Modern slavery victims opt to stay with exploiters for fear of deportation, research finds
Modern slavery victims are choosing to stay with their exploiters rather than access government support designed to protect them because of fears of immigration enforcement, research has found.
The independent anti-slavery commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, said the system is 'deeply broken'.
Two pieces of research shared exclusively with the Guardian find that, a decade after the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act, the landmark piece of legislation designed to protect trafficking victims and apprehend their perpetrators is failing.
The first study, from Nottingham University's Rights Lab and commissioned by Lyons' office, , will be published next Wednesday.
According to the report, titled Refusal to Consent, refusals to access support from the government's support system for trafficking victims, are at record levels.
Potential victims who come into contact with the authorities but do not want to access the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) are recorded in statistics known as duty to notify. These reports have soared by more than 630% since 2016 – from 762 in 2016 to 5,598 in 2024 – a sign that victims are losing trust in the system.
Fear of deportation is the primary reason victims are rejecting support, according to the report, which questioned professionals working with victims and analysed government and academic data.
Many victims believe the NRM is a trap that leads to immigration enforcement rather than protection. Hostile immigration policies and inflammatory language from the government is scaring victims away from the systems supposed to protect them, it found.
Some traffickers use government rhetoric about the hostile environment and the threat of deportation to keep victims in a position of exploitation, according to the research.
Government return agreements with Albania and Vietnam, which have high numbers of trafficking victims, has increased fear of coming forward among victims from these countries. In 2024 victims of trafficking were among those being issued with notices of intent that they were going to be forcibly removed to Rwanda.
The second report, Barriers to Prosecutions and Convictions under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, is from the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centreat the University of Oxford. It commissioned research from the Wilberforce Institute at the University of Hull, which analysed prosecution data since the act was introduced and found it remained low, with prosecutions as a percentage of potential trafficking victims referred to the NRM at just 1.8%.
Between July 2023 and June 2024 17,120 potential modern slavery victims were referred to the NRM while over the same period 58 people in England and Wales were convicted of offences linked to modern slavery.
Alicia Heys, an academic at the University of Hull who authored the study for the PEC, said: 'Part of the intention behind the Modern Slavery Act was to ensure that perpetrators receive suitably severe punishments, yet 10 years after the introduction of the act, conviction rates remain low. Sometimes offenders are pursued under different legislation, for example relating to drugs or controlling prostitution, which misrepresents survivors' experiences.'
Lyons said: 'It's heartbreaking but not surprising that more and more potential victims of modern slavery are saying no to help.
'When fear of deportation outweighs the promise of protection, when there are few consequences for criminal perpetrators and people feel safer staying in exploitation than entering the system that's meant to help them, something is deeply broken.
'This report is a wake-up call: the National Referral Mechanism, the government's framework of support, isn't just misunderstood, it's mistrusted, mishandled, and in urgent need of reform.'
The Home Office has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Subpostmistress remembers 'terror' of supporting her young children during the Horizon IT scandal on new Mail podcast
Former subpostmistress Pamela Church revealed she suffered panic attacks and felt as though she'd 'let everyone down' after going bankrupt due to the Horizon IT scandal on a new Mail podcast. On the latest episode of 'The Apple & The Tree', Pamela, 47 told daughter Rebekah Foot, 28, of her experience losing everything after becoming embroiled in what is seen as the largest miscarriage of justice in British history. The podcast, hosted by the Reverend Richard Coles, brings together parents and their adult children to answer questions about their shared family history. The Horizon IT scandal was a faulty Post Office computer system that falsely showed financial shortfalls at branches across the country. The fault led to over 700 subpostmasters being wrongfully prosecuted and convicted for theft and fraud between 1999 and 2015. 'I remember being seen as a pillar of the community', Pamela said. 'But once all that happened, everyone thought we were dodgy. We were shut down in 2015. 'It bankrupted me. I tried to keep as much of it away from my children as possible, but I started suffering really bad panic attacks.' The mother-of-three recounted collapsing in the toilet in front of her young daughter due to the stress of being pursued for tens of thousands of pounds. The technical fault potentially affected as many as 25,000 postmasters, yet fewer than 2,500 have been compensated. She told the podcast: 'It got to a really bad point where I could not carry on. I felt like I was a massive letdown. 'I'd had this massive panic attack – I was in the bathroom. My young daughter saw me on the floor and then took herself to school. 'My daughter told the school's receptionist: 'Mummy's poorly, she's not well and I can't live without her. 'After that, I went to the doctors, and they proscribed me fluoxetine. It stopped the panic attacks, and I started seeing a future again. 'But everything had been taken away: I was bankrupt, I had no money, no business – at least I still had my children and my partner. They set me up to go forward.' Pamela remembered noticing something was wrong when she ran both the old and new bookkeeping systems at her north Wales Post Office and discrepancies of thousands of pounds appeared. Despite her protests, the Post Office threatened to seize her business unless she made up the shortfall. 'My first panic attack, £10,000 had gone missing out of the Post Office and they phoned me up and told me I had to pay it. 'They said if I didn't, they'd take my business away from me. I couldn't breathe. I felt like I was going to die. 'I collapsed with my daughter Evie in my arms. When I woke up, I saw my daughter playing in a pool of my blood.' The truth about the scandal emerged through persistent legal action by subpostmasters who took the first High Court case against the Post Office in 2019, securing a £43 million settlement. It gained widespread public attention in January 2024 after the ITV drama 'Mr Bates vs The Post Office' brought the issue to millions of viewers. Pamela said she hasn't yet completed all the paperwork for her compensation as she 'doesn't want to bring back' memories of the scandal. 'I am in an alright sort of place at the moment', she said. 'I don't want to bring it back. But I know that if I want my claim to go forward, I have to finish all this paperwork. I will do it, just in my own time.' To listen to the full episode, where Pamela remembers her Post Office being robbed at gunpoint when she was five months pregnant, search for 'The Apple & The Tree' now, wherever you get your podcasts.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Prison was the first place we felt sisterhood': six women return to the ruins of Holloway
The directors of Holloway use a simple but powerful visual device to demonstrate how badly the British prison system is failing the women it incarcerates. Towards the end of their eponynmous documentary, six former inmates are invited to play a version of Grandmother's Footsteps in the chapel of the deserted ex-prison, where they have been filming for five days. They begin lined up against the wall and a voice tells them: 'Step forward if you grew up in a chaotic household.' All six women step forward, before being instructed: 'Step forward if you experienced domestic violence growing up.' Again, they move ahead in unison. 'Step forward if somebody in your household has experienced drug use. Step forward if you grew up in a household where there wasn't very much money. Step forward if a member of your family has been to prison …' By the time the exercise is over, almost all the women have silently made their way from one side of the room to the other, starkly highlighting the film's fundamental theme: the UK's prisons are full of vulnerable women being punished – at great expense – and not helped. Shortly before Holloway prison began to be demolished in 2022, directors Sophie Compton and Daisy-May Hudson secured permission to film inside the abandoned site in London, watching as six women returned to the cells where they were once held, to explore how they all ended up imprisoned as young women. Directors of a more conventional documentary might have plonked the participants on the bare iron frames of their old prison beds and instructed them to pour out their life stories, poking and prodding them for all the shocking details. Compton and Hudson take a subtler approach, arranging the women in a circle, supervised by a trained therapist, and waiting to see what emerges. It is a risky strategy. The flow of the conversation is faltering, interrupted by nervousness about how their words will be used, suspicion about the directors' intentions – and a sudden, uncomfortable request for the most difficult conversations to continue without the cameras rolling. The film includes all this uncertainty: they debate whether they should proceed before realising their desire to talk about the justice system's failures mostly outweighs their concerns about sharing chapters from their complicated pasts. Compton (Emmy nominated for her documentary on deepfake pornography, Another Body) and Hudson (who won a Bafta Breakthrough award for her film Half Way, documenting her own family's experience of homelessness) have the confidence to make their subjects collaborators on the project, inviting them into the editing process, to ensure everyone feels happy with how their experiences have been handled. 'They could say what they did and didn't like,' Hudson says. 'They wanted more laughter included. Our wish was that they felt proud of the film.' Once western Europe's largest women's prison, Holloway has a significant place in British history. More than 300 suffragettes were held in a wing of the original building during the early 20th century. Ruth Ellis was hanged there in 1955, the last woman to be executed in the UK. Greenham Common protesters spent time here. Sarah Reed, who had previously been a victim of police brutality in 2012, died in her cell in 2016. This is not the story the film sets out to tell. 'It's not a film about Holloway; other films can tell a historical story or show the realities of being in prison,' says Compton, who I meet along with Hudson and two of the film's participants, Aliyah Ali and Mandy Ogunmokun. 'This is about a group of women returning to Holloway, and finding they are not the same people they were when they were in prison.' The women each respond differently when they walk through the corridors of the site, which closed in 2016. Some take delight in defying forgotten rules, skipping along walkways that were previously out of bounds. One begins by cheerfully telling the cameras how she viewed her time at Holloway as a holiday camp experience – it takes days for her to admit the extent to which her attitude is just a protective front. Another observes approvingly the way that brambles and ferns have started to reclaim the space, springing from beneath the plug sockets and creeping through the windows. 'It feels kind of healing to see that Holloway prison is falling apart,' she says. Some remember with horror the noise of night-time screaming, but several are surprised by the unexpected feelings of affection the building triggers. 'It was probably the first time that I was in an environment which was controlled and felt safe,' Ali, 31, tells me. 'It's sad that for a lot of us, the first time we felt that connection of belonging and sisterhood, we found it in prison. What does that say about society?' She was sent to Holloway at 18. 'Growing up how I grew up, you're conditioned to just brush things off and get on with things, and wear masks and stay strong. When I went back to my first cell, I felt my 18-year-old self cry out.' Ali is initially the most reluctant of the six participants. The founder of a non-profit organisation, The Daddyless Daughters Project, she has rebuilt her life, radiates strength and seems visibly irritated by the entire setup. 'I was worried they could edit our voices and create a narrative that we weren't hoping for,' she says. 'I was thinking, 'We're trusting them with a level of vulnerability that we're not comfortable with. What are these people going to do with it?'' Gradually she was reassured and slowly began to reveal some of the childhood events that catapulted her into prison – family breakdown, domestic violence, a move to a women's refuge, then later into a residential children's home at the age of 12. Her problems escalated when she got caught up in county lines dealing, as a child exploited by criminal gangs to move and supply drugs. 'I was introduced to selling drugs, which I was very good at, and it was the first time that I started to feel a sense of worth,' she finally reveals on camera. She is dismayed to remember how little support she received as a child. 'The system saw me as a bad girl … as somebody who asked for all of this,' she says in the film. 'It was always, 'What's wrong with you? Why can't you just behave? Why can't you just stop doing this?' Nothing was asked about what actually happened to me,' she says. Her fury is echoed by Ogunmokun. 'It's so frustrating to see how similar the stories of people going in and out of prison are. Change is so slow,' she says. The daughter of a woman who struggled with addiction, she also spent some of her childhood in care, went to Holloway first aged 20, and was in and out repeatedly for two decades until she shook off her own drug addiction aged 40. 'I'm angry that some kids are born into certain circumstances, and what chance do they have?' Ogunmokun, 66, has dedicated the 25 years since leaving Holloway to helping former addicts break the cycle of addiction and offending. 'Every time I reoffended the judge would say: 'You haven't learned anything.'' She didn't get the support she needed to change while she was in prison, through no real fault of the prison staff. 'The officers see horrific things, but they're not trained counsellors – they're not mental health trained, they're not sex-trafficking trained, they're not domestic violence trained. They've got a regime they have to run by.' She hopes the film might persuade viewers that there needs to be a revolution in the way that female offenders are treated. It is almost 20 years since the seminal Corston report on vulnerable women in the criminal justice system called for a radically different strategy, but many of the report's key recommendations have yet to be implemented. Hudson and Compton struggled for several years to raise funding to finish their film. Now they feel happy that it is being released at a time when there is some emerging optimism about the possibility of change. 'The simple truth is that we are sending too many women to prison,' the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, said earlier this year. 'We need to do things differently.' The film will be screened at an event with the prisons minister, James Timpson, in parliament later this month. Hudson's first fiction film, Lollipop, which comes out this month too, also features a woman who has recently left prison. She says both projects examine the way vulnerable women are shamed and blamed, as well as trying to showcase 'the power of women that society tries to put on the outskirts'. Ali is satisfied with how the film has turned out, and wants it to be shown to young people in prisons, to offer hope that lives can alter course. Despite her early reservations, she is impressed by the directors' creation. 'It's been emotionally turbulent,' she says, 'but they've done an amazing job.' Holloway is in UK cinemas from 20 June.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Geert Wilders collapsed the Dutch government. He wanted power, but had no idea how to govern
Earlier this month, Geert Wilders decided he had had enough. 'No signature for our asylum plans. No changes to the coalition agreement. The PVV is leaving the coalition,' he posted on X. After 11 months, he was withdrawing support for the Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof's rightwing cabinet, forcing the Netherlands back to the polls. The decision put an end to Wilders' far-right Freedom party's (PVV) first spell in power. Following an unexpected victory in the 2023 elections, the PVV joined a government for the first time in its 18-year history – alongside the conservative-liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the centrist New Social Contract (NSC), and the agrarian-populist Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB) – although Wilders's coalition partners did not let him become prime minister. But the promise to drastically reduce immigration and implement a strict asylum policy proved difficult to deliver due to numerous constitutional and legal restrictions. The Netherlands now faces a familiar question: What is the 61-year-old politician trying to achieve – and how? Looking solely at his political platform, the answer seems relatively clear. With its emphasis on immigration, national identity, sovereignty, more direct democracy and stricter law enforcement, the PVV is a fairly typical radical rightwing populist party. In the European parliament, the PVV belongs to the Patriots for Europe group, alongside Marine Le Pen's National Rally, Viktor Orbán's Fidesz and Matteo Salvini's League. Within that circle, Wilders is one of the most prominent and pioneering ideologues, introducing a highly alarmist caricature of Islam as a totalitarian ideology of conquest. 'Walk the streets of western Europe today … and you will often see something resembling a medieval Arab city, full of headscarves and burqas … Mass immigration is rapidly changing our culture and identity. Islam is rising, and I do not want Islam to rise! Islam and freedom are incompatible,' he proclaimed in his keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest in May. In Wilders' worldview, Israel is the primary defender of western freedom against Islam and therefore deserves unconditional support. 'If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Paris, or Amsterdam are next,' he said in the Dutch parliament last week. 'Western mothers can sleep peacefully because the mothers of Israeli soldiers lie awake.' Wilders' anti-Islam crusade soon clashed with the Dutch constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. To join the coalition, he put his most extreme positions 'in the freezer', as he described it – including a ban on the Qur'an and the closure of all mosques. Instead, he focused on curbing asylum migration from Muslim countries, repatriating Syrians and supporting Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank (he consistently refers to the latter as Judea and Samaria). Yet, even in these areas, he faced setbacks. Under pressure from parliament and public opinion, the Dutch foreign minister, Caspar Veldkamp, has recently adopted a slightly more critical stance toward the Israeli government – much to Wilders' displeasure. In justifying the fall of his cabinet, Wilders mainly blamed resistance from his coalition partners, the bureaucracy, the courts and the media. But the truth is, he also has himself to blame. Nearly 20 years after its launch in February 2006, the PVV is still hardly a political party in the conventional sense. Exploiting a loophole in Dutch electoral law, Wilders chose not to allow any formal members into his party. As a result, neither PVV ministers nor parliamentarians are actual members of the party. Ultimately, he has failed to build and lead a professional political organisation that is capable of governing. Wilders adopted his party's unusual structure partly out of fear of attracting opportunists and troublemakers. But according to many observers, he is also a deeply suspicious and solitary figure by nature, someone who prefers total control and avoids consultation. His permanent security detail, a result of a fatwa, has likely reinforced these traits and made it even harder to establish a party structure. 'If I wanted to speak to a candidate, it had to happen in a hidden hotel, on the sixth floor, with six policemen in front of my bedroom door,' he once claimed in an interview. As a result, the PVV remains entirely dependent on Wilders' personal political instincts. While parties such as National Rally, League and Fidesz have large organisations with tens of thousands of members, local chapters, professional offices and well-funded campaign machines, the PVV is little more than Wilders' small, tightly controlled entourage. When he wants to change direction, there is no party congress or critical internal faction he has to convince. This is an undeniable advantage in today's volatile political landscape, but its cost is high. First, the PVV remains poor. In the Netherlands, only parties with more than 1,000 members qualify for state subsidies. The impact of this underfunding is evident in its amateurish election campaigns, low-quality videos, clumsy communication and a lack of skilled personnel. Second, the party operates in near total opacity. Its hierarchy, finances and candidate selection process are a mystery not only to outsiders – politicians, journalists, lobbyists – but even to its own supporters. As a result, many potential candidates and volunteers shy away. Who is willing to risk their reputation for a career in such a controversial and opaque organisation? Who dares to become a minister or junior minister for a party that revolves entirely around the unpredictable whims of one man? When Wilders was required to nominate ministers, he discovered he had no capable candidates with administrative experience, an understanding of the Dutch political system or knowledge of the constitution. He had never invested in training his own people or building a network of future administrators. In desperation, he appointed a few loyal early followers such as Marjolein Faber as minister for asylum and immigration; she subsequently got herself embroiled in a scandal for refusing to sign off on royal honours for individuals who volunteered to help asylum seekers and falsely stating that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not democratically elected (she retracted her words). Other PVV ministers also stood out mainly because of their blunders and incompetence. After the cabinet's collapse, his party's ministers seemed almost relieved when speaking to the press. They had been cast in roles they couldn't fulfil and never truly wanted. Wilders claims he wants to become prime minister after the next elections. But does he truly mean it? There is little evidence that he is taking the country's governance more seriously. After the failed experiment of the past months, future coalition partners will also take this aspect into account – this week the VVD ruled out entering another coalition this with this 'unbelievably untrustworthy partner'. It seems that Wilders, the solitary ideologue, is really more interested in opposition, where the burdens of responsibility are far lighter. Koen Vossen is a political historian and the author of The Power of Populism: Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands
