Devastating consequences of the Nationality and Borders Bill

‘I think again the Government ought to bear in mind why so many people who are victims have criminal records. It is perfectly obvious—they are much easier to identify and traffic, children as well as adults. They are the sort of people the traffickers go for because they know they are much less likely to come voluntarily to the public eye. They need protection against having been trafficked just as much as anybody who has a clear record. I implore the Government to think very carefully about this effect on prosecutions and the fact that criminals are very likely to be trafficked people.’  
Baroness Butler-Sloss

If Clause 62 of the Nationality and Borders Bill is allowed to pass in its current form it will have devastating consequences for those who have been subjected to and survived modern slavery. It will also further undermine the UK’s efforts to identify and prosecute the criminals who perpetrate this appalling crime. For a government that genuinely wishes to tackle this crime “it does not make any sense at all” (Lord Dubs). 

This will affect many survivors of trafficking as it includes anyone who has had a sentence of 12 months or more. This includes child victims with custodial sentences and vulnerable individuals who may have committed a crime, while under the control of their trafficker, in fear for their own, or their family’s, safety. 

The bill is currently at the report stage in the House of Lords, where this proposal faced significant, cross party criticism, before returning to the Commons. Please join our call to MPs to #ScrapPart5 of the bill which includes this dangerous clause.

The proposed clause will create a category of survivors of modern slavery who will be denied fundamental protections which enable them to approach authorities for help and to cooperate with a police investigation. Instead, the government will be able to remove this category of survivors from the UK during their crucial recovery and reflection period. 

‘Clause 62 makes victimhood a conditional state. In fact, it sets up a division between worthy and unworthy victims....This would be such a retrograde step. If we are serious about destroying the business model of modern slavery and identifying and prosecuting as many slavers as we can, we must find ways of incentivising and supporting all victims to come forwards.’ 
The Lord Bishop of Bristol

This means that after they have escaped a situation of exploitation and have come forward to seek help and been found to be a potential victim of trafficking, the government wants to be able to remove them from the UK rather than give them a period of time in which they are housed and supported and have an opportunity to reflect and recover from the harm and abuse they have suffered. This category of survivor will also be denied a grant of leave to remain in the UK, irrespective of their suffering or their support needs.

If this clause passes it will lead to the removal of survivors of modern slavery from the UK before they are able to disclose fully what has happened to them and prevent any meaningful engagement with a police investigation or subsequent prosecution. Instead, many may never come forward at all and face further abuse and exploitation. 

Clause 62 is contrary to both the Council of Europe Convention Against Trafficking and the government’s Modern Slavery Act, the purpose of which is to prevent and combat trafficking and modern slavery. It will lead to the reverse: survivors will face further abuse and exploitation and those that abuse them will go free. 

‘The amendments seek to get the right balance between public safety and security, which of course is important, and the rights of individuals who seek safety in this country. I contend that the Government, particularly in Clause 62, have got the balance quite wrong.’
Lord Dubs

Please read our full briefing here.

Aisha’s story

Aisha was a bright promising student who fell into the wrong crowd at school which led her to meet a man, Elion, who was significantly older than her when she was 14 years old. Aisha was groomed and trafficked for sexual exploitation.

She was raped on multiple occasions by Elion and also another man, at Elion's request. He forced Aisha to help him deal drugs, and also got her addicted to crystal meth. Although Aisha made reports to the police, she would then withdraw these. Elion also threatened Aisha and her family, and kidnapped Aisha on one occasion when she did try to leave.

Eventually Aisha  was arrested for supplying class A drugs when she was only 18, she received a four year sentence the next year. While she was serving her prison sentence, she reported Elion to the police and the police investigation leading to his prosecution began. Elion has now been convicted of child grooming, multiple counts of assault and rape. 

It took significant courage for Aisha to give evidence in a lengthy criminal trial, and her evidence in that case will have protected other young girls from harm.

Despite supporting his prosecution of, Aisha was not identified by the UK authorities as a victim of trafficking, instead she was transferred to an immigration removal centre for deportation due to criminal conviction.

Aisha should never have been convicted for the offence of supplying drugs, given the extent of her own exploitation. Signs that she was a victim of trafficking had been clear to the local authorities, the police, the prison, the CPS, the Home Office and Aisha's solicitors before her arrest, during her criminal trial, while she was serving her criminal sentence and during her own deportation proceedings. However, none of these parties helped her to understand that she had the right to be recognised as a victim of trafficking through the NRM. 

Eventually the immigration judge noticed that Aisha should be in the NRM; and she has now been recognised as a victim of trafficking.

Aisha's deportation proceedings are currently on hold because she is in the process of appealing her criminal conviction on the grounds of modern slavery.

Had clause 62 been applied to Aisha:

• She would very likely be deported as she would not be protected from removal by a Reasonable Grounds decision

• She would not have access to a vital outreach support worker who has helped her to receive specialist therapy

• She would not be considered for a grant of limited leave to remain in the UK on the basis of her trafficking status.

Instead, without the effect of Clause 62, Aisha now has:

• The possibility of the deportation order being withdrawn, if she is successful in appealing her only criminal conviction in the UK;

• The possibility of obtaining compensation from the numerous parts of the UK state who failed to identify her and protect her at an earlier stage

• The opportunity to be considered for a grant of leave to remain on the basis of being trafficked.