Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting)

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Atkinson]

Q I have one follow-up on that. At the moment, we are aware that there are instances across the NHS every day where people make decisions around refusing the treatment that would be required to prolong their life. Doctors, nurses and the healthcare team would be involved in assessing capacity and coercion around those cases. Can you tell me a bit about any learnings from that, about the levels of skill required in the current practice around refusing lifesaving treatment, and about how that might be taken into account in the Bill?

Professor Whitty: You are absolutely right: it is a completely normal part of medical and wider nursing, and other practice, but particularly medical practice, to consider issues of consent and capacity. It can be that someone says they do not want treatment that is clearly going to be lifesaving. A very well-known example is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who choose not to have blood products. If they are bleeding heavily, that is an issue that could lead to the end of their life. Provided they understand that and they have capacity, that has to be respected.

The alternative way—the other thing that doctors have to do—is to give people advice before they have major operations, chemotherapy or other drugs that may in themselves lead to the end of their life, but which also may lead to a benefit. Explaining to people the risks and benefits, including the fact that they may lose their life as a result of the next stage—if someone is at high anaesthetic risk, that is not a trivial risk sometimes with operations—is a very standard part of medical practice that you do from the point that you qualify. Obviously, as people get more senior, they tend to be more experienced in it—and, as with most things, if you get more experience, you generally get better at it.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q Professor Whitty, the definition of “terminal illness” is attracting some attention. Some people say it is difficult to define a terminal illness. Would it improve the Bill if we had a specified list of illnesses that would apply? Is it possible to come up with a list of illnesses that are terminal that would qualify under the legislation?

Professor Whitty: If I am honest, I think it would be extremely difficult. If I may, I will explain why, because it is a really important question. Let us take cancer. For the great majority of people with the majority of cancers that are diagnosed tomorrow, the doctor who is seeing them will say, in all confidence, “You have cancer and I expect you to be alive not just next Christmas, but for many years to come.” The fact that they have cancer is not in itself a demonstration that they are going to die. In fact, the majority will not. Almost 80% of people with breast cancer diagnosed tomorrow will still be alive 10 years later, for example.

Equally, there are people who may not have a single disease that is going to lead to the path to death, but they have multiple diseases interacting, so they are highly frail; it is therefore not the one disease that is the cause, but the constellation that is clearly leading them on a path inexorably to a death at some point in the foreseeable future. Exact timings are tricky—we might want to come back to that. I therefore think it is quite difficult to specify that certain diseases are going to cause death and others are not, because in both directions that could be misleading.

[Sarah Olney]

Q Can you talk a little bit more about whether you perceive any difficulties in having a definition of terminal illness in the Act? How do you think the medical profession will interpret that?

Professor Whitty: At the extremes —most people are at the extremes—it is very clear what is going to happen. For most people, you can say with confidence, barring some extraordinary accident like being hit by a car on the way out, “You’ll be fine in a year, even though you have heart disease, cancer or whatever.” At the other extreme, there are people who are clearly dying and will die in the next two or three days, and virtually nothing will change that reality.

What we are talking about in the Bill, of course, is a point between those stages, but people will definitely reach a point where there will be an inexorable and, importantly for the Bill, unreversible slide towards a point of death. People can make a reasonable central view, if they are experienced in a particular disease, about when the death is likely to happen, accepting that there is a spread around that. I am sure that the general public and Members of Parliament fully accept that this is not a precise science. This is a central view, and there is a big academic literature around this. Some people will die significantly earlier than they are predicted to; a small number will die very significantly later; and some people will certainly die a bit later or to some degree later. The central view is usually reasonably accurate—that someone is now on a pathway from which there is not going to be a return.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence this morning, gentlemen. I would like to pick up on coercion and capacity, because they are two really important points in the Bill. I would like to know a little more about the work that doctors and nurses do to check for coercion and assess capacity when patients are making really important decisions and choices at the end of life, but maybe in other contexts as well. The Bill refers to the Mental Capacity Act. That Act is a big piece of legislation, but I am conscious that there is only a short reference to it in the Bill. Is there anything we could add to the Bill that would improve the robustness of the reference to mental capacity? What does it look like now, and is there anything we could add?

Professor Whitty: Duncan, why don’t you take the first bit and I will take the second?

Duncan Burton: In terms of looking for signs of coercion, all of our nursing and clinical staff have safeguarding training, which already looks at things like whether people are under financial coercion or other forms of abuse. That training is already in place and it is extensive across the NHS and social care. If the Bill is passed, we will need to look at how we strengthen that training in relation to spotting the potential signs of coercion in this space as well. Given that that mechanism is already in place, I think that would be an extension, so it is important that we factor that in. I am also mindful, given the scale of colleagues we have working across health and care, that the time between the Bill being passed and its implementation is sufficient that we enable everybody to receive that additional training, if it is required.

Professor Whitty: In terms of strengthening the Bill, as a practitioner, I was relieved that the decision was for the Bill—if it stays this way—to stick with the Mental Capacity Act, and that was for two reasons. First, that Act is used up and down the country by doctors and nurses every day; they know it and they understand it. Although, as you say, it is a large piece of legislation, it is one that people have worked through in practice multiple times. If you ask six or seven doctors, “Does this person have capacity?”, in almost all cases you will get six or seven identical answers, because people are used to using it.

It additionally has the advantage of being tested in the courts. That has gone as far as the Supreme Court, and the various ambiguities that were inevitably in the legislation have been clarified by senior judges. Therefore, to practitioners like me, it feels like a piece of robust and predictable legislation. Within the legislation, it is very important that there are some situations where you will need to call for additional assistance. For example, if someone has a co-existing mental health condition, you will probably want to ask a psychiatrist additionally whether that condition is interfering with the decision taken to the point that someone loses capacity for this very important decision. The level of capacity has to be reasonably high.

My own view is that starting this way is the sensible thing to do. That does not mean there could not be arguments for some additional points, but I cannot immediately—again, as a jobbing doctor—see ones where I think, “This is going to make a big difference.” The fact is that this is founded on a very established bit of well-used and well-recognised legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

Q In some legal medical situations, you need to be five years post training before you can have a view. Is that something you would have in both of these practitioners, or is that not necessary?

Dr Green: We did not take a view on that. We thought that training and experience was more important.

[Sarah Olney]

Q Leading on from Dr Opher’s question about the “must refer” clause, you and Professor Whitty both stress the importance of the relationship between the doctor and the patient, yet there may be doctors who feel very strongly against mentioning assisted dying. Given the existence of clause 4(5) and the “must refer”, do you think there is a danger that there might be doctors who would be reluctant to provide a prognosis of six months or less if they thought that that would make the patient eligible for assisted dying, and that simply was not something they could support?

Dr Green: That is why it is important that doctors should be able to opt out at any stage of this. There are doctors who would find it difficult to do that, and it is important that their position is respected.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q On the point about referral, what happens in the case of abortion? That is one of the closest parallels we can get. If we have a doctor who is not comfortable having that conversation, presumably they cannot just leave that person with nowhere to go.

Dr Green: What would happen is that the doctor would provide the patient—through their receptionist, through leaflets or through a telephone number—with somewhere they could get the information. You cannot just abandon a patient. They have to be sure that the patient has the ability to do what the patient wants to do.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting)

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

No. Order. We have two and a half minutes to go. One other hon. Member wants to ask a question. I want them to come in.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q Thank you, Mr Dowd. I have a quick question for Dr Cox. Earlier on, in the context of multidisciplinary teams, you mentioned how important the family of the patient is. There is currently no role in the Bill, as it is currently drafted, for the next of kin or for any family member. Do you think that is a mistake? Is that something we should look to amend?

Dr Cox: I think it is a choice for the patient. It is always a choice for the patient who they want to involve from their social circle, whether that is family or friends. However, I think that if the patient wants the family involved, then they absolutely should be, and they should be part of those conversations and discussions.

[The Chair]

One last question, very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Unless there are any more pressing questions—

[Sarah Olney]

indicated assent.

[The Chair]

We have one and a half minutes, so it will be a 10-second question and a 20-second answer; unless you can do that, I am going to call it to a close.

[Sarah Olney]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Opher]

Q Sir Nicholas, I have great sympathy with your position, but how would you frame this law so that it would cover yourself?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I would frame the law to define terminal illness in the way that it is defined here in clause 2(1)(a), but where the “person’s death in consequence” is referred to, I would delete clause 2(1)(b) and substitute “suffering intolerably”.

[The Chair]

Thank you. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee; thank you for your forbearance.

[Sarah Olney]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I had my hand up at the beginning. I was really keen to ask a question in this session because it is pertinent to an amendment that I have tabled. Could you advise how best I can have the opportunity to ask my question?

[The Chair]

I am more than happy to speak to you afterwards. We have had lots of questions today and I tried to get people in as much as possible, but there has to be an element of self-discipline from the people asking the questions and interrupting. I am happy to facilitate if I possibly can, but I am afraid that there is also a responsibility on Members to look to other Members’ needs.

Examination of Witnesses

Dr Ryan Spielvogel and Dr Jessica Kaan gave evidence.

Violence against Women and Girls

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Far from letting anybody down, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) has lifted survivors up with her contribution today. One of them, who has been watching from home, is my mum, who suffered abuse at the hands of a former partner. I witnessed that abuse growing up, and that is apart from some of the things that happened to me. The statistic, and the reality, that two women a week are killed by their partner or former partner particularly terrifies me, and always has. That must change, so I sincerely thank the Government for their commitment to halving violence against women and girls over the coming decade. I also thank the Safeguarding Minister for the work that she has done on this issue throughout her career. The vast majority of us in this House know that no tech billionaire, no pound-shop Enoch Powell, and no keyboard warrior can take away that record from her. The silence from Reform party Members is utterly deafening today. They might tweet about this issue while we are debating, but they are not participating, and shame on them for that.

Domestic abuse is a foul manifestation of violence against women and girls, as the Government recognised when they set out their intention of excluding domestic abusers from the standard determinate sentences 40% early release scheme, but as they have said, people can be excluded from early release only on the basis of the offence that they committed, not other antecedents. A challenge is that it is not possible to comprehensively exclude domestic abusers because there is no dedicated offence of domestic abuse in law. Instead, many abusers are convicted of offences such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm, which are governed by a piece of legislation from 1861 that was not written with domestic abuse in mind. Domestic abusers convicted of such offences are being let out early, or qualifying for early release. We have seen some such cases, and that loophole needs to be closed.

I convened survivors, academics and support organisations to come up with a solution, which exists in the form of a Bill that I introduced: the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill, which would create a specific offence of domestic abuse in law for the first time. It would work in a similar way to racially and religiously aggravated offences by creating domestic abuse aggravated GBH, ABH or whatever it might be. Beyond giving the means for the Government to exclude domestic abusers from an early release scheme, it would tighten up some of the data, which is very difficult for academics and others to analyse when they are looking into the effectiveness of interventions.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that collecting data is so important in really getting to grips with the issue?

[Josh Babarinde]

I could not agree more, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. If we do not have the data that we want on domestic abuse offences, how can we measure whether we are halving violence against women and girls over this decade, and whether our interventions designed to reduce reoffending among domestic abusers are working?

The introduction of a domestic abuse aggravated offence could help employers with risk management; they could see it when it came up on a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate and press ahead accordingly. I am proud that Women’s Aid and Refuge are backing my Bill. They want to see it made a reality. I thank them and many of those in the media for their support. I also thank Members of this House for supporting my early-day motion 523, and for giving me their support in private discussions, especially folks on the other side of the House. I also thank Ministers for my constructive meetings with them, and the commitment that many have given that we will continue to discuss the Bill, with a view, I hope, to making it a reality. Lastly, and most importantly, I thank victims and survivors of domestic abuse, especially those I have had the honour of working with on the Bill, for their courage, resilience, hope and determination to ensure that others do not suffer as they have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I am humbled to take part in this debate. I do not have my own personal testimony to offer, but the issue of violence against women and girls has become very evident to me in my years as an MP through my constituency surgeries. First, I have learned how hard it is for women to get away and, once an abuser has them in their sights, how very difficult it is for them to escape. Secondly, as has been highlighted, not least by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), I have learned how abuse can be perpetuated by some of the institutions in this country, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the financial system and the family courts.

I had learned those things, but since my eyes were opened to the extent of domestic abuse in my constituency, I have really come to admire the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) for all the work she has done on this issue before she came to this place, as a Back Bencher and now as a Minister. I urge her not to be deterred from the incredible work she has been doing by the awful experience she has had this week. However, I saw her compassionate and typically forthright response to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) after her extraordinary speech, and all I can say is that I have been very reassured on that point. I just want to pledge my solidarity with the Minister for all she has been doing.

I want to raise two particular issues that have come through in my casework. Very recently, constituents of mine who have been victims of violence have told me stories of how evidence of criminal activity has been removed from a crime scene—a violent crime scene—without forensic evidence being taken. I have challenged the Met police about this, and apparently it is no longer commonplace for forensic exams to be conducted due to budget cuts. Consequently, potential key evidence that could have contributed to the safety of my constituents has been lost. I have heard further examples of safety equipment, including panic alarms, being removed from the houses of vulnerable victims who remain under the threat of being attacked, and I am talking about very credible threats to life. I was again informed that this was for budgeting reasons. I have written to the Minister about this particular case, and I really hope she will make time for a meeting with me to discuss it.

It is unacceptable that budget cuts are putting the protection and safety of domestic abuse victims at risk, and I really hope the Minister will be able to take this up with colleagues, because it is vital that victims who are under threat have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure their protection from past abusers. The cases that are being brought to my office have shown the immediate impact that Home Office cuts to policing are having on the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable victims. In many cases involving crimes such as rape and murder, victims and bereaved families do not attend trial to avoid further trauma, and the Minister will know, because we have discussed it directly before, that a constituent of mine who was drugged and raped by her then boyfriend in February 2020 was quoted nearly £7,000 to access the transcript of the trial in which he was convicted with an 18-year sentence.

Without a transcript, many victims struggle to find out about the proceedings or why a certain verdict is reached. That is even more important in those cases where a not guilty verdict is returned. It is common for victims of violent crime to be advised by mental health professionals that a transcript of proceedings would aid their healing and help them process their experiences. In the previous Parliament, I introduced an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill which, had it passed, would have made provision for victims of crime to access a transcript of their trial free of charge. Victims can apply to the Crown court for a free transcript, but in many cases, such as that of my constituent, this request is rejected. I urge the Minister to take any steps available to her and to speak to colleagues about what more can be done to increase the availability of court transcripts to aid the recovery of victims.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are doing everything we can to bear down on the Crown court caseload, including extending magistrates’ sentencing powers. The Budget also confirmed 106,500 sitting days for this year.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Earlier this year, I spoke with the now Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), about my campaign to make court transcripts free. She was supportive, but was not sure that Labour could commit to spending the £2.2 million that it would cost. The Justice Committee has urged the courts to consider whether artificial intelligence-powered transcription could reduce the cost of producing court transcripts. Will the Minister commit to carrying out the Committee’s recommendations before the end of this parliamentary Session?

[Heidi Alexander]

I understand why the hon. Lady raises that issue, but transcripts must be 100% accurate. They are legal documents, so “good enough” simply does not cut it. I will review what technology is available, and I am happy to keep her updated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. I give him a similar answer to the one I gave the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). One thing that has been transformative in victim support is the provision of not just independent sexual violence advisers, but independent domestic abuse advisers. Again, there are nearly 1,000 advisers in the system helping victims every step of the way. One thing that I am most excited about in this challenging area of the law is the pilot launching next month for domestic abuse protection orders, which will give police or victims the ability to go to the magistrates court or the family court to seek a blend of measures, whether that is a non-molestation order, an occupation order or a stalking protection order, and create positive obligations on the perpetrator, whether that is on alcohol abuse or through the perpetrator programme. There is a comprehensive package of support for domestic abuse victims.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

In Scotland, victims of rape and serious sexual assault are now able to access free court transcripts. The project will give victims free access to transcripts that previously would have cost thousands of pounds. However, the UK Government refuse to match the scheme and are only committing to a one-year pilot scheme, in which free copies of sentencing remarks will be made available to victims of serious crime. That is not good enough. It fails victims like my constituent, Juliana Terlizzi, who was charged over £7,000 to read the transcript of her rapist’s trial. Ahead of Report stage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the other place next month, will the Justice Secretary meet Juliana and me to discuss matching the Scottish scheme, which will help get victims the justice they deserve?

[Laura Farris]

I reassure the hon. Lady that the Courts Minister has said that he will meet her to discuss the matter. She will know that the cost of transcription for a full trial can be as high as £20,000, but the power and impact of any trial, where there has been a conviction, is in the judge’s sentencing remarks at the end, in seeing everything, and society’s opprobrium is expressed through the voice of the judge. That is why we are conducting a pilot for free sentencing remarks in all those cases.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, and new clauses 2 and 3 in my name. When we talk about victims, it is important that we also discuss taking responsibility for the victims of Parliament’s activities, and some of the victims of Parliament’s activities are the IPP—imprisonment for public protection—prisoners. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has campaigned on this matter for years, and the Justice Committee has undertaken detailed investigations and reports, which I think we need to take more seriously in this House because of the urgency of the matter.

There are nearly 3,000 IPP prisoners still in prison. They are in prison under legislation passed in this House by David Blunkett, who now recognises that there is an injustice—there has been a miscarriage of justice—and is appealing to us to correct that injustice by legislating now. There is example after example of people who have gone to prison on small tariffs. Martin Myers was sentenced on an 18-month tariff, and he has served 17 years. Wayne Bell has served 16 years on a two-year tariff, and Aaron Graham has served 18 years on a three-year tariff. This is Kafkaesque. These people have committed relatively minor offences, but are trapped within the prison system and cannot get out.

It therefore behoves us to address this issue, which is why the Justice Committee undertook the review and brought forward not a policy of releasing these prisoners without protection and security, or whatever, but of re-sentencing, with special expertise brought in to assess each prisoner and see whether it is safe at least to give them a determinate sentence so as to give them some hope. That is the problem here: we have lost 88 of these prisoners through suicide because they had no hope. If we listen to the Prison Officers Association, the Prison Reform Trust, Amnesty, Liberty and the families, we can understand why, because it is not just the prisoners who are serving these sentences, but their families.

What have we found in the last year? We have lost another eight prisoners who have committed suicide, with 1,600 self-harm incidents among this group of prisoners over the last 12 months. What we need to do now is to take forward the hon. Member’s proposals, and if the Government are not satisfied with them at the moment, let us work on them until the Bill goes to the House of Lords and see what we can do in the other place. In addition to that, I have put forward minor amendments saying that we should at least offer such prisoners—those inside, but also those on licence—advocacy and mentoring so that they can prepare themselves properly for resettlement and release from prison, but also so that when they are outside they are not recalled, as they are at scale at the moment.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendment 26, which I tabled. It is supported by hon. Members across the House and would enable victims to request a transcript of court proceedings free of charge, as that would be a huge step towards improving the transparency and accessibility of our justice system.

In 2020, my constituent Juliana Terlizzi was drugged and raped in her sleep by her then partner. Two years later, Juliana’s attacker was finally convicted, but she can barely remember what was said in the courtroom due to trauma and emotional distress. Following the trial, she was advised by a therapist to apply for a transcript of proceedings to allow her to revisit and process what was said in court. Her application for a free copy of the transcript was rejected, and she was then quoted an astonishing £7,500 by one of the private companies outsourced by the Government to produce transcripts. I soon discovered that Juliana’s extortionate quote is not an isolated case. Other victims have faced fees of up to £22,000. How can anyone be expected to pay such a fee? Court transcripts should not be a luxury that only a few victims can afford; they are a vital tool in aiding victims’ recovery. As victims and bereaved families do not routinely attend trial, transcripts are often the only means available to them to establish exactly what happened in the courtroom.

I secured an Adjournment debate on the cost of court transcripts last month. During the debate, I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) affirm the Government’s commitment to the principle that justice must be open and transparent, and I welcomed his comments regarding the work that officials within the Ministry of Justice are doing to improve access to court transcripts. I welcome the Minister’s opening remarks committing to a trial of making sentencing remarks available free of charge. However, it is important to establish that we still need full transcripts to be available, so that victims can have the context within which those sentencing remarks are made. The importance of access to transcripts has been emphasised by the Victims’ Commissioner, the Justice Committee, charities such as Rape Crisis, Refuge, and Support after Murder and Manslaughter, and dozens of hon. Members from six different parties across the House.

There are steps the Government could and should be taking to reduce costs, such as utilising new technologies and assessing the value for money of contracts held with transcription services. I have repeatedly raised the idea to Government of enabling victims to request an audio file of court proceedings. That would be a low-cost solution to improving transparency and ensuring that victims can access a record of court proceedings. I welcome the commitment of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice in that Adjournment debate, and in written correspondence to me, that he will look in greater detail at that issue. Above all, victims and bereaved families need access to full, accurate transcripts of court proceedings at no cost to themselves. Anything less will be an injustice. I urge Ministers in the Ministry of Justice to listen to the concerns of victims, and to look more closely at what further can be done to tackle the injustices faced by victims.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for what he said about consultation on the victims code. It is important that we get this right, and I trust that he will be attentive to amendments 145 and 146, tabled by me and other hon. Members.

Declan Curran was just 14 years old when he took his life for not being able to access pre-trial therapy. His abuser was eventually sentenced to two years and served just one. Since then his brother, Kev Curran, has taken up the campaign to ensure that all children can access pre-trial therapy, and that is why I stand in this House today.

The challenges around access to pre-trial therapy continue, despite new CPS guidance from 2023 that removed previous restrictions to accessing therapy, as identified by the Home Office-funded Bluestar Project. The wait for court access is extensive. It is often 18 months on average, but it can go beyond three years for a child. Pre-trial therapy services are a specialism that is currently massively overstretched and inconsistent. My amendments would involve training to ensure that services could be expedited judiciously by the CPS, the police, and other people. Currently, there is no trust that information will not be passed on to a trial, so therapists are concerned that the notes they make, and the therapy they provide, could cause a case to collapse. We need absolute clarity within training to ensure that more than just a video is provided, that in-person training is robust so that there can be a reasonable line of inquiry, and that all those involved are properly trained with regard to limitations on the information that is provided to court on content and delivery.

Secondly, there is not enough availability of pre-trial therapy and support. Amendment 146 would ensure that child survivors access therapeutic services. I ask that that is within a month of requesting these services, that they are made aware of the support they are entitled to, that there are minimum standards on the quality of support and that this support should continue throughout the criminal justice process, but also after that process has been completed. I again urge the Minister to look carefully at the amendments I have tabled to ensure that all child survivors can access justice and the vital therapeutic interventions to help them through the criminal justice process and beyond.

Court Transcript Costs

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting my request for a debate on the cost of court transcripts. Justice should not have a price tag, as I think we would all agree. Yet many victims are being denied access to justice because they cannot afford to pay thousands of pounds to obtain court transcripts. Not only are these extortionate costs unaffordable, but they are a major barrier to victims’ recovery.

This issue was first brought to my attention in August when my constituent, Juliana Terlizzi, approached my office for assistance in obtaining a court transcript. In 2020, Juliana was drugged and then raped in her sleep by her former partner. She was then forced to wait two years for her case to be heard in court. Backlogs and chaos in the court system pushed back the date time and time again. Meanwhile, her attacker was free to walk the streets and use dating apps to search for other women.

In January 2022, Juliana’s attacker was finally convicted, but she can barely remember what was said in the courtroom due to trauma and emotional distress. Following the trial, she was advised by a therapist to apply for a transcript of the proceedings to aid her healing; this transcript would enable her to revisit and process what was said in court. She made an application to the court for a free copy of the transcript, but her application was rejected. She was told to contact one of the private companies outsourced by the Government to supply transcripts. Upon doing so, she was quoted a fee of an astonishing £7,500. This was £7,500 to read what happened in a trial in which Juliana herself was the victim—£7,500 to revisit what was said while her trauma was discussed by strangers in a courtroom. That cost simply does not stack up. How can it be so high and why must Juliana foot the bill?

My team and I began to research this issue some more, and I soon discovered that Juliana’s extortionate quote was not an isolated case, with some victims facing fees of up to £22,000. How can anyone be expected to pay such a fee? Court transcripts should not be a luxury that only those very few victims with thousands to spare can afford. Transcripts are so important, because they are often the only means available to victims to establish exactly what happened during a trial. Victims and bereaved families routinely do not attend trial. Some choose not to attend in order to avoid reliving their trauma. One victim told me that she would have been forced to sit with her abuser’s friends and family in the gallery if she were present at the sentencing hearing. Others are misadvised by the police and court staff on their right to attend trial. Shockingly, some victims are actively discouraged from attending and told that their presence would be a distraction to the jury.

Although the technology exists, victims are often not offered a video link to watch the trial remotely. There is a major lack of transparency of justice and a lack of information provided to victims. Most victims will find out the verdict only by a phone call. If the outcome is not favourable, what then? How can a victim even begin to come to terms with the verdict when they have no means of understanding how it was reached? Even for victims such as Juliana who are able to attend trial, a combination of trauma and legal jargon means that it is extremely difficult to recall what was said. Transcripts are therefore a vital source of information for victims and bereaved families. Transcripts can support their understanding and allow them to take steps towards recovery.

The UK justice system is failing victims, who feel like bystanders to justice. They have no contact with the prosecution, no insight into proceedings and very limited information on their rights as a victim. Victims have told me that their experience in the UK justice system was retraumatising—one even described it as more traumatising than the crime committed against her. Our justice system must work to support victims and to encourage them to come forward. Without victims bravely reporting crime, there can be no justice.

Yet there are currently many disincentives to reporting a crime. Our courts are still plagued by backlogs and delays. Victims face average delays of 679 days between a crime being committed and cases concluding at court. Justice delayed is justice denied, and it allows criminals to continue to walk the streets for far too long.

The Conservative Government’s failure to get to grips with the backlog is letting down victims and their families, witnesses and defendants, and it undermines public confidence in the justice system. Even when crimes are reported, in many cases the outcome is not favourable. According to Rape Crisis, just 2% of rapes recorded by police between July 2022 and June 2023 resulted in someone being charged that same year, let alone convicted. For those victims who finally see their case brought to court, once the verdict is reached, they are tossed aside. Things have to change.

The Victims’ Commissioner for London has been working tirelessly to shine a light on the experiences of victims in the UK justice system. I met the commissioner to discuss the urgent reforms needed to better support victims, and I am proud to support her campaign for greater transparency in our justice system.

The Justice Committee looked into the issue of court transcript costs. In three separate reports over the last 18 months, the Committee recommended that the Government take steps to improve access to court transcripts and reduce costs. The Scottish Criminal Justice Committee also completed an inquiry into transcription fees, and a successful campaign led by rape survivors secured a commitment from the Scottish Government to set up a pilot scheme to waive court transcript fees for victims of sexual violence. Yet Ministers in Westminster continue to sit on their hands and allow private companies to pass extortionate costs on to victims.

The Victims and Prisoners Bill presents the perfect opportunity to address this gross injustice. Today, I published an open letter to the Justice Secretary calling on the Government to make provisions within that Bill to enable victims and bereaved families to request a court transcript free of charge. I am delighted to be supported by 40 co-signatories, including Members from six different parties across the House, among them the Mother and the Father of the House and the Chair of the Justice Committee. I am also joined by the Victims’ Commissioner for London and senior figures from the charities Refuge, Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid and Support after Murder and Manslaughter. We stand united in supporting victims and their right to access justice.

The Government often pay lip service to the importance of transparency and accessibility of justice. In response to a written question I tabled in September, the Minister wrote:

“Accessing transcripts from proceedings in serious criminal cases is not only a fundamental right of victims but is also essential for maintaining transparency and accountability within the justice system”

I welcome that statement from the Minister and I whole- heartedly agree with his position, so why are the Government refusing to take steps to ensure victims are able to access timely and accurate transcripts free of charge?

The Minister will point to the mechanisms already in place to enable some victims and their families to obtain transcripts, such as permitting sentencing remarks to be made available at the judge’s discretion or measures to provide families bereaved by homicide with sentencing remarks. But that is not enough. Countless victims are still unable to afford a transcript and, as proved in cases such as Juliana’s, more often than not, victims will be told by the judge that their case does not meet the very narrow criteria for a free transcript.

The Government have said that providing transcripts to victims free of charge would result in significant cost, but that is not necessarily the case. There are steps the Government could and should be taking to reduce costs. In a report on open justice, published last year, the Justice Committee recommended that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service should explore whether greater use of technology, such as AI-powered transcription, could reduce the cost of producing court transcripts. Will the Minister provide an update on whether that recommendation has been acted on?

Additionally, will the Government look to assess the value for money of contracts it holds with private transcription services? Are victims really getting the best possible deal? Is £7,500 a fair price to pay? I wrote to the Minister on 15 September to set out proposals to provide an audio recording to victims upon request. It should be possible to provide that at low or no cost, as recordings are already made of Crown court proceedings. Two days ago, I received a response from the Minister that said his officials would give the matter careful consideration. I look forward to hearing more when some progress has been made.

The Government cannot ignore victims any longer. Victims and bereaved families need access to full, accurate transcripts of court proceedings. Anything less will be an injustice. I have tabled an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that will enable victims to request a transcript of court proceedings free of charge. I urge the Government to accept the amendment in order to finally show victims that they matter, that they did the right thing in coming forward and that the UK justice system will support them, during the trial and afterwards. Ahead of the Bill’s Report stage, will the Minister meet me to discuss my amendment and the experience of my constituent? His engagement on this issue is vital if the Bill is to succeed in delivering a positive outcome for victims.

I thank the victims, advocates and charities that have taken the time to share their experiences and insight with me. Without their tireless campaigning, change could never occur. I now hope the Government will honour their work and commit to improving transparency and accessibility of justice for victims. For that, victims need access to full transcripts, free of charge.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this important debate.

The principle that justice must be open and transparent goes to the very heart of our justice system. Upholding this principle is paramount to securing the trust and confidence of victims, whose experiences are central to the way our society thinks about and responds to crime—we are as like minds on that. I am sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent, Ms Juliana Terlizzi, as she sought to obtain a trial transcript as the victim of a horrific crime.

I recognise that there may be many reasons why victims may find a court transcript helpful in the aftermath of lengthy and sometimes complex criminal court proceedings. In cases where victims do not attend the trial, they may seek to understand the verdict and how it was reached. Even in cases where a victim attends the trial, myriad factors may exacerbate the difficulties they experience in following court proceedings, including having to face the defendant and the defendant’s family, which can be particularly difficult for victims whose first language is not English.

The ability to access transcripts from court proceedings is an essential part of maintaining transparency and accountability within the system. That is why we have provided the required technology to the Crown courts to enable transcription of different parts of the hearing from the recordings made in all proceedings. Understandably, a cost is attached to transcribing what could be weeks’ worth of audio, which will vary depending on the length of the trial. Transcription companies calculate the costs on a case-by-case basis depending on a variety of factors, such as the size of the transcript, whether it is a copy or a new version being requested, and how quickly the transcript is required.

Preparing a court transcript is currently a manual process whereby transcription companies listen to audio files to transcribe the hearings. Although AI technology is available, the most recent pilots to test voice-to-text technology do not demonstrate sufficient accuracy—an element that is crucial where criminal trial records are concerned. Taken together, producing a full trial transcript, depending on its size, can cost in the region of thousands of pounds, as the hon. Lady pointed out.

I appreciate the concerns around the charges quoted for trial transcripts. However, the call to provide transcripts free of charge to victims in all cases involves significant financial implications to the taxpayer, which requires careful analysis. It is also important to recognise that subsidising the cost of full trial transcripts using public funds risks diverting those resources away from other avenues to improve victims’ services and outcomes.

The Ministry of Justice has been working to make court records, such as transcripts, judgments and judicial sentencing remarks, increasingly accessible, including through more of them being published online. I reassure the hon. Lady that we are carefully considering the issues that she raises as part of that work. We are committed to ensuring that victims are supported at every juncture of the criminal justice system. That is why we introduced the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which continues its passage through Parliament. The Bill will enshrine in primary legislation the overarching principles that must be reflected in the victims code, including entitlements for victims to be provided with information about the criminal justice process, as well as access to support services. That package builds on concrete measures that are already making a real difference, including our commitment to the end-to-end rape review, which has already seen us return adult rape cases reaching court to 2016 levels, well ahead of schedule.

I gently point out that it is not true that the Government have abandoned victims. The Government have introduced measures that allow complainants to pre-record their evidence, saving them from having to face their attacker. We stood up a 24/7 rape support line. Victims have the right to court familiarisation visits, to seek a redetermination in the event that the Crown Prosecution Service decides to reduce the charge, and to make a victim personal statement. We will quadruple victim funding by 2024-25, up from £41 million in 2009-10, and we have rolled out more than 800 independent sexual violence advisers.

We have rolled out enhanced support at three Crown courts, in Newcastle, Leeds and Snaresbrook, through the specialist sexual violence support project. We have upgraded technology and facilities, and will continue with trauma-informed training for staff, a case co-ordinator to improve case progress, and giving victims more opportunities to observe sentencing hearings remotely. There is obviously more to be done, but I gently put it on the record that the idea that victims of sexual crime are being abandoned is simply not true.

[Sarah Olney]

I do not think that I ever accused the Government of having abandoned victims, so it is slightly odd that the Minister is rebutting that. However, will he expand slightly on whether victims could be provided directly with oral recordings, instead of having to pay for expensive transcripts that have been created from them?

[Mike Freer]

My understanding is that at present it is possible for victims to visit the court by arrangement to listen to a full audio transcript of the trial, and that the sentencing remarks can be particularly helpful to victims in understanding how the judgment was arrived at. Access to those is a piece of work that we are working on at pace. I accept the point about audio, and I am more than happy to take away whether they can be provided, as a step further than the victim’s having to attend court. That is a fair challenge, which I will happily take away.

The hon. Lady commented on the various reports by the Justice Committee. She will also know that the Department recently conducted a call for evidence on the matter of open justice and asked the public which court records should be published online and made available on request. That exercise is fundamental to ensuring that we continue to uphold the principles of openness and transparency, while looking at ways to modernise the courts to meet people’s expectations. The call for evidence closed in September, and we are currently evaluating the information provided. We will report back on our response early next year.

Alongside the Victims and Prisoners Bill and the call for evidence, I assure the hon. Lady that the Ministry of Justice is working with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to identify further opportunities to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system. That includes examining, among other matters, the costs that they incur when obtaining court transcripts. I recognise that she has tabled an amendment to the Bill. She will be able to expand on her arguments, and take the matter up directly with the relevant Bill Minister, when we come to that specific part of the Bill.

I reiterate that victims can apply to the court for permission to listen to the audio recording to hear it at a suitable location, free of charge. It is at judicial discretion, but that is an opportunity for victims to hear the trial. To help with court transcription costs, we have made sure that bereaved family members of victims of homicide and of death by dangerous driving can get a copy of the judicial sentencing remarks—a specific part of the sentencing hearings—paid for by the public purse. In certain serious criminal cases, a copy of the sentencing remarks can be made available, but I do accept that the hon. Lady would like us to go further. As I have said, the call for evidence on openness is being evaluated and I will ensure that her views are taken into account as part of that work.

To conclude, in line with the key principles of open and transparent justice, I recognise how important it is for victims to be able to access the transcript of criminal proceedings. There are existing policies that operate to achieve transparency for victims within the criminal justice system, but I recognise that there remain concerns about the transcription charges. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to improving the experience and support that victims receive.

The Ministry of Justice will continue to progress the Victims and Prisoners Bill to put victims’ interests firmly at the heart of the justice system. We will also analyse and use the responses that we have received in the recent call for evidence on the matter of open justice and court records to better inform future policy. Finally, we will continue to identify opportunities to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system, which includes examining the charges that they incur when obtaining court transcripts.

Question put and agreed to.

HMPPS Update

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

That is precisely a question that has occurred to me and that I want answered, by the end of the week I would hope and expect, but certainly in very short order.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

This escape is incredibly serious and leaves many questions unanswered. It was reported by the Metropolitan police on social media yesterday that the escaped prisoner has links to Kingston. My constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), naturally, will be very concerned. I appreciate that the Secretary of State will be limited in what he can say about the operation to apprehend the prisoner, but I would be grateful for any statement he can make to provide reassurance to my constituents and residents across south-west London.

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those points on behalf of her constituents. We all have a duty, which she will uphold as well as anyone else, to ensure that people are not alarmed. I draw her attention and that of her constituents to the Metropolitan police’s remarks that the man should not be approached, but that he is considered to be low risk, and not a larger risk to the wider public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

As always, my right hon. Friend absolutely has his finger on the pulse of this important issue. He makes a powerful point, and I can assure him that it is being borne in mind.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

7. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the regulation of psychologists appointed as experts in family courts.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

The use of expert evidence is a matter for the independent judiciary, with parameters set in legislation. If the expert’s area is regulated, they must be in possession of a current licence to practice or provide an equivalent to the court. If it is not regulated, they must demonstrate appropriate qualifications or regulation by a relevant professional body. I can confirm that officials from the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care are in discussion on taking this further.

[Sarah Olney]

The continued reliance on self-declared experts to provide evidence in family courts is placing thousands of children and vulnerable women at risk, with allegations of parental alienation closely linked to cases of domestic abuse and coercive control. I have heard at first hand from constituents just how dangerous this can be. Professional associations and international bodies, including the United Nations, have also highlighted the failings of the current system. Will the Minister take action to protect vulnerable women and children, and finally commit to a full inquiry into the use of parental alienation in family courts, alongside more regulation and accreditation standards for those invited to give specialist testimony?

[Mike Freer]

I reiterate that it is a matter for the judiciary to question the bona fides of an expert: if they do not believe an expert seeking to give evidence in court is of the required standard, the judiciary can reject them. On taking further steps, the rights of the child are paramount, which is why we are looking forward to discussions to see how we can tighten up the role of experts. Equally, the Government are confident that the family justice system can robustly address this issue already. If there is more work to be done once we have been able to see the evidence, we will do it, but I am not proposing that we rush into a further review at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend who, from his professional experience, has a great deal of expertise and knowledge in this area. Among other reforms, we want, in particular, to increase patient access to the Mental Health Tribunal, which provides vital independent scrutiny of detention orders. We wish to expand its powers so that it plays a greater safeguarding role. Health policy is devolved to Wales, so it will be for the Welsh Government to decide whether they wish to join the UK Government on many of our reforms in the White Paper, and we will continue to work closely with them in order to secure that partnership.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

What support his Department is providing to the legal aid sector during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

With regard to the legal aid sector during this crisis, we have expanded the scope of and relaxed the evidence requirements for hardship payments in Crown court cases, including reducing the threshold for work done; we have increased opportunities to claim payment on account in civil legal aid cases, as well as increasing the amounts; we have halted the pursuit of outstanding debts owed by providers of legal aid to the Legal Aid Agency; and we have suspended sanctions in relation to mixed deadlines. That is in addition to the range of measures that we have taken in order to support the sector through this crisis.

[Sarah Olney [V]]

The latest Ministry of Justice figures show that there are 56,544 outstanding Crown court cases at the end of January. Given that defence lawyers are paid for litigation when a case finishes, can the Secretary of State confirm what steps have been taken to assist legal aid lawyers with their cash flow at this time?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady will be glad to know that, as I referred to in my initial reply, we have already relaxed the evidence requirements for hardship payments and, importantly, reduced the threshold for work done by criminal lawyers to £450 from the current £5,000. It is absolutely essential that we maintain throughput, and as we move on through this year with the road map out of lockdown, I am confident that the court system will be able to list even more proactively, making sure that there is plenty of work for dedicated criminal legal aid lawyers.