UK anti-slavery policy at the border: Humanitarian opportunism and the challenge of victim consent to assistance
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370818820645 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
820645EUC0010.1177/1477370818820645European Journal of CriminologyHadjimatheou and Lynch
research-article2018
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2020, Vol. 17(5) 678 –698
UK anti-slavery policy at
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
the border: Humanitarian
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818820645
DOI: 10.1177/1477370818820645
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
opportunism and the
challenge of victim
consent to assistance
Katerina Hadjimatheou
University of Essex, UK
Jennifer Lynch
University of Hertfordshire, UK
Abstract
The UK’s Modern Slavery Strategy, launched in 2014, gives Border Force Officers a key role
as anti-slavery first responders, identifying and supporting victims at the border. Yet, while an
estimated 94 percent of victims identified in the UK cross UK borders, in 2016 less than 3
percent of victim referrals were made at the border. This article draws on a series of in-depth
interviews with a specialized Safeguarding and Anti-Trafficking (SAT) team within the UK Border
Force to shed light on this discrepancy. In doing so, it takes forward critical debates about
the coherence of humanitarian anti-slavery policy and the consistency of its ambitions with a
continued prioritization by governments of security policy and immigration control. The article
furthers two key arguments: first, that current policy around anti-slavery first response at the
border is grounded in a rationale of ‘humanitarian opportunism’, which states that borders are
sites of unique opportunity to identify and assist victims of trafficking, and that Border Force
Officers therefore have a humanitarian duty to identify and assist victims; second, that the
humanitarian opportunity is in reality far more restricted in practice than the policy rhetoric
suggests, a fact that goes some way to explaining the very small numbers of those identified as
trafficked and assisted at UK borders. Two key challenges to successful identification and support
are identified: the first is EU freedom of movement, which in effect exempts European citizens
from vulnerability screening by Border Force Officers; the second is the requirement that Border
Force Officers obtain written consent from those identified as trafficked to being labelled a victim
of crime before they can be offered support. The article puts forward some suggestions for how
these challenges could be addressed for the benefit of those trafficked.
Corresponding author:
Katerina Hadjimatheou, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, UK.
Email: k.hadjimatheou@essex.ac.uk
Hadjimatheou and Lynch
679
Keywords
borders, consent, human trafficking, humanitarianism, modern slavery, victims
Introduction
In 2014 the UK government launched its first Modern Slavery Strategy, sealing the UK’s
commitment to fighting what the current Prime Minister, Theresa May, has called ‘the
greatest human rights issue of our time’ (May, 2016). The UK Border Force is one of
only four state agencies1 to be given a ‘crucial’ and cross-cutting role in the delivery of
this Strategy. Amongst other things, Border Force Officers have been designated as ‘anti-
trafficking first responders’, with particular duties to ‘identify potential victims and pro-
vide enhanced support and protection against re-trafficking’ (HM Government, 2014:
55). This article examines how this new humanitarian role for the Border Force Officer
has been conceptualized, justified and apparently reconciled with the aims of migration
policy and border control. It draws on findings from a series of in-depth interviews with
a dedicated Border Force SAT team at the UK’s largest airport to shed light on how these
new duties of victim protection and support are being put into practice on the ground.
The article offers an account of the challenges to victim identification and support at the
border and highlights the difficulties of addressing these for the benefit of those
trafficked.
There is a growing body of criminological research investigating the pursuit of
humanitarian ideals in the context of border control. However, this is focused heavily on
the field of search and rescue at sea (Aas and Gundhus, 2015; Perkowski, 2016; Squire,
2017). In comparison, anti-trafficking victim identification and support is still a nascent
area of humanitarian border control. As a result, empirical studies of how such efforts
play out at the border remain few and far between (Ham et al., 2013; Pickering and Ham,
2014). This article attempts to address this relative lack of insight into anti-trafficking
first response at the border.
Our analysis also takes forward critical debates about the coherence of humanitarian
anti-slavery policy and the consistency of its ambitions with a continued prioritization by
governments of security policy and immigration control. In particular, our analysis lends
support to O’Connell Davidson and others who argue that strict migration and security
policies increase the economic and social vulnerability of some migrant groups and
thereby exacerbate the structural drivers of trafficking (O’Connell Davidson, 2015,
2017; Sharma, 2017). In doing so, it also casts doubt on the view expressed in the policy
discourse and beyond (HM Government, 2014; McAdam, 2013; OHCHR, 2010) that a
‘human rights approach’ to anti-trafficking or anti-slavery policy at the border is
achievable in practice.
The UK government has only recently adopted the term ‘modern slavery’ to describe
what had previously been referred to as ‘human trafficking’ or ‘trafficking in persons’. In
so doing, it has aligned its Modern Slavery Strategy with what has become known as the
‘new abolitionist’ movement, pioneered by activist and academic Kevin Bales. This
move has been criticized vigorously, most notably by Julia O’Connell Davidson, who
has argued that the conceptual shift away from trafficking to slavery presents the phe-
nomenon as a problem of moral wrongdoing by individuals (or ‘evil’ in the words of the
680
European Journal of Criminology 17(5)
UK’s current Prime Minister; May, 2016) and in so doing elides questions of state-sus-
tained structural conditions, which enable large-scale coercion and exploitation.
Because our analysis supports O’Connell Davidson’s position, we continue to use
‘human trafficking’ instead of ‘modern slavery’, when doing so does not misrepresent
the positions or agents we discuss. Similarly, we are cognizant of the problematic aspects
of using the word ‘victim’ to refer to people who may themselves reject such a label.
Indeed, we deal with this issue directly in Part 2 of the article. Where possible, then, we
speak of ‘those trafficked’ or ‘those identified as victims’ rather than ‘victims of
trafficking’.
Background
According to the UK government, Border Force Officers are uniquely well placed to act
as anti-slavery first responders because ‘victims who are trafficked will often cross our
borders and we need to use that opportunity to identify them and to intervene’ (Independent
Chief Inspector of Borders, 2017: 6.14). Yet three years on from the publication of the
UK’s Modern Slavery Strategy, the figures reveal a startling disparity between the gov-
ernment’s expectations of the Border Force as an agency of first response and the reality
on the ground. In 2016, less than 2.9 percent of the 3805 referrals made in the UK came
from the Border Force.2 What might explain the disparity between the government’s
expectations of the Border Force and the reality on the ground, and how should it be
addressed?
Official responses to this question tend to focus critical scrutiny on Border Force
performance rather than on the expectations placed upon them (and indeed on other first
responder agencies) by the government. They imply that the success of victim identifica-
tion and protection is ultimately down to the anti-slavery first responder. For example,
the first ever review of anti-slavery at the border, published in 2017, opens with an admo-
nition of Border Force to take more seriously its anti-slavery role:
‘Border Force has a duty and responsibility to respond to the crime of slavery with urgency and
efficiency, as recognized in the UK Government’s Modern Slavery Strategy … Modern slavery
is not simply a matter of numbers, targets and processes for Border Force to manage; human
lives are at stake and people’s freedom is in question.’ (Kevin Hyland, UK Independent Anti-
Slavery Commissioner, in Independent Chief Inspector of Borders, 2017)
The author of that report, the government-appointed Independent Chief Inspector of
Borders, recognizes that victim identification and protection are challenging; but he ulti-
mately highlights deficiencies in Border Force practice to explain the current low rate of
success. Similarly, his recommendations for improvement relate solely to Border Force
practice, including better training, information-keeping and decision-making (Independent
Chief Inspector of Borders, 2017: 3). The message conveyed is that, if only Border Force
Officers took their responsibilities seriously, followed the guidance and were well enough
trained, victims would be better identified and protected.
In this article, we present research that tells a different story. Our aim is not to cast
doubt on the claim that there is room for improvement in Border Force practice in this
Hadjimatheou and Lynch
681
area. Rather, it is to draw attention to some of the serious...
To continue reading
Request your trial