This timeline maps how the NRM has changed since its inception in 2008. Influencing factors include the implementation of new government policies, legal challenges, and the overall political landscape. Also shown are how these changes have been received by the third sector.
Note that this overview is not exhaustive, as changes to the NRM and access to support as obtained through the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract are frequent.
2008
UK ratifies the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings
Read ECAT here.
ECAT is ratified by all 46 members of the Council of Europe.
The Convention is the first international treaty obliging states to adopt minimum standards to assist trafficked persons and protect their rights. 1
ECAT commits to:
-A human rights based approach
– Establishment of a mechanism
-A comprehensive scope of application2
ECAT 2009
June 2010
Third sector response: general monitoring
Report from ATMG released. Some key issues:
– Concerns that not all potential victims are benefitting due to fear of consequences of referral – not fit for purpose4
-Failure to implement entirety of convention: no watchdog to ensure implementation is occurring5
– Issues with non-punishment, not recognising cannabis cultivators as being victims, immigration offences6
November 2014
Home Office review of the NRM
Recommendations:
1. A tighter, professionally managed entry to the NRM
(This means first responders need to be professionalized and well equipped to bring people in so that they access support and referrals are accurate)
2. Multi disciplinary decision making
(Includes better coordination between bodies, timely decision making, consistent point of contact)
3. Comprehensive oversight of the system
(Better governance framework headed by home office, including performance evaluation and minimum standards)
July 2015
UK’s Modern Slavery Act implemented
The Act receives royal assent on 26 March 2015. The Act introduces some new legislation and consolidates other legislation under the umbrella of the modern slavery act. Some key items:
Part 1: Consolidates modern slavery offences under one act, and sets out penalties and sentencing
Part 4: Establishes the role of the IASC “encourage good practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution
Section 52: Introduces the statutory duty to notify
Section 45: Introduces defence for victims with criminal charges
Part 6: Requires business of a certain size to provide transparency in supply chains
MSA 2015
Third sector response: submitting evidence to parliament
Sector-wide concern about lack of victim support in the act. Government advised that there was not time to include this in the Bill, and that including such a section could jeopardise its passage
As such, government commits to provide statutory guidance on victim support through section 49 of the act (duty of the secretary of state)
October 2016
Third sector response: general monitoring
HTF report highlights lack of long term support which makes it difficult for survivors to move on, and puts them at risk of re-exploitation
2019
Independent Review of the MSA
Raises concerns about long term support, lack of data from people having exited the NRM (p. 19)
MAAPs 2019-2022
Third sector response: 2021 review of MAAPs
February 2021 ATMG Report review of MAAPs finds:
– MAAPs do not adequately assure NRM decision making due to
lack of decision making power
– Poor quality or minimal evidence reaching panels
– Recommends that there is multi-agency involvement in NRM decision making
– Recommends transparency in MAAP recommendations and SCA decisions
November 2019
Reconsideration request policy changed
Following legal challenge, High Court ruling it is unlawful to only allow reconsideration requests to come from certain organisations.
July 2021
Third sector response: government consultations
Results and response of consultation published. Some key issues:
– Concerns over government’s position as undermining the credibility of victims seeking to access the NRM.
– Concerns over lack of trauma-informed policy
-lack of evidence base supporting reasons for changes
(This position paves the way for the Nationality and Borders Act (NABA), later on)
IECA 2021
Third sector response: brief
Detention taskforce publishes briefing. Key concern:
– Creates two tier system for decision making which will discourage people with insecure immigration statuses from coming forward due to concerns about differences in decision making
30 January 2023
Nationality and Borders Act (NABA) enacted
NABA comes into effect, after passing through parliament and receiving royal assent. Introduces changes to the asylum system including separating asylum seekers into 2 groups depending on how they arrived in the UK, and criminalising elements of asylum based on type of entry to UK (Right to Remain brief explainer)
Part V: Modern slavery
NABA section 61
Update minimum recovery period to 30 days (previously 45)
NABA section 63: public order & bad faith disqualifications
If a person is determined to be a threat to “public order” or has claimed to be a VoT in bad faith they are not entitled to protection against removal
Change to Sec. 49 statutory guidance
Evidence threshold for reasonable grounds decision changed to “reasonable grounds to believe, based on objective factors but falling short of conclusive proof,”
NABA 2023
Third sector response: major concerns
Widespread response from MS and refugee sector
HTF explainer on new evidence threshold identifies key issues:
– Prediction of increased rejections
– Delays in decision making
– Difficulty for first responders in advising on referrals when objective evidence is not available
July 2023
High Court rules that aspects of the public order disqualification are unlawful.
High court issues order requiring government to change elements of the public order disqualification
– PoD prevents people with criminal charges from accessing victim protections.
– Further hearings scheduled for later in the year.
20 July 2023
Illegal Migration Act receives royal assent
Following its introduction in March, the IMA is pushed through parliament. The bill intends to deter migration through removing significant protections for anyone arriving irregularly to the UK. Some key features to include:
– Removal of MS protections for anyone arriving to the UK irregularly since 7 March 2023
– Removal of right to claim asylum for people who have irregularly entered, having passed through a country where they did not face persecution
– Grants powers to ministers to determine when certain sections of ECHR apply to certain cases
Illegal Migration Act 2023-present
Third sector response: major concerns
Following the introduction of the legislation in March 2023, the IMA has ignited widespread concerns from the MS and refugee sectors.
– UNHCR warns that the Act will extinguish the right to asylum for vulnerable people without access to safe and legal routes
– Concerns from the MS sector that by removing MS protections, the Act will put people at increased risk of trafficking and exploitation (eg. ASI)
– Pushback on government narrative that there is misuse or widespread fraud within the NRM, citing a lack of evidence (eg. joint briefing)
– Potential violations of international MS obligations law including Article 4 ECHR and ECAT9
- Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/wrong_kind_of_victim_report.pdf?VersionId=uocQOQhE24YGXH3qok_BsaZy7GDt2a6s ↩︎
- Council of Europe https://www.coe.int/en/web/anti-human-trafficking/anti-trafficking-convention#%7B%22243078167%22:[1]%7D ↩︎
- Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/wrong_kind_of_victim_report.pdf?VersionId=uocQOQhE24YGXH3qok_BsaZy7GDt2a6s p. 21 ↩︎ - ATMG p. 7 ↩︎
- ATMG p. 10 ↩︎
- ATMG pp. 10-11 ↩︎
- Salvation Army https://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/modern-slavery/new-victim-care-contract ↩︎
- Free Movement https://freemovement.org.uk/home-office-withdraws-objective-evidence-test-for-trafficking-decisions/ ↩︎
- Joint Briefing p. 40
https://labourexploitation.org/app/uploads/2023/05/Joint-Briefing-Illegal-Migration-Bill.pdf ↩︎