In January 2022, as the Nationality and Borders Bill progressed through Parliament, debates in the House of Lords highlighted deep concern about how proposed reforms risked weakening protections for people affected by modern slavery and exploitation.At that point, our work sat firmly at the intersection of research, lived experience and frontline criminal justice practice. We were increasingly concerned that policy discussions were moving faster than the evidence base that should underpin them.

In response, we developed a briefing paper focused on victim identification, credibility assessments and the real-world consequences of raising evidential thresholds within the modern slavery framework. That briefing was subsequently drawn upon during debate in the House of Lords, contributing to arguments raised against elements of the Bill.

This blog reflects on why that intervention mattered, and why evidence-led policy engagement remains essential when legislative reform risks outpacing reality.

The risk of legislating for an ideal victim

Much of the Nationality and Borders Bill debate centred on credibility: who is believed, when they are believed and under what conditions.

A recurring concern was that the Bill appeared to assume a narrow and unrealistic model of victimhood - one that does not reflect how exploitation actually manifests in practice. Our research and casework consistently showed that:

• Victims rarely disclose exploitation immediately
• Trauma affects memory, consistency and communication
• Delay, partial compliance, or prior offending are frequently misinterpreted as evidence against exploitation

Yet proposed measures risked hardening those misunderstandings into law.

When policy frameworks rely on simplified narratives of exploitation, they do not just miss nuance; they actively exclude those most in need of protection.

What the evidence was telling us

At the time, our briefing drew on a combination of:

• expert witness casework in criminal courts
• academic research on trauma, coercion and control
• analysis of decision-making patterns in victim identification processes

The evidence consistently pointed to the same conclusion: credibility assessments that focus narrowly on behaviour, timelines, or perceived “choice” are unreliable indicators of exploitation.

Instead, effective identification requires an understanding of coercive control, survival strategies and the ways in which victims adapt within constrained circumstances.

These points were not abstract. They reflected patterns we were seeing repeatedly in live cases - patterns that risked being further entrenched by legislative change.

Why Parliamentary scrutiny matters

The House of Lords debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill demonstrated the value of informed parliamentary scrutiny grounded in evidence.

Interventions raised concerns about:

• the negative effect of higher evidential thresholds
• the risk of penalising late disclosure
• the danger of conflating immigration control with safeguarding decisions

The fact that research-based briefing could be used to support those arguments reinforced an important principle: policy debates are strongest when they are informed by what is happening on the ground.

Legislation that shapes life-changing decisions about protection and prosecution must be tested against lived reality - not assumptions.

Looking forward: evidence, not expediency

While the Nationality and Borders Bill debate marked a specific legislative moment, the issues it raised are not confined to that Bill alone.

Across criminal justice and immigration systems, there remains a persistent tension between:

• speed and scrutiny
• control and protection
• policy intent and operational impact

Our experience engaging with the House of Lords debate reinforced the importance of sustained, careful policy work - particularly where reforms affect people whose voices are least likely to be heard directly.

As we continue to contribute to policy discussions, our position remains unchanged: robust legislation must be rooted in evidence, informed by practice and tested against the complexity of real lives.

As debates about migration, exploitation and criminal justice continue, we hope that evidence-led scrutiny becomes the norm rather than the exception - and that fewer of these arguments need to be re-made in the years ahead.