Survivors of sexual violence could wrongly be denied recognition as victims of human trafficking under the UK's immigration and asylum bill, the independent anti-slavery commissioner warned on October 16, 2026.

Eleanor Lyons, who holds the statutory watchdog post, said the bill's credibility tests are fundamentally unfair. She warned they could shut many victims of slavery and trafficking out of support — including women allegedly abused by the late Mohamed Al Fayed.

What does the bill actually do?

The immigration and asylum bill introduces credibility tests for people claiming to be victims of modern slavery (the umbrella term covering trafficking and forced labour). Applicants would have to convince authorities they are credible before the state recognises them as victims.

That matters because recognition is the gateway. It unlocks support services, accommodation and protection from removal. Fail the test, and the support disappears.

Lyons argues the mechanism misfires for one specific group: survivors of sexual violence. Their accounts are often fragmented or inconsistent. Trauma affects memory and disclosure. A credibility filter built for fraud screening will tend to read trauma symptoms as lies — like grading a witness on handwriting when their hand is shaking.

Why do the Fayed accusers matter here?

The allegations against Mohamed Al Fayed, the former Harrods owner, involve sexual abuse said to have occurred over decades. Women who say he abused them could, in principle, qualify as trafficking victims under existing legal definitions, which cover exploitation through abuse of power.

Under the new tests, Lyons warns, those same women might fail the credibility hurdle. They would then lose access to victim support — not because a court rejected their claims, but because an administrative screen flagged them as not believable enough.

What changes for practitioners?

For lawyers advising trafficking claimants, the stakes are procedural as much as substantive. Credibility will now be decided early, at the screening stage, often on paper and often before a survivor has had time to give a full account. Practitioners should prepare clients' initial statements with the care normally reserved for trial evidence: contemporaneous records, medical reports documenting trauma symptoms, and expert evidence on memory inconsistency should front-load the file rather than follow it. Appeals from a negative credibility finding are likely to become the main battleground, so preserving the reasoning and evidence relied on at first instance is essential.

What has the commissioner said?

Lyons described the measures as "fundamentally unfair" and said the bill could fail sexual violence survivors. Her office's intervention carries weight: the independent anti-slavery commissioner is a statutory post created to scrutinise the UK's response to modern slavery.

The core of her warning is simple. The tests ask the wrong question at the wrong moment. They judge whether a survivor sounds convincing before anyone has checked whether their story is true.

What happens next?

The bill remains before Parliament. Amendments could soften or remove the credibility tests before enactment. Until then, the commissioner's warning stands: the UK risks breaching its own commitment to identify and protect trafficking victims, and the Al Fayed accusers may become the test case nobody intended.