Asked by
The Lord
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to
reduce waiting times for ‘conclusive grounds' decisions under the
National Referral Mechanism for modern slavery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to ensuring that
victims are identified promptly. We have taken steps to shorten
the timelines for making decisions in the national referral
mechanism, including new guidance for making reasonable grounds
decisions, changes to the online referral form and setting
timescales for information to be provided to the competent
authorities. We have also significantly increased staffing for
the competent authorities and are seeing the results through
increased output of decisions.
The Lord
I thank the Minister for that Answer. The median waiting time for
conclusive grounds decisions in 2023 was 526 days but, for women,
the median waiting time rose to 904 days, nearly double that for
the whole group. This has a negative impact on them, their
families and their children, and it makes it very difficult for
swift enforcement action to be taken against perpetrators. What
assessment have the Government made of why this discrepancy is so
large and what steps are they taking urgently to reduce waiting
times for women?
(Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. We are
working to improve the timeliness of all decisions from all
angles. That includes increasing the capacity for
decision-making, testing alternative approaches, improving the
quality of the information provided as part of the
decision-making process, and reducing opportunities for misuse.
The statistics are trending in the right direction. In the past
two years, almost 30,000 people have had access to the
protections of the NRM. Last year, 9,825 conclusive grounds
decisions were issued, the highest number since the NRM began. In
the first quarter of this year, 5,161 reasonable grounds
decisions and 3,893 inclusive grounds decisions were issued, far
higher than in any other quarter since the NRM began.
of Burry Port (Lab)
Can the Minister answer the question about the discrepancy
between women and men in the cases cited?
(Con)
I apologise; I should have addressed that. I do not know the
precise reason for those discrepancies, but I will look into the
details and come back to the noble Lord.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am co-chair of the parliamentary group
on modern slavery and vice-chair of the Human Trafficking
Foundation. Can the Minister say how the NRM will deal with
potential victims of modern slavery when the Illegal Migration
Act is in force?
(Con)
These are discussions that we have had at considerable length
over the past few months. When the IMA is commenced, its modern
slavery provisions will strengthen the UK's continued efforts to
mitigate risks to public order by withholding modern slavery
protections from those who enter the UK illegally and who
therefore put themselves and first responders at risk and place
acute pressure on public services. Where someone has entered the
UK illegally and is identified as a potential victim of modern
slavery, we will ensure that they are either returned home or
sent to another safe country, and away from those who have
trafficked them.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of the Human
Trafficking Foundation. Home Office figures for 2023 include bad
faith disqualifications, where someone has been disqualified from
protection because the referral or claim was made in bad faith.
As it appears that there were zero bad faith disqualifications
last year, can my noble friend the Minister say what the evidence
is for the claim we hear that the NRM is being abused?
(Con)
The public order disqualification is part of the Nationality and
Borders Act, which has also been discussed extensively from this
Dispatch Box and over a number of debates. It provides a
definition of public order which makes it operationally possible
to withhold the recovery period in certain circumstances, in line
with Article 13 of the European Convention on Action against
Trafficking in Human Beings. All decisions are made on a
case-by-case basis.
(Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why the last annual report on
modern slavery, as required by the Modern Slavery Act, was
published in 2021? When will the Government publish the next
annual report? Would that not help us to understand the
statistics?
(Con)
My Lords, I have already highlighted that a lot of statistics
have been published. I do not know specifically when the next
report is due to be published, but I will find out.
(Lab)
My Lords, will not the new provisions that the Government
introduce make it less likely that witnesses come forward? Will
that not be welcomed by traffickers, who will see it as an easy
way of not getting caught?
(Con)
No. I do not see why it would make witnesses less likely to come
forward.
(LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that delays with the
NRM leave potential victims without the security that they would
otherwise have and—following on from the last question—make them
more open to further exploitation and re-trafficking? Does he
also recognise that many victims of trafficking are British
citizens?
(Con)
What I recognise is that this is very complicated. Referrals into
the national referral mechanism are made by a number of public
authorities, including the police, local authorities and so on,
as well as non-governmental organisations. Then, one of the two
competent authorities takes a look and makes an initial
reasonable grounds decision, following which a potential victim
is entitled to a minimum 30-day recovery period, unless there are
grounds to disqualify them from that entitlement. The recovery
period lasts until a conclusive grounds decision is made. These
cases are very complex. In many cases, there is insufficient
evidence and information in the referral form, so the competent
authorities must consider all the information available to them
and request it from various other authorities over which they
have little or no operational control, and they do not have
investigatory powers. This is extraordinarily complicated, but of
course I recognise the victims' distress.
(CB)
My Lords, the Minister must have had in mind the Salvation Army
when he was talking about non-governmental agencies. Over the
past 13 years, it has dealt with over 22,000 cases that it has
referred to the national referral mechanism. Yet, in data that it
has produced, it points out that the delays have risen from the
very modest five-day target in 2023, which was often realised, to
47 days now. It also says that there are technical deficiencies
with the NRM. Will the Minister agree to meet senior officials
from the Salvation Army to discuss the practicalities and issues
arising as a result of the delays?
(Con)
Yes, I am very happy to do so. The Salvation Army deserves great
credit, because it is contracted to offer a lot of the services
that are delivered via the NGOs to the victims.
(CB)
My Lords, as the Minister has said, assessments to identify and
support victims of trafficking, for whom any delay is harmful,
can be complex and time-consuming. How many children are involved
in the increasing backlog, either as victims themselves or as the
children of victims? Do cases involving children receive any
priority—and, if so, how?
(Con)
Of course, there are a lot of age-disputed cases in the system,
so it is difficult to give the noble Lord a precise answer on
that. There are decision-making pilots for children which are
much quicker at making decisions. They are taken through a
multi-agency structure of the local authority, health and police
as a minimum. The safeguarding partners have a responsibility to
obtain and present evidence at meetings where decisions are
taken, so they are dealt with slightly differently.
(Lab)
My Lords, this morning in the High Court in Belfast, a judgment
disapplied certain elements of the Illegal Migration Act as they
contravened Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. What assessment
does the Minister, who brought the legislation through this
House, have of that judgment?
(Con)
I am afraid that is the first I have heard of it, so I have no
opinion on it.
(LD)
My Lords, the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence
Centre's paper on the 2023 national referral mechanism statistics
notes with some concern that the data raises
“significant questions over the decision-making process”
as a result of changes to the statutory guidance that came in in
January 2023 and not changes in the number of likely victims of
modern slavery. Can the Minister say that the systems do not put
victims of modern slavery at further risk?
(Con)
I go back to an earlier answer I gave, that these are
extraordinarily complex cases and, therefore, the guidance has to
be refined in light of those cases periodically. I do not know to
what specifically the noble Baroness is referring but, as far as
I am aware, it does not make it any more complicated.
(Lab)
My Lords, I should have referred to my interest as a trustee of
the Human Trafficking Foundation, as laid out in the register, at
the beginning of my question. I apologise for that.
