The following recommendations on modern slavery data collection, publication and transparency in the UK were developed according to the priority issues raised by more than 50 practitioners. The recommendations, first published in After Exploitation’s report ‘A can of worms’: Challenges and opportunities in gathering modern slavery evidence, are informed by experts with and without lived experience of exploitation.
Support and entitlements
Entitlements data: As part of existing records held by the Home Office, data on access to entitlements should be published. As a priority, this includes the number of victims and potential victims accessing the following entitlements through the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract (MSVCC) and Legal Aid Agency (LAA):
o Safe housing,
o Counselling,
o Caseworker advice,
o Legal aid
o Recovery Needs Assessment
Data should be broken down by recovery stage (during and post-NRM), in order to improve understanding of whether ‘case-by-case’ decision making through the Recovery Needs Assessment (RNA) is meeting the needs of survivors. The Government should keep strong records of reasons for denying entitlements and move towards publishing data on refusal reasons.
Entitlements data recording: Any information shared with the Home Office on behalf of a victim or potential victim should be submitted collaboratively with survivors. Front-line guidance should specify that every survivor must have sight of any documentation or request outlining their needs before it is submitted.
Compensation
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) data: As part of existing Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) data, published by the Ministry of Justice, figures on those applying with and without ‘representation’ should be broken down by legal and non-legal representatives. CICA must keep records of rejection reasons, including disqualification, and consistently provide data on modern slavery cases where requested via FOI, Parliamentary Question or other means.
Compensation Order data: The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) should ensure that existing ‘outcomes by offence’ data, inclusive of modern slavery offences, can be broken down by Slavery and Trafficking Reparation Orders (STROs). The MOJ should begin work to make compensation order data inclusive of modern slavery ‘flagged’ cases, in-line with the MOJ’s methodology for recording modern slavery prosecutions. Ministers should provide data on STROs consistently and willingly provide further detail when prompted, in light of the small number of cases.
Legal aid data: The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) should collect and publish data on the allocation of Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) to victims and potential victims of serious crime, including modern slavery.
Health
Health outcomes research: NHS England should work collaboratively with MSVCC contractors and clinical researchers to capture the scale and impact of NHS waiting times, immigration enforcement and other barriers preventing survivors’ access to healthcare and mental health support.
Immigration
Immigration and NRM data: The Government should publish statistics, annually or as part of existing immigration data, on the immigration outcomes of people within the NRM. This should include, in particular, NRM cases linked to controversial restricted visas such as the Overseas Domestic Worker Visa and Seasonal Worker Visa, as well as grants of asylum, Discretionary Leave, and Humanitarian Protection. We recommend the involvement of a third party, such as the Office of National Statistics, to guard against bias in framing.
Detention and NRM data: As part of existing immigration detention data, the Home Office should include statistics on Short-Term Holding Facilities. Where data on NRM referrals in detention are included as part of ad hoc detention releases, the figures used should include referrals pre and post-detention.
Returns data: Data on the voluntary and enforced return of both potential victims and victims should continue to be maintained by the Home Office. Where survivors opt for voluntary return, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office should develop a framework to measure safety upon return, and explore ways to monitor agreed outcomes, and develop forms of redress where these standards are not met.
NRPF data: The Home Office should make data on the total number of people subject to No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) consistently available.
Justice
Prison referral data: The Home Office and Ministry of Justice should collaboratively record and publish the number of NRM referrals made from prison, ensuring that prison staff are able to act as first responders and collect data accordingly.
Section 45 data: The Ministry of Justice and Sentencing Council should explore the feasibility of collecting data on the use of the Section 45 defence, or retroactively analyse the presence or absence of the defence in a sample of relevant cases.
Prosecutions data: The Ministry of Justice and Crown Prosecution Service should ensure data on trafficking and modern slavery prosecutions are clearly delineated according to those prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act and those under lesser crimes.
Police data collection: Police forces should clearly communicate how victims’ data will be managed, including under what circumstances victims’ details will be shared with immigration enforcement. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) should work collaboratively with police forces to develop consistent methodology for recording the ethnicity of victims and perpetrators.
Child victims
Child trafficking ‘flagged’ data: The Department for Education and Local Authorities should collect data via child exploitation flags separated by exploitation ‘type’ under Children in Need data. Relevant Department for Education guidance should clearly characterise forms of child exploitation as modern slavery, and instruct first responders to issue NRM referrals accordingly.
Unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) data: The Home Office should make data on missing unaccompanied asylum seeking children readily available, broken down by accommodation setting.
NRM recording
Referral data: The Government must prioritise improving the quality of data captured through NRM referrals, ensuring guidance specifies that survivors have sight of information about them which is passed onto the Home Office. This is vital safeguard both data quality and victims’ experiences within the NRM. Reasons for not entering the NRM should be recorded as a mandatory field by first responders.
Industry data: ‘Industry of exploitation’ should be a mandatory field recorded by first responders. The Home Office should develop ways of characterising industries to avoid identifiability whilst contributing to public understanding.
Re-trafficking statistics: Data on the number of victims and potential victims referred into the NRM more than once should be made available via the Home Office’s quarterly NRM statistics
Withdrawal and suspension data: The Home Office should record and publish reasons for withdrawal and suspension of NRM claims, publishing totals as separate figures.
Methodology: NRM statistics, both quarterly releases and those available through the UK Data Service, should include a methodology outlining the inclusion criteria for ‘other’ outcomes recorded for gender, age, nationality et al. When new data on modern slavery is released for the first time, such as on entitlement access, these statistics should be verified and supported by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) to ensure quality and rebuild trust amongst practitioners.
Summaries: NRM summaries should be presented using consistent criteria dictating the order of topic presentation. Summaries should begin to include newer information now published in the full data tables, such as waiting times and decision outcomes.
Ad hoc statistics: Ad hoc statistical releases authored by the Home Office should be guided by the needs of practitioners, not government. The Home Office should consider working with an independent third party, such as the Office of National Statistics, when creating ad hoc data releases in order to guard against the politicisation of data and restore trust amongst survivors and practitioners.
Transparency
Legislating for data: The Government must commit to building data monitoring provisions into any major legislation expected to disrupt, change or enhance the entitlements accessed by vulnerable populations
MSVCC guidance: The Home Office must publicly clarify the expectations of Modern Slavery Victim Care Contractors (MSVCCs), through the publication of caseworker guidance on the processing of survivors’ data, criteria for risk assessments, and entitlement eligibility.
Funding transparency: The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office should record funding data according to ‘thematic areas’ inclusive of modern slavery, and ensure that this data on investment in modern slavery projects or research is made available when requested by Parliamentarians or via Freedom of Information request
Transparency in Parliament: The Procedure Select Committee should review the quality of Parliamentary Question responses and, where processes already exist to correct inconsistent or sub-par PQ responses, these should be clearly signposted online and promoted to Parliamentary assistants. The committee should explore whether the current practice of providing citations for written answers could be extended to Hansard contributions after-the-fact, to ensure evidence relied upon in Parliament is accessible to the public.
Transparency in Government: The Home Office should commit to consistent disclosure of modern slavery data via Freedom of Information (FOI) where information is held.
Transparency in data ownership: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) should launch an inquiry into the use of modern slavery survivors’ data by Government, charities, law enforcement and in healthcare settings. This should address the ways in which survivors’ personal information is used to inform intelligence gathering or decision-making on individuals’ cases, or gatekept where survivors and their advocates need access to their own information and case files.
After Exploitation 