Resource

For many survivors of human trafficking, recovery does not begin when exploitation ends. It begins when they know they are safe. Without secure immigration status, survivors can spend years unable to rebuild their lives. They may be prevented from working or studying and live under the constant threat of removal from the UK. The psychological impact of trafficking is compounded by prolonged uncertainty, making recovery immeasurably harder. 

That is why the new Guidance Note published last month by GRETA, the expert body monitoring implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT), is so important. Although technical in form, it delivers a simple and powerful message: secure immigration status is not an optional extra for survivors of trafficking. It is fundamental to recovery. As GRETA puts it:

“Secure residence provides the stability necessary for genuine healing, free from the threat of imminent removal and the disruption of support relationships. Legal residence thus functions as an essential gateway to recovery and reintegration.” 

This is a principle the Helen Bamber Foundation has long argued. It is also one that is becoming increasingly important as the UK moves in the opposite direction. 

What protection should trafficking survivors receive?  

Article 14 of ECAT requires states to provide survivors with a renewable residence permit either because their personal situation makes it necessary or because they are assisting criminal investigations and prosecutions. States may operate one or both routes, but GRETA is clear that a system based solely on co-operation with law enforcement does not meet the Convention's requirements. Making immigration status dependent on co-operating with prosecutions risks reducing survivors to "evidence sources rather than rights-holders entitled to protection." 

The Guidance Note also explains that a survivor’s "personal situation" extends well beyond their trafficking experience. Decision-makers should consider their safety, physical and mental health, family circumstances, age, employment prospects and conditions in the country of return, while drawing on evidence from specialist organisations supporting survivors.

The guidance sets out what a system that is compliant with international law should look like, including:  

• an Article 14 residence permit being expressly provided for in domestic law;  

• no excessive evidential demands or barriers like application fees or absence of a criminal record;  

• decisions made without delay;  

• refusals that are reasoned, appealable and do not take immediate effect (giving the victim time to adjust and seek legal address where relevant); and  

• the length of a permit being long enough to “secure a durable solution” and see someone through recovery, criminal proceedings and any compensation claim. GRETA makes clear “there is nothing in the Convention to prevent states from issuing a permanent residence permit, as is envisaged in the Palermo Protocol”.

It also reinforces two particularly important principles. First, children must always be considered separately, with decisions grounded in their best interests. Second, trafficking protection must complement, not replace, the asylum system. The two routes should operate in parallel because survivors may require specialist trafficking support that is unavailable through asylum processes alone. For Helen Bamber Foundation clients, 85% of whom have simultaneously navigated both systems, this approach is essential. 

GRETA directly cites Helen Bamber Foundation's reports Leave in Limbo (2023) and Road to Nowhere (2025), both of which documented the human consequences of leaving trafficking survivors without secure immigration status. Survivors have described lives placed indefinitely on hold - unable to work, study or plan for the future - while prolonged uncertainty aggravated trauma and undermined therapeutic recovery. GRETA identifies the same pattern across Europe, highlighting "considerable delays" and prohibitively high evidential thresholds for residence permits.

That is why we have consistently argued that a positive Conclusive Grounds decision through the National Referral Mechanism (the UK framework for identifying and supporting trafficking survivors) should automatically result in a grant of long-term leave to remain, providing survivors with stability and a pathway towards settlement.

Moving away from international standards 

The timing of this Guidance Note is significant. In recent years, the UK has implemented Article 14 through a discretionary form of leave available after a positive Conclusive Grounds decision. In practice, however, grant rates, the duration of leave and consistency of decision-making have long fallen short of the standards GRETA now sets out – with only 4% of survivors being granted leave as victims of trafficking and many for less than a year. Rather than addressing those shortcomings, current legislative proposals will worsen them. 

Clause 39 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill would remove the duty to grant leave for recovery purposes - the principal basis on which most survivors (96% in 2024) have been granted leave in recent years. At precisely the moment when GRETA is clarifying that secure residence is central to recovery, the UK is considering legislation that would make it harder for survivors to obtain that protection. 

Guidance Notes do not change domestic law overnight. They do, however, provide an authoritative interpretation of what states are expected to do under the Convention they have signed up to. GRETA has made clear that secure immigration status is a central part of protection and recovery - not a discretionary reward. This guidance provides a benchmark against which to judge the UK’s systems. On that benchmark, the UK is already falling short. The government’s proposed changes risk taking it even further away from the international standards designed to protect trafficking survivors and support their recovery.