Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but I will make some progress. In a similar vein, I plan to support the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), which seek to remove all Henry VIII powers from the Bill and from the amendments introduced by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I will support the right hon. Member’s amendments if they are selected for a vote, as I do not believe that the use of Henry VIII powers is appropriate or necessary. I want to speak against amendment 94 in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. It appears to be innocuous, but in reality it would reverse the effect of an amendment that I had accepted in Committee. The Bill as originally drafted would create an enormous constitutional minefield. It seeks to amend the criminal law of England and Wales, which is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament, and simultaneously to make provision for healthcare, which is a matter devolved to the Senedd in Wales. The Senedd debated a motion calling on the Welsh Government to support the principles of assisted dying, but it was defeated by 19 votes to 26. The motion was non-binding, but the Bill gives the UK Parliament the power to impose on the Senedd in Wales a measure that it has expressly said it does not want. The Bill as amended in Committee would give the Senedd the power to decide for itself when it is ready to bring the Bill into force. Amendment 94 would reverse that provision and deprive the Senedd of the right to exercise its legitimate powers. It is not just that the amendment would restore the constitutional loophole that the Committee had closed; it threatens to create real problems and risks for Welsh citizens if the Senedd is forced to implement the Bill before its devolved healthcare system is ready. I urge fellow Members to have regard to the Committee’s decision and vote against amendment 94.

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her incredible speech, to Olivia’s family, and to the Government for listening to their call and including that provision in the Bill. I want to talk a little more about provision for victims, and in particular my court transcripts campaign; the Minister knows this is coming. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his generous tribute on that point. I am really disappointed that there is no mention of court transcripts in the Bill. Trials are lengthy and traumatising experiences, which victims do not routinely attend; some are actively advised against doing so. Reviewing the sentencing remarks can help provide victims and survivors with clarity and closure, but too often accessing those sentencing remarks is unaffordable, which only adds more barriers to achieving justice. That is why throughout the last Parliament I campaigned on providing victims and survivors with free access to copies of their transcripts. I am glad that my open letter to the then Justice Secretary received support from the then Mother and Father of the House, as well as the former Chair of the Justice Committee. I was glad to have cross-party signatories to my amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the last Parliament, which, if accepted, would have enabled all victims to receive a transcript of both the sentencing remarks and the judge’s summing up free of charge. Despite broad support, the amendment was ultimately unsuccessful both in this House and in the other place, where a similar amendment was tabled by my colleague Baroness Brinton and blocked by 187 Tory peers. Given the previous Government’s refusal to address this gross inequality and their inexplicable opposition to this policy, letting down victims and survivors, I have been interested in the Conservatives’ change of heart. I notice the shadow Justice Secretary’s recent support for transcripts, and the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) raised the issue of the accessibility of court transcripts with the Justice Secretary last month. I am glad to see indications that they may be finally acknowledging the extent to which the last Government failed victims. Following my campaigning on this issue, and the invaluable work of campaign groups working to support victims, I am glad that a 12-month pilot scheme was introduced in May last year. The scheme gives victims of sexual assault and rape access to court transcripts of their trials at no cost to them. Victims and survivors who have made use of the pilot have reported that its impact has been transformational, yet to my recent question on the issue, the Minister responded: “We are currently assessing the pilot’s uptake and impact and will be able to say more on our plans for future provision in due course.” As I am sure the Minister is aware, last week I introduced a Bill to the House that called for the rape and sexual offences free sentencing remarks pilot scheme to be made permanent. My recent early-day motion on this issue, which calls for the scheme to be expanded to cover all victims of crime, has also received cross-party support. If the Government do not make the scheme permanent, not only will they fail victims, but they will be not upholding the commitment in the King’s Speech last year to strengthening support for victims. I have heard directly from constituents who have accessed their transcripts, having not attended their trial, as well as from members of the public from across the country who have been through similar experiences. They have told me of the hugely positive impact that accessing a court transcript has had on them and their journey. With just eight days until the scheme is due to end, and given that I still await a response to the letter that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne sent to the Justice Secretary on the issue, will the Minister outline the future plans for the scheme? I urge her to make support for victims permanent. I also ask the Ministry to make clear its basis for discontinuing the pilot scheme. I welcome so many measures in the Bill, and I really welcome its additional support for victims. I really hope that as the Bill continues through the House, we can amend it to extend the pilot scheme and make it permanent.

• 14 May 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement. The infected blood scandal is a harrowing story of people being failed not only by the medical professionals who treated them, but by the NHS, which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment, and by a series of Governments who should have prevented such horror from ever taking place. As the Minister knows, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. The Government were right to introduce the scheme at the start of the Parliament, and I am glad to hear the Minister say that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is scaling up its operation. However, we are alarmed that the roll-out of the scheme has been far too slow, leaving victims without the justice that they deserve. Victims and their families have been waiting for decades for answers and recognition of the suffering they endured. So far, only 106 people have received payments from IBCA, and 54 others have received offers. Compensation payouts are not due to conclude until 2029, and that date would rely on a rapid increase in the rate of payments. We are deeply concerned by the speed at which victims are receiving their long-overdue compensation, and I am glad that last week’s hearings looked into the adequacy and timeliness of the Government’s response. To echo the words of Sir Brian Langstaff, “People infected and affected do not have time on their side.” To that end, and to provide confidence to victims and their families, can the Paymaster General clarify what deadline he has for the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations? Moreover, what further steps is he taking to increase the speed at which payments are being made, and can he confirm when all victims can expect to have received their long-overdue compensation? What more can be done to help those who need to provide proof of infection but whose medical records have been destroyed? It is crucial that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the concerns of charities, organisations and the affected individuals are heard. Supporting the work of those vital organisations and engaging with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected is crucial. The Liberal Democrats are backing the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials. As such, I am glad to hear the sentiment behind the Government’s response to recommendation 5, but when will the Government bring forward proposals to that effect so that such a scandal is never repeated? Can the Paymaster General clarify why there has been a delay, given that relevant legislation was originally meant to be published in April?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Under the previous Conservative Government, fraudsters got away with claiming billions of pounds of covid support funds, as an eyewatering £39.8 billion went uncollected due to tax evasion and other criminal activity. While vulnerable members of our society have seen their benefits cut and our public services are in need of investment, it is not right that public spending has been misplaced into the pockets of fraudsters. I am therefore grateful for many of the measures in the Bill that will work to reduce instances of fraud. However, I have concerns about some of the broader measures regarding the powers the legislation would give the Department for Work and Pensions and the potentially intrusive impact that could have on the civil liberties of citizens. I speak in support of new clause 23, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which would require a report to Parliament within six months on the causes and cost of public sector fraud during the covid-19 pandemic. The report would include an account of any fraudulent payments and a review of procurement practices during covid, including contracting for suppliers and the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions, as well as an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight to prevent fraud against public authorities. Much of that work has already been undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee—I am a member, as I was in the previous Parliament—and it would be worthwhile for the Minister to take a look at some of our reporting on those topics. If failings are found, the new clause would require an outline of corrective actions, including a statement to this House to acknowledge the findings and to set out actions planned to ensure that any failings are not repeated. With public trust in politics at alarmingly low levels, we must take all possible steps to ensure integrity and the highest possible standards in governance. The cronyism, rule breaking and sleaze scandals of the last Conservative Government did huge damage to public trust in politics and politicians in this country. The new clause would lead to an increase of accountability and I urge the Minister to accept it. Even though I am glad to see the Government introduce measures that would crack down on instances of fraud, I have grave concerns about some of the broader measures in this legislation that would lead to an unacceptable increase in intrusion on individual privacy. That is why I speak in favour of amendment 2, which would revoke clause 74 and remove the requirement for banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts. Some measures in the Bill raise significant concerns regarding the privacy of individuals, and I have heard from constituents who are alarmed at some of the powers that could be introduced with this legislation. I believe that fraud must be rooted out and that more should be done to prevent fraud from happening in the first place. However, clause 74 is an unnecessary and invasive step that I urge the Government to refrain from taking. I have heard from people who are concerned about the powers granted in the Bill because it enables the Government to have direct access to individuals’ bank accounts and even enables the DWP to withdraw funds or revoke driving licences. That concern is particularly serious when it comes to vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, disabled people and those living in poverty, who could face devastating consequences as a result of wrongful penalties. I welcome the Government’s commitment to cracking down on fraud. There were clear failures by the previous Conservative Government during the covid pandemic, which we saw highlighted in the PPE procurement scandal and the bypassing of the usual procurement rules via the VIP lane. It is essential that proper rules are in place to ensure that public spending is carried out in an effective, efficient and transparent way, and I am glad to support new clause 23, which would strengthen transparency and accountability on this issue. However, grave concerns about the intrusive powers that this legislation could introduce have been expressed across the House today, particularly those that allow the Government to require banks and other financial institutions to share client data, and as such, I urge the Minister to accept amendment 2 to revoke clause 74.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the Minister can answer a question for me. I hear what he is saying about concerns with the amendments themselves, which makes a lot of sense, and the policy objectives of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. What I am concerned about is that in the Bill as drafted, notwithstanding that various amendments have been tabled, it is not clear what the doctor should do in the event of complications. There may well have been an earlier conversation with the patient, but the patient’s request may still leave the doctor in the position of committing a criminal offence. I would like to know whose responsibility it is to ensure that doctors are not left in that position, which could come about either because the Bill as drafted is not clear or the amendments do not make the appropriate clarification. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has done a marvellous job, but in terms of policy intention the Bill does not cover this aspect. The Minister is saying that it is his job only to ensure that the amendments are appropriate. I am still very concerned that there is a big gap here and that we are potentially leaving doctors in the very difficult position of not knowing whether or not carrying out the patient’s intentions would leave them in the position of breaking the law. I would like to know whose responsibility it is to ensure that doctors are not left in that situation.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I seek clarification. As drafted, in clause 12(1)(c), the High Court would give “a declaration that the requirements of this Act have been met”, but in new clause 21(6)(a), the panel is required to issue a certificate of eligibility, to which the Minister just referred. I seek the Minister’s guidance on whether it is the Government’s view that the High Court declaration has equal weight in law to the certificate of eligibility set out in new clause 21. I ask particularly because that certificate will be relied on for the purposes of suspending the Suicide Act 1961, under which a criminal offence would otherwise have been committed. The certificate of eligibility will need to be relied on to demonstrate that no criminal offence has been committed under that law. Is it the view of the Minister and the Government that a High Court direction, as originally required, can now be fully replaced by, and have equal weight with, a certificate of eligibility?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My original question was more about whether it has the same legal force as a High Court direction.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am just reflecting on the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire’s intervention. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the purpose either of the panel or the High Court judge is to establish beyond all doubt that if a person is assisted in their death, no crime is being committed, and that in order to establish that, we need to apply the highest standards of evidence? Whether an adversarial or an inquisitorial process is used to collect that evidence, there must be some sort of process. That may be uncomfortable for the patient but it is necessary for their friends, relatives and the doctors being asked to assist. That is really what we are trying to achieve.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am trying to clarify this for my own benefit, because I am not familiar with some of these procedures. Is there a difference between a High Court judge leading an inquiry or sitting on a panel, using their legal experience to provide advice or recommendations or give an opinion, and having a judge sitting in the High Court, who, under the original wording of clause 12, would be giving a direction? If there is a difference, have we not crossed from one role to the other by introducing a panel rather than a High Court direction? Does that matter for the purposes of the legislation?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I reiterate the concern I raised when speaking to my amendments this morning: as far as I can see, seeking the second opinion of a second independent doctor allows the person seeking assisted suicide to have a second bite at the cherry if their first independent doctor has not granted permission. I do not think anyone has an objection to going to a second independent doctor if the first independent doctor has been unable, through either death or illness, to complete the task; nor is there any objection if there has been a material change of circumstances, which my amendment 458 sought to add. However, the possibility of seeking the view of another doctor simply because the first one did not give the desired answer is a troubling one. There is no objection to patients seeking a second, third or even fourth opinion in medicine when it is about what different treatment pathways might be available, but there is a crucial difference between seeking different appropriate treatment options and what is being proposed in the Bill. In the Bill, the function of the two doctors is not primarily diagnostic or advisory; it is a safeguarding role. The doctors will have been entrusted by Parliament to make sure that the criteria for assisted dying are met. Their determination makes the difference between a lawful act and the commission of an act that, as per clause 24, Parliament would still regard as sufficiently serious to be a crime. Their role is therefore that of a decision maker, and in no other setting can someone go to a different decision maker if they do not like the answer given by the first. Even in appeals before our courts, an appellate judge would not interfere with a decision simply because they would have reached a different conclusion; the appellate judge must consider that the decision was in some way incorrectly reached. It is also true that in some settings one can ask a decision maker to reconsider a matter, but that is not what is being proposed in clause 10 either. Instead, the clause allows the person to try again with a different referee if the first one did not give the desired answer. It is true that there is an added layer of protection from the High Court or the possibility of a panel, but under the Bill as it currently is there is no procedure whereby the High Court or the panel will hear from the first independent doctor. That is concerning. They would have to go simply on the basis of the second independent doctor, without any awareness of why the two disagreed.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. The Court of Protection has described eating disorders using language typically reserved for terminal illnesses. It has described an eating disorder as being in “the terminal stage”, talked of “all treatment options” having “been exhausted” and used words such as “incurable”. It is immensely regrettable, but nevertheless the case—even though eating disorders are always treatable—that if a person suffering from an eating disorder is deemed to have capacity and is refusing treatment, there may well be nothing that can be done to stop them choosing that path, which may ultimately lead to their death.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Iranian State Threats · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a privilege and an honour to engage with my many Iranian constituents over the years, but I am always filled with horror when they tell me stories not only of what is happening to their family and friends back home in Iran—particularly the oppression still suffered by many women—but of their experiences in this country. I very much welcome the measures that the Minister has outlined, particularly in relation to police training, which I know will make a big difference to my constituents. One issue that those constituents often raise with me, and which is one of the biggest for British-Iranians living in this country, is banking. I very much welcome the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on money laundering, but British-Iranian residents who have been living here for many years often find that their bank accounts are frozen, which leaves them in considerable financial hardship—some of those banking restrictions are just imposed without discrimination. Will reassurances can the Minister give my constituents about their ability to continue banking without restrictions?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree on the value of her amendment, and the value of introducing the word “encouraged” into the Bill? Reflecting on what has been said about the “fine line” argument by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the value of inserting this amendment is that, where it can be proven beyond doubt that someone has encouraged or actively sought to influence someone else to choose assisted death, that is a crime encoded in the law. To the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, in discussions among families about this possibility, and where spouses are supporting each other in this decision, it will never be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a crime of encouragement has taken place. By putting it in law, where encouragement can be proven—and it must be proven—it can be prosecuted as the criminal offence that it would be.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady talks about the four tests and parts of the Mental Capacity Act; the point I was making was that we want to retain elements of the Act, although using it in its entirety is problematic in this context. The four functional tests about whether someone is capable of making a decision absolutely should be retained—as she said, that is well tested, it works well and people understand in a court of law exactly how to apply it—but some of the other elements of the Mental Capacity Act are problematic. That is why I seek to redraft “capacity” to “ability”—I accept that that might be a problematic word, but I hope the hon. Lady will take on board my earlier comments—and that is what is important. The hon. Lady is saying we should not take out those bits of the Mental Capacity Act that are valuable and important, and I agree.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s increased funding for the Metropolitan police, but this commitment does not go anywhere near far enough to deliver what is required for safe policing on the streets of London. The Labour party was elected into office on the mandate to restore community policing, which was gutted by the last Conservative Government. The shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), may profess his own interest in police funding, but a more eloquent story is told by the empty Benches behind him when it comes to their commitment on this issue, which was demonstrated throughout their Administration. We need to see real action and a real commitment to neighbourhood policing in order to address the ongoing issues of crime and antisocial behaviour that we are seeing across London, and to give the police the tools that they need to restore trust and confidence in our police service. I am concerned that this grant is not enough to protect current services provided by the Metropolitan police from further cuts, let alone enough to restore policing numbers and infrastructure to their previous levels. The force is experiencing real challenges in the recruitment and retention of police officers, which is affecting its ability to fill vacancies. I receive regular correspondence from my constituents, who have passed on their experiences of being victims of burglaries and other criminal activities. The recurring theme in this correspondence is the difficulty that victims experience in ensuring that their cases are investigated in detail and at length by the Met. That is a direct consequence of cuts to our forces because our neighbourhood teams are severely stretched, meaning that the time they can spend on each case is limited. My constituency of Richmond Park used to be home to three police stations, but after years of cuts they have all been closed. Richmond police station acted as a hub for our community, and provided reassurance to residents that they could quickly report a crime or a development in a case to an officer in person. The lack of these police stations in my constituency is causing that connection between the public and the police to be lost, due to the reduced visibility of police officers on our streets.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I speak to my local police officers—the officers patrolling the streets of my constituency—I find very often that they actually live quite some distance from the communities they serve. That is obviously a direct result of the cost of living in London, but it creates a real problem for Londoners in that they are not served by Londoners in the police force. My hon. Friend is also exactly right about morale—that really has to be urgently addressed. This story is common across London. More than 100 police stations have been closed by the Met, while there has been a 64% reduction in community policing since 2015. However, the Met is now in a position where it cannot sell off any more of its estate to balance its budget, and it is clear that it requires a significant influx of funding. The Metropolitan police is responsible for policing regular and well-attended protests in central London, which require a greater intensity of resource to police. In Richmond Park, we regularly see our local officers abstracted away from their neighbourhood responsibilities to provide additional support at these events, which has resulted in a lack of cover on our streets, which adds to people’s anxieties about the lack of policing. Recently, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has warned about the deeply concerning shortfall faced by the Met. In December, referencing a £450 million funding shortfall, the commissioner warned that if substantial funding is not provided, the Met would be forced to cut 2,300 officers and 400 members of staff in the next financial year. The funding proposed by the Government today is, therefore, a drop in the ocean compared with what is required to prevent cuts to our London officers, and this provision of funding is certainly not in keeping with the Government’s promise to restore neighbourhood policing numbers to our communities. While I cannot match the speeches on rural crime from my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), my constituency does have a significant police force, the Parks police, which specifically patrols the Royal Parks. The Parks police plays a crucial role in keeping crime and antisocial behaviour in the Royal Parks across London to a minimum, while its expertise in its domain enables the force to quickly address emergency situations. In response to a survey I recently conducted, nearly 1,000 of my constituents voiced their strong opposition to any proposed cuts to the Parks police, as well as providing first-hand accounts of times the Parks police helped to provide a quick resolution to what could otherwise have developed into a crisis situation. With all that in mind, will the Minister provide us with assurances that the new grant funding for our police forces will mean that cuts to such important and valued police departments are not on the table? I urge the Minister to go further, and to really consider the specific demands of the Metropolitan police and the valuable work it does right across our city in keeping our community safe.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. Having had conversations with local police teams, what I find frequently is that there is a large turnover of police officers in neighbourhood policing, which really affects the ability of police officers to develop a relationship with their local communities. That lack of experience can be so telling when it comes to responding to issues such as antisocial behaviour.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and she is absolutely right. The first thing we should be doing is negotiating a youth mobility scheme. We owe it to our young people, who are struggling more than most in the current economic environment. The mismanagement of our economy by the outgoing Conservative Government has left deep challenges, and we understand that undoing that damage will not be easy. Nevertheless, it is not right for the consequences of these decisions and for this burden to be carried by some of the most vulnerable in our society. In July, I urged the Chancellor to remove the two-child limit on social security payments in her first Budget, and we are disappointed that this did not happen. No child should grow up without adequate food, a warm home or security for their future. Currently, 1.6 million children are affected by the two-child benefit cap. Parents subject to these limitations have less available income for childcare costs, and therefore experience barriers to employment. The Liberal Democrats believe that removing this cap is the most cost-effective way of immediately lifting children out of poverty and getting more parents back into the workforce. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have also listened to our constituents and heard from countless pensioners who are worried about how they will afford their energy bills this winter. Since the cut to the winter fuel payments was announced, I have been inundated with expressions of local people’s disappointment at this decision. We will continue to urge the Government to give their full support to measures to boost the uptake of pension credit, and to ensure that all those eligible for pension credit claim both the benefit itself and the winter fuel payments. For years, the previous Government failed to keep our communities safe from crime. It is vital that the new Government urgently restore the proper community policing that local people deserve. I ask the Government to clarify how and when the Chancellor will fund the thousands of new neighbourhood officers that her Government have promised. The Metropolitan Police Service has drawn on its financial reserves, slashed spending and sold off assets. During the election, our constituencies were promised more community police officers, but the Met has already made cuts and savings of over £1 billion, and next year it is facing a funding gap of over £450 million. The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see the Chancellor’s goody bag of infrastructure projects, yet I personally was disappointed that this did not extend to funding for Hammersmith bridge. Some 22,000 vehicles a day used to cross the bridge, and those cars are now causing gridlocked traffic throughout my constituency in Mortlake, East Sheen and Barnes. It will cost £250 million to fix Hammersmith bridge, a sum no local authority can afford to pay, so I hope the Government will consider what more they can do to assist with the bridge’s reopening. We all agree that we need economic growth and a stable economy after the chaos caused by the last Government. We know that this dire economic situation requires tough decisions. I welcome many of the steps that the Chancellor announced yesterday, but the Government must ensure that this does not come at the expense of the most vulnerable. I ask the Government to set out a timeline for the delivery of their proposals for investment, and I urge them to act with the urgency required to ensure that people can access the services they need when they need them. The cost of living crisis will not be solved by hitting families, pensioners, family farms and struggling small businesses, and our economy will not grow strongly again unless we repair our broken relationship with Europe.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation and the establishment of the infected blood compensation scheme. We are glad that it will move the victims of this atrocity, both those infected and affected, closer to long-overdue justice and compensation. Victims and their families have been waiting decades for answers and for recognition of the suffering that they have endured. Liberal Democrats welcome the findings of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, which vindicated so many of those people affected. We voted last December for the amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, requiring the Government to set up the compensation scheme, and we are glad that this motion establishes that.

• 30 Jul 2024 · Post Office Horizon · Hansard source

  More

  It has been said many times across this House, but it bears repeating: this was an appalling miscarriage of justice. The shocking dishonesty of Post Office officials found its match only in the bravery of the sub-postmasters who stood up to them. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the legislation in the previous Parliament to finally deliver justice by quashing their convictions, and we likewise welcome measures to ensure that those affected get the compensation they deserve. However, what we have seen with previous compensation and redress schemes for the victims of this scandal is a pattern of delay, complication and inefficiency. Neither the Post Office nor the Department for Business and Trade has earned the necessary trust from the sub-postmasters to administer the schemes. With that in mind, the Business and Trade Committee recommended in 2022 that an independent intermediary body be set up. Does the Minister agree that it is now time to appoint that independent body to ensure that these schemes get delivered fairly, effectively and without delay?