How we define ‘sexual exploitation’ is fuelling violence against women and girls

Modern slavery and human trafficking are serious deprivations of freedom. The terms encompasses sexual, criminal and labour exploitation, organ harvesting and domestic servitude. Understandably, the complex nature of exploitation often leaves survivors without ways to evidence what they have gone through. Yet, without sufficient evidence, survivors face a culture of disbelief when what they really need is support.

This culture of disbelief has now worsened, particularly for women and girls who have been sexually exploited.

During the pre-election period, when the government was without ministers or the ability to consult experts, the Home Office made changes to the Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance. This crucial document dictates which survivors are deemed ‘genuine’ and who is eligible for support.

• I didn’t know I was a human trafficking victim till I was in my 50s – why did nobody rescue me?
• UK immigration policy is stuck in a race to the bottom – with human traffickers the only winners
• Modern slavery is still rife in the UK – where do we go from here?

Through these edits, the Home Office ‘raised the bar’ for victims of sexual exploitation overnight. Now, rather than considering the merits of a modern slavery survivors’ case based on evidence alone, the guidance instructs Home Office staff to consider sexual exploitation ‘less likely’ to have occurred if there have not been “multiple incidents”, “multiple offenders” or “multiple victims” involved.

Not only is proving the presence of multiple incidents, perpetrators and victims a significant burden for survivors of this notoriously hidden crime, it also has no bearing on whether the person has been sexually exploited or not. Many survivors have been victimised by offenders who are opportunists or known to them, rather than organised criminals. In practice, the changes also presume disbelief, rather than recognition, when survivors report their abuse as quickly as possible or before ‘multiple incidents’ take place.

Meanwhile, evidence of ‘grooming’ is now deemed a key deciding factor as to whether or not a victim has been sexually exploited. Grooming is one means of exploiting someone, but only one of many. More often, deception, threats and coercion are used by exploiters to control the survivor without the need for grooming over long periods of time. These victims deserve support too.

This new wording closely mimics the language used in criminal justice settings, and is potentially a way to prioritise cases which have the evidence needed for prosecution, rather than to prevent harm, reduce risk and protect victims from prolonged sexual violence, trauma and endangerment to life.

The guidance also encourages decision makers to rely on their own discretion when identifying victims.

To make matters worse, definitions of sexual exploitation have been subject to more changes outside the Home Office. Recommendations from parliamentarians conflate sex work with sexual exploitation, further fuelling confusion around definitions and creating the worst of both worlds: survivors who don’t identify with the term ‘sex work’ are seen as workers in the industry, while consenting sex workers are at risk of being labelled as ‘victims of sexual exploitation’ despite not going through the same things as survivors of actual modern slavery.

Violence against women and girls (VAWG), sometimes inclusive of modern slavery, has gained more attention in recent years. Last year, then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman declared that VAWG must be treated as a “national threat” by UK policing. This led to an investigation by the UN which found that patriarchy was “entrenched… at almost every level of society, combined with a rise in misogyny that permeates the physical and online world.” Within the same month, the National Police Chiefs Council had published its Policing VAWG National Framework and guidance on sex work.

While the urgency of response is justified, given the scale and harm caused by VAWG, we are still seeing a failure by those in power to reflect upon institutions’ own misogynistic culture and practice, including the ways they decide what it means to be a ‘victim’. The consequence is an increased risk of harm among some of the most vulnerable.

So this leaves the question: exactly how has the UK progressed over the past 25 years since the system for identifying and support survivors, the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), was first introduced? Many with lived experience involved in After Exploitation’s research say that support access is closely guarded, with the only people benefitting from these restrictive systems of support being exploiters themselves and those in positions of power hoping to bury their heads in the sand.

Kimberley Hutchison is a research consultant at After Exploitation.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. Big Issue exists to give homeless and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy of the magazine or get the app from the App Store or Google Play.