Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing
Connor Naismith Excerpts(4 days, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
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.
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
Connor Naismith Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jake Richards
The hon. Member has raised that point on a number of occasions when we have had the opportunity to debate this issue. He is right that we need to look at how we can fast-track planning infrastructure projects of real national importance, such as prisons, and I know that the Prisons Minister and the Justice Secretary are keeping a close eye on that. I just gently push back that some of the hon. Member’s colleagues on the Conservative Benches spend a lot of their time opposing the building of prisons in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who has apologised for the Conservatives’ record on criminal justice, spends a lot of time opposing the building of the prison in his constituency.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The reality is that there would not be an early release scheme if the Conservatives had not presided over a record that left our prisons at 99% capacity, having built a staggeringly low 500 places in their 14 years in government. My constituents are angry about the situation in which we find ourselves, so will the Minister set out the steps the Government are taking to reassure victims and to ensure that we never end up in this situation again?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right, and I can set out clearly what we are doing. By the end of this Parliament, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before under a Labour Government. That is because this Government are spending three times more on prison building than the Conservatives ever did. The Conservative Government closed 23 prisons; we are building 14,000 places. That is the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Connor Naismith Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
Restorative justice clearly has a role to play, but the principles of our sentencing review, with which I hope Members across the House can agree, are clear: there must always be a prison place available for people who are dangerous and need to be locked up, and we have to do more to help people to turn their back on a life of crime.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Compared with the same period in 2023, 21% more foreign national offenders have been removed since July 2024 when this Government came into office. May I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on this achievement and ask what the new funding announced to speed the process up will do to increase the numbers being removed?
Shabana Mahmood
We have already got off to a good start in the deportation of foreign national offenders from our prisons. The new funding will enable more caseworkers to speed up the removal of even more FNOs. I am very pleased that we have seen a higher number deported this year compared to the previous year, when the Conservatives were in office.