.
8.4.4 Performance management: the development of a performance framework
withasetofsimpleperformanceindicatorsforthemanagementofcasesto
ensureidentificationiscompletedwithinthe45daytimescalesorescalatedif
morecomplex,andagainstwhichwecanmeasuretheefficiencyoftheprocess
andtheoutcomesitachievesforvictims.
Go
vern
ance
53
Go
vernance
54
9.1 Issues
9.1.1 ThereisnoonesystemusedtorecorddataassociatedwiththeNationalReferral
Mechanism.Thedataiscollectedfromanumberofsourcesandiscollatedon
spreadsheetsheldsecurelybyUKHumanTraffickingCentreandUKVisasand
Immigration.
9.1.2 The spreadsheet used by UK Human Trafficking Centre, which is themain
collatorofinformationhas,liketheoverallsystem,grownorganicallyovertime
asrequirementsevolvedformanagementinformation.Whilstthestaffworking
inbothareasareconscientiousandcommittedtomanagingthe information
appropriately,thetoolsavailablefallfarshortofwhatisrequired.
9.1.3 There are few established data-sharing protocols between the stakeholders
involvedinthesystem.
9.2 Findings
9.2.1 Thecurrentdatacollectingandcollatingprovisiondoesnotsupporteffective
identificationofvictims,assistwithprosecutionsand/orsupporttheproduction
ofmeaningfulmanagement informationonhow theprocess isworking from
endtotheend.Whatdoesexistisdifficulttomanageandunreliable.Weheard
fromstaffthattheinformationsystemsintheUKHumanTraffickingCentreare
oftenslowandhardtouse.
9.2.2 Thedatacollectedprovidesverylittleofthestrategicorintelligenceanalysis
wewouldexpect fromacomprehensivelymanagedsystemwitheffective IT
tosupportit.AsaresulttheReviewhasfounditdifficulttoobtainanswersto
somefundamentalquestionsincluding:
• thetimescalestakenforvictimstoprogressthrougheachstageoftheprocess
• thelocationsatwhichvictimspresent
• thelocationsofoffences
• thepercentageofvictimsfoundinsitu
Dat
a an
d In
telli
gen
ce
9. Data and Intelligence
55
• thereasonsfordelayswithintheNationalReferralMechanism
• thenumbersofpotentialvictimsidentifiedbutunwillingtoentertheNationalReferralMechanism
• theoutcomesforvictimswhogothroughtheNationalReferralMechanism,forexampleaccesstosupportandthepercentageofvictimswhoreturntotheircountryoforigin.
9.2.3 ThereisawealthofpotentialinformationwhichalreadyexistswithintheNational
ReferralMechanismbutwhichisnotsystematicallyprocessedoroverseenata
singlepoint.Manyworkingwithinthesystemtoprovidesupportandservices
tovictimsdonotknowwheretogowithimportantinformation.
9.2.4 We have heard a support provider say she had heard the same story from
severalvictimsaboutamanwhowas regularlybringing threegirlsata time
througharegionalairportbuttheproviderdidnotknowwhomtoinform.
9.2.5 Data, including circumstances about first encounter, the evidence collated
from interviewswith victims and information given to safe houseworkers is
notsystematicallycollectedandcollatedwithinasinglesystemfromwhichit
canbeanalysed.WehaveheardthatsomePoliceServicesrecordincidents
oftraffickingwithinthecrimereportingsystembutthistooisnotaconsistent
practiceacrosstheUK.
9.2.6 InCambridgeshire,thepoliceworkcloselywitharangeoforganisations(see
4.2.4.above). Howeverwehaveheardofnowhereelseusing thisapproach
toproactively identify thosewhomaybevictimsofhumantraffickingandto
prosecutetheperpetrators.
9.2.7 Denmark has a system to identify perpetrators and to investigate them for
thosecrimeswhereevidencecanbegatheredandwhichisnotreliantonthe
victimbeingpreparedtobeaprosecutionwitness.Perpetratorsofthecrime
of traffickingmayalsobe involved inavarietyofcrimes includingfraudulent
claimingofbenefits,moneylaundering,taxevasionandimmigrationcrimeand
thesecrimescanbeinvestigatedwithouttheneedforthevictimtotestify.
9.2.8 TheReviewhasbeenmade aware of the struggles to obtain and share the
information required from organisations who should be working together;
concernsexistoverownershipandsharingdataduetothepersonalnatureof
theinformation.
9.2.9 Those involved in decision-making report that a great deal of time is spent
chasing information. UK Visas and Immigration have said that “…themain
Data and
Intelligence
56
thing thataffectsourability tomakedecisionswithin90days iswaiting for
thirdpartyinformation(medicalandpoliceusually)….”.Serviceprovidersand
Non-Governmental Organisations have reported that they have problems in
identifyingwhoisdealingwithcaseswithinUKVisasandImmigrationandthe
police, and that that theyarenot routinely asked for information to support
decision-making.
9.2.10 ThevariousorganisationsinvolvedintheNationalReferralMechanismprocess
appearreluctanttotrustoneanother.SomeNon-GovernmentalOrganisations
havesaid that theyare reluctant togive further information toUKVisasand
Immigrationfor“fearofitbeingdenigrated.”Somesupportprovidersadmitthat
theyhaveidentifiedindividualsintheNationalReferralMechanismwhotheydo
notbelievetobevictimsoftraffickingbuthavenotsharedthisinformationwith
theHomeOffice.
9.2.11 Thepropersharingof information tobenefitvictimsandcatch thecriminals
behindhuman trafficking is a key responsibility for everyoneworking in this
area;theabsenceofdurabletrustbetweenmanyinvolvedneedstoberesolved.
Thosechargedwiththegovernanceofthoseinvolved,includingcharitytrustees,
policecrimecommissionersandelectedMembersinlocalauthorities,should
assurethemselvesthattheirstaffareactivelycooperatinginthisarea.
9.3 Options
9.3.1 Wesawthatthereisonlyabasicsetofdatacollectedatpresent.Information
needstobecollectedinsuchawaythatitcanbeusedforintelligencepurposes
aswellastomanagethesystemefficientlyandtoprovideevidencetoallow
effectiveinterventions.Thisshouldincludethecapacitytocollatedataon:
• thelocationofoffences
• detailsontheidentifier’srole
• organisationandlocationofencounter
• SlaverySafeguardingLead’slocation
• theprimaryandsecondaryexploitationtypes
• wherevictimspresentedandthecircumstanceswherevictimswerefound(e.g.insitu)
• thetotalnumberofpotentialvictimsoftraffickingidentified(irrespectiveoftheirconsenttoreferral)
9.3.2 Moreworkneedstobedonetoensurethatthedataandinformationcollected
isbothappropriateandmeaningful.
Dat
a an
d In
telli
gen
ce
57
9.3.3 Thecurrentsystemforcollatingthisinformationisanineffectivewayofmanaging
thecombinationofdataandcaseworkwiththeabilitytosupportintelligence.It
mightbepossibletobuildontothenewHomeOfficecaseworkingsystem,but
notfortwoyears33.
9.3.4 ACaseTrackingandMonitoringSystem(CTMS)isusedbyInternationalJustice
Mission (IJM), a Non-Governmental Organisation based in Washington DC,
withofficesaroundtheworld,allofwhichfeedinrealtimeindividualdatainto
this system to track andmonitor individual clients through the rescue, legal
andaftercareprogrammes inwhich they are involved. We recommend that
considerationisgiventowhetherthissystemwouldfulfiltherequirements.
9.3.5 OwnershipofthisfunctionneedstositwiththoseadministeringtheNational
ReferralMechanismandasproposedin8.4.3withthecasemanagementunit
withintheHomeOffice.
9.3.6 There is a need for clear and active co-operation with victims even if an
individualwitnessdoesnotleadtoaprosecution.Informationgatheredduring
theidentificationprocessneedstobesystematicallyreferredtoanintelligence
function. This function currently sits with the National Crime Agency and
ImmigrationEnforcement34intheHomeOffice.
9.3.7 Wehaveheardfrommanysourcesthatanoverallintelligencepicturegatheredin
relationtobothadultsandchildrenispatchy.WhilstthePoliceRegionaloffices
and theRegionalOrganisationCrimeUnitshavea responsibility forcollating
theregionalintelligencepictureandtheNationalCrimeAgencyhasadutyto
performawidercriminalintelligencefunctionthisworkisstillinembryonicform.
WespoketoDirectorsofChildren’sServiceswhohadrarelyhadanyintelligence
tohelp themplan interventionswithother agencies in relation to trafficking.
Wesawlittlecoordinatedintelligence-gatheringupstreamanddownstreamin
relationtoUKVisasandImmigration’sinternationaloperations.
9.3.8 Anintelligencehubforhumantraffickingwhichiswellconnectedandproductive
inpreventingcrimeandpursuingandsupportingprosecutionsisneededand
secondedintelligencestaffembeddedwiththecaseworkteammentionedat
8.4.3.
33 Due to on-going work to upgrade other existing systems34 Immigration Enforcement has located intelligence staff in the UK Visas and Immigration national hub to collect intelligence
Data and
Intelligence
58
9.3.9 Therearethreeoptionsforwherethisintelligenceunitcouldsit:
• NationalCrimeAgency–heretheinformationcouldlinkintotheorganisedcrimepictureandcancoverBritish,EEA,non-EEAnationals.TheNationalCrimeAgencyhasawiderangingremitintermsofthenationalityofvictimsandperpetratorsbutisconstrainedbyitsremittoinvestigateorganisedcrime.
• ImmigrationEnforcementcrimedirectorate–hasthepowerstodealwithcriminalsrelatingtononEEAvictimsandhasstronglinkstotheregionalairlineofficernetworkforoverseasdisruption.TherearesignificantadvantagestoImmigrationEnforcementtakingthisworkasithastheabilitytoinvestigateandprosecute,butitislimitedbynotcoveringcaseswherethevictimandperpetratorsareBritishorEEAnationals.
• Thecasemanagementunit(8.4.3above)–withembeddedsecondedintelligencestaff,includinganalysts,thecasemanagementunitcouldcollateandproduceintelligencereportswhicharetaskedouttothepoliceorenforcement.
9.3.10 Wethinkthatfurtherworkshouldbedonetodefinetheremitofanintelligence
functionandwhetheranexistingfunctioncouldfulfilthisroleortoidentifywho
isbestplacedtoownthisfunction.
9.4 Recommendations
9.4.1 The collection and collation of datamust be improved in order to facilitate
theprogressionofcases,themanagementofthesystemandtocontributeto
intelligencewherepossible.
9.4.2 Data collection capability:asmallinvestmenttobemadeinITtosupportthe
humantraffickingreferralmechanismandtomanagedatainsuchawaythatit
canbeusedtosupportintelligencegathering.
9.4.3 Appropriate management information: the collection and production of
management information that supports management of the process (e.g.
timescales),researchonoutcomes,andsupportscomprehensiveintelligence
gathering.
9.4.4 Data Sharing Protocols: toput inplacedatasharingprotocolswhichallow
andencouragesystematicsharingofinformationinthevictim’sbestinterests.
These must include all stakeholders involved in the system e.g. agencies,
serviceproviders,immigrationenforcementandpolice.
9.4.5 Co-operation between organisations: those chargedwith the governance
ofthoseworkinginareaswherehumantraffickingmaybeidentified,including
charity trustees, police crime commissioners and electedMembers in local
Dat
a an
d In
telli
gen
ce
59
authoritiesshouldassurethemselvesthattheirstaffareactivelyco-operating
andsharingdataappropriately.
9.4.6 Intelligence function: furtherworktakesplace,withinthenext6months,to
scope the intelligence function and identify where it should be located and
intelligencestaffareembeddedinthecasemanagementunit.
Data and
Intelligence
60
Chi
ldre
n an
d t
he N
atio
nal R
efer
ral M
echa
nism
61
Please note that in this report the word child will be used to refer to children and young people under the age of 18
10.1 Children “as is” process
10.2 Issues
10.2.1 In201322%ofreferrals intotheNationalReferralMechanismwerechildren.
Currently the National Referral Mechanism process for children mirrors the
system for adults and has many similar challenges. There are some key
differences:
• ChildrendonotneedtogiveconsenttoentertheNationalReferralMechanism
• WhereachildenterstheUKunaccompaniedthelocalauthority35wheretheyareidentifiedwillbeprimarilyresponsiblefortheircare,asalooked-afterchild
• WherechildrenarefromtheUKthelocalauthority36intheareawheretheirneedsareidentifiedwillbeprimarilyresponsibleforputtinginplace
35 In Northern Ireland the Health and Social Care Trust in the area in which the child resides is responsible for their care. In Scotland children’s services plans are drawn up jointly by LA’s and health boards.36 As above in Northern Ireland the Health and Social Care Trust in the area in which the child resides is responsible for their care. In Scotland children’s services plans are drawn up jointly by LA’s and health boards.
Child
ren and the N
ational R
eferral Mechanism
10. Children and the National Referral Mechanism
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)
Home Office(40% cases)
Police(20% cases)
Reasonable grounds Exit
Local Authority(34% cases)
Referral
Non Governmental Organisation
(6% cases)
UK Visas and Immigration(Non EEA)
Reasonable grounds
UK Human Trafficking Centre (UK, EU & EEA)
Conclusivegrounds
UK Visas and Immigration(Non EEA)
Conclusivegrounds Exit
Ongoing support through local authority
62
arrangementstosafeguardthemandpromotetheirwelfare.
Crucially, children are vulnerable to exploitation and we owe a particular
responsiblytoensuringtheireffectiveprotection.
10.2.2 Aswithadults thereare threemaingroupsofvictims, those fromwithin the
UK,thosefromwithintheEEA(29%)andthosechildrenfromoutsidetheEEA
(54%).ChildrenfromoutsidetheUKmayhavebeentraffickedintothecountry
andmay have already suffered trauma in their home countries before their
arrival.ChildrenfromoutsidetheEEAmaybewithoutaconfirmedimmigration
statusandmanyalsohaveanasylumclaimintrain.
10.2.3 It is unacceptable, but tragically true, that UK children may not always be
identifiedas traffickedas the term isoftenassociatedwith thosewhohave
beentraffickedinto,ratherthanaround,theUK.Evenwithlowidentificationof
thisgroup,17%ofthechildrenintheNationalReferralMechanismarefromthe
UK.Theproblemofinternaltraffickinghasbeenhighlightedbycasessuchas
Rotherhamwherelargenumbersofchildrenwereexploitedoveranumberof
years‘bymultipleperpetrators,traffickedtoothertownsandcitiesintheNorth
ofEngland,abducted,beatenandintimidated’.37
10.2.4 ChildrenarereferredintothesystembyaFirstResponder.Aswithadultsthe
FirstRespondergroupiswideandchildrenmaybeidentifiedbyBorderForce
staff,byaNon-GovernmentalOrganisation,bythepoliceorasocialworker,
orperhapswhentheyareclaimingasylum.TheircasesareconsideredbyUK
VisasandImmigrationorUKHumanTraffickingCentrewhomakedecisionson
non-EEAorUK/EEAnationalsrespectively.
10.2.5 Theadultsupportcontractdoesnotcoverchildren;rathertheyaresupported
through mainstream child care provision administered by Local Authorities.
Manyorganisationshavetoldusthatthe45dayreflectionandrecoveryperiod
designated foradultsdoesnothaveanymeaning forchildren, as theLocal
Authorityshouldsupportthembefore,duringandfollowingtheprocess.Support
forchildrenwhohaveexperiencedtraffickingwillrelyontheresponsiblelocal
authoritycompletingathoroughassessmentofthechild’sneedstoinformthe
actionsneededtoprotectthechild.
10.2.6 ThedescriptionofchildprotectionprocessesrelatetoEnglandandWales,there
willbesomedifferencesinthechildprotectionresponsibilitiesandprocesses
differacrosstheUK,howevertheprinciplesremainbroadlysimilar.
37 Independent Enquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997-2013, Alexis Jay OBE.
Chi
ldre
n an
d t
he N
atio
nal R
efer
ral M
echa
nism
63
10.3 Findings
10.3.1 It has been estimated that only a small proportion of the real number of
traffickedchildrenarebeingidentifiedduetolowawarenesstheindicatorsof
child trafficking and of theNational ReferralMechanism by local authorities
andwithin the police.38 ,39 Socialworkers employed in local authority child
protectionservicesmaynothaveaspecificawarenessofhuman trafficking.
Local Authorities40 will need to determine how their staff are trained and
supervisedtorespondtothisissue,includingunderstandingthefunctionofthe
NRM41.Inaddition,localauthoritiesmaynotseethebenefitofreferraltothe
NRMifchildrenarealreadyinreceiptoflocalauthoritycare.
10.3.2 Wehaveheardfrommanycampaigningorganisationsthatinthepast,children
whowereidentifiedincriminalactivitysuchascannabisgrowingwerelikelyto
bearrestedandprosecutedratherthanidentifiedasvictims.42 Awarenessof
howchildrenareusedbycriminalsisincreasing.However,therearestillserious
concernsthatthesevictimsaremorelikelytobeseenascriminalsbythepolice.
It is essential that police and the local authorities’ youth offending services
recognise these youngpeople as children in needof protection, rather than
asoffenders,andinvolvechildren’sservicesassoonaspossibleinidentifying
solutionsforprovidingthemwithcareandsupport.
10.3.3 TheDepartmentforEducationissuedrevisedstatutoryguidanceontheCare
of unaccompanied and trafficked children in July 2014,43,44which includesa
requirementforsocialworkers,orotherfrontlineprofessionals,torefercases
to theNational ReferralMechanismwhere there are reasonable grounds for
believingchildrenhavebeentrafficked.
10.3.4 Although there aremanyexcellent anddedicatedFirstResponderswhowill
identify victims and ensure they offer appropriate support, there are many
morethatdonothaveadequatetrainingandexpertise.Wehaveseenseveral
examplesofpotentialchildvictimsoftraffickingwhohavecrossedthepathsof
38 CFAB - this is based on awareness levels on training courses they have run with around 75 Local Authorities where less than 10% of social workers (on average) would have heard of the National Referral Mechanism.39 Many Local Authorities will acknowledge that awareness of the National Referral Mechanism is low -.ACDCS40 In NI the Health & Social Care Board has provided training for Trust staff in relation to trafficked children and age assessment.41 In Scotland, the Child Protection Committees lead on the development, publication and implementation of interagency guidance and procedures for child protection, including trafficking issues.42 Case studies discussed at meetings with Refuge and Refugee Council; and with the Poppy project43 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330787/Care_of_unaccompanied_and_trafficked_children.pdf44 The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the PSNI issued “Working Arrangements for the Welfare and Safeguarding of Child Victims /Suspected Victims of Human Trafficking in February 2011. In Scotland, the position is set out in Scottish Government “ Inter-Agency Guidance For Child Trafficking - Child Trafficking Assessment National Referral Mechanism” November 2013 and the National Guidance on Child Protection in Scotland 2014.
Child
ren and the N
ational R
eferral Mechanism
64
severalFirstResponderswithouttheindicatorsoftraffickingbeingidentifiedand
thoseyoungpeoplearenotthenreferredintotheNationalReferralMechanism.
Chi
ldre
n an
d t
he N
atio
nal R
efer
ral M
echa
nism
65
10.3.5 Oneexamplewasofa15yearoldgirl,exploitedbothonthewaytotheUKand
withintheUK,whowasseenbysocialservices,asylumservicesandthepolice
beforeindicatorswerepickedupbyhercarer.45AnotherexamplewasofaUK
child46,whorepeatedlywentmissingandsufferedtraffickingandexploitation.
Herbehaviourwasdescribedbyonekeyworkeras‘alifestylechoice’.
10.3.6 Humantrafficking isnotonthecurriculumforsocialworkqualifications,and
training and awareness is varied and patchy for front line staff. Hillingdon
SocialServiceshave,becauseofHeathrowAirport,agreatdealofexperience
withtraffickedchildrenandthereforearewelltrainedinspottingtheindicators,
but this awareness varies from area to area. The review identified variable,
inconsistentpracticeby local authority children’s services. Local authorities
arelegallyresponsibleforsafeguardingandpromotingthewelfareofallchildren
in their areas. Therefore, whichever local authority is responsible, trafficked
children,likeadults,shouldbeofferedanassessmentoftheirneeds,leadingto
aneffectiveplantoprovidethemwithcareandsupport.
10.3.7 Concerns have been expressed by several organisations47 that indicators of
trafficking are not always picked up and therefore appropriate safeguarding
measureshavenotbeenputinplace.Guidance48hasbeenproducedbutitis
clearthatmoreneedstobedonetoensurethatthesevulnerablechildrenare
protected.
10.3.8 Theriskofachildgoingmissingishigh,particularlyinthefirst48hoursofachild
comingintocare49.Itisestimatedthat60percentoftraffickedchildreninlocal
authoritycaregomissing.50In2013,8%ofchildren’scaseswere‘suspended’
fromtheNationalReferralMechanism;thisislikelytobebecausethechildwas
missingfromcareduringtheprogressionoftheircase.Ifachildgoesmissing
itmaybeverydifficulttoidentifythemifandwhentheyreappear.
10.3.9 Wehaveheardfrommanysources,seriousconcernaboutchildrengoingmissing
fromcareandwearedeeplytroubledaboutthis.Manyotherpublishedreports
havesimilarlyexpressedconcerns. Guidance isexplicit about the reporting
andactionrequiredbutweseelittleevidenceoftangibleimprovements.
45 Case study from Refugee council.46 Anonymously given by police47 ASU, NWG Network, NSPCC, BAOBAB48 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330787/Care_of_unaccompanied_and_trafficked_children.pdf49 Office of the Children’s Commissioner50 House of Commons, Home Affairs Committee (2009) The Trade in Human Beings: Human Trafficking in the UK, Sixth Report of Session 2008–09, Volume 1, London: House of Commons
Child
ren and the N
ational R
eferral Mechanism
66
10.3.10 Frequentabsencesmayalsobeanindicatorthatthechildhasbeentrafficked
andwehaveheardmanychildrenareunderimmensepressuretoreturntotheir
traffickersbecauseofthreatsandcoercion.Theymaybelievethattheyortheir
familiesaredanger;theymayhavebeenexploitedthroughtheuseof jujuor
witchcraftortheymaybeemotionallymanipulated.
“We understand why children go missing from care – it is not surprising given the coercion techniques used by their traffickers. We should look at the children who remain in care and look at the types of cases, the settings they are placed in to see what is working” (NWG Network).
10.3.11 Wehaveheardthatthereissparsespecialisedmentalhealthprovisionforchild
victimsof trafficking andwaiting lists are long. A recent report -Child and
Adolescent Mental Health Services Benchmarking Report (December 2013)
shows that waiting times have been increasing in recent years. Trafficked
childrenareoftenvictimsofemotionaltrauma,manipulation,sexualexploitation
andabuse.Specialisedservicesareanimportantcomponentinrecovery.
10.3.12 Wealsoheardandappreciatethatwaitingalongtimeforadecisionontheir
traffickingcasehasanimpactonchildren’semotionalwell-beingduetostress
andthefearofnotbeingbelieved.Weappreciatetheimportanceofallowing
abusedchildrentotelloftheirexperiencesintheirowntimetoatrustedadult
withwhomtheyhavebuiltarelationship.
10.3.13 The long term impact of exploitation and abuse on children cannot be
underestimatedanditisvitalthatappropriatesupportisavailabletothem.As
statedintheRotherhamreport‘Theimpactofsexualexploitationonthelivesof
youngvictimshasbeenabsolutelydevastating,notjustwhentheywerebeing
abused,butformanyyearsafterwards.’51
10.3.14 The area of decision-making has provokedmuch debate. The issue of the
conflationwithasylumdecisions,timeframes,thecomplexityofthesystemand
thethresholdsfordecision-makingarealladdressedearlierinthereport(7.4).
10.3.15 Thereareadditionalconcernsforchildvictimsoftrafficking;forexamplechildren
mayhavemorechallengeswiththetellingoftheirexperiences.Theymaybe
unabletotalkabouttheexperiencesuntiltheyhaveestablishedarelationship
oftrustwithanadult.52Ithasbeenstatedbyseveralorganisationswithwhom
wehavespoken,thatdecisionmakersshouldhavechildprotectionexpertise53.
51 Independent Enquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997-2013, Alexis Jay OBE. 52 Proposal for a revised National Referral Mechanism for children, The Anti Trafficking Monitoring Group, August 2014. NSPCC report: Breaking the walls of silence, pg 953 This view was widely held at the Workshop on children’s issues in July 2014.
Chi
ldre
n an
d t
he N
atio
nal R
efer
ral M
echa
nism
67
Ithasalsobeensuggestedthatthelanguageofdecisionletterscouldbemade
morechildfriendly54.
10.3.16 Someorganisationshaveexpressedconcerns thatdecisionsarenot always
madeon thebasisof theageof thevictimwhen theywere trafficked. This
isconcerningasifthevictimwasachildatthepointtheyweretraffickedthe
decisionshouldbemadeonthatbasis.
10.3.17 AcrosstheUKthereareestablishedsystemsforchildprotection,withspecific
time linesandprocesses. Ithasbeensuggestedbyseveralagenciesthat it
wouldbesensible toalign theseprocesses to reduce thecomplexityof two
concurrent systems. In addition the child often has to repeat their story to
several people from the various organisations involved in their care, they
might have to speak to a socialworker, police, legal representatives, health
professionals,asylumcaseworkersandsoon.Anythingthatcanbedoneto
reducethisrepetitionwouldbehelpfultothechild55.
10.3.18 Ifachildisconsideredtobeatriskofseriousharm,thereisaspecificprocess
within the local authority of assessment, safeguarding, investigation and
planningforthechildundertheChildrenAct198956.Wherethereareconcerns
thatachildisatriskofseriousharmthelocalauthoritymustconveneaninitial
childprotectionconference.Thisconferencebringstogetherfamilymembers
(andthechildwhereappropriate),withprofessionalstomakedecisionsabout
thechild’sfuturesafety,healthanddevelopment.Theconferencewillresultin
anoutlinechildprotectionplan.
10.3.19 Ifachildisunaccompanied,theywillbecomelookedafterandsocialworkers
areresponsibleforassessingtheirneedsandfordrawingupacareplanwithin
10workingdays.Careplansarereviewedregularlywithallrelevantparties57.
Systems such as these could be used to collect information and evidence
aboutthechild’straffickinginordertoreducethenumberoftimesandpeople
towhomthechildhastodiscloseinformationregardingtheirtrafficking.
54 Discussed at the case working workshop, and at meeting with NWG Network55 NSPCC report: Breaking the walls of silence. http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/findings/breaking_the_wall_of_silence_report_wdf66135.pdf 56 In Northern Ireland the relevant legislation is the Children (NI) Order 1995, in Scotland the relevant legislation is the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.57 After 20 working days, three months and six monthly thereafter. Reviews can be brought forward
Child
ren and the N
ational R
eferral Mechanism
68
10.4 Options
10.4.1 Clearly for children, as for adults, a greater awareness of the indicators of
trafficking, alongside more detailed and specialised knowledge, is essential
for professionals responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of
children.
10.4.2 InEnglandandWaleslocalauthoritiesarelegallyresponsibleforsafeguarding
children in their areas58. It is vital that theseorganisations are awareof the
indicators for trafficked children and how to respond if they identify a child
who may have been trafficked. Local Safeguarding Children Boards59 are
focused on developing strategic responses to local issues. They organise
trainingforfrontlineorganisationsandagreelocalstrategiesonsafeguarding;
theparticipatingorganisationsarethenresponsiblefordeliveringthese.Ithas
beensuggestedbyseveralorganisationsthattheywouldbethemosteffective
bodiesthroughwhichtotargetguidanceontrainingandlocalsupportforthose
affectedby human trafficking. The reviewbelieves that theChairs of Local
SafeguardingChildren’sBoardsshouldhaveasoneoftheirstrategicobjectives,
toensuretraffickingisregularlyconsideredattheirmeetings.
10.4.3 Aswithadults,childrenwillneedvaryinglevelsofsupportdependentontheir
needs.Onesizedoesnotfitall.
10.4.4 Traffickedchildrenwillrequireaccesstoarangeofoptionstoprovidethemwith
accommodation and support, some children may require highly specialised
residentialcarewheretheycanbeofferedtherapeutichelp;othersmaybenefit
frommoremainstreamfostercare;internallytraffickedchildrenmaybenefitfrom
familysupportservices focusedonkeeping themsafeathome. Barnardo’s
wasfundedbytheDepartmentforEducationtorunatwoyearpilotscheme
toprovidesafeaccommodationforsexuallyexploitedandtraffickedchildren.
Whilstthiswasasmallsample,theevaluationhasshownthatwhereplacements
areofferedinlinewiththemodelsuggestedinthefullevaluationreport,sexually
exploitedand/ortraffickedyoungpeoplecanbeprotectedeffectivelyandcan
continuetogoontorecoverfromabuse.60
10.4.5 Severalorganisationshavealsotalkedtousabouttheneedforadurablesolution
forthechildinrelationtotheirrighttoremainintheUK.53%ofchildrenwithin
58 Health and Social care trusts in NI. In Scotland children’s services plans are drawn up jointly by LA’s and health boards.59 In Scotland and Northern Ireland there are equivalent arrangements. 60 http://www.barnardos.org.uk/resources/research_and_publications/evaluation-of-barnardos-safe-accommodation-project-for-sexually-exploited-and-trafficked-young-people/publication-view.jsp?pid=PUB-2340
Chi
ldre
n an
d t
he N
atio
nal R
efer
ral M
echa
nism
69
theNationalReferralMechanismarefromoutsidetheEEA61.Thesechildrenare
oftenunaccompanied,withoutaconfirmedimmigrationstatus.Ingeneral,an
asylumapplicationismadeforanylookedafterchildwhorequiresadecision
on their immigration status althoughwe see no reasonwhy that should be
thecase.Socialworkersandchildren’slegalrepresentativesshouldconsider
whethersuchanapplicationisappropriateandinthechild’slongterminterests.
Ifthechilddoesnotqualifyforasylum,theHomeOfficewillconsiderwhether
tograntleaveuntiltheageof17½.Inpractice,veryfewchildrenarerefused
whatisreferredtoasUASC62leave.Thismayleadtouncertaintyintheshort
termandfurtheranxietyasyoungpeopleapproachtheendoftheirperiodof
temporaryleave.Barnado’sstate‘Ourexperienceisthatsomechildrenmay
returntotheirtraffickersat18asaresultofthisuncertainty.’
10.4.6 Ithasalsobeensuggestedthatmorecouldbedonetoreunitechildrenwith
theirfamilies.CFAB(ChildrenandFamiliesAcrossBorders)statesthatthereis
abetterchanceofreunitingchildrenwiththeirimmediateorextendedfamilyat
anearlystageasthelinksarestillthere–afterseveralyearsitwillbeharderto
findremainingfamilymembers.Weconcurwiththisviewverystrongly:much
moreshouldbedonetore-unitechildrenwiththeirfamilieswhereitissafeto
doso,althoughweunderstandthatthisisrarelystraightforward.Moreshould
bedonewherethat isnotpossible, toworkwithsocialcareagenciesof the
statefromwhichthechildwastrafficked,toensureareturntotheircultureand
countryoforigininatimelymanner.
10.4.7 Somechildrenmaybedealingwithanumberofissuesconcurrentlyinaddition
torecoveringfromtheirtrauma;pursuinganasylumapplication,givingevidence
in respectofcriminalproceedings,or theymayhaveacriminalcaseagainst
them. Several organisations have called for a system of independent child
advocatestoensurethatchildrenareabletoreceiveappropriatesupport.The
Governmentarecurrentlytriallingthisapproachandthereisawelldeveloped
mechanismfundedbytheScottishGovernment.
10.4.8 Ithasbeensuggestedthatabodywithexperienceofsafeguardingwouldbe
better placed to make the trafficking decision, for example a multi-agency
systemwithin theLocalAuthorities (e.g.MASH-MultiAgencySafeguarding
HuborLocalSafeguardingChildrenBoards)63. However, thesearestrategic
andplanningbodiesbringingtogetherarangeofpartnerorganisationswithina
localauthorityarea.Theydonothavelegalaccountabilityforservicedelivery.
61 UASC - unaccompanied asylum seeking child 62 UASC - unaccompanied asylum seeking child63 Proposal for a revised National Referral Mechanism for children, The Anti Trafficking Monitoring Group, August 2014
Child
ren and the N
ational R
eferral Mechanism
70
10.4.9 LocalSafeguardingChildrenBoards (LSCBs)donothaveaccountability for
managingindividualcases.Theymayorganisetrainingforfrontlineorganisations,
andwillagreelocalmulti-agencysafeguardingstrategies.Theycouldbevery
usefulorganisationsforpromotingtrainingandawarenessoftraffickingissues.
Asystemthatmirrorstheadultsystem(describedinsection11.1)wouldwork
wellforchildren.Webelieveitappropriateforoneofthepanels(seesee7.4)to
developexpertiseonchildrenwhohavebeentraffickedandwhocouldadvise
otherpanelsasrequired.
10.4.10 Given that access to support and services for children is not dependent on
referralintotheNationalReferralMechanismtheirreferraldoesnotneedtobe
madeimmediatelybutatanappropriatepointwhenthechildissafeandthe
SlaverySafeguardingLeadhasbeenable tocollect therelevant information.
Childrentelltheirstoriesintheirowntime.Webelieveitappropriatetoalign
thereviewprocessfortheNationalReferralMechanismwiththereviewprocess
built intothechildprotectionsystemsatthreemonths,whichwouldgiveall
thoseworkingwiththechildtimetoinvestigatetheissue.
10.5 Recommendations
10.5.1 TheserecommendationsrelatetoEnglandandWales,theywillneedamending
toreflectthechildprotectionsystems,structures,processesandtimelinesin
ScotlandandNorthernIreland.
10.5.2 TheDepartmentforEducationshouldworkwiththeAssociationofIndependent
LocalSafeguardingChildrenBoardsChairs toensure that theyareawareof
theimportanceoftheidentificationandsupportofchildvictimsofslaveryand
trafficking.ChairsofLocalSafeguardingChildrenBoardsshouldensurethat
traffickingisregularlyconsideredattheirmeetings,anddirecttheBoardmembers
towardsanypackageswhichtheycouldmakeavailabletopersonswhowork
withchildrenaffectedbytraffickingand/orslavery.Seerecommendationson
raisingawarenessinsection4.4.
10.5.3 Local Authorities to be aware of the appropriate support and safeguarding
measures necessary for trafficked children as a result of their additional
vulnerabilities. The issueofmissing children is key and additionalmethods
such asDNAor biometric data collection should be considered, taking into
accountthesensitivityofundertakingsuchapproacheswithchildren.
10.5.4 Those involved insupportingandadvisingchildrentoconsiderverycarefully
whetheritisappropriatetoapplyforpermanentimmigrationstatusandshould
Chi
ldre
n an
d t
he N
atio
nal R
efer
ral M
echa
nism
71
alwaysconsider theoptionofsafely returningchildren to familymembers in
theirhomecountryorthestateauthoritiesfromthatcountry.
10.5.5 Theprocessforchildrenistomirrorthatforadults64.Childprotectionsystem
timelines should be taken into account within the process of referral and
decision-making.Child-friendlylanguageshouldbeusedwhencommunicating
outcomesfrompanels.
64 The process for children should follow the process for adults including:• Referral by a Slavery Safeguarding Lead• Multi-disciplinary panels with child specific expertise• A single case management unit• Asylum and trafficking decisions are made separately
Child
ren and the N
ational R
eferral Mechanism
72
11.1 Proposed system
11.1.1 Given what we have learnt we put forward recommendations to create a
differentprocessfromtheonewhichcurrentlyexistsandtoprovideaprocess
inwhichavictimwillseekeydifferences.
11.1.2 Theproposed system involves trained and accreditedSlaverySafeguarding
Leads,whowill refercases toasinglecasemanagementunit,withamulti-
agencypanelmakingthetraffickingdecisionwithinagreedtimelines.
11.1.3 AdviceandcalculationsfromHomeOfficefinancecolleaguesshowsthatthe
costoftheproposedsystemisnomorethanthecostoftheexistingsystem.
ThistakesintoaccountthecostofrunningUKHumanTraffickingCentre,UK
VisasandImmigrationHubandthecostofthesupportcontract.Theproposed
system takes account of a case management team administering panels
forwhich thepanelchairswillbepaidasmall fee, removing the reasonable
groundsdecision,shorteningtimescalesfordecision-makingandthusthetime
onsupportbutaddingcostforawiderrangeofsupport.
11. Summary and Next Steps
Sum
mar
y an
d N
ext
Ste
ps
Identification Care Decision
Multi-agency panel
Home Office
Police
Evidence gatheringConclusive
grounds decision
NRM Out Reach programme
Integration or Return
Integration or Return
NGO Referral Care and preparation
LA
NCA
GLA
Case management system (NRM)
NRM intelligence function
Yes
No
Local care(Care provider)
Referral decision making (NRM) Post decision activity
Feedback process
Reasonable grounds threshold
Slavery Safeguarding Lead
Child cases supported by local authority
Feedback process:■ Individual cases■ General learning into awareness training
73
11.2 Next steps
11.2.1 An implementation plan should be produced which will show how agreed
recommendationscanbetranslatedintoactionandthestepstoachievingthe
newsystem.Thiswillinclude,ifagreed,testingthedecision-makingpanelsin
oneortwolocationsanddevelopingaprocesstointroduceinthosetestareas,
SlaverySafeguardingLeads.
Acknowledgements
Iwouldliketorecordsomeparticularthanks.Peoplewithinandrunningthethree
devolvedadministrationshavebeenopen,tolerantofourquestionsandrightly
proudoftheirparticularservices.TheSalvationArmy,andespeciallyAnn-Marie
Douglas,hasbeenwillingtoexplain,showandanswerourquestions.Thestaff
attheUKVIcentreinLeedsandcolleaguesattheNCAandUKHTChavebeen
responsive,thoughtfulandwillingthroughout,ashavemanyotherHomeOffice
colleagues and staff from other Government Departments. Parliamentarians
havebeenequallyengagedandhelpfulintestingourthinkingagainstpolitical
realities.StaffatKPMGhavebeenprepared,withoutcost,torolltheirsleeves
up and help us, challenge us, and endorse our work as needed. Price
WaterhouseCoopersofferedus theirLondonboardroom for twoworkshops
forstakeholderswithoutcharge.Everyvoluntarysectororganisationhasbeen
openandchallenging,thoughtfulandconsiderateandtheirengagementwith
ushasbeenverymuchappreciated.
Sum
mary and
Next S
teps
74
Annex A
Organisations and departments engaged in the review
Aberlour
AntiTraffickingMonitoringGroup
AshianaSheffield
AssociationDirectorsofChildren’sServices
AssociationofPoliceandCrimeCommissioners
AsylumAid
BaobabCentre
Barnardo’s
BelfastandLisburnWomen’sAidFederation,NorthernIreland
BirminghamCityCouncil
CambridgeshirePolice
CanadianImmigrationService
CARE
CareQualityCommission
ChildExploitationandOnlineProtection
ChildrenandFamiliesacrossBorders
Children’sSociety
CityHeartsSheffield
Co-ordinatedActionAgainstDomesticAbuse
CounterHumanTraffickingBureau
CrownProsecutionService
CroydonCouncil
CSJworkinggroup
DevonandCornwallPolice
DirectorsofAdultSocialServices
Eaves/PoppyProject
Ann
ex A
75
ECPAT
FLEX–FocusonLabourExploitation
GangmasterLicensingAuthority
GloucestershirePolice
GreaterLondonAuthority
HelenBamberFoundation
Hestia
HillingdonSafeguardingTeam,HillingdonCouncil
HMChiefInspectorofPrisons
HumanTraffickingFoundationAdvisoryForum
ImmigrationLawPracticeAssociation
InternationalOrganisationforMigration
JustEnoughUK
Kalayaan
KentPolice
LondonGovernmentAssociation
MedailleTrust
MetropolitanPolice
MetropolitanPoliceTraffickingUnit
MigrantHelp
NationalCrimeAgency
NHSEngland
NSPCC
NWGNetwork
PalmCoveSociety
RedCross
Refuge
RefugeeCouncil
RoyalCanadianMountedPolice
SalvationArmy
Snowdrop
TARA
Annex A
76
ThamesValleyPolice
ThamesReach
TheChildren’sSociety
UKHumanTraffickingCentre
UNICEF
Unseen
WalkFree
WalthamstowRefugeeSupportPsychologyService
WiltshirePolice
Woman’sAid
WestMidlandsRegionalAnti-TraffickingNetwork
Individuals engaged in the review
AdiCooper–AssociationofDirectorsofAdultSocialServices
AnthonySteen–HumanTraffickingFoundation
BaronessButlerSloss
DavidFord–MinisterforJusticeNorthernIreland
DavidPearson–PresidentofAssociationofDirectorsofAdultSocialServices
JennyMarra–ScottishParliament
JohnVine–ChiefInspector
LordBishopofDerby
LordWarner
LucyMaule–CentreforSocialJustice
RtHonFrankField
RtHonSirJohnRandall
SandieKeane–FormerPresidentofAssociationofDirectorsofAdultSocialServices/LeedsCityCouncil
Shaun Sawyer – ACPO Lead on Human Trafficking and Chief ConstableDevonandCornwall
Individuals engaged in the review in relation to children:
AndrewWebb – FormerPresident Association ofChildren’s Services andDirectorofServicesforPeopleatStockportCouncil
Ann
ex A
77
KeithTowler-Children’sCommissionerforWales
MaggieAtkinson–Children’sCommissionerforEngland
PatriciaLewsey-Mooney–Children’sCommissionerNorthernIreland
ProfessorRaviKohli,ProfessorofChildWelfare,UniversityofBedfordshire
TamBaillie–Scotland’sCommissionerforChildrenandYoungPeople
Individuals engaged in the review in relation to health:
CathyZimmerman–Researcher
CorneliusKatona-Psychiatrist
FionaLothian–SheffieldWomen’sCounsellingandTherapyService
JaneHerlihy–CentrefortheStudyofEmotionandLaw
JeanCumming–ChiefExecutive,CrisisCounselling
NoreenTehrani–Clinicalpsychologist
SianOram–Researcher
Government Departments:
DepartmentforBusinessInnovationandSkills
DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment
DepartmentforEducation
DepartmentofHealth
DepartmentforWorkandPensions
HMRevenueandCustoms
MinistryofJustice
Scotland:
COSLAMigration,PopulationandDiversityGlasgow
PoliceScotland
GlasgowCityCouncil
EHRCScotland
LegalServicesAgencyScotland,WomenandYoungPersons’Department
MigrantHelp
NRMleadUKVisasandImmigrationGlasgow
Annex A
78
ProcuratorFiscaldepute,policydivisionCOPFS,Scotland
ScottishGovernmentCriminalLawandLicensingDivision
ScottishGovernmentJusticeDepartment
ScottishGuardianshipService
TARA,Scotland
Scotland’sCommissionerforChildrenandYoungPeople’soffice
UniversityofStirling
Northern Ireland:
AmnestyInternational,NorthernIreland
BelfastandLisburnWomen’sAid
CARE,NorthernIreland
CrimeReductionBranchCommunitySafetyUnit,NorthernIreland
DepartmentforEmploymentandLearning,NorthernIreland
DepartmentforJusticeHumanTraffickingTeam,NorthernIreland
DepartmentofHealth,SocialServicesandPublicSafety,NorthernIreland
EvangelicalAlliance,NorthernIreland
FreedomActs,NorthernIreland
HealthandSocialCare,NorthernIreland
InvisibleTraffick,NorthernIreland
LawCentreNorthernIreland
MigrantHelp,NorthernIreland
NationalUnionofStudents,NorthernIreland
NorthernIrelandCouncilforEthnicMinorities
NorthernIrelandPrisonService
NSPCC,NorthernIreland
PoliceServiceNI
RegionalAdultSafeguardingOfficer,HealthandSocialCareBoard,NorthernIreland
SouthTyroneEmpowermentProgramme
NorthernIrelandAssemblyCommitteeforJustice
NorthernIrelandCouncilforEthnicMinorities
NorthernIrelandDepartmentofJustice
Ann
ex A
79
Wales:
BAWSO,Wales
ExploitationOfficerSaferWalesLtd
MwenyaChimba-DirectorforViolenceagainstWomen
NewPathways,Wales
GwentPolice
SouthWalesPolice
PartnershipManagerCardiffCouncil
SaferWalesLtd
StephenChapman–WelshGovernmentAnti-SlaveryCoordinator
UKVisasandImmigrationandImmigrationEnforcementWales
WLGA
Intergovernmental Consultation:
Australia-DepartmentofImmigrationandBorderProtection
Denmark-MinistryofJustice
Finland–MinistryoftheInterior,MigrationDepartment
Germany-FederalMinistryoftheInterior
NorwegianMinistryofJusticeandPublicSecurity
Sweden-MinistryofJustice
US–CitizenandImmigrationServices
Home Office Departments:
BorderForce
BorderForce,GatwickMinorsTeam
UKVisasandImmigration,AppealsandLitigationDirectorate
ImmigrationEnforcement
ImmigrationEnforcement,ImmigrationCrime
SafeguardingUnit
ModernSlaveryUnit
OfficeoftheChildren’sChampion
UKVisasandImmigration,AsylumScreeningUnit
UKVisasandImmigration,AVRteam
UKVisasandImmigration,HumanTraffickingHub
Annex A