review of the national referral mechanism for victims of human€¦ · were referred to the...

1

Review of the National Referral Mechanism for victims of human trafficking

November 2014

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.




grounds decision


(42% cases)

Police(25% cases)

Reasonable grounds


Referral





Reasonable grounds


Conclusivegrounds



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




grounds decision


(42% cases)

Police(25% cases)

Reasonable grounds


Referral





Reasonable grounds


Conclusivegrounds



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)


(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




grounds decision


(42% cases)

Police(25% cases)

Reasonable grounds


Referral





Reasonable grounds


Conclusivegrounds



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


Home Office(40% cases)

Police(20% cases)

Reasonable grounds Exit


Referral

Non Governmental Organisation

(6% cases)


Reasonable grounds


Conclusivegrounds



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


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

review of the national referral mechanism for victims of human€¦ · were referred to the...

Documents