The illegal migration bill is a backwards step in efforts to tackle modern slavery

For many months, the government has conflated tackling modern slavery with issues of people-smuggling and immigration. Some of us feel a sense of déjà vu with the new illegal migration bill. We’ve been here before with the Nationality and Borders Act, when modern slavery – which is not an immigration issue – was included in an immigration bill. Yet, once again, human trafficking, people-smuggling and immigration are terms that are being used almost interchangeably. We need to disentangle human trafficking from people-smuggling once and for all and tackle these two different issues separately.

Putting aside for a moment the harm caused by the hostile and toxic narrative that has been established regarding those arriving on small boats, the consequence of conflating these issues is to significantly hinder our ability to effectively protect survivors of slavery and apprehend traffickers. It takes significant bravery for a victim to come forward and share details of their exploitation – let alone provide evidence to police and testify against their trafficker. Survivors may be inhibited by fear and trauma, unable to divulge what has happened to them or to trust the state with those details.

Why would we want to make it more difficult for survivors to come forward and seek help? The bill would allow the Home Office to remove from the UK even those who they have identified as potential victims and those who have been granted leave to remain as a result of being confirmed as victims of trafficking. What incentive does that offer to encourage victims to disclose to the authorities that they have suffered exploitation? The government is effectively handing traffickers another means of controlling their victims. We know that traffickers already use fear to control people – whether that is through threats of violence or by telling their victims that they will be prosecuted or deported if immigration enforcement finds them. With this bill, the government are making the traffickers’ threats real, and traffickers will use that to their advantage. We must not let that happen.

I fear that with this legislation we are taking a backward step in our response to tackling modern slavery in this country. Our understanding of what constitutes exploitation and who can be a victim has improved significantly. Whilst a great deal of work remains to be done, the awareness amongst frontline agencies of how to identify and sensitively support survivors has also improved. This vital work is at risk of being undone if, as this legislation suggests, we treat victims of trafficking as criminals.

An effective response to slavery puts the safeguarding and wellbeing of survivors at its core. Rather than limiting survivors’ rights when they have entered the UK by irregular routes, we should be strengthening their rights and protections, ensuring they receive access to trauma-informed support, legal advice and safe accommodation. Support is vital not only for the individual’s own recovery, but to ensure accountability. I recently met with International Justice Mission (IJM), who shared with me their work tackling slavery around the world. One of the key lessons from their work is the importance of continuity of care in tackling the impunity that enables trafficking to thrive. By working with survivors, helping them to engage with police and prosecutors, IJM have seen the prevalence of exploitation fall in the areas in which they work.

When laws are enforced to protect vulnerable communities from exploitation, an environment is created that is hostile for traffickers. IJM have seen this in their casework involving Romanian nationals trafficked to the UK. By working with survivors to ensure that they have access to support, helping them to work with police and supporting them to give evidence, they have seen traffickers convicted.

I find it astounding that this legislation has been published without an independent anti-slavery commissioner in place to provide effective scrutiny and without consultation with survivors or expert NGOs. I’m quite certain that had the government sought input from any such experts, they would have been strongly advised not to further conflate modern slavery with issues of immigration.