Chloe Setter
Head of Advocacy, Policy & Campaigns
ECPAT UK, 2014

• ECPAT UK is a children’s rights charity campaigning for the protection of child victims of trafficking and the victims of transnational sexual abuse by British citizens
• Research / Campaigning / Training / Project
Work / Youth Programme & Youth Groups
• Network in more than 75 countries

• Of the 2,255 potential victims of trafficking in
2012, 549 (24%) were children. This represents a 12% increase from 2011 (UKHTC, 2013)
• The most prevalent countries of origin of child potential victims were Vietnam (103, 19%),
Nigeria (78, 14%), Slovakia (43, 9%), Romania
(39, 7%), UK (38, 7%), Albania (22, 4%), China
(13, 2%), Bangladesh (10, 2%), Democratic
Republic of the Congo (10, 2%) and Somalia
(8, 1%)

“It’s like their fingers were in your brain. Your heart jumps when you see them”
“He didn’t just threaten me, he beat me unconscious”
“They used to say things like children's organs are really expensive & children can be kidnapped”
“Every single day I heard the threat, I’ll kill you bitch”

Child trafficking = actual/potential significant harm
• Local Authority
Assessment
• Multi-agency response
• Strategy Discussion
• S47 investigation
• Immediate action to safeguard: EPO; S46
Police powers
• S20 accommodation
•
• Child protection medical
• A.B.E. interview
• Child Protection Case
Conference & Review/
LAC reviews
• CP trained interpreters
Child abuse later first status/ criminal issues

• Early identification is vital to safeguard victims against ongoing risks (missing / criminalisation / re-trafficking / evidence)
• BUT difficult to identify – children may not disclose, may be inconsistent or lie, may have a ‘learnt’ story to tell authorities
• Children may have ‘bond’ with traffickers and they or their family may be in debt to the traffickers

• In 2009, the UK ratified the Council of Europe
Convention on Trafficking and created an official system of identification
• NRM is the framework for identifying victims and providing support/assistance
• First Responders can make referrals to the two Competent Authorities for two-stage decision (the Home Office and the UK
Human Trafficking Centre)

The aim of the review is to establish whether the NRM:
- provides an effective and efficient way of supporting and identifying potential victims of human trafficking
- can, or should, cover all victims of modern slavery
Submit evidence here:
NRMReview@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Criticism of the NRM for children
After the NRM’s first year of operation, the
ATMG published a report that criticised the lack of sufficient expertise in relation to children of those tasked with identifying child victims. Further, the decision to ‘bypass’ the existing strong and mature child protection system and locate the children’s NRM outside of this system, the report argued, had a detrimental effect on trafficked children.

Criticism of the NRM for children
- Low awareness of the NRM system and child trafficking indicators/definition/profiles among First Responders in particular
- Low referral rate among some local authorities that see little purpose in the NRM for children
- Low conclusive grounds rate decision for children (around
31% from April 2009 up until June 2012), which is lower than that of adults, despite the simpler definition of child trafficking
- Lack of child-specific training and child protection specialism among case owners in the Competent Authorities
- Potential discrimination in the decision-making process

Criticism of the NRM for children
- Poor decision-making that is frequently based on credibility
(and often, wrongly, consent) and lacks an understanding of child development and the impact of trauma and abuse
- Lack of a formal appeal system
- Lack of any independent evaluation/monitoring of the operation of the NRM and any scrutiny, either internally or externally, of decisions made
- Lack of multi-agency input in the decision-making process
- Poor communication between First Responders, relevant agencies and the Competent Authorities
- Conflation between asylum claims and identification within the NRM

Criticism of the NRM for children
- Lack of policy/guidance on how the NRM fits within the best interests requirement and the duty to create a durable solution for trafficked children in Article 16 of the EU Anti-
Trafficking Directive
-No statutory basis for the NRM, so no requirement to refer, or for First Responders to participate in identification
-- Little known on the impact of NRM decisions on children in the short and long term
- Lack of input by the child into the NRM process and a lack of understanding of the NRM
- Lack of long-term evaluation of the NRM and support for child victims of trafficking

These include but are not limited to:
• A child-rights centred approach that puts children’s best interests at its heart
• A non-discriminatory model that is purely about the effective identification of trafficked children not conflated with the consideration of the child’s nationality or immigration status
• Building on existing child protection structures that recognise child trafficking as child abuse and the provision of an individualised, appropriate safeguarding response

• Recognising that a child cannot give informed consent
• A fair and trust-based model that incorporates the views & experiences of the child and does not base decisions on the perceived credibility of the child
• A model involving skilled and experienced child protection professionals, working together in a multi-agency setting with other statutory agencies, civil society and other relevant organisations
• A localised model that empowers professionals and drives up awareness & understanding of trafficking and feeds into a centralised intelligence picture to prevent trafficking

• Multi-agency NRM for children that incorporates best interests principle
• Quality and regular training for frontline staff and
First Responders
• Legal guardianship
• Specialist foster care for trafficked children
• Improved protocols on missing trafficked children
• Non-prosecution
• Offence of child exploitation

+44 (0)207 607 2136