Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hacking]

6: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Victim navigators(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make provision for each police force in England and Wales to have access to one or more independent victim navigators.(2) The purpose of an independent victim navigator under subsection (1) is to—(a) liaise between the police force and potential victims of offences relating to slavery or human trafficking, and(b) assist in the provision of specialist advice for either the police force or the potential victims.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance on the functions of independent victim navigators.(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to implement the recommendation of the House of Lords Committee on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (HL Paper 8) by introducing provisions for Independent Victim Navigators to be in operation on a national level in England and Wales, acting as a liaison between the police and potential victims of slavery or human trafficking in accessing the appropriate support.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am happy to disclose that I am being supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has been kind enough to sign my amendment.

I think it would be helpful if I began by telling your Lordships the major features of modern slavery. It affects principally those in the agricultural industry, domestic employment and the provision of sexual services. It impacts mainly on immigrant labour. Immigrants are brought to this country by their exploiter; in the case of sexual offences, it will be by their pimp. When here, they continue to be controlled by their exploiter, having to give, for example, a portion of their earnings to the exploiter.

I think it would also be helpful if I explained the role of the victim navigator. Their role is to protect the victim, particularly in the prosecution process. They are often former police officers who understand the processes to which the victim is subject. In gaining the confidence of the victim, they gain most valuable information that can lead to the prosecution of the exploiter. In the provision of sexual services, this will be the prosecution of the pimp.

We must understand the scale of the problem relating to sexual services and the current increase in sexual exploitation. The figures are difficult to obtain, but it has been estimated that in the years 2020 to 2025 there was an 86% increase in the sexual exploitation of women, from 1,114 victims to 2,076. It has also been estimated that there has been a 61% increase in the exploitation of girls, and I understand that to be women who are under the age of 18.

Sex provides, and this is very alarming, a very big market on the internet. For those accessing ASWs, as they are called, there can currently be found 63,000 listings for women. These sites attract—this is another awful figure—no fewer than 41.7 million visitors.

I do not see her present, but my noble friend Lady Goudie spoke to this amendment in Committee. I was not able to be in Committee. It is important to remind your Lordships of the major points that my noble friend made.

She referred to the report of the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, which was so ably chaired by my noble friend Lady O’Grady. I do not see her, either, in the Chamber. My noble friend Lady Goudie cited paragraph 46 on page 77, which was the conclusion of our committee report, which reads:

“Victim navigators should be rolled out nationally. The objective must be that they are available in all cases”.


She also drew attention to the economic benefit provided by the use of victim navigators. It was estimated that the financial gain for each victim who benefited from this process came to £150,000. She cited the chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, who stated in reference to the victims:

“That means they’re better able to get help, and it also helps us when we’re taking people to court, because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage, and they feel supported. It has made a real difference to us”.


The other compliment came from a detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police, who commented as follows:

“I am in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have received a 31-year jail sentence without the support of Justice and Care ... I led the police investigation into the case and think that the Victim Navigators’ work was nothing short of exceptional”.


I am citing my noble friend Lady Goudie because it is very important that we understand this.

The government response to our committee report, from the Home Office, reads as follows:

“The Government recognises the importance of supporting victims to engage with the criminal justice system and the positive impact an independent support worker, working alongside law enforcement, can have on securing this engagement”.


It goes on to refer to research on victim navigators:

“The Government is keen to build on this research, working in partnership with NGOs and law enforcement, to identify how to best support victims to engage with the criminal justice system”.


So the Home Office certainly responded positively to our report.

The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Ms Eleanor Lyons, supports this amendment. My noble friend the Minister kindly met her last week, on Thursday, so she has heard directly the views of no less a person than the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on this amendment.

I refer to the first annual report of the commissioner, which came out only a few days ago, because its foreword states that

“modern slavery is still with us. It lurks in the shadows, hidden in industries, supply chains, and even in our neighbourhoods. The victims, in rural communities as well as big cities, continue to suffer in silence”.

In short, this continues to be a major matter of concern. The report, from a very small office, is remarkable. Its 58 pages identify the commissioner’s strategic plan of prevention, protection and prosecution. To summarise the importance of victim navigators, I refer to the most recent survey—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I invite my noble friend to move his amendment as he has now been speaking for 10 minutes.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I think I am allowed 15 minutes.

The commissioner summarised her strategy in this excellent report. It is the protection of victims, and 724 have been supported. As a result of the activities of the victim navigators, 1,420 police investigations have taken place, and 74 convictions have resulted in a total period of imprisonment of all those convicted of 522 years.

I recognise that modern slavery is under the remit of the Home Office, not the Department of Justice. This inevitably restricts the Minister and what help she can provide. If she cannot accept this amendment, could she kindly convey to her colleagues in the Home Office the strong views that I have expressed and that I hope others will express in this short debate? The Home Office did very well in introducing the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which put us at the forefront internationally of anti-slavery legislation, but it did slip up rather badly. This was identified in the Independent in, I think, January 2024, which had a headline:

“Commissioner: Modern slavery no longer Home Office priority”.


There was also a very serious failure by the Home Office in leaving the post of the anti-slavery commissioner vacant for, in the words of Ms Lyons, “a staggering 20 months”. This was taken up as a point of criticism in our Select Committee report. So can the Minister, if nothing else, get the Home Office to start paying attention again to modern slavery and its problems? I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, especially when he is so right on an issue. This is an interesting group. Clearly, the Government are going to have a choice of routes to increase human rights for victims, because we need a justice system that puts victims first. We have to understand that many, particularly in the cases we are talking about, are frightened, traumatised and very much deserving of care. For many survivors, the moment they come to the attention of the authorities is not a moment of relief: it is a moment of fear and confusion. They may have been controlled, threatened and abused for months or years. They may not trust the police—many of us do not—they may not speak English and they may be terrified about what will happen next.

In those moments, survivors are asked to engage in an intimidating criminal justice system and to relive traumatic experiences, often without truly understanding what is happening or why. Too many fall away from investigations not because they are unwilling to help but because the process feels overwhelming, frightening and isolating. Victim navigators exist to meet people at that point of fear and vulnerability. They provide a trusted person who stays with the victim, explains what is happening, listens to their concerns and helps them feel safe enough to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

Under the victims’ code, victims must be informed about restorative justice and how to access it. As part of the consultation on a new code, which is currently live, we are engaging widely to ensure that victims are offered restorative justice at the right time. I would very much welcome the noble Baroness contributing to the consultation. However, placing referral to restorative justice for all victims on a statutory footing would be neither necessary nor appropriate. The safety and welfare of those involved is paramount, and automatic, or certainly repeated, referral would therefore not always be suitable. The Government already receive regular reporting from police and crime commissioners as part of the Ministry of Justice grant management process, which includes information on restorative justice. A further national assessment would simply duplicate what is already in place. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her reply. She said that the Government are supportive of Justice and Care and the victim navigator scheme; the problem is that they are not prepared to fund it and thereby bring it in as a national scheme. I have to be satisfied with that reply. It is disappointing that the Government are not going the whole hog, as there would be financial benefits for them in taking on this scheme, but one has to accept the crumbs offered to one. I accept all the crumbs that my noble friend has offered and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I join the Minister’s fan club and thank her for her engagement on this, which has really helped get this to a better place. I am grateful for that. I believe we will hear from her what the Government’s plan is, but can she also assure me on a couple of points?

First, whatever the new process is to be, how will a person subject to a glitch or misinformation assert their case without having proper access to the system from which the evidence emerged? How will we ensure that the court is quick to understand and question the validity of the information and the system that produced it, and how will we educate the legal profession on the depth and breadth of information that seems plausible but is false? How will we do all that in sufficient time to save the next set of victims?

I too recognise the problems raised by the Minister in those meetings around the ubiquity of computers, but there is an equal and opposite concern that, in an age of AI where hallucinations, deepfakes and melded information are a norm, if we are willing to continue with the presumption, as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, said, that information from a computer is reliable, that not only is untrue but creates distrust in the law. When this moment has passed, could there perhaps be a piece of work looking forward to challenge the presumption in law in a more careful and considered way, which this quick fix does not quite reach?

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the three other noble Lords who signed Amendment 21. I also support Amendment 22. Concerning Amendment 21, mention has been made of the Post Office/Horizon scandal. As we all now know, this was a very defective computer. The law must in future be on the side of truth and accuracy, in relation to computers or to anything else.

--- Later in debate ---

Further, to ensure transparency, the CPS will also convene a national scrutiny panel examining the use of drill and rap music in prosecutions. This panel will include third-sector representatives, legal professionals and academic experts, who will review anonymised past cases involving the music, answer questions, gather feedback and help the CPS to refine its approach. I repeat my thanks and gratitude to my noble friend for her concern and efforts in relation to both these areas of evidential reform. I hope she will be content not to press her amendments.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very sorry to interject at this stage, but I am a bit puzzled as to whether changing the rules of the Supreme Court will impact on county courts and magistrates’ courts.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My noble friend will forgive me, because this has nothing to do with the rules of the Supreme Court and the county courts. He will forgive me.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, not least for being an exemplar of how Report should be dealt with—notwithstanding the broken clock, which I hope will be fixed by tomorrow’s no doubt lengthy business. I am particularly grateful to the supporters and co-signatories of this amendment, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Beamish, who have done, and continue to do, all that doughty work on behalf of the postmasters.

I am grateful also to Justice and Art Not Evidence for their help with both amendments. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister, because not all Ministers respond with this level of detail and positive engagement. The crack is how the light gets in. Of course, the devil will be in the detail of the rules and the CPS guidance, but I trust her to keep going with this. I certainly trust my noble friends and co-signatories to keep up their doughty campaigning and to accept her invitation to stay involved in the discussion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.