Westminster Hall

Monday 19th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Monday 19 October 2026

[Mr David Mundell in the Chair]

Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing

Monday 19th October 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 764553 relating to sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling or coercive cases.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I would like to begin by congratulating the petitioner, Paris Shears, whose petition has now gathered over 105,000 signatures across the UK, which is a great achievement. The petition, which is entitled “Remove sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling and coercive cases”, goes on to say:

“I want the Government to introduce legislation so that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour cannot receive a sentencing reduction for a guilty plea entered after initially pleading not guilty. This should be known as Paris’s Law.

Victims of coercive control often wait months or years for trial, reliving trauma while preparing evidence. Defendants may plead not guilty, then change to guilty at the last moment and still receive a reduced sentence. This can feel like continued abuse, prolonging distress and undermining justice. I believe late guilty pleas in these cases should not receive sentence reductions, as it prolongs suffering, including the suffering I have personally experienced”.

I used to be the chair of North Ayrshire Women’s Aid, the local Women’s Aid service in my constituency, and this is an issue that is deeply important to me. Coercive control is an insidious form of abuse that wears down a victim’s self-confidence and freedom over time, leaving the victim exploited and dependent on their abuser.

Paris Shears, the petitioner, has told me of her experience. Her ex-partner was charged with controlling and coercive behaviour, alongside other very serious offences. Paris waited over 500 days for the trial, but her ex-partner changed his plea on the day of the trial. He then received a sentence reduction, and the charge of controlling and coercive behaviour was no longer pursued.

Since that day, Paris has dedicated her time to beginning and growing this petition, as well as telling her story online and through the media. She should be commended for how much time and effort she has selflessly put into it. Many women, and some men, go through situations such as this; sadly, many never leave. Paris should be very proud of herself not only for getting out, but for raising awareness about coercive control. Hopefully, the work that she has achieved with this petition could save other women from these kinds of dangerous situations. What is most important in this debate and discussion is for survivor impact to remain central.

Going through a criminal trial can be a horrific and very difficult experience for victims, who have to relive their trauma in order to get justice. This can be used by abusers as another form of abuse towards the victim. Currently, section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 sets out that controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship has a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. As under the Sentencing Council guidelines for other offences, guilty pleas can result in a potential sentence reduction. This is in line with section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and the guideline on reduction in sentence for a guilty plea.

The principle of reducing a sentence for a guilty plea is long-standing in England and Wales and is now set out in the Sentencing Act. The Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to issue a guilty plea guideline; the most recent such guideline was published in 2017 after a public consultation. A usual reduction is one third for a guilty plea indicated at the first stage of the proceedings, and this goes down to one quarter for guilty pleas issued after the first stage. The maximum reduction is one tenth when the plea is entered on the first day of the trial, and this could be decreased to zero for any pleas entered during the course of the trial.

Courts are incentivised to reduce sentences for guilty pleas in order to encourage defendants who know that they are guilty to plead guilty as early as possible. This can save the court time and money, as well as saving the victims from having to attend court and give evidence. However, it is important to note that Sir Brian Leveson conducted an independent review of the criminal courts that recommended that the maximum reduction be increased to 40% when guilty pleas are made at the earliest opportunity.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is setting out a very clear case. One of my constituents contacted me because she had been the victim of coercive control and domestic abuse and was set to wait up to two years for the court case. As her former partner had entered a not guilty plea, there were still proceedings in the family court in which his treatment of her was not acknowledged. Does the hon. Lady agree that delays in the criminal justice system allowing potential abusers to continue to exercise coercive control through the family courts are a matter of real concern, and that the Government should look closely at how to address it?

[Irene Campbell]

I agree. The hon. Gentleman raises important points.

Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship has a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. Almost all those convicted for coercive control are men, and most victims are women: in fact, analysis of Merseyside police domestic abuse data found that 95% of coercive control victims were women and 74% of perpetrators were men. This is a crime that clearly affects women disproportionately, and tackling it must be a priority for the Government.

There are different strategies that we can consider to improve the experience of victims of coercive control and their time spent in the justice system. One is to look at improved judicial training on coercive control, so that judges and others can better recognise situations in which defendants are toying with their victims. There could be more consideration given to sentencing guidelines and greater awareness of what coercive control is among the public, so that victims feel more comfortable coming forward.

The Government responded to the petition on 11 May 2026 and referred to our recent violence against women and girls strategy. It is encouraging to see £13.1 million of funding going towards launching the new national centre for violence against women and girls and public protection. It is also good to see that since 3 February 2025 anyone convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or longer is automatically managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements. That requires the police, probation and prison services to work collaboratively on managing the risks that these individuals pose in our society.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, so it is important that this debate is being held now and that Paris’s work in bringing attention to the victims of coercive control has been highlighted. One in five people experience domestic abuse, but only a quarter of the crimes are reported. I hope that bringing attention to domestic violence in settings like these can help even just one woman to feel brave enough to leave a dangerous situation.

This behaviour is one of the most insidious forms of abuse. Abusers can control all aspects of a victim’s life, creating a world of fear and intimidation. They isolate victims from family and friends and rob them of their independence. It is important to highlight some of the common examples of coercive behaviour, for example financial control, deprivation of basic needs such as food or of support services such as the hospital or GP surgery, monitoring a partner’s online activity and, in some cases, using spyware. It is key that women in these situations know that this behaviour is not usual and that they can get out with the help of others.

I have mentioned that I was previously the chair of North Ayrshire Women’s Aid. I encourage anyone who thinks they might need help to get in touch with any relevant local services. It is never too late to leave. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this important issue, and to hearing from other Members.

16:39

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling this important debate, and I thank my constituents who signed the petition. Above all, I thank my constituent Paris Shears, who is in the Gallery today and is the reason we are all present in this Chamber this afternoon. It has been a privilege to support Paris as she has brought this campaign forward. She has taken the worst experience of her life and has turned it into a fight to change the law so that no other victim has to go through what she did. I am incredibly proud to be her Member of Parliament and to speak on her behalf today.

I would like to start by saying a little more about what happened to Paris, because her story is the reason the petition exists. Paris’s ex-partner was charged with several offences, including intentional strangulation and controlling and coercive behaviour, to which he pleaded not guilty. For over 530 days, Paris prepared to stand in court and relive what had happened to her, carrying the fear of giving evidence, of facing her former partner and of not being believed.

On the morning of the trial, the defendant changed his plea. For that, he was given a reduced sentence for sparing Paris the ordeal of a trial, despite what he had already put her through. When Paris heard the sentence, she fell to her knees and curled up in a ball crying. As she puts it:

“He got handed a suspended sentence. I am still living with a life sentence.”

No one should ever have to say that about our criminal justice system. It is completely unacceptable that a defendant can continue their cycle of abuse and still be rewarded with a reduced sentence for changing their plea at the last possible moment.

Guilty pleas exist for a reason: to spare victims the ordeal of a trial. A plea entered on the day of the trial spares them nothing. This matters especially in cases of coercive control, because this particularly insidious form of abuse is about power. It is about trying to control every aspect of another person’s life. When a defendant pleads not guilty and then holds out until the morning of the trial, that control carries on—only now it is exercised through the courts. Paris’s law would stop this.

Although it is welcome that some domestic abuse crimes have been excluded from the early release scheme, that does not go far enough. Domestic abuse does not end when an offender is convicted, and an offender’s release can be one of the most dangerous periods that a survivor will face. Our police forces, probation services, courts and specialist domestic abuse organisations are already struggling to monitor perpetrators of abuse and breaches of release. Releasing more domestic abuse offenders early will only place even greater pressure on a system that is already failing to cope.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how many domestic abuse offenders the Government expect to be released under the early release scheme. If the Government get this wrong, survivors will pay the price. They and their families may be forced to abandon their homes, their children’s schools, their jobs and their support networks, which will plunge domestic abuse services and refuges into even greater demand. Domestic abuse is one of the most despicable crimes, and those convicted of these offences should not be eligible for early release.

We understand why our prisons are full. Years of neglect and mismanagement under the previous Conservative Government let the court backlog spiral and left victims waiting unacceptably long for justice. However, the answer to tackling the crisis of overcrowding cannot be solved by transferring the risk from prisons directly into the homes and communities of survivors. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency. With one in four women having experienced domestic abuse, and with a woman being killed by a man every three days in the UK, greater action is needed to tackle this epidemic.

Last December, the Government published a strategy with the aim of halving violence against women and girls within a decade. This is absolutely a welcome ambition, but that ambition must be matched by practical steps. Paris’s law is exactly the kind of practical step that the target demands. Young people of all ages must be taught what a healthy relationship looks like, what controlling behaviour is and how to report problems at home. Paris told me that she believes that if she had received education like that, much of her trauma could have been avoided. The best way to help protect future women from coercive and controlling relationships is to make sure that they are able to recognise the warning signs early on.

Paris has been brave enough to tell her story and fight for a change in the law. It is now time for action. I urge the Minister to back Paris’s law and make sure that no survivors of coercive control suffer the same injustice that the current gap in our judicial system allows.

16:44

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I also thank Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery, for bringing forward the petition, and everyone in my constituency and up and down the country who has supported it.

When I was a police officer, I worked in CID and child protection. I know how much we ask of people who report domestic and other types of abuse. Victims and survivors have to talk about deeply personal experiences, provide evidence and answer difficult questions, often all while worrying about what will happen when the person they have reported finds out. That is always a big concern among victims and survivors, and in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour it can be particularly difficult.

A person may have spent years being told by their abuser that nobody will believe them, that everything is their fault and that no one takes on board what they say. Their abuser might try to bring their children into it and say that they will lose them if they go through the court system. The control affects almost every part of the victim’s daily life, including who they see, how they spend their money, where they go and whether they feel able to make decisions, even for themselves. We should bear that in mind when considering what happens after victims and survivors come forward to the police.

It takes an average of about seven years—or it used to when I was policing—for someone even to report something, and as we all know, reporting does not necessarily mean that a person feels safe. They may still feel frightened of the perpetrator. They may face pressure from the perpetrator or other members of society to withdraw their statement. They may spend months, or sometimes even longer, waiting for a trial and worrying about giving their evidence. By the time the trial date arrives, they have already been through a great deal. That is why I understand fully the concern behind the petition. Currently, a defendant can maintain a not guilty plea throughout that period, then change their plea on the morning of the trial and still receive a reduction in their sentence. For the victim or survivor, that can be very difficult to accept. It can be difficult for police officers to accept as well.

Victims and survivors will have prepared themselves to give evidence. They may have arranged time off work or childcare. They might have needed support from family or professional agencies, and they may even be at court when it happens. A late guilty plea can bring relief in some cases, because they do not have to go through court, but it does not undo what they have been through to get to that stage.

Under the current guidelines, a guilty plea at the first stage of proceedings generally attracts a one-third reduction. That reduction will fall as the case progresses, ordinarily reaching a maximum of one tenth on the first day of trial, and that is subject to exceptions. I understand fully the reasons for that approach. An early guilty plea can spare victims and witnesses from giving evidence, reduce delays and free up court time. It is important to remember that even a late plea can spare someone a distressing cross-examination. That matters, and we should listen to victims and survivors who want to avoid that experience, but we also need to listen to those who feel that the process has allowed the person who abused them to keep them frightened and uncertain until the last possible moment in the courtroom.

We cannot assume that every late plea is an attempt to continue abuse. Defendants have the right to contest allegations, and there may be legitimate reasons why a plea changes at the last minute, but equally we should be prepared to recognise when perpetrators are using proceedings to exert even more pressure. Our understanding of coercive control must extend to what happens after a report is made, including during the court process.

There is also an important distinction between pleading guilty and showing remorse. The guidelines recognise that, but I am not sure it is always clear that the person sitting in court and listening to the sentence is aware of the implications. Accepting a guilty plea does not necessarily mean that an offender understands the damage they have done or that their behaviour has changed, which is also important. Victims and survivors deserve a clear explanation of what the court has taken into account.

I would like the Minister to address three points. First, will the Government look specifically at how late guilty plea reductions operate in controlling or coercive behaviour cases? That should include proper consideration of Paris’s proposals to remove the reduction when a defendant initially pleads not guilty and later changes their plea. Victims and survivors, domestic abuse organisations, prosecutors and the judiciary should all be involved in that work, and any change needs to be carefully considered. We need to understand whether it would encourage earlier admissions and whether more cases would proceed to trial, and what that would mean for the people giving evidence. Those are questions to investigate rather than reasons to dismiss the petition.

Secondly, how will the Government ensure that attempts to continue abuse during criminal proceedings are identified and dealt with swiftly? When someone is being intimidated, contacted in breach of restrictions or pressured to withdraw, they need a prompt response and practical protections.

Lastly, will the Minister look at the information and support that victims and survivors receive when a sentence is passed? They should understand why a reduction has been given, how it was calculated and what protections will be in place afterwards. They deserve the opportunity to ask questions and to get answers that they can understand.

This Government have committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Getting the response to coercive control right is an important part of that work. We should also recognise that anyone in this room, including males, can be victims. People who experience this abuse must be able to come forward and receive the protections and support that they need. Paris has asked us to consider whether the current rules are fair to people who have already endured prolonged abuse. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree to meet her and take this work forward. All we ask is that victims and survivors put their trust in the justice system. We need to show them that their experience matters when we decide how the system should work.

16:51

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Mundell. My constituency has one of the highest numbers of signatures on today’s petition, showing a clear desire to support Paris Shears’s campaign. I am pleased to be here to show my support and urge the Government to put victims at the heart of every stage of their approach to tackling domestic abuse.

In Cambridgeshire last year, 16% of all recorded crimes were related to domestic abuse. There were 59 arrests per 100 such crimes, and 31 cases of domestic abuse per 10,000 females were deemed high-risk enough to be discussed at multi-agency risk-assessment conferences. Those are deeply concerning statistics. We all want to reduce those figures to zero, so it is alarming that virtually none of them has significantly reduced in Cambridgeshire in the past five years.

Particularly pertinent to today’s debate is the number of high-risk cases that are repeat issues. In Cambridgeshire, 38% of cases are repeatedly discussed at multi-agency risk assessment conferences, compared with 29% nationally. Our area has been consistently above average in this regard for the past five years. It may be that higher repeat referrals reflect agencies getting better at spotting repeat victimisation—I hope that that is part of it—but those figures also suggest that too many of the most serious cases are coming back around and that something in the system is allowing the cycle to continue.

The idea at the centre of the debate—sentence reductions for guilty pleas—is good in theory. There is a huge court backlog, which has worn away public confidence in the criminal justice system and has allowed criminals to get away with their offences. A graduated system of sentence reduction provides little reward to the offender for waiting to change their plea and speeds up proceedings where a guilty verdict may have been reached anyway, but in Paris’s case and in so many others, the unique and insidious nature of domestic abuse means that what should be a way of clearing the case backlog for simple cases has been repurposed by abusers into a tool to maintain control over their victim until the very last minute. We cannot let that continue.

The Sentencing Council’s guideline is clear about why a discount exists: a guilty plea normally reduces the impact of the crime on victims and spares them from having to give evidence. In most cases, that holds—even a late plea spares a victim the witness box—but coercive control is different because the wait itself is part of the harm. Every month for which a perpetrator maintains a not guilty plea is another month in which they shape their victim’s life. A guilty plea on the morning of the trial does not undo that; it is often the final act of control. The guideline’s assumption that a late guilty plea still benefits the victim simply does not fit these cases.

The law already gives courts room to recognise that. Section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires courts to consider not only the stage at which a guilty plea was indicated, but the circumstances in which it was given. Will the Minister ask the Sentencing Council to look specifically at how those circumstances are assessed in controlling or coercive behaviour cases and whether tactical delay by a perpetrator should reduce the discount or remove it altogether?

Paris’s campaign speaks to wider concerns about the lack of support in place for victims of domestic abuse, including controlling or coercive behaviour, throughout the judicial process. This goes beyond the criminal courts. Several constituents have contacted me about serious problems in, for example, the family courts, where victims are failed by irregularities in the provision of special measures. It was welcome that automatic eligibility for measures such as protective screens and curtains, support persons and private testimony was expanded to domestic abuse victims in 2021, but that counts for little if those measures are not actually in place on the day. In much the same way as we have discussed in relation to a last-minute guilty plea, the continual failure to put appropriate protections in place for victims when they attend court is simply allowing their abuse and emotional distress to continue. Has the Minister considered making special measures standard in courtrooms in order to ensure that no victim will ever be without them, and what does he think to recommending that proceedings be suspended where promised protections have failed to be put in place?

A 2021 report from the Victims’ Commissioner noted huge gaps in our understanding of the demand for and supply of special measures and recommended that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office develop a national protocol for data collection. That protocol has been in place since 2024, and I would appreciate hearing how the data is being used to make improvements in the provision of those measures.

Victims need to be put first at every stage, and in every bit of guidance, through real measures to protect them both in court and outside it. The Government have committed to updating the controlling or coercive behaviour statutory guidance before the end of 2026, and I hope that they will keep that promise, for Paris and the thousands of others who are being and have been failed by the system.

16:57

[Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for the way in which she introduced the e-petition and, of course, to Paris and her MP, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), who is here to represent her, for the work that they have done to draw this issue to the attention of the House. I am also grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the petition calling for the removal of sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling and coercive behaviour cases. This petition, on what is known by many supporters as Paris’s law, reflects a growing concern that our justice system must do more to recognise the unique nature of coercive control and its ongoing impact on victims; it is not something that comes and goes.

Before I address the petition, I want to pay particular tribute to Hayley Staunton. Hayley was my constituent until her untimely death, by suicide, in August 2025. She was a domestic abuse victim, a survivor. Her death is a tragedy that has profoundly affected her family, as one might imagine, and her friends and the wider community. Although nothing can undo that loss, it is important to recognise the courage and determination that Hayley demonstrated in holding her perpetrator to account. She did make complaints, and he was charged and eventually imprisoned.

I also pay tribute to Hayley’s mother Ruth Yates, who has campaigned tirelessly since Hayley’s untimely death for answers, accountability and change. She has worked relentlessly so that Hayley’s story could be heard, and to ensure that changes are made so that nobody else has to go through what Hayley did. She has shown immense dignity and resilience in the face of her unimaginable loss and heartbreak. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who recently met Ruth and me to discuss the circumstances of Hayley’s case and committed to a number of actions to ensure that lessons are learned from it.

At its heart, today’s debate is about people like Hayley and families like hers. When Parliament created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, which was a breakthrough in itself—it had not been recognised in law before—it recognised an important truth: domestic abuse is not always physical. It can be psychological, emotional and deeply insidious. It is often characterised by a pattern of domination, intimidation and manipulation, creating a fear that gradually strips victims and those who experience it of their independence, confidence, sense of self and sense that they can have an impact on what is happening in their own lives.

The petition argues that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour should not receive a sentencing reduction when they initially plead not guilty and only admit their guilt later in the process. That speaks to the concern set out by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), which my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) also spoke about from his experiences as a police officer: victims can spend months or years preparing themselves for trial, gathering evidence, reliving traumatic experiences, anticipating having to give evidence in court and to face the perpetrator again, and feeling like they are still being controlled by that person in a continuation of the offence that they have been charged with. Sometimes, that causes even more pain and trauma, only for the defendant to change their plea at the end and be given some kind of credit for it.

The reduced sentence, even if it is only reduced by 10%, gives the perpetrator credit for effectively stringing along the person they have victimised. For many victims, that can feel like an extension of the very behaviour that they have sometimes endured for years and for which the justice system is seeking to hold that person to account. The uncertainty, delay and emotional toll can all compound the harm caused by the abuse.

In Hayley’s case, she was subject to a violent attack by her then partner, during which he strangled her, rendering her unconscious and causing other serious injuries. Her perpetrator was charged with non-fatal strangulation, assault and actual bodily harm. He originally pleaded not guilty, only to later change his plea. His sentence was 36 months for the non-fatal strangulation, four months for a separate assault offence and a further 18 months for actual bodily harm. However, the 18-month sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the strangulation sentence, while the four-month sentence was added consecutively.

I do not think that many of our constituents understand the way the justice system decides how to run sentences concurrently or consecutively. As a lawyer, I often find it quite difficult to explain this to my constituents: what seems natural to somebody who has been in the law for many years appears completely at odds with common sense to those having to deal with the justice system perhaps for the first time in the most difficult circumstances. Although concurrent sentencing is of course part of the existing sentencing framework, when someone has committed multiple acts of serious violence against the same victim it is right that we question whether the sentence that runs concurrently adequately reflects the full extent of that violence and the harm it has caused.

There is a fine line between non-fatal strangulation that renders somebody unconscious and death. The trauma faced by people who survive such an experience is long-lasting and often impacts all areas of their lives. Of course, I recognise, as do many colleagues who have spoken in the debate, that the reasoning behind the sentence reduction for early guilty pleas—a principle that is a long-established part of our justice system—is that it saves courts time, reduces costs and can spare victims some of the trauma of having to give evidence, which can be an ordeal. Those are important objectives, particularly given the significant pressures on the courts and the court backlogs that have been going on for a number of years, leaving victims waiting longer and longer to actually face the ordeal of giving their evidence. In those circumstances, one can see the public policy importance of giving some kind of credit to encourage and incentivise guilty pleas where somebody is guilty.

However, the cases that we are discussing today represent unique challenges. This offence is built around patterns of manipulation and control. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the current sentencing framework sufficiently reflects the additional harm that can be caused when a victim is led to believe they will have to endure a full trial, only for a guilty plea to be entered at the door of the court. Is that not just another instance of that person controlling the life of the witness or victim?

Many survivors have told us that justice is not solely about the final sentence; it is also about the process and feeling heard, believed and respected. It is about ensuring that the criminal justice system does not inadvertently recreate dynamics that perpetrators have already used to exert control over their victims. The control the victim feels does not necessarily end when the perpetrator is arrested, imprisoned or no longer in direct contact with them; it certainly did not for Hayley. The fear and trauma can continue to dictate how they lead their lives, the decisions they make and whether they ever feel safe again. Although the debate specifically concerns guilty plea reductions in controlling and coercive behaviour cases, whereas Hayley’s attacker was convicted of non-fatal strangulation and assault, through that judicial process she continued to experience fear and a sense of being controlled by her perpetrator, even while he was on remand in prison before he was found guilty.

I want the Minister to consider three specific issues in his reply. Will the Government commit to undertake a review of whether the current framework properly reflects the distinctive nature of coercive control and the prolonged psychological harm that can result from delayed admissions of guilt? Will the Government review the sentencing guideline for non-fatal strangulation, given the specific nature of that offence and the long-lasting repercussions of it for victims? Will the Government give consideration in the victims code and their violence against women strategy to the fact that many victims of coercive and controlling behaviour continue to feel controlled even when their perpetrator is in prison, and make adequate provision to ensure emotional support and safeguarding is available for those people?

The strength of feeling behind the petition demonstrates that many people believe the balance is currently wrong. As we consider the issue today, we should remember that behind every statistic is a person, a family and a story. We should listen carefully to survivors who are telling us that the experience of seeking justice matters just as much as the outcome. I hope today’s debate will move us closer to a system that better understands coercive control. It is good that that offence is on the statute book—it has not always been—but we need to better support victims and ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done.

17:09

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Petitions Committee for tabling this debate and I pay tribute to Paris Shears, who is in the Gallery, and everybody who supported the petition, whether they live in Crewe and Nantwich or not.

Controlling and coercive behaviour is one of the most difficult forms of abuse to identify, investigate and prosecute. It often leaves no visible injuries, yet its impact on victims can be utterly devastating. It systematically strips away an individual’s confidence, independence and freedom until they feel trapped in a situation that can appear invisible to those around them. I regularly see the devastating effects of coercive control in the cases that come through my office. Victims speak of lives overshadowed by intimidation, harassment, financial abuse and in some cases physical violence.

What strikes me about those cases is that the abuse itself is often only part of the story. Many of the cases we deal with concern the aftermath. We help constituents who need emergency housing because they fled an abusive relationship. We help people struggling with financial independence because their finances were controlled by an abusive partner. We help those dealing with debt, mental health challenges and family breakdown after years of manipulation and psychological abuse.

The effects do not end when the relationship ends. That is why I have a great deal of sympathy for the concerns raised through the petition. Victims of coercive control often spend months and sometimes years living under the domination of another person. When a defendant initially pleads not guilty, requiring a victim to prepare for trial and relive deeply traumatic experiences, only to change their plea at the last moment, it is understandable that many victims feel the justice system has become another tool by which their abuser continues to exert control over their lives. That prompts the question that lies at the heart of the debate: is the criminal justice system fully recognising the unique nature of coercive control?

By its very definition, coercive control is about power and domination, creating fear, uncertainty and dependence. We therefore need to listen carefully when victims tell us that prolonged court proceedings, uncertainty over pleas and delays in securing justice can feel like an extension of the abuse that they have already experienced.

In my career before entering this place, I worked for the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I am acutely aware of the work that it has done thematically on violence against women and girls, and specifically around coercive and controlling behaviour. It has repeatedly highlighted the need for agencies across the justice system to understand the dynamics of coercive control and violence against women and girls. That understanding must inform not just policing, but prosecution decisions, victim support and sentencing policy.

I welcome the progress made in recent years. Awareness of coercive control has increased significantly. The inclusion of certain offenders in multi-agency public protection arrangements and the Government’s commitment to update guidance are positive developments, but the experiences that constituents continue to bring to our surgeries show that there is still work to do. Whatever view Members take on the specific proposal in the petition, I hope we can all agree on one principle: victims of coercive control deserve a justice system that understands the particular harm that they have suffered, and places their experiences at the heart of decision making. I therefore welcome today’s debate and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

17:13

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank everyone who signed the petition and those who had the courage to speak out about their experiences. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her clear and eloquent introduction to the debate, and I thank Paris Shears, who created the petition and has been brave in standing up to this crime. I also thank all the victims and their families who have put their trust in me and my team and have come into my office to seek support for cases involving domestic abuse and coercive control.

I want to use my time today to talk about two young women who are no longer here. As the Member for Portsmouth North, I have met and supported the families of Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls. I have listened to their grief and their determination to ensure that what happened to their loved ones leads to change. Their experience brings me to the central question of this debate: is it right that someone who maintains a not guilty plea and changes it at the last minute can still receive a reduction in their sentence for controlling or coercive behaviour? I believe that that is not right, and that it needs to change.

I understand why the law rewards an early guilty plea—it can spare victims the ordeal of a trial and can allow cases to conclude sooner—but there is a profound difference between accepting responsibility at the earliest opportunity and waiting until the eve of the trial before admitting guilt, because we must ask ourselves who pays the price for that delay. It is the victims and their families. They wait; they worry; they prepare themselves to hear painful evidence and face the prospect of a trial. They live with uncertainty about whether they will get even get answers—and they are still being controlled. Sometimes, at the last moment, a defendant changes their plea. The trial may no longer be necessary, but the months of distress are not erased. The victims, and in Chloe and Skye’s cases their friends and family, cannot simply switch off their fear, their exhaustion or their grief.

In a case involving coercive control, we must consider something particularly important: the impact of one person continuing to determine the terms on which others experience the criminal justice process. As we have heard today, coercive control is about power, intimidation and the erosion of another person’s independence. We must be careful not to assume that every late plea is intended to exert control, but we must recognise that the consequence of delay can be victims and bereaved families and friends feeling that control has once again been taken out of their hands. A last-minute guilty plea may save the court time, but it does not give the victim or their family back the time, the peace or the certainty that they have lost.

Current sentencing guidance reduces the maximum credit available if a plea comes later in proceedings, but I question whether that is enough in the case of controlling or coercive behaviour. I ask the Minister to consider whether legislation should prevent sentence reductions for late guilty pleas in these cases, particularly when a defendant has maintained a not guilty plea before or throughout a trial, for all the reasons that my colleagues have outlined so eloquently today.

I will explain why this issue matters by speaking about Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls. Chloe was just 23 when she died in 2023. She left behind a young son and a family who must live with her absence every single day. Her former partner pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour, but was sentenced to just three and a half years in prison. I have met Chloe’s family and they are living with a loss that no sentence can ever put right, yet they have also had to find strength to speak out, to ask difficult questions, and to fight for Chloe’s experiences to be recognised.

Chloe’s case reminds us that coercive control is not one argument or one incident; it is a sustained campaign that undermines confidence, isolates a person and strips away their sense of safety and their identity. I do not suggest that every death by suicide has a single cause, but where there are concerns about the relationship between sustained abuse and a death, those concerns must be examined carefully and the full circumstances properly understood by all involved. Chloe’s family deserve to know that the harm she experienced is not being reduced to a set of isolated incidents or lost behind the mechanics of a criminal process.

I have also met and supported the family and friends of Skye Nicholls. Skye was also 23 when she died in June 2023. Her former partner pleaded guilty to two counts of controlling or coercive behaviour. He was sentenced to two years and three months in prison in November 2025, but his sentence was subsequently reduced on appeal. Reports describe him engaging in verbal abuse, making threats of violence and sending deeply distressing messages, including telling Skye to take her own life.

Behind all those details are young women who should still be here with their family and friends but are not, and the lives of their family and friends have changed forever. Chloe and Skye’s cases are very different and I do not suggest that each case alone settles the question of late guilty pleas, but I have met both families and heard their concerns, and I have seen their determination to ensure that others do not suffer in the same way.

We cannot return Chloe and Skye to their loved ones, but we can refuse to let their families’ concerns go unanswered. The Labour Government have rightly committed to halving violence against women and girls over a decade, and I welcome the ambition and the work to achieve it that has already begun. We have a real opportunity to build on existing protections and to address the shortcomings that remain, including those left very much unresolved after 14 years of a Conservative Government.

That means recognising coercive control early, and ensuring that its cumulative harm is understood by professionals, from the police and social services to the Judicial College, the Sentencing Council, education and healthcare professionals, businesses and workplaces. It also means learning properly from all cases—and in the cases I have talked about, learning about the domestic abuse that has preceded the death—and examining whether our sentencing framework reflects the reality of what victims and their families experience.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government review whether late guilty pleas in controlling or coercive behaviour cases should attract any sentence reduction when a defendant has maintained a not guilty plea until very shortly before the trial? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the distress caused by prolonged proceedings is properly considered, particularly for bereaved families and victims who are still alive, as they are still being controlled? Thirdly, will the Minister work with families and specialist organisations to ensure that lessons from domestic abuse-related deaths lead to practical changes in the way that abuse is recognised and addressed in our society?

There is a principle at stake here. The justice system must be fair. It must recognise that victims and their families are people and not participants in a process to be completed as efficiently as possible. An early guilty plea can spare additional suffering. A late guilty plea cannot undo the suffering that has already been endured. We must not confuse saving court time with delivering justice.

Chloe’s loved ones deserve to be heard. Skye’s loved ones deserve to be heard. Every family and victim living with the consequences of coercive control deserves a system that understands the harm, recognises their experience and treats their concerns with the seriousness they warrant. I urge the Government to look carefully at reforming sentence reductions for late guilty pleas, because when someone has already experienced the devastating consequences of coercive control, the criminal justice system must not leave those left behind feeling that they have once again been denied a voice, certainty or control.

17:21

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

It is a momentous pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this vital petition. Like everyone else, I sincerely thank Paris Shears for her extraordinary bravery in turning her harrowing experience into an opportunity for positive change, helping to ensure that no other victim goes through her experience.

Like many others, I always hope to see the best in people. I want to believe that our prison system can deliver meaningful rehabilitation and help to break cycles of offending, but rehabilitation can never come at the expense of victim safety. On this issue, I fear that we are giving offenders, who have already shown themselves to be manipulative and callous towards those they profess to love, additional opportunities to continue facilitating abuse and exerting control, even when arrests have been made and court proceedings are under way.

How can it be right that a perpetrator is able to weaponise our justice system, drag victims back through repeated hearings, waste precious court time and inflict further trauma, only to be rewarded with a reduced sentence? That does not strengthen confidence in the justice system; it undermines it, makes it a mockery of justice and validates the concerns of many survivors who already feel that the system works better for perpetrators than those they have harmed.

On the Isle of Wight, we are fortunate enough to have an exceptional women’s refuge via Paragon. Despite operating with limited resources and facilities, they are providing valuable support to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They have told me directly about the devastating impact that these sentencing decisions can have on victims, many of whom feel let down by a system that is supposed to protect them. One survivor said:

“It takes an enormous amount of personal courage, extensive evidence gathering, and significant public resource just to get a coercive control case into court. To fight through all of that, only to see the perpetrator receive a discounted sentence, completely minimises those efforts and feels like an insult to the survivors who fought so hard to be heard.

Coercive control is rarely an isolated incident, it is an insidious, cumulative pattern of abuse that dismantles someone’s life over years. In my view, the psychological and emotional harm stays with a survivor for life. Giving a sentence reduction treats it like a minor transactional offence traded away for court efficiency, rather than acknowledging the lifelong damage left behind.”

That fear is only heightened on the Isle of Wight, where our geographical containment brings serious safety risk. Short custodial sentences mean that perpetrators are back out into the immediate community far too soon, leaving victims constantly terrified of bumping into them. They also drastically compress the time available to put essential post-release safety plans—housing arrangements or non-molestation orders or injunctions—into place.

I acknowledge the important steps this Government have already taken to put victims at the heart of our justice system, both on the Isle of Wight and across the country. Removal of the presumption of parental involvement, and the introduction of the pathfinder court on the island, are significant reforms that will make a real difference to many families. But, as always, it is the solemn responsibility of our Labour Government to be ambitious and precise about what more we can do.

If we are serious about placing victims at the centre of decision making, we must listen when they tell us that the current approach to late guilty pleas is not working. Too many victims see perpetrators delay proceedings, prolong their trauma and then benefit from a reduced sentence at the very last moment. We owe it to victims, survivors and those at risk to make this change.

17:25

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for setting out the petition so clearly on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I congratulate Paris Shears especially, and all those who signed the petition. It is very clear that there was a desire across the country to have this debate. It takes immense bravery to bring deeply personal and traumatic experiences into the public eye in order to try to effect change. I am profoundly impressed by those who use their trauma to try to make the world a better place for those who come after them so that they never have to see somebody suffer in the way that they have. I am very grateful to Paris for all that she has done, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for her support for Paris. Paris’s story and her tireless efforts have inspired many to sign the petition and share their own experiences.

The topic of today’s debate is vital. Controlling and coercive behaviour is an utterly abhorrent and evil crime. As has been said by many Members across the House, it is the sort of crime that stays with the victims forever. It leaves them traumatised and scared, not only while the behaviour is occurring but often for many years afterwards. Victims are often desperate for help but unable to reach out without putting themselves in further danger because of the very nature of the coercion and control, which cuts these people off from their lives, from accessing health services and from even being able to leave their homes. In these instances, warning signs are missed, opportunities for intervention are bypassed and the abuse and trauma continues.

It is everybody’s responsibility to ensure these victims receive the support, early intervention and justice that they deserve, but too often the justice system has failed to do that. In cases where the abuse is identified—when criminal charges are brought forward or it ends up in the family courts—victims are faced with systems riddled with issues, including delays to trial and a culture that allows perpetrators to manipulate the system and continue their cycle of abuse. That culture continually undermines faith in our justice system and discourages participation when victims simply want to move on with their lives. It is an agreed principle that many defendants will put in a not guilty plea in the hope that their victim just gets tired and cannot bear the thought of going through a trial.

The situation outlined today perfectly demonstrates some of those flaws. As we can attest from the numerous testimonies, victims are seeing their abusers benefit from the system. They see their abuser’s sentence being reduced while simultaneously having to go through re-traumatisation. For a victim who has escaped their abuser, having to go through a trial, provide evidence and face questioning can open old wounds and take them back to the time of their abuse and often undermine their recovery.

Sentence reductions for guilty pleas are a long-standing practice, and their importance within our criminal justice system cannot be overstated. They help to avoid costly and lengthy trials that add further pressure to the system and prevent some victims from ending up with a trial that they do not want or have to have. However, we must recognise that there are instances where defendants are exploiting that incentive to harm their victims again.

In their response to the petition, the Government stated that they are “committed to updating” the statutory guidance on controlling and coercive behaviour before the end of 2026, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government remain committed to that timeline and to provide a timeline for their publication of the review. As part of that review, will the Minister commit to considering a mechanism that has come to mind during this debate, which is one that could look at a rehearing 30 days in advance of a trial to see whether a defendant will change their plea before we get to a trial? A reduction could be included at that point, but not on the morning of a trial. It should be made very clear that a defendant would not have the option of putting in a guilty plea that would result in a reduction if they chose not to make it 30 days in advance.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I thank those in Taunton and Wellington who signed the petition. In addition to the review of sentencing guidelines for which my hon. Friend has advocated, and which I very much support, does she agree that, in respect of Paris’s law, which I also support, prevention needs to be tackled through greater perpetrator programmes, so that individuals are targeted and coercive and controlling behaviour can be stopped at its root as much as possible?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to reflect that, as part of the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, we need a multi-agency approach to tackling the root causes of coercive control. The Liberal Democrats also believe that the Government should review, as part of the update, how sentence reductions apply specifically in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour, so that perpetrators cannot use legal proceedings maliciously to continue their abuse.

Beyond that, the Government must go further to support victims of coercive control and domestic abuse across the entire court system. The Liberal Democrats tabled multiple amendments to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that aimed to improve the experience of victims in the criminal courts. We often hear from legal experts and victims about a lack of understanding of these issues in the courts in general. One of our amendments would have required judicial staff to receive mandatory training on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, and all court staff to receive trauma-informed training to ensure that victims receive the best possible support from the moment they arrive at court. On multiple occasions, the Government have argued that such mandatory training would not be possible, especially when it comes to the judiciary. However, similar provisions are included in the Government’s plans for rape and serious sexual offence courts. I struggle to understand how they can commit to having trauma-informed members of the judiciary for RASSO courts but not across the entire court estate.

At the heart of this issue are the delays. The Crown court backlog now exceeds 80,000 cases, and victims are waiting longer than ever to see justice. The Government must take real action to address the inefficiencies at the heart of the failing system, rather than pursuing the unevidenced structural changes we have seen in recent months. Real change can be achieved through targeted listing, the better use of court time by holding more sittings in a day and reforming prisoner escort contracts.

We believe that failings in the family courts allow abusers to continue abusing victims, and that they too often fail to recognise domestic abuse, despite its presence in over 70% of hearings. Once again, training must be extended to cover these issues and protect individuals who are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control. We must provide sustainable funding for support services for survivors of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, and expand the provision of high-quality perpetrator programmes in domestic abuse cases, with the aim of preventing further abuse. We want to establish specialist VAWG taskforces in every police force, bringing together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with frontline women’s services.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) said in his excellent speech, we believe that special measures should be the standard, with victims having the opportunity to opt out of special measures, because so often, and especially for those who do not have access to legal aid, they have no idea what is available to them when it comes to special measures. If they were a standard principle across all courtrooms and a victim could then say, “No, actually, I don’t want the special measures. I want to be able to face the accused in court,” that would be very different from their getting to court and finding out that nothing is in place for them.

If we can take one thing from this debate, it is that victims continue to go unheard in our criminal justice system. We must listen to those who have spoken up in support of the petition and ensure that they have their concerns addressed, so that other victims of these horrendous crimes do not suffer in the same way.

17:34

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I join everyone who has spoken so far in paying particular tribute to Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery. She started the petition, which has now secured an extraordinary more than 105,000 signatures.

In my time as a shadow Justice Minister, I have had the privilege of working with several victims of crime, particularly female victims of crime, and they all pay a price for the campaigning they do. It forces people to relive their experiences and to talk about them in a way that can be deeply traumatic. I am deeply grateful to everybody who does that, Paris included. In telling us her story, in which her abuser changed his plea at the very last minute, she described how she felt “silenced again”. She said that

“it meant he controlled the narrative again”.

It took more than 530 days for Paris’s case to reach trial. That is 530 days of sitting, waiting, reliving, expecting and worrying, just to find at the very last minute that he takes back control by changing his plea and still manages to secure a discount in his sentence.

It is worth highlighting, as others have done, how the system works. A defendant who pleads guilty will normally receive a reduction in their sentence. That principle is long-standing, and the reason often given is one of cost and logistics, but the other reason, which is particularly important to me, is that it potentially spares victims and witnesses having to give evidence and be cross-examined. I have met victims who have found that process very distressing.

The detail of exactly how the reduction process works is determined by the Sentencing Council, not by Parliament, and the courts are required to follow its guidelines, under which the maximum reduction is a third. Unusually for me, I congratulate the Government on at least ignoring the plea in the Leveson review to increase the discount even further to 40%, which I think would be wrong and against the interests of justice.

After the initial reduction of a third, the discount is a quarter, falling on a sliding scale to a maximum of one tenth for a plea on the first day of trial. If the plea comes during the trial, the reduction should normally be reduced even further, and can even be zero. The court also has to explain whether it has applied a reduction and by how much. It is fair to say that the system already recognises that a late plea causes additional distress, and therefore secures less of a discount to the sentence. As I read it, Paris’s law, for which the petition asks, would mean that someone charged with controlling or coercive behaviour who pleads not guilty and then changes their plea receives no reduction in any circumstances.

I want to lay out my guiding principles. One of the main reasons why I wanted to become an MP was that I felt that our justice system did not provide sufficient punishment for all sorts of offences. Morally, I hate to see any person receiving any kind of reduction whatsoever. However, the Government’s response to the petition makes the important point that even when an offender pleads guilty very late, that can still spare a victim from having to give potentially traumatic evidence. If a is victim spared cross-examination, even at the last minute, that should be worth something.

As Paris’s campaign has pointed out, there is a real risk, in these particular types of case, of creating an incentive for a perpetrator who has every intention of ultimately pleading guilty to drag the process out. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, and as others have said, that can also happen as part of an attempt to wear down a potential victim to encourage them to drop their evidence. Both those reasons should cause us to pause when considering discounts.

I gave this matter a great deal of thought when considering the petition, because it is a question of how we weigh up two potential public goods, and something done in the interest of victims. Ultimately, how do we decide on the level of distress, discomfort and worse for people who have to wait and then see a discount with a last-minute plea, versus another group of victims who will perhaps benefit from the fact that they have not had to endure a trial? It is not easy to reach a firm conclusion on that. It has certainly given us all a lot to think about, in relation not just to the specific cause the petitioner has brought to our attention but to the general issue of coercive and controlling behaviour and violence against women and girls.

As other Members have mentioned, we know that every week women are killed—murdered by men—and we still have an epidemic of violence that should trouble everybody in this country and certainly troubles me. It is helpful to consider how the position has changed over time. The previous Government made coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence for the first time through the Serious Crime Act 2015. They also passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which wrote coercive control into the statutory definition of domestic abuse. In 2023, new guidance was brought forward to protect people who do not live with their abuser from threats and intimidation. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 then introduced the powers that this Government have now used so that offenders who are convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or more are managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which are used to monitor someone’s risk to other people when they are not in prison.

I welcome the Government’s use of those powers, but there is clearly more to do. There are several issues that it is important to consider, even if we do not all agree that the proposal in the petition is quite ready to be supported universally. What are the Government seeking to do to encourage earlier guilty pleas through other mechanisms? I have frequently heard that allowing the defendant better access to earlier advice, whereby someone can make it clear to them face to face that their chances of getting away with an offence are pretty slim, can encourage earlier guilty pleas. The Lib Dem spokesperson mentioned pre-trial hearings; I visited Liverpool Crown court, which instituted further preparatory hearings to encourage earlier pleas in either direction. Those are things that could be done without interfering with the existing arrangements in respect of early guilty pleas.

I am sure I am right in saying that even if the perpetrator in Paris’s case had got the full sentence, Paris, like many victims, would still not have been satisfied that it was anywhere near long enough, given the impact of these crimes on women. That is what I have drawn most strongly from my work with victims across the board, which is why I was particularly vociferous in my opposition to the Government’s reduction in jail time for a sweeping range of offenders. As has been mentioned already, the vast majority of domestic abusers who have been convicted for common assault will now serve just a third of their sentence, whether it was reduced or not. It was only because of vociferous campaigning from victims like Paris that a whole range of rapists, paedophiles and terrible abusers of women and girls will not be released after a third of their sentence instead of two fifths. Is the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour excluded alongside the exclusions that we managed to secure from the Government for rape and other offences?

One of the reasons the Gauke review was such a travesty in terms of dictating sentencing policy in this country is that it gave almost no thought whatsoever to what victims want to see or whether they think sentences are sufficiently just. My former Justice Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), talked about concurrent sentences; they are the norm in our judicial system, yet I do not think I have ever met a victim who thinks they makes sense in the vast majority of circumstances. Some people are convicted for hundreds of offences, but even though sentences are ramped up when someone has that many convictions, they are still nothing like what they should be if they were not served concurrently.

We are committed to recognising that we did not do enough in government to ensure sufficient prison capacity so that we can actually engage with these issues. We want to undo all the damaging shortening of sentences we have seen under this Government and go further. On discounts, there might be better acceptance of them if victims at least felt that the ultimate sentences, even with a discount, were closer to what they consider justice, which in my experience they do not at the moment.

Even if we are not quite there on this issue, as Paris says on her website,

“Paris’s Law was never about one petition, one debate or one event. It’s about creating lasting change.”

There are many ways in which we can do that across the board when it comes to the abuse of women in all its forms.

17:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing this important debate.

I echo colleagues from across the House in thanking Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery, for bringing this issue to our attention and for raising it publicly. Like the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), I have the great privilege of meeting lots of victims as part of my job. It is a difficult part of my job, but one that I enjoy. It is humbling to see people who have suffered a lot give up even more to try to change the world for others. Paris is another such person, and I hope that this debate will help to promote her views and that we can take this issue further in the weeks ahead.

Controlling and coercive behaviour is an insidious—that word was used a lot in the debate—form of domestic abuse. It can take many forms, including isolation from friends and family, depriving victims of their basic needs, and enforcing rules to humiliate, degrade or even dehumanise and control all aspects of day-to-day life. Too many people in our country, mainly women, experience this sort of abuse. As Members will be aware, the Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls in the next decade. Our VAWG strategy sets out what we are doing to reform the police response, strengthen the criminal justice system and empower victims with specialist support.

I want to address some of the points made in this very constructive debate. I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, about victims coming forward and putting their head above the parapet, which is incredibly humbling. I also agree with him—we agreed on an awful lot in this debate—about the need for constructive early advice for defendants to encourage early pleas where appropriate.

I think the shadow Minister put it well when he said that it is a really difficult balancing act, and there is no easy answer to the central issue that we are debating today. It is about trying to encourage guilty defendants to plead guilty, but doing so in a way that respects victims and puts them at the heart of the system. That is a really difficult balancing act that the justice system has to grapple with, and that we as a Government and as parliamentarians have to grapple with. As I will come on to say, it is even more difficult because of the nature of this particular offence, which so many Members highlighted in the debate.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), is right about trying to create mechanisms within criminal proceedings by which a defendant might plead earlier and re-engage with their prospects. Of course, she will be aware that there are already two formal opportunities to do so, and at any point in the process a defendant can, through correspondence, intimate that they are changing their plea. We need to consider how we can encourage that as part of the process more generally. The statutory guidance on this particular offence is being led by the Home Office, but I checked in preparation for the debate and can confirm that it will be published early next year.

I understand the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson about court staff training, but I think that that issue has been debated; I am very wary that this debate has touched on lots of other pieces of legislation that we have already debated extensively. That is essentially an issue of proportionality, and what we are trying to do through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which has now gone to the other place, is not only to quicken the court process but to ensure that it is done fairly. Again, like the central issue that we are debating today, that is a balancing act between efficiency, productivity and ensuring that victims are at the heart. Efficiency and productivity are not for their own sake; they are for the victims’ sake. I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson appreciates that, and she made important points.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) is doing what she should do, and clearly does, as a good constituency MP by raising the case of her constituent. She did so powerfully, and I thank her for that.

[Dr Mullan]

It seems that the Minister has moved on from responding to my questions, one of which was whether coercive and controlling behaviour is excluded from the early release programme.

[Jake Richards]

I have made it abundantly clear that I will not relitigate the Sentencing Act.

[Dr Mullan]

It is a basic question.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. The shadow Minister should not intervene from a sedentary position.

[Jake Richards]

We debated that legislation as it passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Indeed, I was in the main Chamber last week when we had an urgent question on that issue, and the Lord Chancellor was there in September. We will no doubt debate the issue again, but it is not what we are debating today, and I do not intend to respond to that question.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Richards]

No, I will not give way.

As I have already touched on, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and others made the point that early guilty pleas and discounts must be considered very carefully in the context of controlling and coercive behaviour. It is a unique offence, although of course there are lots of other offences that involve issues of control and power, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) powerfully highlighted. I can commit that the Government will look at these measures in the context of this particular offence.

Going back to the central balancing act that I have already touched on, we are not currently persuaded that the evidence suggests that victims would be best served by a scrapping of discounts just for this particular offence. Indeed, there is no other criminal offence for which that is the case, and at the moment—I say “at the moment” because this is an ongoing conversation—we are not persuaded that that is something we can do. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean also asked whether I would meet Paris. If she would like to meet me or the Victims Minister, we will of course meet her at the earliest opportunity.

Let me go back to the early guilty plea. Sir Brian Leveson did the modelling when he looked at this and encouraged us to offer further discounts, as the shadow Minister said. The evidence from his modelling said that it would encourage more people to plead guilty. We did not accept that recommendation, but it suggests to me that these discounts, however unsatisfactory or even unsavoury they are, do make the criminal justice system more expeditious, which ultimately serves victims as well.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) raised the case of her constituent Hayley, which was very powerful and moving, and asked about non-fatal strangulation and sentencing. I meet regularly with the chair of the Sentencing Council and will raise that issue formally in my next meeting with her. My right hon. Friend also spoke about the victims code, and I will ensure that the Victims Minister gets a transcript of her speech. My right hon. Friend will no doubt speak with her as well—I know that she has already met with her—but I will make sure that it is very much on the Minister’s agenda.

I agree about the confusion, or perhaps the lack of knowledge, about concurrent and consecutive sentencing. We all have a job to ensure that the criminal justice system can explain that to victims during the criminal justice process. Judges and Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors have an explanatory role, to ensure that everyone knows what they are dealing with when they leave the courtroom, because they often do not. There is more we can do in terms of an education setting, for want of a better phrase.

The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) raised a number of points, and I will try to deal with some of them. The interrelation of the family courts was raised consistently by other Members and is something that we are very alive to. I hope that we will publish the family justice strategy later this year, and I assure the hon. Member that dealing with some of these issues will be right at the heart of how we look at the whole family justice system. He and other Members are right that too often men—it is mainly men—are able to use the family courts to further compound misery and harm on women. It is not good enough, and I experienced it myself when I was a barrister in the family courts. I saw it with my own eyes, and we are going to try to change it.

The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire also mentioned special measures. I am reluctant—simply because it is not my brief—to go into it too much. I am aware that we want to retain some court discretion. I am not suggesting that his proposal would not do that, but I am reluctant to comment much further, because it is not my area, to be blunt. I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears what was said by the hon. Member and by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester.

On the point that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire made about the data protocol since 2024, I will go away and make sure that he gets a written answer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) raised really powerful stories about what has happened in his constituency. He mentioned some of the things the Government have done; I would add restriction zones, which can be really powerful for ensuring that if offenders are released from prison, there can be better protections for victims of domestic abuse. They are quite innovative in flipping the burden on to the offender rather than victim, so the victim can go on with their life and not have to worry about bumping into the offender, which is clearly a more acute issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency than others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) raised the cases of Chloe and Skye, which are very moving. Her questions to me and the Government were essentially about whether we are ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are at the heart of our reforms to the criminal justice system. Last week, the Courts and Tribunals Bill was before the House of Commons, and the gist of that legislation is to try to get the backlog down. Until we do that, all these issues are exaggerated for victims, so that is what the Government are trying to do. My hon. Friend will be reassured that the Victims Minister is playing a really important role in making sure that victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system and all the reforms we are making.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has his own experience of the particular harms of this offence, and we have to consider them very carefully in terms of the early guilty plea. I will go away and do so.

I want to set out some of the things that we are doing to support victims. There is, of course, a technical argument in this debate about early guilty pleas and any discounts that might flow from that, but the heart of this issue is how we treat victims, particularly victims of domestic abuse and this insidious form of it. I understand that some victims and some of those who signed the petition will perhaps be disappointed with my central response to their ask, but we are, in my mind, taking huge steps to support victims and make sure that they are properly supported and protected throughout the justice system.

We are providing funding for a range of national and local services offering support to victims. Earlier this year, we committed £550 million to victim and witness support services over the next three years—the biggest investment in support for victims that we have ever seen in this country, which I am particularly proud of. That will go into offering specialist services around emotional, practical and therapeutic support, including counselling and advice around going to court. Too many times, I meet victims who simply have no support when they go to court; it is actually shocking. We are investing to make sure that we have that support in and around court for victims much more consistently and as less of a lottery.

I recognise the importance of ensuring that victims and their families have access to the information and support that they need. That is vital in helping them to navigate the criminal justice system. It is why the victims code is so important: it sets out what victims can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies in England and Wales. Earlier this year, we consulted on a new code to make those rights clearer and ensure that they are delivered more consistently. We also strengthened the accountability for those rights so that failures can be identified and addressed, rather than leaving victims without the support they should receive.

Of course, we must do everything we can to protect victims from further harm. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that the police have the right skills and training to respond appropriately to victims of violence against women and girls. In February 2025, the Home Office announced £13 million in funding to launch a new national centre for VAWG and public protection, which is designed to improve how police respond to violence against women and girls, including controlling or coercive behaviour, strengthen officers’ understanding of these crimes and help to ensure that victims receive consistent protection.

From February last year, offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months or longer have been automatically managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements, which were mentioned in the debate. That requires co-operative working between the police and the probation and prison services to make sure that the risks posed by the most serious offenders are properly managed and that appropriate safeguards are put in place. That change recognises the significant harm that this kind of offending can cause by putting controlling or coercive behaviour on a par with other forms of domestic abuse. These arrangements are about preventing further abuse, protecting victims and ultimately saving lives.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for bringing this important issue to the House, and I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate, which was constructive and grappled with a difficult issue that has no easy answer. The Government’s position on guilty plea reductions will not be what some are hoping for, but I want to reassure victims that their experiences matter and that this debate has given them prominence in the Government’s consideration of these issues going forward. Ultimately, nobody should have to endure controlling or coercive behaviour, and those who do deserve not only justice, but the right protection and support throughout the justice system and beyond.

17:57

[Irene Campbell]

I thank everyone who took part in today’s debate for their input into such an important issue, and I thank the Minister for his response. Sadly, it is impossible to end all violence against women and girls, although we all wish we could. Instead, we have to do all we can as politicians to raise awareness and never stop tackling this issue, whether through national and local campaigns or through different policy changes and strategies.

As I mentioned, in preparing for this debate I met with the petition’s creator Paris Shears, who is in the Gallery. I thank Paris once again for starting the petition, sharing her story and making this debate possible. I also thank the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, Kama Melly KC of the Criminal Bar Association and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for meeting me in preparation for this debate. Finally, I thank the staff of the Petitions Committee for all their hard work in organising and facilitating these debates. It is much appreciated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 764553 relating to sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling or coercive cases.

17:59

Sitting adjourned.