The intervention by Eleanor Lyons, the UK’s Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, into remarks made by the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, is more than a political skirmish. It cuts to the heart of how Britain chooses to balance two competing imperatives: managing migration and protecting victims of modern slavery.
Mahmood’s suggestion that asylum seekers “suddenly decide” to present as victims of slavery to delay deportation is a powerful political narrative, but one that risks eroding the fragile architecture of victim protection painstakingly built over the past two decades.
This is not just about semantics or political messaging. It is about whether we believe in evidence-based policy or whether, under pressure, we allow fear and rhetoric to dictate the terms of protection.
The reality of late disclosure
One of the most important points Lyons made is that there is no substantive evidence that last-minute modern slavery claims are being systematically abused.
Multiple Freedom of Information requests have been made for the “evidence”. What we do know, however, is that late disclosure of trauma is common — not only in slavery cases but across all forms of exploitation and abuse.
Survivors often disclose only when they feel safe, supported, or when the fear of imminent removal triggers the courage to speak out. Survivors can’t access legal support easily – this means they may end up speaking out at the last minute because of the delay to receiving legal advice. To frame this as “gaming the system” is to misunderstand how trauma and coercion operate.
In practice, many victims of modern slavery are deliberately controlled by traffickers to prevent disclosure. They may lack knowledge of their rights, have no trust in officials, or fear retaliation against themselves or their families. Others may be deeply ashamed, especially where sexual exploitation is involved.
The idea that people wake up one morning and strategically “decide” to claim modern slavery as a delay tactic fails to reflect this lived reality.
Political expediency vs. victim protection
The timing of Mahmood’s remarks is revealing. Migration pressures remain a defining political battleground.
There is immense pressure on the government to show it is “in control” of borders and to reduce asylum backlogs. Against this backdrop, modern slavery protections are increasingly presented as loopholes rather than lifelines.
But when victim protections are framed as obstacles, the integrity of the UK’s anti-slavery framework is placed in jeopardy.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015, once a global benchmark, is already being hollowed out by successive reforms and a narrowing of eligibility. If ministers continue to characterise protections as threats to immigration enforcement, public confidence in the system will be eroded, and frontline officials may feel emboldened to dismiss genuine claims.
The long-term consequence is simple: fewer victims identified, more people trapped in exploitation, law enforcement efforts are misdirected and traffickers emboldened.
The wider narrative problem
This debate is not unique to the UK. Across Europe, North America, and Australia, modern slavery frameworks are increasingly politicised in the context of migration. Victim protection mechanisms — from the EU’s Anti-Trafficking Directive to US T-visas — are regularly accused of being “pull factors” that encourage irregular migration.
Yet evidence consistently shows that robust protections do not drive migration. What they do is ensure that states can both prosecute traffickers and support victims in rebuilding their lives. Without these safeguards, traffickers operate with impunity, knowing that their victims are too fearful of state authorities to ever come forward.
The UK risks repeating mistakes seen elsewhere — conflating border control with victim protection. These are related but distinct policy arenas. When they are collapsed into one another, victims are treated as collateral in the politics of migration.
An alternative perspective
To be fair, ministers do face a genuine challenge: the asylum system is overloaded, the public is frustrated, and confidence in government delivery is low. Any mechanism that delays removal — however legitimate — is viewed through a political lens as obstruction. Mahmood’s comments should be seen in this context: a government desperate to signal toughness and efficiency.
But this is precisely why leadership matters. It is possible to be both tough on abuse and uncompromising on victim protection. The binary choice between “open to exploitation” or “closed for deterrence” is false.
What is required is investment in early identification, better training for professionals, accessible legal advice and trauma-informed approaches that prevent late disclosure in the first place.
Where do we go from here?
If the UK wants to maintain its global leadership on modern slavery, three steps are essential:
- Re-affirm evidence-based policy — Government should commit to publishing data on the scale and timing of modern slavery claims. This would clarify whether concerns about abuse are grounded in fact or merely in perception.
- Invest in early identification — Resources for legal advice, interpreters, and specialist NGOs must be increased so that victims can disclose safely and earlier in the asylum process.
- Protect the firewall between victim support and immigration enforcement — Victims must feel confident that disclosure will not simply accelerate their removal. Without this firewall, trust collapses.
Conclusion: a test of values
The debate ignited by Mahmood’s remarks is ultimately a test of what kind of society the UK wants to be. Do we allow the politics of deterrence to eclipse the moral and legal duty to protect the vulnerable? Or do we accept that while migration control is necessary, it must never be achieved by sacrificing the rights of victims of slavery?
Eleanor Lyons has sounded an important warning. If her voice is ignored, the UK risks not only failing victims but also betraying its own claim to moral leadership in the fight against modern slavery.
Political soundbites may win headlines, but evidence-based protection saves lives. The choice could not be clearer.