The Nationality and Borders Bill implements the UK government’s “New Plan for Immigration,” a proposed overhaul of the existing asylum system in the United Kingdom. Its stated goals look at making the immigration system “fairer” and more “efficient,” whilst clamping down on illegal immigration and tackling people smuggling.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHRC) has raised serious concerns about the bill, stating it will undermine, rather than promote, the government’s stated goal of improving protection to those at risk. It further warned the bill undermines the 1951 Refugee Convention, of which the UK is a signatory, by removing safe routes for asylum seekers and increasing the risk of statelessness.
However, whilst primarily focused on reforming the asylum system, the bill also has far-reaching implications for the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the UK’s response to human trafficking and modern slavery as a whole.
TOP-LINE CONCERNS WITH THE BILL
Immigration legislation, which includes central modern slavery provisions, is an issue of general concern, not least because it falsely conflates these distinct areas of policy and views modern slavery through an immigration lens.
Previous reassurances from the Home Office have recognised the need to address modern slavery separately from immigration matters. However, the anti-slavery sector is united by the view that the introduction of this bill presents a regression from hard-won progress. In line with the UK government’s increasingly hostile immigration policy, the consensus is that the bill prioritises ascertaining a person’s legal right to be in the UK, rather than spotting signs of exploitation, thus discouraging victims coming forward for fear of deportation.
Specifically, the terms set out in part 5 of the bill pose a significant risk to the UK’s fulfilment of its international obligations around the prevention, suppression, and punishment of trafficking in persons. Together, clauses 57 and 58 introduce information notices, which require persons with an asylum or human rights claim to provide information relating to their trafficking status within a specified period. If the applicant cannot provide a “good reason” for providing the information late, they are penalised with damaged credibility.
International research on anti-slavery has established that victims may be unable or unwilling to provide disclosure of their experiences of trafficking for a variety of reasons. These include trauma, fear of reprisals by traffickers, distrust of authorities, and not self-identifying treatment as trafficking.
Furthermore, such a provision not only falsely conflates immigration and modern slavery decision making, but also combines late claims with false and unfounded claims. The overarching result is likely to have a detrimental impact on victim identification, denying trafficked people the protection and support they need, and discouraging many others from coming forward.
Part 5 also excludes significant numbers of victims from receiving protection and support and increases the risk of traffickers acting with impunity. Specifically, clause 62 disqualifies potential victims from conclusive grounds decisions and access to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) if they are deemed to be a “threat to public order” or have made a claim in “bad faith”.
The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC)’s investigation reveals that the grounds for analysis are broad and include prior convictions for non-violent offences. This runs the risk that victims will be denied protection. Furthermore, it would also exclude certain victims from protection and support who were forced to commit crimes as part of their exploitation. Rather than targeting offenders who pose a genuine risk to public safety, clause 62 could be applied to many trafficked people in the UK, including large numbers of children involved in county lines drug trafficking.
As a result, this provision is likely to deter victims from coming forward and cooperating with police investigations due to a lack of certainty they will be protected and worries they will be prosecuted as a result of their victimhood.
Part 5 also narrows the scope of support confirmed victims will receive, with clause 63 providing assistance and support for identification and trafficking during the “recovery period”. This creates a legal right to support, where previously this was not given. However, clause 63 does not define what support should be made available and is further limited to the UK government’s discretion in deciding what it is “necessary” or “appropriate”. Further, it states that support should only be provided to help survivors recover from the harm that arises from their exploitation. In doing so, it ignores the difficulty in assigning harms to specific experiences and the complex and intersecting needs of survivors, along with their pre-existing vulnerabilities.
The Human Trafficking Foundation (HTF) has warned that this runs a risk of reducing the scope of care that enables victims to fully recover from their experiences, and it will leave them at risk of being exploited again as their underlying vulnerabilities have not been addressed.
AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE FOR VICTIMS
The Nationality and Border Bill has now completed its passage in the House of Lords. Peers voted on a number of significant amendments during the Report Stage in March 2022, which made key changes to the bill to prevent the legislation imposing unnecessary hardship on those claiming asylum in the UK.
The anti-slavery sector is aligned in urging the government not to reverse key amendments, such as the removal of clause 58 and the protection of children in clause 62, to ensure the new plan for immigration is implemented in line with the UK’s commitments under the anti-trafficking convention.
The bill will return to the House of Commons where these amendments will be voted on by the government, to establish whether they will be in the final piece of legislation. Unfortunately, when viewed in the context of recent government announcements relating to the offshore processing of asylum seekers, the continued pursuit of a hostile environment is all too evident.
Amy holds a MA in Social and Political Thought from the University of Warwick, specialising in International Politics and Indigenous Feminism. Her areas of interest in the field of human rights are postcolonialism, racial justice and gender equality. She is currently working on research into gender-based violence legislation for the UK Parliament.