(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 756036 relating to access to court and tribunal transcripts.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and a privilege to introduce this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I put on record my thanks to Daniel ShenSmith for creating the petition, and to Dr Natalie Byrom, Adam Wren and Fiona Goddard, whose insights on this issue have proved invaluable to me in preparation for the debate.
The petition seeks to make it a legal obligation for all courts and tribunals to make transcripts available free of change. Currently, in both civil and criminal cases an application for transcripts may be made for all or part of a hearing, with such an application generally requiring the payment of a fee. However, there are circumstances where parties can appeal for the cost of the fee for transcripts to be paid at public expense. For that to happen, the court must be satisfied that the requesting party qualifies for free remission, or is otherwise in such poor financial circumstance that the cost of obtaining a transcript would be an excessive burden, and satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for such a transcript to be obtained.
That brings me to the key question that the petition seeks to address: does Parliament think that access to records of court proceedings should be treated as a public good? The petition has over 200,000 signatures from members of the public, so this is clearly an issue that has struck a chord with many of our constituents. The problem is that the current system is not fit for purpose. It undermines transparency and disproportionately affects the aspiration of a court to protect victims, bereaved families, and those who are wrongly accused or seeking to challenge injustice.
Let us concentrate on how unfit for purpose the system is. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service commissions transcription services through a procurement framework: a pre-approved panel of private suppliers established via a competitive tender. The current framework was awarded in June 2023 and runs until June 2027. Under that model, HMCTS pays suppliers for the transcripts that it requires for court purposes. The transcription company is responsible for any anonymisation that may be required and for applying any reporting restrictions that are in place.
When a member of the public requests a transcript, however, they must make a request to the court in which the hearing took place and pay the transcription company directly at commercial rates. If the hearing has already been transcribed for HMCTS or another member of the public, a lower copy rate will apply. If a member of the public wants a transcript of court or tribunal proceedings, they must complete a lengthy form and pay the court the cost of the transcript. The cost will be determined by the length of the transcript, with transcription companies charging per block of 72 words. More complex cases will have longer transcripts and therefore costs will be much higher.
Only a handful of transcription companies are part of the tender process and each is attached to a particular court on a geographical basis, creating a monopoly with no competition. That only drives up prices. There are accounts of people being quoted up to £50,000 for the release of these important documents. The Government’s website promises that those who apply for a free transcript will hear back within 20 days of submitting a request. If they are not eligible, they will be invited to apply for all or part of the transcript and to pay for it at a commercial rate. The judge assigned to the court case must give approval for the transcripts to be released in the first place. That approval alone can add weeks, if not months, to the process.
That is a significant problem for the groups who need to receive the most protection—victims or, in cases in which the victim has died, their families. That is because the court judge might rule otherwise and rule against a request that has been put in place, quite rightly, by victims or survivors, who want to understand the true, underlying reasons behind a jury making a decision or that were part of the court process writ large.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
In the spirit of cross-party consensus, I commend both the hon. Member on securing this debate and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on her campaigning work in this area. Does he agree that for victims it is vital that they have agency within the court process as a complainant, and that following a court or tribunal case there is transparency for them, regardless of the verdict in their case, so that they can understand the decision and seek closure after the process has concluded?
Robbie Moore
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. For a witness or a victim or survivor of a crime who has gone through a lengthy court process to then have to pay what is sometimes a huge cost for the transcript of those proceedings to be made available to them is deeply unfair. A victim or a witness participates in only part of the court proceeding and is therefore unable to fully understand the complexities of the case or the contributions to it that other witnesses may have made. They are able to gain a full understanding of it only once the full transcript has been made available to them.
That brings me to a key point, which is that the unduly lenient licensing scheme means that victims and victims’ families have just 28 days to appeal the sentences of their abusers. Having court transcripts is a vital part of the appeal process, so the current system creates another huge barrier to justice for victims and their families, because it might only be once they have looked at the transcript that they decide to appeal to the Attorney General against an unduly lenient sentence.
Another significant reason for delays is the technology being used to record and produce these transcripts, because some courtrooms are still using tape recorders to produce transcripts. The need to create a justice system fit for the digital age is not a new one. A 2022 report by the Justice Committee described the situation on court transcripts as unsatisfactory and recommended that HMCTS should explore whether greater use of technology, such as AI-powered transcription, could be piloted to establish whether it can be used to reduce the cost of producing court transcripts.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I almost wanted to have a bet on who would mention AI first in this debate. AI is always said to be the solution, but for once it might be. Everything that the hon. Member is saying about the system of transcripts—that it is anachronistic, lacking in transparency, costly and baroque—is absolutely right. We must move towards greater transparency. Magistrates courts currently do not have recording at all, although they will have to after the Courts and Tribunals Bill is passed. The solution has to be to do this work stage by stage, and AI will be very important in that process.
Robbie Moore
My response to the hon. Gentleman’s points is that AI is a technology that exists. It is rolling out and therefore, as recommended by the Justice Committee, it should absolutely be looked at by the Government, in order to make sure that court transcripts can be made available, ultimately—ideally—free of charge to the public. I will go on to build the case that that is actually in the interests of the public good, from a transparency point of view.
I now turn to victims. I have been lucky enough to meet many victims as part of the outreach process to prepare for this debate. Ultimately, they are at the heart of this issue. It is a sad situation, but in this country we have a judicial system that fundamentally disempowers victims instead of empowering them.
Fiona Goddard is a woman I have worked with for several years. She is a champion of victims, who has tirelessly campaigned for the victims of grooming gangs. Fiona spent years being abused by a grooming gang in Bradford. When her case was finally brought to court, there were over 100 witness statements that she was not aware of. Therefore, she went on to say that her contribution was literally only part of her own story, despite the fact that she was the victim and witness in her own case. That is a common theme in experiences throughout the judicial system; witnesses will see and contribute to only part of their case and will not be aware of the full extent of all the contributions.
Another case reported by the BBC involved a woman from Berkshire who, as a victim, endured a seven-week trial. The accused was cleared of rape and the victim was told that securing transcripts for the whole trial would cost more than £30,000. She said:
“The entirety of my sexual violence trial hinged around me. There are five weeks of material that debate me”.
She said the material dealt with the details of her case, including her words and experience, and her levels of anxiety increased. She said:
“I waited five years for justice and I leave the system mystified as to what happened”.
Another case was previously brought to this House by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney)—I commend her for all her work in this space and for bringing many cases to the House. She spoke of her constituent who was drugged and raped in her sleep by her former partner, and was then forced to wait two years for her case to be heard in court. Her attacker was finally convicted, but due to trauma and emotional distress she can understandably barely remember what was said in the courtroom. She was left so traumatised by the trial that her therapist advised her to apply for transcripts of the proceedings to aid her healing. The application for a free copy was denied and she was quoted a fee of £7,500 by a tender company for them.
Charlotte Nichols
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points, and those of the victims whose voices he is bringing to the fore. Does he agree that both the proposals by the Government and the amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that was agreed to in the other place, which says that victims will have the right to access a transcript of the judge’s route to verdict, are inadequate? That is not a transcript of the full case and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is important for victims of crime to be able to work through—with therapists or other support—the full details of what happened when they were not present in the courtroom, during what was, as he also rightly said, their case. Access to full transcripts would re-empower victims to get closure after the event.
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. The amendments in the other place and the aspirations of the Government do not go anywhere near achieving the transparency associated with the full transcripts being made available, free of charge, to any victim, survivor or witness, should they wish to get clarity around the court cases that they have been involved in.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I fully support the case that he is making for full transparency, but in the spirit of “I’ll start by starting”, he touched on witness statements that would have been prepared beforehand but were still not available. If the Minister accepts the principle around greater transparency, does my hon. Friend agree that certain aspects could immediately be made much more available, while some of the other technical discussions are taken in parallel?
Robbie Moore
I agree with my right hon. Friend. If a victim has gone through a challenging court case, having immediate access to some of the witness statements and contributions that were made during the court proceedings —which can happen without difficulty, following a judge’s ruling—will potentially enable that victim to properly seek closure regarding the sentence that has been given. Probably more importantly, if they wish to challenge that sentence—and currently, under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, they must do so within a 28-day period—being able to look at the transcripts, albeit only what can be released in the short term, could provide them with the opportunity to do so.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Clearly, we are talking about having access to accurate court transcripts. I have been contacted by a couple of constituents who work as registered public service interpreters. They feel that the current system is very patchy and that the quality of interpretation services is not good enough. Indeed, someone can still act as an interpreter in the system without professional or vocational training. Does the hon. Member agree that we must raise standards and ensure that there is a strong supply of level 6 qualified interpreters to support people in getting access to the transcripts we are discussing?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s points. They were some of the key ones picked up in the Justice Committee’s report, because they not only advocated for better use of technology but argued that there was a skill challenge among the various courts. That feeds back into the issue’s narrative: when the tender was given back in June 2023, it was geographically based, and once that tender was locked in, it was very difficult to alter it, despite challenge, our raising it in the House of Commons, and a petition coming down the line with more than 200,000 signatures. So I would like put the hon. Member’s points directly to the Minister.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman can give way, but the hon. Member for Strangford knows, because he has been here a very long time, that it is courtesy and a convention of the House to be in the Chamber at the start of somebody’s speech before trying to intervene—I think he came in some minutes after the beginning of the speech. It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, but that is the usual courtesy.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate; he is absolutely right to underline these issues. He has given a number of examples of where the process has fallen down because evidence could not get to the victim—I always focus on victims, as I know he does. Is he aware of any cases or examples where, because of not being able to get the evidence, and the victim not being able to ascertain all the necessary information, cases have fallen and justice has not been delivered?
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Those points were not put to me in the outreach I have done, but based on the narrative and level of concern about transparency and reassurance, there could be examples of that out there. I suspect that is why more than 200,000 people have signed the petition and feel so strongly that this should be brought directly to the Minister’s attention, so that we can give better clarity and reassurance to many victims and survivors who have been through horrendous court cases.
Victims should, and must, be at the heart of the justice system, yet time and again they are made to feel completely disregarded—like an inconvenience, as some victims have put it to me. The feeling among victims I have spoken to is that trust needs to be rebuilt, and that is partly done through increasing transparency.
This is a timely debate: the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which represents the most significant reform to the criminal procedure in decades, is making its way through Parliament. It will abolish jury trials for crimes likely to carry a sentence of fewer than three years, but the Institute for Government has warned that judge-only trials risk damage to public confidence in a criminal justice system. The Bar Council chair has cautioned directly that the reforms
“compromise public trust and confidence.”
In addition, local media is facing unprecedented pressure —gone are the days when each paper had a local court reporter to sit in on court proceedings. Despite the Government’s recently announced local media action plan, investing in local news while maintaining cost barriers to court transcripts is directly contradictory. Without affordable access to clear records of what is said in court, local journalists cannot hold the justice system to account or ensure that accurate information is shared with the public.
What can be done to increase transparency and trust in the justice system? Increased access to court and tribunal transcripts will absolutely be part of that, hence the nature of this debate. I acknowledge that some progress is being made towards greater availability of court transcripts. The previous Conservative Government launched a pilot scheme that enabled victims of serious sexual assault to request a free copy of the sentencing remarks, and that pilot was extended by the previous Government last year. More recently, following pressure from the Conservative Opposition, who tabled amendments during proceedings on the Sentencing Act 2026 and the Victims and Courts Bill, the Government agreed to expand free access to Crown court sentencing remarks to all victims, but disappointingly, they confirmed that they had no plans to do so in magistrates courts.
There are several legitimate options for increasing transparency through access to court and tribunal transcripts. To start with, HMCTS could absorb the cost by paying suppliers for public request transcripts rather than passing the costs on to individuals. A central transcript repository could also be created, which would require transcripts already produced to be held in a central system, such as the National Archives. The current tender process is locked in until 2027, but it is essential that a public access requirement is built into the next framework tender from the outset. The Government could also dedicate parliamentary time to producing legislation that would place a statutory duty on courts to provide transcripts, with funding flowing down into procurement requirements.
Having spoken to others in preparing for this debate, I also encourage the Government to relaunch the senior data governance panel, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government to provide independent expert advice on the use of justice data across courts and tribunals. I understand, however, that that has not been taken forward, much to the annoyance of many involved in the process.
I remind Members that this petition has more than 200,000 signatures from across the country. The issue clearly demands time and good debate, which I am sure we will have. Whatever views the public and Members have on this petition, we clearly have a justice system that is stuck in the past and becoming less transparent, and which makes the victims that it exists to serve feel the least important of all.
I come back to the overarching question put forward by the petition: does Parliament think that court and tribunal transcripts should be treated as a public good? When I think of the cases I have outlined, and particularly of a quote from Fiona Goddard, who described the current system as just another
“way in which the victim is treated like the least important person”
in the judicial system, I think the answer is most definitely yes. It is in the interest of the public to make sure that these transcripts are free to access for all.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his opening remarks.
I want to touch on the experience of my constituent, Terry Louch, who was in contact with my predecessor prior to my election in 2024 and has been in contact with me since then. He has been trying to access the court records relating to his nephew, Mr Jay Sewell, who was murdered in December 2018. He applied to the Old Bailey for the transcripts and was told that the fee would be £22,000—£500 per day. He said that he was left with a number of questions at the trial, and that
“at times it was difficult to hear and understand a lot of what was being communicated.”
After several years, he would still like the transcripts to better understand the case proceedings and, ultimately, the judge’s decisions. The perpetrator was found guilty and given a minimum term of 21 years, but Mr Louch still wants to understand the full proceedings of the case.
I have twice raised Mr Louch’s case with HMCTS. Initially, it said that external transcription companies set their own fees, that that is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, and that bereaved families can access a free copy of the sentencing remarks. As I said, it is not just the sentencing remarks that Mr Louch wants, but the details of what was a very lengthy case. With further correspondence, Mr Louch was advised that he could apply for a limited section of the transcripts to lower the costs, but his position is that he is unable to pick out any certain parts of a given day, and would therefore have to pay for the full day to be transcribed to access any aspect. There are several days that he wishes to have the transcripts of, and he says that it would be difficult to pinpoint the specific days that he would like.
That is the position after much to-ing and fro-ing from both my predecessor in Bexleyheath and Crayford and myself. It remains the case that Mr Louch has not been able to access the transcripts due to the prohibitive costs involved. He continues trying to pursue the matter, and the aims of this petition. I welcome this debate and ask the Government to look again at some of these aspects, and particularly the issues that Mr Louch has raised. For him to fully understand what actually happened in what was, for him, a very traumatic case involving the murder of his nephew, the cost of £22,000 is extremely prohibitive.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate so well, and for acknowledging my campaign on this issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who is no longer in her place. I know that she has particular experience of this issue, which she talked about so bravely in the Chamber the other day. It is a reminder to all of us that there are victims at the heart of this, and that it is their rights that we seek to protect and uphold when we call for free transcripts.
Three years ago, my constituent Juliana Terlizzi contacted my office to request a meeting. She had been quoted £7,500 for a copy of her court transcript. Juliana was a victim of rape. The perpetrator was convicted for the offence. Juliana did not attend the trial due to the emotional toll that it would have taken on her, as is so common for victims who are still battling with the harm left from their traumatising experience.
As someone with no personal experience of ever attending a trial or being involved in a trial, I was really surprised to learn from Juliana that it is not routine in criminal trials for the victim to attend. I guess my impression was from television cop shows and court shows, and I assumed that victims were always there, but it is not routine. Indeed, it is often discouraged.
While still dealing with the scars that the assault left behind, Juliana consulted a psychiatrist, who told her that reading over the transcript of the trial might help to provide some closure, but Juliana was subsequently informed that a copy of the transcript would cost £7,500. How can the UK claim to support victims of rape and sexual assault when such barriers to their recovery still exist?
Although I was frustrated at the length of time that it took me to make the case to the last Conservative Government, I am pleased that Members across the House are now more supportive of this campaign. I am also grateful that this Government seem to have understood the importance of the issue and have backed it with their commitment to making sentencing remarks free for all victims.
This issue unifies the House. As I have done for a number of years, I again call for all transcripts of court proceedings to be free of charge. Every single Member of the House will have the chance to make this call a reality by supporting Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Brinton’s amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill when it returns to the Commons. So I ask the Minister: will the Government support this amendment?
More than 200,000 people have signed this petition. Access to court transcripts is not a minor issue that will impact only a small minority of people. The change will impact all victims and their loved ones and be a significant step towards enhancing the rights of victims while making our courts more transparent. I have been proud to lead this campaign in Parliament to amplify the voices of victims who have been met with this injustice.
Victims of sexual assault and rape already face significant barriers when attempting to achieve justice. They are effectively a statistical anomaly when it comes to conviction rates. According to the charity Rape Crisis England & Wales, only 2.1% of reported rape results in a conviction. That effectively means that 98% of people accused of rape will not face punishment. The current system is weighted against victims. Making court transcripts free and accessible is a step that can be taken to enhance the rights of victims, and I urge every Member in this House to support Baroness Brinton’s amendment.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening this debate in his characteristic way—highly detailed and bringing the voices of victims to the fore, something that is so important here.
The petition before us speaks to the simple but fundamental principle that access to justice should never be denied according to a person’s ability to pay. If our role in this place is anything, surely it is to break down the barriers that our constituents face when trying to access that to which they are entitled. This is clearly one of those barriers. Given that it involves access to justice—that most fundamental of rights—I cannot think of a more significant barrier that needs to be knocked down.
I thank the 479 constituents in Hartlepool who signed the petition. Their voices reflect a real and growing concern that what should be a basic feature of open justice cannot be placed behind a paywall. At present, courtroom tribunal transcripts can run into the hundreds and even the thousands of pounds. For many of my constituents, that is simply unaffordable. The result is that people are denied access to a full record of proceedings that may directly affect their lives. That has serious implications for victims, for those seeking to appeal decisions, and for public confidence in a justice system that is already under strain.
I raised this issue of costs with Ministers just last week during Justice questions. I welcomed the response from the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman)—as an aside, my thoughts are with her and her constituents today. The commitment to making sentencing remarks available to victims free of charge is a positive and important step, showing that the Government recognise the need to reduce these barriers and improve transparency. However, there is a clear case to go further.
The Government’s response to the petition suggests that expanding free access would place additional pressure on the system. As Members have already said, in an age of AI and technology, I wonder whether the basic credibility of that excuse stands up. This is not an optional extra. It goes to the heart of whether our justice system is truly accessible and accountable. It is encouraging that the other place has already taken steps in this direction: Lords amendment 1 to the Victims and Courts Bill would create a statutory entitlement for victims of criminal offences to receive key transcripts free of charge, including the route to verdict and bail decisions, with a clear expectation that they are provided promptly. That development is significant and welcome, but still does not go far enough.
The principle behind that change should not stop there. If access to transcripts is essential for fairness and transparency, it must apply more widely across our courts and tribunals. Open justice cannot be selective; it cannot apply in some cases but not others, or to some people but not others. The law belongs to us all. The records of our courts are part of the public record and they should be accessible as such. Of course there will be practical challenges, but those challenges should be addressed, not used as a reason to delay progress. With the right approach, including better use of technology, we can improve access while managing costs. Only where there are clear safety or national security concerns should access ever be restricted.
Ultimately, this issue is about fairness and trust. It is about ensuring that no one is denied access to justice because of their financial circumstances. I urge the Government and the Minister to build on the progress already being made, to support the direction set out in the Lords amendment and to move towards a system where access to court and tribunal transcripts is guaranteed, not priced out of reach.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Over the years, I have often found that when the Members on each Front Bench agree on an issue, there are dangers for Parliament, not least because legislation is often insufficiently scrutinised. Conversely, when the Back-Bench Members of each of the parties agree, it is often—it certainly was when I was a Minister—a warning sign that the Government of the day need to move.
What has been uplifting about the debate we have heard so far, with evidence from those on the Government Benches—the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who spoke very powerfully, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash)—as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), has been the consensus that this is a burning issue of concern to our constituents.
It clearly is a burning concern, given the volume of respondents to the petition—has more than 200,000 signatories, which signals how much this matters. I do not want to divert away from today’s debate but, given the restriction of access to jury trials and that direction of travel from the Government—a direction that I regret and indeed many on the Government Benches appear to regret—the opportunity for the Government to move more quickly on transparency and transcripts is even more pertinent that it would otherwise be.
I am speaking in this debate because I am keen to hear from the Minister about where he sees the sticking point. My sense from the Government’s comments today has been that they are broadly sympathetic to the direction of travel—I think the Minister is nodding his head to indicate that, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. It would be helpful, given that he and the Government are sympathetic, to understand how the House can support them in moving more quickly, and in particular whether the constraint is one of legislation.
As we know from past debates in this place, this House can move very quickly on legislation when it so desires, particularly if there is cross-party agreement. Indeed, the hon. Member for Richmond Park indicated there was agreement in the House of Lords as well. If, then, the constraint is legislative, there are ample opportunities for us to address that at pace. If it is contractual, I suspect that the sums are relatively modest, given the prize on offer. It would be helpful to understand what the contractual costs would be if one were to try to terminate or to vary the agreement. Indeed, where there is significant cross-party political pressure, it is surprising how suppliers, perhaps with a view to other contracts in future, may be willing to amend a contract.
If the restrictions and difficulties for Ministers are technological, we saw in the covid period that, with a clear enough demand signal from Government, it is surprising how quickly technology improvements can be put in place when there is the will to do so. But I fear that what is at fault here is not this Minister, but the slow pace at which Whitehall is in the habit of operating. That is why it is important that in this debate we support the Minister and the direction of travel that I think he wants to go in, while understanding where the blockages are.
I have a few quick questions. First, given the Government’s support, as I understand it, for the recording of proceedings in court, to what extent could audio clips, either in whole or in part, be made more quickly available? If there is some concern with the accuracy of the AI, for example, are there other ways of solving that? Where can we start, rather than waiting for the whole thing to be resolved?
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley touched on, witness statements and huge numbers of documents are produced as part of the discovery process in court. Court bundles—a huge number of documents—are prepared in advance of court hearings. It strikes me that much more could be done to make those available, particularly to the victims of crime, than is the case now. What assessment has been made of which parts of those court bundles could be made available?
Thirdly, what exactly are the technology constraints? Again, looking at the progress in other areas of Government and commitments made by the Prime Minister about AI in No. 10 summits recently, why can we not move more quickly than the slow pace at which the Ministry of Justice appears to be operating? That is particularly pertinent because of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley made about the 28-day time limit for appeal. That is a hard deadline, and yet, as he sets out, decisions often take a while to come. The cost is prohibitive, and people are not able to get the information they seek in a timely fashion ahead of the deadline. My sense is that the Government want to move in that direction, so I hope the debate today has signalled the cross-party consensus to do so.
When the Minister sums up, I encourage him to clarify exactly where the blockages are. If he reads the Institute for Government reports, he will see that Ministers have a habit of moving very frequently. Those on the Government Benches who are seen as talented often move very frequently indeed. He has an opportunity during his tenure in the Ministry of Justice to move quickly, to take advantage of the cross-party support and—at a time when his own Government are restricting access to jury trials—to do something that will be hugely helpful to victims, and something that the public have signalled they want very much.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken so thoughtfully on this important topic. I especially thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for representing the Petitions Committee; he has certainly done his homework, and I thank him for highlighting how mystified people often feel when they go through a lengthy court process only to find out that their trial has been monetised—or privatised—and that they have to spend thousands of pounds to gain access to their case.
I pay tribute to all 200,000 people across the country who signed the petition; I believe the general public got behind it so strongly because they are surprised that people are not entitled to transcripts of their own case. Justice must be accessible and visible. Trust in our justice system is built upon transparency—upon seeing the work and the reasoning behind decisions that affect so many lives. That is vital for defendants and crucial for victims and bereaved families, a point the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) spoke passionately about. As the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) says, we have achieved a consensus: this is one way that we can break down barriers for our constituents—as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned, that is surely the most important role that we can play in this place—and make a genuine difference to people across the country who are engaging with the justice system.
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned on this issue, particularly through the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Her campaigning for her constituent Juliana—a victim of rape who was told she would be charged £7,500 for her transcript—has been inspiring and has truly shifted the dial. I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy in this area. She also highlighted an important fact: her constituent was still battling with the harms of her trauma and did not hear the case that she was the victim of; in order to be able to move on, she needed to have that document.
What is clear—reflected in much of the testimony today as well as in the national support for the petition—is that, for many victims, court transcripts are a vital part of their recovery, either personally or via therapy. However, for too long and for too many those transcripts have been out of reach, reserved for those who can afford what can be incredibly large sums.
Providing free court transcripts for victims is about giving them the support and protection that they deserve. Many trials are lengthy, take place years after the event and can be retraumatising experiences, even when victims do not attend in person. Everyone will handle such situations differently but, given that victims are among the most vulnerable in our society, they should be afforded as much support as possible to overcome those challenges. That is why consistent free access to transcripts is vital. They must be available beyond the 28 days after a trial concludes to access the unduly lenient scheme. Such measures would markedly improve the experiences of both victims and survivors.
That is why we welcomed the cross-party work in the Sentencing Bill to introduce the provision of free sentencing remarks for all victims. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, as well as Baroness Brinton in the other place and the various Ministers in the MOJ, including the Minister who is answering today, worked to achieve this vital first step, which we believe is a stepping stone towards providing all transcripts free of charge.
The timing of this debate could not be more pertinent, with the return this week of the Victims and Courts Bill from the Lords, now with the Liberal Democrat amendment tabled by my noble Friend, Baroness Brinton. That amendment would give victims access, free of charge, to transcripts relating to the route to verdict, extending current provisions encompassing bail decisions and judicial summaries, voiding many of the extortionate costs that we have heard about and providing victims with clarity regarding their cases. I thank the Conservatives in the other place for their support on that amendment, and I urge the Government to get behind it on Wednesday.
Without those provisions, we will continue to fail victims. As is the case with much of the Government’s rhetoric around improving technology and the use of AI on the court estate, there is little excuse not to put them in place as quickly as possible.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He is proving himself to be a consistent and doughty champion of victims and the issues that they raise with him. I also acknowledge the long-standing campaigning of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in this area.
I welcome today’s opportunity to discuss this issue as part of our wider debate about transparency in the justice system. Sadly, I think that I can predict to some extent what the Minister will say: the phrase “14 years” will make an appearance; there will be lots of rhetoric about how terrible the previous Government were; and there will be a complete absence of any idea of how the current Government would have managed differently the challenges that the previous Government faced.
I can also be pretty confident about what the Minister will not say. There will be no real engagement with what the challenges of covid presented to our justice system, even though they truly were unprecedented. However, that is the standard that Ministers and Labour have set, not just for justice, but across the Government on issues such as inflation and energy bills. There is no acceptance of the challenges that the previous Government faced and no exceptions made for things outside their control. It therefore should not be any surprise when the present Government are held to exactly the same standard.
In reality, this issue is a good example of what more fair-minded commentators accept as a multi-decade failure to give the justice system and those involved in it the priority and resources they deserve. I am sure that if the Minister and I were to design the justice system from scratch together, we would agree that free access to transcripts was important and, indeed, should just be the default. However, we are where we are.
Sadly, I am realistic about what success we will achieve on the issue of transcripts today, even when a petition has been signed by an impressive 200,000 people. After all, this is the Government who tried to delete the Courtsdesk archive, which has been one of the biggest steps forward for transparency in our justice system in recent years. I raised that issue in the main Chamber because I was deeply concerned about the decision to delete a unique archive of corrected and correlated court listings. In the absence of retrospective access to court transcripts, the work of journalists is absolutely vital, and Courtsdesk had become a valuable tool for journalists, campaigners and others seeking to identify patterns in offending and to expose failings in our justice system.
Rather than seeking to preserve that transparency while dealing constructively with any data protection concerns, the Government moved towards deleting the archive altogether. Of course, the Government’s defence of that decision did not hold up to scrutiny. When the Minister for Courts and Legal Services came to the House and said that there were serious data protection concerns with Courtsdesk, she did not tell us that the Government’s internal processes had found the incident she cited to be low-risk, not even warranting referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
At a time when confidence in the justice system depends on greater openness, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services was going to deliver the exact opposite, and that is part of the context for today’s debate. It relates to the broader question of whether the Government are approaching transparency in the justice system with sufficient urgency and seriousness.
The petition speaks to the basic principle that access to justice should not depend on the ability to pay, and open justice is not an optional extra to be considered only once the administrative convenience of the system has been satisfied. The petitioners are right to identify transcript fees as a paywall. For too many people, they are exactly that: a barrier to understanding what happened in court; a barrier to considering making an appeal; a barrier to holding the system to account; and, in some cases, a barrier to justice itself.
That matters not just for journalists and campaigners, but for victims, bereaved families and ordinary members of the public who are trying to make sense of a justice system that is supposed to work for them. There is clearly public demand for greater transparency in the system, which was why the previous Conservative Government started moving in that direction, including through the pilot of making sentencing remarks available free of charge to victims of rape and other sexual offences. That was a start, although I now think that we should have moved faster and further while we were in government.
I find it hard to think of any other walk of life in which we would expect a member of the public who is part of such an important process—it is important for them, for their friends and family, and for the wider justice system—to be asked to remember key things that may or may not have been said in court, and to be asked to be in court every single day if they want to understand the full process, although that might not necessarily be appropriate. What disappoints me in particular is the Government’s resistance not just to making full transcripts available, but on the much narrower and more readily resolvable issue of making transcripts of sentencing remarks available. The Government have refused to accept our proposal—it has been voted on in the Lords—to have such transcripts produced within 14 days and free of charge. They will accept doing that only from spring of next year and not necessarily within 14 days. As we have heard, given the unduly lenient sentence scheme, people need those transcripts quickly if they are to be able to make good use of them.
It is particularly clear that there is public interest in sentencing remarks. I look forward to the Labour Members who spoke today backing amendments that the Conservatives, with cross-party support, are attempting to pass so that transcripts of sentencing remarks are made available. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, similar amendments have been proposed to allow victims to have even more made available to them, including the route to verdict and bail decisions. Those amendments have cross-party support, so I hope that Labour Members and others will support them when the House considers them this week.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) showed his ministerial experience through the well-articulated questions that he put to the Minister. I will add my own questions to his. It is all well and good for the Minister to talk in warm words about access to sentencing remarks and court transcripts, but do we have an actual date for when the Government will deliver that? What cases will it apply to at first, and what barriers are preventing us from implementing this much more quickly than the Government have committed to?
I pay tribute to everyone who signed the petition, particularly those campaigners such as Fiona Goddard, who my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley mentioned and focused on grooming gangs. That has been a key driver of the demands for greater transparency in our justice system. The Government resisted an inquiry on that matter in a similar vein to how they are resisting transparency in our justice system. I look forward to the Minister giving us concrete answers about how we will make progress, rather than just warm words.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome today’s debate. There is general cross-party consensus about the need to ensure more open justice and to do everything that we can to ensure that victims in criminal proceedings have access to the information that they need to recover from the crimes that they have suffered.
The tone struck by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), was unfortunate. I genuinely was not going to mention the 14 years of underinvestment in our courts, the fact that rape convictions were at record lows under the last Conservative Government, or the fact that progress on victims’ rights, and indeed many of the issues we have discussed today, was moving at a snail’s pace, if at all, under the last Government. While I was not going to make any of those comments, I felt obliged to do so having been prompted by the hon. Member.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for raising this important issue, as he has done before in the House of Commons and elsewhere. I acknowledge his contribution and all who engaged with the petition. Although the Government knew about this before this petition, the representations underscore a real public interest in transparency across the justice system. That is particularly important to the rights of victims, who were specifically spoken about by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). As I have said on the Floor of the House, the hon. Lady’s work in this area has really led the way. Indeed, that is also true of many others as well, including the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, who raised really powerful cases.
I have met victims—in my role, I have the privilege and humble duty to meet victims regularly—and there is no doubt that our criminal justice system still too often fails them. There is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts and sentencing remarks, and I hope to deal with some of the specifics raised of why we cannot go as far as many would want us to at the moment. However, from this debate, and more generally, we can see that there are problems of how victims are dealt with within our criminal justice system. We have heard about information as to their trial and advice around their attendance. We are seized upon their advice regarding the unduly lenient sentences scheme in relation to a piece of legislation before Parliament. There are lots of ways, culturally and systemically, in which the criminal justice system fails victims, and there is an acceptance that there is more to do.
I want to set out the Government’s approach, what we have done and what we want to do. In doing so, I hope to deal with some of the detailed questions and challenges that have been posed in this debate. I start by reaffirming that open justice is a foundational tenet of our system. Open justice is the long-established principle that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that is fundamental to the rule of law. Transparency also helps to build confidence in the justice system, supporting scrutiny and enhancing public understanding of how the law is applied.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the justice system is open and transparent, and we share that priority with the judiciary. Both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Lady Chief Justice have spoken at length about the importance of transparency. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said, new technologies no doubt offer opportunities to meet rising public expectations of access to information, but the principle of open justice is not unfettered; we have a duty to ensure that it is delivered responsibly and in a way that safeguards the administration of justice. It is vital that we protect the rights of victims, witnesses and parties, and that sensitive information is handled with care.
We must ensure that any measures to increase transparency do not undermine the effective operation of the justice system. That is why achieving the right balance is central to our approach to transcript provision. The petition calls for all court and tribunal transcripts to be made available for free in order to increase transparency, enable appeals and support victims. Those are important aims, and ones that I hope every Member of the House would support. However, it is important to recognise some of the practical realities of producing transcripts, as well as the considerable progress already under way to improve access to such information across the justice system. I will expand on that, but practical realities are not just infrastructure within courts and the contractual systems that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley set out, but legal considerations and the context in which all court transcripts are dealt with.
Producing a transcript of court proceedings can be resource-intensive. It is detailed, skilled work requiring rigorous quality assurance. Full hearing transcripts, especially those involving lengthy trials or hearings, multiple parties, interpreters—my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), who has just left the Chamber, touched on that—or sensitive evidence can run to hundreds or even, in my experience, thousands of pages. Ensuring accuracy is paramount because transcripts may be used in appeals or covered by the media. Errors can seriously undermine confidence in the justice system.
Transcripts must also comply with relevant reporting restrictions and data protection requirements. In practice, that means that detailed, manual anonymisation is required to prevent both direct and indirect jigsaw identification of victims, witnesses or other court users, a process that current technology cannot safely automate and requires careful review to ensure that no combination of details could reveal the identity of individuals protected by reporting restrictions. That is a time-consuming, skilled task that requires precision, and often legal advice, to safeguard vulnerable people.
However, the Government have made significant and meaningful progress on transcript provision and wider transparency in the justice system in recent years. In the Crown court, victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and bereaved families in homicide cases—that is, murder, manslaughter and offences of causing death on the road—can request a free transcript of relevant sentencing remarks. That ensures that victims can revisit the judge’s explanation in their own time and use it to inform any decisions they may need to make, including whether to submit representations under the ULS scheme.
Steve Barclay
It is not surprising that the Minister is setting out the concerns that MOJ officials have no doubt raised with him about reporting restrictions and accuracy in the text, which are all valid. However, there is a danger that the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. I have two specific points. First, to what extent could the judge, as the trial proceeds, earmark packages of documents, audio recordings or other information that could be made more readily available, rather than the perfect being the enemy of the good? Secondly, the Government have made a lot of passing a duty of candour. Is the duty of candour complied with if the cost of obtaining a transcript is so high that the victim simply cannot afford it, or if it arrives after the 28 days that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) spoke about?
Jake Richards
The right hon. Member says that we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good, but he no doubt understands that it is paramount that court transcripts are perfect. I will come on to his other points, but I know he accepts that this not quite as straightforward as transcribing other public meetings with the technology we have today and turning them into written documents. Perhaps more can be done with regard to witness statements that appear in the trial as evidence in chief and are not challenged. I am happy to look into that and speak with the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, but it may be an issue for the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service or the victim care service.
As I said at the outset, one of my concerns when I deal with the criminal justice system and victims from all those angles—from court transcripts, which have been raised, to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, through which I meet victims all the time—is that there is a problem, culturally and systemically, with how victims are not at the heart of the system and the process. I have fears when it comes to the issue of whether more can be done as a trial is developing, or after it, to ensure that the victim understands what is happening and gets the information that they need. Where it is possible, safe and legal, I have no doubt that more can be done; it may not be as easy as flicking a switch at 102 Petty France, but I am sure that more can be done.
I am somewhat wary of the suggestion from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) about recordings. We need to be very careful about how we use recordings of criminal proceedings, whether audio or visual. He will no doubt be aware of the sensitivity, but perhaps more can be done. I can take away his suggestion, which is a more manual mechanism for ensuring that victims know and understand what has happened at the criminal trial.
From spring next year, the Government will go further: as has been said, victims will be entitled to be provided with free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case. That is an important extension that will make a meaningful difference to victims’ understanding of the outcomes of their case. As was raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and by almost every contributor to the debate, the interplay with the ULS scheme is clear. That scheme is being considered as part of legislation going through Parliament at the moment. The interplay between the provision of the transcript and ensuring that the ULS scheme works for victims is at the forefront of my mind and that of the Minister for Victims.
Robbie Moore
In the Government’s response to the petition, they said quite rightly that by spring 2027 they would expand free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks and that transcripts would be made available to anyone who wishes to utilise the ULS scheme within the timeframe that the scheme provides. As that is 28 days at the moment, can the Minister provide some reassurance as to how the Government will ensure that that level of information is provided within the timeframe? Are the Government looking, as I would wish, at expanding the period for appeal beyond 28 days, which is far too short?
Jake Richards
As I say, and as the hon. Member will appreciate, the interplay between the ULS scheme and the provision of transcripts of sentencing remarks is at the heart of our consideration during the passage through Parliament of the Victim and Courts Bill. Parliament is seized of the issue of the ULS scheme. I completely understand the desire to expand the time limit. We have spoken to victims’ groups and victims who have suggested alternatives, or who are potentially not even in favour. We have to get it right. Watch this space, if I can say that at this stage.
In the magistrates courts, we are making meaningful progress on the recording of hearings. As part of wider reform of the criminal courts’ trial and sentencing proceedings, magistrates courts will now be recorded. That will strengthen transparency and support the accurate production of transcripts when required.
In civil proceedings, parties often do not need to pay for written judgments or orders in their own cases. Those are provided as a matter of course so that litigants can understand the basis of the court’s decision and can consider any next steps, including appeal. While a fee is generally payable for the full transcript of the case, a party can apply to the court to obtain it at public expense. The court can order this when satisfied that it is justified by the financial circumstances of the party and is in the interests of justice.
In the family courts, most proceedings are heard in private. This is to protect the children’s welfare and families’ privacy. Even so, progress is being made to increase transparency, while remaining committed to keeping children and vulnerable individuals safe. Family courts are not usually at the forefront of our mind when we talk about the issue, because they often sit in private, but for many families, particularly in public family law proceedings, the transcript of any fact finding or any final hearing regarding the future of a child can be pivotal to the future care of that child, and indeed to the parents in any appeals or routes to having children returned to their care.
The Government have worked closely with the judiciary to support an increase in the publication of anonymised judgments for family proceedings, which enable the public better to understand the decision making, while ensuring that privacy is protected. Even where family proceedings are heard in private, journalists and legal bloggers can attend most types of hearing. Now, following procedural changes, family courts are encouraged to make orders setting out what information from the hearings can be disclosed publicly. That marks a substantial development in transparency in family proceedings, balancing clarity about what can be reported with the need to protect those involved. We are working with Baroness Levitt and the Family Procedure Rule Committee to review the current rules of court relating to the sharing of information from family cases, to ensure that the rules are justified and proportionate.
Tribunals, which are also covered in the petition, play a vital role in resolving disputes across many areas of daily life. Across many chambers of the first tier and upper tribunals, parties can request fuller written reasons at no additional cost. Tribunals therefore already provide substantial written explanation without a fee.
In the immigration and asylum chamber, the upper tribunal already publishes its decisions, and the Government are working with the judiciary and HMCTS to understand the arrangements required to deliver this in the first-tier tribunal. That involves careful consideration of operational capacity, safeguarding and the significant volume of personal data involved. This work is ongoing and reflects our commitment to increasing transparency and delivering open justice.
To go significantly further at this stage, by extending free provision to every transcript across every jurisdiction, would place substantial operational and financial pressures on the Department at a time when we are rightly focused on implementing the extension of free sentencing remarks and a once-in-a-generation reform in our criminal courts.
Looking to the future, however, the Government are embracing the possibilities that new technology brings. Advances in AI transcription could allow for faster and more cost-effective production of court and tribunal transcripts, while maintaining accuracy and safeguarding. Working with the judiciary, the Government will continue to look at how we can go further and faster in this area. It is essential, however, that any such system meet stringent standards and ensure that reporting restrictions are adhered to and personal data is protected.
In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to open justice. We have already taken significant steps to strengthen transparency across the system, and we will continue to build on that progress, but in doing so it is imperative that we protect individuals, recognise practical and financial constraints and ensure that the justice system can run smoothly and effectively. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley again for opening this debate and all hon. Members who have contributed. I look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that our justice system remains open, fair and trusted by all who rely on it.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
The mover of the motion has a couple of minutes to wind up.
Robbie Moore
On behalf of the Petitions Committee and the more than 200,000 signatories to the petition, may I thank all hon. Members for their engagement? We have demonstrated clearly to the Minister that there is consensus in all parts of the House: we all wish to see transcripts provided free of charge for victims, for witnesses and, indeed, for anyone who wishes to apply, to build better trust and better transparency in the process. All hon. Members have a vote on the issue, potentially this Wednesday, so it will be interesting to see how the Government instruct their Members to vote.
I turn briefly to the Minister’s response. He was articulate in his delivery, but it feels as if there is an issue with the system stalling. Dare I say it, while I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt in his aspirations to unblock the system, I would like to understand more clearly the point he made about the judiciary being responsible and the engagement the Government have to have with it. Who in the judiciary are the Government having that level of correspondence and communication with? Perhaps the Minister could write to the Petitions Committee with his understanding of who the individual is, so that petitioners and Members of Parliament know who they need to engage with to unlock the situation, for the good of all those who signed the petition and all Members across the House who have brought their concerns to the Minister today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 756036 relating to access to court and tribunal transcripts.