The Government’s Immigration and Asylum Bill, first announced last month in the King’s Speech, was introduced in Parliament this afternoon. The 82-page bill can be downloaded here, with the 60-page explanatory notes available here.
All documents related to the Bill can be accessed from here. The human rights memorandum provides a helpfully concise summary of the impact of the Bill and a full copy can be read below.
Among the Bill’s measures highlighted by the Home Office in a press release this morning is the creation of new community sponsorship schemes for refugees. From autumn 2026, organisations will be able to apply to sponsor refugees under a model inspired by Canada’s resettlement programme. The first arrivals under the scheme are expected in autumn 2027. Numbers will be “start small at first but build over time,” the Home Office said.
The Government plans to introduce a university sponsorship route allowing approved higher education institutions to sponsor refugees to come to study in the UK. A separate work-based sponsorship route is expected to open in 2027.
The Home Office says this sponsorship model will “form the future of safe and legal routes” to the UK.
Refugee status for those using the new routes will be determined in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). All arrivals will be subject to biometric, criminality and health checks.
Alongside the expansion of safe and legal routes, the Bill proposes changes to the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to private and family life. The Bill defines “family” more narrowly for immigration purposes, generally limiting the definition to immediate family members such as spouses, parents and children under 18, except in exceptional circumstances. A higher threshold for foreign national offenders seeking to rely on Article 8 will be introduced, to ensure deportation can only be blocked in the most exceptional circumstances.
A change will be made to entry clearance applications which rely on Article 8 applications, meaning they will now also have to be made in-country by the UK-based sponsor and not by the overseas family member. The Home Office says this will see decisions focus on the rights of those within the UK.
The Bill will introduce significant changes to the modern slavery framework. These include extending the provision of independent child trafficking guardians, strengthening civil prevention orders, and increasing obligations on businesses and public bodies to identify exploitation within supply chains, with potential financial penalties of up to £1 million for non-compliance.
In addition, the Government proposes measures intended to reduce what it calls the “misuse” of the modern slavery system. These include removing modern slavery protections from all foreign nationals who have received a custodial sentence, allowing claims supported by false documentation to be rejected, and permitting late claims made after removal action has begun to be refused where there was an earlier opportunity to raise them, unless there is a valid reason.
According to the Government, new Home Office data from a sample of charter removal flights operated last year showed that 76% of modern slavery claims made by individuals due to be removed were submitted in the hours before departure.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood was quoted as saying: “Britain has always offered sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution. But this system only survives if the public trusts that it is fair, controlled, and not open to abuse. I will open new legal routes for genuine refugees, while closing loopholes that have been too often abused. My goal is simple: to ensure we have an asylum system not just today, but for generations to come.”
In a separate press release, the Home Office explained that the Bill introduces measures requiring asylum seekers to pay back the cost of support and accommodation if they are able to.
Adults who have received asylum support and who have sufficient financial means will be required to make a flat-rate monthly contribution above a specified income threshold. Payments will generally be made directly to the Home Office, although other collection methods, including through the tax or benefits system, are also being considered.
The Home Office stated: “The Home Secretary will have the power to adjust the charge and the thresholds, ensuring they are both fair to the taxpayer and will not force any migrant into destitution. Under plans, migrants are expected to have to pay a total sum of around £10,000. This figure will be a contribution to the overall cost of their asylum support.”
A third press release outlines the Immigration and Asylum Bill’s overhaul of the appeals system, including a single route of appeal designed to reduce delays and prevent repeated challenges. The Government says the changes will help clear a backlog of more than 150,000 cases, where the average resolution time currently stands at 61 weeks.
A new independent body, the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA), will be created to replace the First-tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTT) and hear cases under a reformed framework from late 2027. It will be able to prioritise cases in the public interest, including high-harm foreign offenders, and will aim to streamline the process so unsuccessful claims can proceed more quickly to removal.
On staffing, the press release explains: “The IIAA will be staffed by professionally trained and independently appointed adjudicators – much like a magistrate – who will have a broad range of skills and backgrounds, with safeguards to ensure high standards. Broadening the eligibility criteria for people to apply to become adjudicators will result in a significant increase in capacity within the authority, leading to more decisions being made.”
The Bill’s impact assessment says, however, that the overall rating of the measures within the Bill is assessed to be ‘uncertain’ due to the complexity of the operational changes required to implement the reforms, which are still under development.
With regards to the new appeals body, the impact assessment states: “Although positive impacts are anticipated from faster appeals processing, the scale and timing of these benefits remain unclear, and associated costs are also uncertain. This reflects the fact that the implementation plans for the IIAA are not yet fully developed, and further work is required to understand how its operation will impact the wider appeals system.”
It also acknowledges that establishing the IIAA is expected to increase demand on the Upper Tribunal. As the new body is intended to process a higher volume of appeals than the current First-tier Tribunal, more applicants are expected to challenge decisions, resulting in a greater number of onward appeals. “This increase in demand is expected to cause substantial cost pressures for the Upper Tribunal both during the transition period and in the long term, as case volumes are expected to be higher than the FTT throughout to avoid a backlog in the IIAA,” the assessment says.
A copy of the Government’s human rights memorandum, assessing the Bill’s compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), follows below.
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM BILL
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM BY THE HOME OFFICE
INTRODUCTION
1. This memorandum addresses issues arising under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) in relation to the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The memorandum has been prepared by the Home Office.
2. On introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary (Shabana Mahmood MP) made a statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that, in her view, the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
3. The Bill brings into effect the main reforms announced in the Restoring Order and Control (“ROC”) statement in November 2025 which are principally aimed at reducing the flow of arrivals into the UK and increasing the removal of those who have no legal right to be here.
4. The Home Office considers that clauses of, and Schedules to, this Bill which are not mentioned in this memorandum do not give rise to any substantial human rights issues.
Summary of the Bill
5. The Bill is split into 5 Parts.
6. Part 1 of the Bill creates a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA) which will hear a full range of immigration and asylum appeals. It will be staffed by trained adjudicators and the IIAA and its decisions will be fully independent.
7. Part 2 makes changes to the application of Article 8 ECHR to ensure that the public interest carries proper weight in immigration decisions. Family life will be defined and out-of-country Article 8 applications will have to be made by the UK-based sponsor, rather than the overseas family member.
8. Part 3 introduces a single definition of a protection claim, combining refugee status and humanitarian protection, thereby simplifying the decision making and appeals process. It also introduces an interpretative measure for the Refugee Convention so those who have committed a particularly serious crime are not regarded as “lawfully staying” under the Convention.
9. Part 4 provides a power to recover asylum support costs. It will allow the Home Office to require those who have received taxpayer-funded accommodation and other support to provide a contribution towards those costs when financially able to do so.
10. Part 5 introduces various reforms to modern slavery legislation, including addressing how credibility may be impacted by the timing of modern slavery disclosure, clarifying when individuals will be disqualified from protection owing to their conduct and narrowing the circumstances where a victim of modern slavery will be granted temporary immigration permission.
PART 1 – THE INDEPENDENT IMMIGRATION APPEALS AUTHORITY (IIAA)
11. Part 1 of the Bill provides for the establishment of a new body responsible for determining a full range of immigration and asylum appeals, independent of the executive, with a large pool of decision makers (known as “adjudicators”). It will initially operate alongside the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (“FTT”) which currently handles the same range of immigration and asylum appeals, before replacing it. Clause 2(1) provides for various statutory roles including Chair, Professional Standards Officer (PSO), Chief Executive and Chief Appeals Officer. Clause 2(2) and (3) provides that the Chair, PSO, first Chief Executive and first Chief Appeals Officer are to be appointed by the SSHD.
Article 13 ECHR – right to an effective remedy
12. Case law establishes that an effective remedy must be accessible, sufficient and prompt (Çelik and İmret v Turkey, §59). It need not be judicial but must be capable of addressing the alleged breach; Article 13 does not prescribe any particular form, reflecting the State’s margin of appreciation (TN and MA (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2015] UKSC 40). Effectiveness is assessed holistically, by reference to the asylum system as a whole; deficiencies in a single remedy may be cured by the cumulative effect of available remedies (MSS v Belgium (2011) 53 EHRR 2, §289). The remedy must also be provided by an authority sufficiently independent of those responsible for the alleged violation.
13. The independence of the IIAA, including its powers and safeguards, is central to Article 13 compliance. Executive appointments do not inherently undermine independence. Relevant factors include the purpose of appointments, whether panels include independent members, adherence to public appointments processes, and whether decisions are rational, fair and non-discriminatory. The appointment of the Chair and PSO by the Home Office, in accordance with the Commissioners for Public Appointments’ framework, is consistent with standard practice for arm’s-length public bodies responsible for their own policy and direction. The first Chief Executive and Chief Appeals Officer will be recruited by the Home Office SCS team through open, merit-based competition, with input from the Chair and PSO; subsequent appointments will be made by the IIAA.
14. The Government considers that the IIAA will provide an effective remedy in compliance with Article13 ECHR because:
a. Accessible and sufficient: It will retain a right of appeal to an adjudicative body exercising independent, FTT-equivalent functions, including consideration of evidence, submissions and new matters.
b. Promptness: One of the main objectives of the IIAA is to ensure hearings are conducted within a reasonable time and appeals are resolved promptly, supported by a large adjudicator pool to decide appeals and bail applications and statutory timeframes within which the IIAA should determine decisions.
c. Remedial competence: The IIAA may undertake a full appellate review of the original decision.
d. Onward appeal: Further appeal lies to the Upper Tribunal on points of law.
e. Independence: This is secured through the following: (i) a structured and accountable appointments framework; (ii) governance consistent with arm’s-length bodies; (iii) safeguards in initial recruitment; (iv) operational autonomy in staffing; (v) independent rule-making governing appeals via the Procedure Rules Board; (vi) Ministers are under a statutory requirement to uphold the independence of the IIAA; and (vii) external oversight by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) which provides an additional layer of accountability outside the executive.
15. Taken together, the Government is satisfied that the provisions are compatible with Article 13 ECHR.
LATE CLAIMS
16. Clauses 11 and 12 provide a mechanism for dealing with late claims made in relation to immigration and modern slavery. Where an individual is identified as being subject to enforcement action, they may be given a formal notice requiring them to inform the Home Office within a specified period of any reasons why they should be permitted to remain in the UK, including by making any protection or human rights claim or disclosing information relating to modern slavery. The notice must set out the consequences of failing to comply with its requirements by the stated deadline. For immigration, the consequence will be an expedited appeal to the IIAA. The expectation is that the Home Office would aim to make a decision on such a claim within a week and then the IIAA would be under a statutory requirement to prioritise any appeal ahead of other appeal proceedings as far as reasonably practicable. In considering bail applications, the IIAA would be required to consider that the individual has made a late claim as part of their case-by-case consideration. For modern slavery, the consequences are an adverse impact on the person’s credibility, unless the individual can provide good reasons for the late disclosure.
Article 4 ECHR – prohibition of slavery and trafficking
17. The provision may engage Article 4 ECHR because it impacts decision-making in relation to potential victims of modern slavery and the subsequent protection they may receive.
18. The Government however considers the provision is compliant with Article 4. The framework does not remove the individual from the ambit of any protections. There are safeguards built into the provision, including an ability for the individual to provide good reasons for failure to comply with a notice. While failure to comply creates a negative inference, there is opportunity for the individual circumstances to be taken into account to remove the adverse inference. This will provide decision makers with the opportunity to consider the particular facts of the case and whether the individual has evidenced a good reason for late disclosure. The multifactorial assessment may consider the nature of the harm, why the claim was not raised previously and whether the claim is of a historic nature.
19. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with Article 4 ECHR.
Articles 5 ECHR – right to liberty, Article 6(1) ECHR – right to a fair trial
20. Article 5(1)(f) ECHR provides that a person may be lawfully deprived of their liberty: “to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.” Article 5(1)(f) requires that immigration detention exists as a form of administrative detention for the convenience of the state to assist with removal, and not to penalise people for making claims that they are entitled to make, albeit late. The measure requires the IIAA to take into account the fact the case is in the late claims process in deciding bail applications. However, any compelling reason for the late claim would also be able to be taken into account by the IIAA.
21. Article 6(1) ECHR confers the right of access to justice. If people are detained when they make late claims it may be more difficult for them to prepare their cases, access legal advice and potentially interpreters. There is no separate, additional provision for legal assistance for late claims, but existing legal advice (including legal aid) arrangements and procedural protections remain in place. These issues are not new but may arise more frequently where cases are expedited.
22. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with Articles 5 and 6(1) ECHR.
Article 13 ECHR – right to an effective remedy
23. Article 13 ECHR is potentially engaged with as the expedition may deprive a person of the time to prepare and present their case. However, on the basis of the remedies provided for and the fact the IIAA must exercise its primary function with a view to securing that justice is done, so appropriate case management directions can be made if additional time is needed in a particular case, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with Article 13 ECHR.
PART 2 – ARTICLE 8 OF THE ECHR
24. Part 2 of the Bill makes changes to the application of Article 8 ECHR. It provides for the following:
a. Applications: Clause 17 requires a UK based Sponsor to make an Article 8 application for family members outside the UK to join them and to appeal any adverse decision, thereby focussing the claim on the sponsor’s Article 8 rights.
b. Dependency: Clause 18 sets out circumstances in which family life is considered to exist in the immigration context in accordance with Strasbourg and domestic case law.
c. Qualifying child: Clause 19 narrows the circumstances in which a relationship with a qualifying child will mean that the public interest does not require removal.
d. Immigration breaches: Clause 19 provides that reduced weight is to be given to private and family life developed when a person has precarious status, and that no weight is to be given to private and family life where (i) an individual requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it or obtained it by deception, or (ii) is in serious breach of a condition attached to their leave to enter or remain.
e. Socio-economic: Clause 19 also sets out that it is in the public interest that people seeking to come to and remain in the UK are, and are likely to remain, financially independent, not likely to be reliant on public services, and are of good character.
f. Deportation of foreign nationals: Clause 20 provides that: (i) anyone who is deported under conducive deportation powers (including automatic deportation powers) will become subject to the statutory framework; and (ii) all cases will be assessed in accordance with a single framework whereby deportation is deemed to be in the public interest unless the effect would be disproportionate.
Article 8 – right to family life
25. All of these provisions, to differing extents, engage Article 8 ECHR, as follows:
a. Applications: The provision engages Article 8 as overseas family members will no longer apply directly, and any refusal will generate appeal rights for the UK-based sponsor rather than the overseas family member. However, as applications may still be made in relation to the overseas family member, any interference is considered limited.
b. Dependency: The provision codifies Strasbourg principles on when family life exists. Where those criteria are not met, Article 8 will not be engaged and there will be no interference.
c. Qualifying child: The provision narrows when removal is not required in the public interest. However, decision makers retain the ability to conduct an individualised proportionality assessment, so removal will not occur where it would be disproportionate.
d. Immigration breaches: The provision reduces the weight given to private and family life formed during precarious or unlawful status. Refusals or removals may be more likely, but proportionality will still be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
e. Socio-economic factors: The provision strengthens public interest considerations (including economic wellbeing and reliance on public services) within the Article 8 balancing exercise. It does not prescribe outcomes and preserves full proportionality assessments.
f. Deportation: The framework sets high thresholds for a person to establish a breach of family or private life, reflecting the significant public interest in deporting people who commit criminal offences or otherwise engage in misconduct. It requires a full, individualised balancing of criminality and immigration history against private and family life before a breach can be established. Stronger public interest weighting may lead to more deportations, but removal will only occur where justified following a proportionality assessment.
26. The Government is satisfied that in the event Article 8 is engaged, any interference with someone’s Article 8 rights by these provisions would be justified as it is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims, including maintaining effective immigration control, economic wellbeing and the prevention of disorder or crime. The provisions are proportionate in that, given the case-specific proportionality assessment that must be conducted, they are no more than necessary to address the legitimate aims. Insofar as a person who is being deported is required to meet an exception in order to demonstrate a potential breach of Article 8, the Government is satisfied that the thresholds sit within the margin of appreciation afforded to States when balancing the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole. Where the family or private life thresholds are not met, a person can still demonstrate a breach of Article 8 if there are very compelling circumstances indicating an Article 8 claim which is at least as strong as if the private or family life exceptions applied. Thus, the framework allows for all factors to be weighed in the Article 8 exercise. As such, the Government is satisfied the provisions are compatible with Article 8 ECHR.
Article 14 ECHR – prohibition of discrimination (read alongside Article 8 – right to family life)
27. With respect to Article 14 ECHR, taken together with Article 8, certain provisions may give rise to indirect differences in treatment thereby engaging Article 14 because some people may be more likely than others to be refused or removed under the new law. In particular, the socio-economic provisions may give rise to indirect difference in treatment, as factors such as reliance on public services may be more likely to arise in the cases of certain groups with protected status, for example persons who are disabled or elderly. Any such differences, however, pursue legitimate aims, including maintaining effective immigration control, and are proportionate, as decision makers must carry out a fact-sensitive proportionality assessment in each case. As such, the Government is satisfied the provisions are compatible with Article 14 (read with Article 8).
PART 4 – ASYLUM SUPPORT
28. Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill will introduce a power for the SSHD to recover costs associated with providing asylum support under section 4 and section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, once individuals in receipt have the financial means to make those payments.
29. The relevant threshold will be provided for in secondary legislation and must include a provision confirming a person cannot be required to make payments unless they can do so without becoming destitute. The mechanism for calculating the payments which will be required from individuals will be set out in secondary legislation. The calculation will be made in relation to the total cost of the system for all asylum seekers, taking into account the type and “average” duration of support and potentially subject to deductions in individual cases. Individuals who were under 18 when in receipt of support will be exempt and the Home Secretary has the power to create further exemptions. If individuals do not make payments within a reasonable time (as set out in secondary legislation) the amount will become a debt. This measure will apply to recipients of asylum support regardless of immigration status.
Article 1 Protocol 1 (A1P1) ECHR – Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (read alongside Article 14 – prohibition on discrimination)
30. A1P1 may be engaged by the measure as the Home Secretary will have the power to require payments from those who start to receive asylum support on or after the day on which the clauses come into force, which may constitute an interference with their possessions. It could be asserted that Article 14 is also engaged, on the basis that being an asylum seeker/failed asylum seeker or an individual in receipt of asylum support constitutes “other status” and the measure only impacts those with that status.
31. The Government is satisfied that, in the event A1P1 is engaged, any interference with A1P1, a qualified right, is proportionate. The legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of this fundamental right, the measure is rationally connected to the objective and the clauses do not do more than is necessary to accomplish the objective. Payments will only be required once individuals reach specified thresholds and they will be designed so as not to push individuals into destitution. and exemptions may be provided for in regulations. The current exemption applies to persons under 18. As such the interference with A1P1 is limited. There is strong public interest in the measure (ensuring those that benefit most from the system, contribute to its cost), and we assess the right balance has been struck between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community.
32. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with A1P1 (including when read with Article 14).
PART 5 – MODERN SLAVERY
SLAVERY AND TRAFFICKING PREVENTION/RISK ORDERS (STPOS/STROS)
33. Clauses 25 to 34 amend the civil prevention/risk order regime in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which is designed to manage individuals who pose a risk of committing (or committing further) modern slavery or trafficking offences. The provisions make certain notification requirements mandatory (e.g. reporting name and address) and clarify the court’s power to impose electronic monitoring. Existing safeguards remain, including judicial oversight and the requirement that orders be necessary to protect individuals or the public from harm.
Article 5 ECHR – right to liberty
34. Article 5 is engaged because breach of an order constitutes a criminal offence, which may result in arrest or detention. However, Article 5 is a limited right; detention may be justified, and therefore lawful, if it is in accordance with the law and for one of the permissible purposes set out in Article 5(1). The Government is satisfied that the exercise of this power is lawful, as follows:
35. In accordance with the law: The penalty and power of arrest are in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.
36. Permissible grounds: The measure provides for detention within recognised Article 5(1) purposes, including detention following conviction, for breach of a court order, or on suspicion of an offence.
37. Adequate safeguards are provided through the criminal justice system, and an offender subject to the order is able to appeal against conviction and sentence, as well as the imposition of the order, ensuring the proportionality of the measure. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provisions are compatible with Article 5 ECHR.
Article 8 – right to private life
38. The imposition of electronic monitoring conditions and the collection of location data may engage with an individual’s Article 8 rights. However, it is considered that any such interference is justified, as follows:
39. In accordance with the law: The legislation is clear and precise and accessible as envisaged by Malone v UK.
40. Legitimate aim: Electronic monitoring will improve the effectiveness of the orders which are intended to prevent serious crime and protect the public from harm.
41. Proportionality: An independent court will be responsible for imposing the requirement and has the discretion to decide whether it is necessary to do so to protect the public on a case-by-case basis; they are time limited, subject to variation or discharge, and accompanied by safeguards including appellate review, data protection obligations, and a statutory Code of Practice governing data use.
42. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with Article 8 ECHR.
TRANSPARENCY IN SUPPLY CHAINS (“TISC”)
43. The Bill strengthens the existing TISC regime under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 by extending its scope to public authorities, specifying mandatory reporting content, introducing civil penalties for non-compliance, and providing for joint statements and certification requirements (clauses 44 to 49).
A1P1 – peaceful enjoyment of possessions
44. The imposition of financial penalties for failure to comply with reporting requirements may constitute an interference with property. As such, A1P1 may be engaged. However, any such interference would be lawful, as follows:
45. In accordance with the law: The requirements and penalty powers are clearly set out in legislation and are sufficiently precise and foreseeable.
46. Legitimate aim: Ensuring consistent TISC reporting supports the UK’s efforts to combat modern slavery and strengthens transparency across supply chains.
47. Proportionality: The regime applies only to larger, well-resourced organisations and imposes reporting, rather than substantive, obligations. Penalties are limited and to be further defined in regulations, with an overall cap set in the Bill. Safeguards will include potential warning and representations processes and the availability of judicial review. Any interference with A1P1 rights is therefore limited and proportionate.
48. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with A1P1 ECHR.
NATIONAL REFERRAL MECHANISM (NRM) REFORMS
49. Part 5 of the Bill also introduces reforms to the NRM, aimed at streamlining the decision-making process when considering whether an individual is a victim or potential victim of trafficking, strengthening credibility assessments, and clarifying disqualification criteria (clauses 35 to 43).
Article 4 ECHR – prohibition of slavery and forced labour
50. Article 4 ECHR is an absolute right and therefore requires no assessment of proportionality. Case law from the European Court of Human Rights has determined that it imposes positive obligations on the state, which must take active steps to protect persons within its jurisdiction from being subject to acts prohibited under Article 4: J v Austria (Application No. 58216/12, 17 January 2017), at [106.]. The following are the broad categories of positive obligation:
a. a general duty on states to establish an appropriate legislative and administrative framework with a view to preventing individuals being subject to this treatment: Chowdhury v Greece (Application No. 21884/15, 30 March 2017 (the “systems duty”);
b. a protective duty on states to take reasonable measures to identify and protect potential victims of trafficking where there is a credible suspicion that an identified individual had been, or was at real and immediate risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 4: Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia (2010) 51 EHRR 1, at [286] (the “operational duty”); and
c. an investigative or procedural duty requiring states to have mechanisms in place to facilitate and to carry out investigations which is triggered where there is a “credible suspicion” that an individual has been trafficked; (R (TDT) v SSHD [2018] 1 WLR 4922, at [17]). In the UK this is implemented not through the NRM, but through the wider criminal justice system (the “procedural duty”).
Credibility
51. Clause 36 relating to credibility will also engage the operational duty. However, it does not remove or restrict any stage of the identification process; decision makers must continue to assess all evidence fairly, including reasons for late disclosure. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with Article 4.
Identification
52. The identification provision in clause 37 engages the operational duty under Article 4 ECHR it relates to the assessment of whether an individual is a victim or not. However, provided the powers are exercised reasonably, the NRM will continue to operate as an effective framework for identifying victims and facilitating access to support. As it is only where there has been a negative Conclusive Grounds decision within the 30-day period, that support will come to an end. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with Article 4.
Disqualification (public order and bad faith)
53. Clause 38 clarifies and strengthens existing powers, introducing rebuttable presumptions which can be rebutted (ensuring individuals have sufficient opportunity to set out any relevant risks), retaining safeguards for compelling circumstances. Article 4 does not require access to recovery measures in all cases. The framework therefore remains compliant with Article 4, as individuals have an opportunity to rebut disqualification and relevant risks must still be considered. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the measure is compatible with Article 4.
Withdrawal of support
54. Clause 44 allows support to be withheld where equivalent support has been withdrawn by another service due to the individual’s non-compliance. Safeguards are built in: withdrawal of support is subject to case-by-case assessment; support must not be withdrawn where this would create a real risk of re-trafficking, exploitation, or destitution; and coordination across services is required to ensure minimum support standards are maintained.
55. The Article 4 operational duty to provide protection and support to victims is engaged. However, this duty is not absolute, does not extend to facilitating the full recovery of an individual and must be applied in a way which does not impose a disproportionate burden on authorities. The provision achieves this by maintaining an effective framework for identifying and protecting victims whilst including safeguards to prevent destitution or re-trafficking. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with Article 4 ECHR.
Temporary Permission to Stay (TPS)
56. Clause 39 removes the duty at section 65(2)(a) NABA to grant TPS to confirmed victims of modern slavery on the basis that it is considered necessary for the purpose of assisting the person in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm arising from the relevant exploitation.
57. Article 4 is unlikely to be engaged by this provision. While it imposes positive obligations to identify and protect victims of trafficking, the requirement to provide TPS generally is not considered one of them, nor does it establish any general duty to grant leave, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in MS (Pakistan). An individual does not require a form of leave to be able to access support, and if a form of leave is required to prevent a breach of Article 4, forms of leave remain available via other routes.
58. Accordingly, the Government is satisfied that the provision is compatible with Article 4.