Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Community Infrastructure Levy on private homeowners.

Thank you, Mr Turner, for presiding over this debate on an issue that is having profound life-changing consequences for ordinary families across the country. I also thank the Minister for his interest in the issue. Politics can be very tribal, but I have already met him twice to discuss it, both times with Councillor Jane Austin from my constituency—once in July last year and once in December last year, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). I know he wants to solve the issue.

The community infrastructure levy, or CIL, was introduced for the best of reasons: to ensure that commercial developers contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure needed as a result of their developments. It was never intended as an extra tax on people doing home extensions, and certainly never as a retrospective tax that people are landed with unexpectedly after the event. Most councils understand that, but one or two have ruthlessly exploited loopholes that allow them to punish homeowners, including Lib Dem-run Waverley in my constituency, which charges over £550 per square metre, one of the highest in the country.

But it is not just there. This morning, I heard about a case in Sevenoaks, where the district council pursued a stay-at-home mother relentlessly, in a case championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). For many families the consequences have been devastating. Some have been forced to sell or remortgage their homes, and the financial burden, alongside the stress and uncertainty, has been immense. Some have fought their councils for years, hitting brick walls at every turn. I am aware of 15 families in Waverley alone who faced unexpected charges, ranging from £26,000 to £235,000.

There are now more than 100 known other cases across the country. Here are some examples: Steve Dally and his wife Caroline have been forced to remortgage their home to pay a £70,000 CIL charge on a home extension in Godalming. As they explained to me and local councillor Jane Austin, they are not developers; they simply extended their home. They hit a brick wall when they challenged Waverley and had to risk additional penalties and compounded interest in the process.

Another Godalming couple were hit with a £70,000 bill because they were living in rented accommodation while their home was being renovated. In Milford in my constituency, a homeowner was forced to pay a £120,000 CIL bill when forced to submit a retrospective planning application because two walls of his existing home fell down. For failing to give notice of the walls falling down he was charged £2,500 in penalties because he had failed to submit a commencement notice, something he had never heard of.

Enton resident Helen Grant reluctantly settled a £56,000 CIL charge on the family home, only to be sent a bill for a further £3,000 in interest charges when the council reviewed her case, which had already been closed. It is not just Waverley; I pay tribute to the CIL Injustice Group, which operates across the whole country. Many of its members are watching from the Gallery today, including people from Wokingham, Tonbridge and Devon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for bringing this issue forward. I remind him of the cautionary tale from Northern Ireland. We operate without a CIL-style levy. Instead, we rely on bespoke section 76 agreements, which avoid the tax-like rigidity of CIL. That has left us in Northern Ireland with a multibillion-pound funding gap for infrastructure—specifically, for our waste water systems—which is now halting thousands of developments across 25 cities and towns in our 11 council areas. Does he agree that we must ensure that this measure is not just a sales tax on development value but a ringfenced guarantee for the specific pipes and roads that make those homes habitable? The cautionary tale from Northern Ireland is an example of where this has gone wrong.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

I thank the hon. Member; he always makes very thoughtful contributions. He makes two very important points. The first is that we do need developers to contribute towards infrastructure costs. The risk of the appalling injustice that I am drawing attention to today is that we lose social consent for very important contributions that enable much-needed infrastructure to be built. Secondly, he is absolutely right to say that not having CIL at all would be very bad. In my area in particular, there is constant concern about the lack of infrastructure to keep pace with new housing developments.

I want to return to the CIL Injustice Group, because their accounts are extremely concerning. Some are nervous about dealing with their council because of the bad way they are treated. Others spend thousands of pounds on legal fees, often unsuccessfully. Part of the issue is that CIL is an extraordinarily complex process. Forms must be filled in in the correct order and are subject to strict timetables. Even professionals struggle. It is very unforgiving if someone gets it wrong. They have to pay within 90 days, under threat of seizure of assets and imprisonment, and if they do not comply, they get slammed with thousands of pounds in late charges and interest on top of that. There is effectively no right of appeal, and most importantly, there is no ability to correct errors. Ordinary homeowners inevitably do make errors, but there is no latitude in the system to allow them to correct those errors.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I beg to move,

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

This motion is purely procedural, to allow the Bill to be carried over to the next Session and for the remaining stages to take place following the King’s Speech. The Government remain absolutely committed to delivering this Bill. As the House will be aware, it was introduced into this place on 16 September 2025, with its Commons Committee stage taking place in November and December last year. I want to thank again all the Bill Committee members from across the House for their work on this fundamentally important Bill. This motion will allow the Commons remaining stages to take place at the start of the next Session before the Bill moves on to the other place.

The Bill is a product of the decades of campaigning from families affected by state-related deaths and tragedies. We have heard from a range of campaigns, from families and from those affected, on the desperate need for change to ensure that when things go wrong, public authorities will act with candour and transparency, and in the public interest.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. There is much in the Bill to be recognised and welcomed, but does she agree that this is not just about the Hillsborough tragedy, which was awful, but about my constituents in Strangford, who, when they seek the truth from public bodies, are met with a wall of silence or, worse, a culture of circling the wagons? Does she further agree that the legal duty of candour is not just about paperwork and that it must be about restoring the fundamental bond of trust between the Government and those who govern?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is fundamentally correct that the Bill is about much more than just the duty of candour. This is about rebuilding the trust between the public and the state. It is about ensuring that there is accountability, transparency, openness and parity, and that the state remembers who it is that we are meant to serve. This is not just about the Hillsborough law, although this legislation will hopefully bear that name; it is about all those campaigns that have suffered as a result of state cover-ups and tragedies. It is really important that we recognise all those campaigning under the umbrella of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign.

At inquiries, inquests and investigations, public authorities and officials will be put under powerful obligations to help investigations to find the truth. They will all be legally required to provide information and evidence with candour, proactively and without favour to any of their own positions. Public servants will also be placed under a new professional duty of candour, which will be set out in each organisation’s mandatory code of ethics. This will ensure that individuals act with integrity and honesty at all times in their day-to-day work. The families made it clear to us that when it becomes apparent that someone has sought to evade accountability or prevent the truth from being uncovered—whether through dishonesty and deliberately withholding information, or through the perpetuation of false narratives—there must be clear accountability and appropriate sanctions.

The Bill will provide this through a new criminal offence of breaching the duty of candour and a new criminal offence of misleading the public. It will also provide non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, and place a duty on all public authorities to ensure that their use of lawyers is proportionate. It represents an important milestone in rebalancing the system, ensuring that the bereaved, grieving families are supported to participate in the inquest process where the state is represented, introducing the parity of arms that we have heard so much about. It also helps to ensure proper standards of conduct by public authorities at an inquest or inquiry.

Drawing on experiences shared with us by the families, the Bill will introduce measures placing a duty on all public authorities, and those that represent them, to act in line with statutory guidance and to support families’ participation in the process. Where there are concerns regarding the conduct of public authorities or their legal teams, the Bill grants the power to the coroner or the inquiry chair to raise those concerns with the appropriate senior individual level of public authority.

The Bill also abolishes the current common law offences of misconduct in public office following the Law Commission recommendations in its 2020 report. In its place will be two new statutory offences: the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury, and seriously improper acts. By putting these offences on the statute book, we are making it clear what types of behaviour are covered by this offence and who exactly it applies to.

This is a landmark Bill. It will transform the way that public authorities and officials interact with official investigations and will act as a catalyst for the radical change in culture across the public sector that we so desperately need. It will deliver the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a generation and a move away from that culture of cover up and distrust in the state.

The Bill was due to return to the Commons for remaining stages in January. However, as many in this House will be aware, concerns were raised on how the duty of candour and assistance would apply to the intelligence and security services. The Government brought forward several amendments to strengthen the Bill in this area. However, it became clear from our conversations with families and stakeholders that they had concerns about how the accompanying safeguards we proposed might work in practice. We have always been clear that this is a Bill for and by the families, and where they have concerns, we will always listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

It would be remiss of this House not to put on record our thanks to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for all their hard work to make this happen, and for their endurance, perseverance, determination, courage and commitment. We are all greatly moved by the efforts they have made over the years, and because of them, the Minister and this Government have brought forward a legislative change, with this carry-over motion tonight. This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is better off for their collective efforts.

[Ian Byrne]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words.

The Minister and I both stood for election in 2024 on a clear manifesto commitment to deliver the Hillsborough law in full. The Prime Minister promised on multiple occasions that passing the Hillsborough law would be among the first acts of this Government, yet two anniversaries of Hillsborough and an entire parliamentary Session have passed without it being delivered. That is simply not good enough. I hear that certain Ministers oppose this legislation due to pressure from the security services and the Ministry of Defence, and that is precisely why leadership is required. The buck stops with the Prime Minister. We must push through disagreement and ensure that this Bill is delivered in its entirety.

Every delay causes real and profound distress to bereaved families, survivors and campaigners—people who have spent decades fighting for truth, justice and accountability against a state that failed them and sought to cover up those failures. Crucially, as we have always said, this law is vital for the many people who do not yet know that they will one day need it, so it is essential that this carry-over motion is not merely a procedural device to keep this Bill alive, but a clear signal of the Government’s intention to implement the Hillsborough law in full at the earliest opportunity, as has been promised. This motion must now be matched with urgency and action.

The truth is that if the political will existed, this could be resolved in a single day by the Government adopting my amendments, which would restore the Bill to the full Hillsborough law that was promised. I commend every single person who has fought for this legislation. It is my job in this place to ensure that the Government deliver a Hillsborough law worthy of the name. It is rightly described as a legacy for many, but more than that, if we get this Bill right, it will ensure that state cover-ups are far harder to carry out in future. That would be a legacy of real and lasting value to this country, for future generations, and for those whom we will never forget.

A duty of candour that applies to all and ensures that nobody is above the law is essential to groups still fighting for justice. That includes families affected by the nuclear test scandal and those impacted by the Chinook disaster, whose pursuit of truth has been obstructed for far too long. In both cases, it is understood that thousands of documents remain restricted, despite the events being decades ago. There must be no built-in escape route, whereby any state body can decide for itself what evidence it provides to an inquiry or an investigation, as exists in the Government’s current provisions; that would be carte blanche for future cover-ups. Campaigners on these causes have stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight for a Hillsborough law, and I and many other hon. Members from across the House will not abandon them now, nor should this Government. Any proposed amendments that weaken that commitment must be withdrawn.

My amendment 23, which is supported by more than 70 Members of this House, would remove the carve-out for the intelligence and security services that exempts them from the duty of candour. Since the Bill was shelved in January, no Minister has been able to explain why my amendments cannot be accepted, or why those services should not be subject to the same duty. The amendment, which is fully supported by all campaigns connected to the Hillsborough law, simply applies existing national security safeguards that are already used elsewhere to the duty of candour. This ensures that those bodies are not placed above the law, while maintaining full protection for national security. The Government’s stated concerns about national security therefore do not withstand scrutiny. My amendments would have zero adverse impact on national security, so as the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough law, I ask again: why can those amendments not be adopted, and why can the full Hillsborough law not be passed when the House returns in the next Session?

In what has been a difficult 18 months for this Government, marked at times by damaging and totally avoidable political choices, we must not allow this to become another self-inflicted wound, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Hillsborough law is far too important. Delivered in full, it would be transformational, placing social justice at the very heart of Government and showing the public clearly and convincingly whose side we are on. I know that that is what we both want, Minister. A firm commitment without delay to delivering on this Government’s promise is the very least that those who have fought for justice for so long deserve. It must happen as soon as this House returns in May.

Victims and Courts Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. This Bill goes beyond party politics; this is a Bill, as I have said, for victims. It has been a sincere pleasure to work across political divides to get this right for victims, who are rightly at the heart of the Bill. I have always stated that I will work with anyone from any party if they have any measure that could make the criminal justice system a better place for victims, so that we start to put victims at its heart. The Bill does exactly that: it takes a step towards putting victims back at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they fundamentally belong.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

No one doubts the Minister’s commitment, honesty and integrity. But can I gently remind her that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) outlined the issue of the glorification of terrorism in relation to this Bill? He raised the issue of children wearing IRA slogans. Just last Saturday, I met a lady whose husband was murdered by the IRA on 9 April 1990. She reminded me that, in Northern Ireland, when she went to visit the memorial for her dead husband who was murdered 36 years ago, she faced slogans against her, like “Up the ’RA”, when she was trying to think of her husband. We need things in this legislation to protect against that. We cannot let people take advantage of others’ sorrow and not recognise that they are grieving, by bringing up the past and trying to glorify terrorism, which murders people and destroys lives.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He will know that my family have also faced tragedy and bereavement at the hands of the IRA. My cousin was killed on Horse Guards Parade serving this country by a serving member of the IRA, and that issue has plagued my family for decades and still hurts to this very day. I have spoken about that tragedy and bereavement in the Chamber before. He will know that the victims code is still open for consultation until the end of this month, and I urge anyone who has such feelings of pain to feed into that to enable us to make the code better for victims. The Policing Minister will have heard his views and the views of other victims on how we can support victims of terrorism. I have met families bereaved by terrorism to work with them on what more we can do, and they will be feeding into the victims code.

That brings me on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) about the victims code. I have spoken before about ensuring that those bereaved by homicide abroad have rights under the code; although it is not necessarily the right place, we have listened to them and ensured that there is a specific measure for them in the draft consultation. We are working with the FCDO and the Home Office to ensure that that can be strengthened so that support is available for them. The review will be published in 2027. It will be robust and comprehensive, and will put families at the centre, so that we can improve the support available to them where it is needed.

On court transcripts, I thank Liberal Democrat and Labour Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for all the work they have done on ensuring that victims have access to court transcripts that relate to their cases. As the Minister set out in the other place last week, the Government are acutely aware of the need to consider what further action we can take to support victims to access information on court proceedings relating to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. The Government are also fully committed to strengthening transparency. That is why I am pleased to restate that the Government are commencing a study on AI transcription in the criminal courts. That will look at how AI transcription could lead to producing court transcripts more quickly and at a lower cost for victims. The findings of that study have the potential to reduce fees and improve access to court transcripts. This will mean that further reform will be underpinned by confidence in accuracy, as well as appropriate safeguards, and that it will deliver for victims.

I will now move on to the remaining topics for discussion. The Government have agreed with the sentiment of the amendments to the unduly lenient sentence scheme but, as I have said previously, we needed to return to those to ensure that they were workable and effective and would bring the change necessary, following direct engagement with victims and bereaved families. That is what we have done, and I am pleased to confirm that we have now tabled two amendments to the ULS scheme that will deliver what victims have been calling for.

Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers.

May I begin by thanking all the Members who have taken the trouble to attend and hopefully speak in this important debate, and also the Minister and shadow Minister for their anticipated contributions? Members of all parties in the House will wish to put on the record our appreciation for prison officers up and down the country, who work tirelessly and courageously to protect our society. Let us especially pay tribute to Claire Lewis, a brave constituent of my friend the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who we heard in full voice a few moments ago on another debate topic. She rightly drew attention to Claire’s work on 18 June last year.

After suffering a horrific assault, Claire set up a petition calling for anti-stab and anti-slash protective gear to be made mandatory for all prison officers. It achieved over 32,500 signatures. She had been severely stabbed in the back with a broken bottle while working on a supposedly less risky general population wing at HMP Frankland as a prison officer in 2010. In her own words, the attack left her with

“life-changing physical injuries and deep psychological toll…to this day.”

I understand Claire is watching at home today, so this is a good opportunity to acknowledge her remarkable commitment and dedication in turning such a dreadful experience into an inspirational campaign for change. No one should be subject to needless vulnerability while doing his or her job. Prison officers work constantly to safeguard society from some of the most dangerous and violent people. They are entitled, in return, to expect from us the maximum practicable protection from attack.

Sadly, Claire’s experience is no isolated incident. According to The Independent, the number of assaults on staff in adult prisons in England and Wales nearly trebled in the decade from 2014 to the end of 2024, from 3,640 to 10,605.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. The figures in Northern Ireland have also increased in recent years, with 96 attacks recorded in 2024, up from 59 in 2023 and 66 in 2022, reflecting rising safety concerns in Northern Ireland’s prison system, as he has referred to. It is attributed to factors such as overcrowding and higher prison populations. Does he agree that if we are to address the issue of prison officer safety, we need to address the issue of overcrowding and higher prison populations? Every prison officer should have access to body armour to ensure their safety.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Yes, indeed. No debate in this Chamber or the main Chamber would be worth while without a typically relevant contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The rise that I quoted earlier equated to 122 attacks on staff for every 1,000 inmates on the prison estate. Such a level of violence has inevitably brought into question the safety and adequacy of the current protective equipment available to prison officers at work. Only last year, three officers were viciously attacked in a particularly serious incident at HMP Frankland, the same prison where Claire was badly wounded.

The full implications of this unacceptable deterioration have yet to be learned, though significant progress was made last September, when the Justice Secretary announced during a visit to Belmarsh prison that 10,000 more staff would be given stab-proof vests and 500 tasers would be supplied to trained personnel. Although those steps are welcome—they would have helped protect Claire in her prison—they go only part of the way. The extra 10,000 vests will provide a stab-proof garment for every prison guard working in high-security facilities, but even with body armour being made mandatory for prison officers working in close supervision and separation centres, too many at-risk staff remain without protection.

Any prison officer working on any wing of any prison can be attacked. Therefore, any prison officer working on any wing of any prison deserves to be protected from violence while trying to do his or her job. Yes, progress has been made, but as long as any prison officers lack adequate protection and remain vulnerable to attack, there is still work to do.

High levels of violence coupled with a lack of protective equipment will undoubtedly serve as a recruitment disincentive for potential prison officers. That must be remedied to ensure that our justice system continues to function and our society remains safe. Prison officers will always face challenges, often in trying circumstances. It is up to us to minimise the risk of attack, if we expect people to volunteer for such a vital, though difficult, career. It is also a matter of justice and fair play. We cannot expect to be protected by brave prison officers if they do not feel that appropriate safety measures are in place.

If the principle of providing protective body armour to all prison officers is accepted, we must ensure the adequacy of the equipment itself. We must listen to and draw upon the experiences of those who have already been issued with protective equipment to make certain that it meets the highest safety standards. In 2024, more than half of police officers and staff in England and Wales said that their uniforms were “unfit for purpose”, restrictive and causing health problems, according to the first national police uniform and equipment survey ever undertaken. Furthermore, that survey revealed alarming health consequences, with 44% of men reporting muscular pain, which was often linked to body armour or heavy equipment, and women reporting that body armour failed adequately to accommodate female anatomy. Ultimately, 62% of male and 85% of female respondents reported at least one physical health condition as a result of equipment flaws.

Lessons must be learned and procurement tailored accordingly, in both senses of the word. As well as its protective function, body armour must be light in weight, not impair mobility and remain comfortable if worn for lengthy periods. I understand that Claire Lewis has identified at least one designer and manufacturer of stab vests and other protective clothing that she believes to offer enhanced protection against blunt force, significantly reducing the risk of injuries from punches, kicks and strikes from improvised weapons. Clearly, market research and objective evaluation will need to be done.

The argument is twofold: we should ensure that all prison officers have comparable protection from attack by prisoners, and the selection of protective equipment must be right rather than rushed. Not only is this morally sound, but it will save costly claims later on from individuals suffering health consequences from faulty equipment.

I conclude with the following questions for the Minister, to whom I have given advance notice—I thank him for his accessibility in this matter. First, does he accept that, regardless of which prison wing an officer works on, he or she deserves protection from violence? Secondly, if that is agreed, will the Government seriously consider rolling out mandatory body armour to all prison officers in all prisons? Finally, may we have the Minister’s word, here and now, that any new body armour procured will be of the highest specification, to avoid causing physical problems for male and female officers further down the line?

Reproductive Coercion

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Natalie Fleet]

Absolutely; I think that this is something that we need to shine a light on however we can. Far too many women are traumatised by family courts in this way—the situation is absolutely ripe for intervention.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this issue. She has strength of character, strength of personality and commitment to these subjects; it is always a pleasure to come along and hear her express her viewpoint, and I congratulate her. Just to be helpful to her—I did speak to her beforehand—she may only now be aware that in Northern Ireland, conviction on indictment for domestic abuse and coercive control can lead to up to 14 years’ imprisonment, while in England and Wales the same offence receives just five years’ imprisonment. Does she agree that coercive control demands its own legislation—equally applied, with equal severity— across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Natalie Fleet]

I absolutely agree; the hon. Member makes very good points that I did not know about. The more we can talk about this issue, the better, and making it a stand-alone offence is absolutely the right thing to do.

It is easy to dismiss Liv’s as a story of extreme wealth, power and faraway places, but the reason I raised it, and the reason it is so important, is that so many women will see this story as theirs. If we do an internet search about reproductive coercion, the stories are there. Liv has shared her story on social media, and women have commented underneath saying, “This happened to me.” Women are having their bodies controlled by men: some forced to get pregnant, others forced to have an abortion. Both are examples of reproductive coercion—deliberate attempts to dictate a woman’s reproductive choices or interfere with her reproductive autonomy.

A recent poll of 1,000 women showed that 50%—half of them—had experienced some sort of reproductive coercion. It is happening to women we know, every day. A third of those women had felt pressured to have sex without contraception, 10% had had their contraception sabotaged and 15% had been forced to terminate a pregnancy that they wanted to keep.

The principle of reproductive coercion is recognised in law. If someone knowingly passes on a sexually transmitted disease, it is assault. If a condom is removed without consent—known as stealthing—it is rape. However, that principle has not been applied in the Nervo case, and that case is not an isolated one. Reproductive coercion is always about patterns of controlling behaviour, not just one act, which is why there is inconsistency in the application of the law. If our courts are presented with clear evidence of coercive behaviour that has resulted in pregnancy, yet decline to recognise or name it, we are left with a gap not just in terminology, but in protection.

Reproductive coercion is covered by both the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the Serious Crime Act 2015. Statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act states that abuse within a family set-up can include

“reproductive coercion (and as part of this, forced abortion).”

According to the statutory guidance, reproductive coercion can involve

“restricting a partner’s access to birth control…refusing to use a birth control method…deception regarding the use of birth control including falsely claiming to be using contraception…forcing a partner to get an abortion, IVF or other related procedure; or denying access to such procedures.”

The Serious Crime Act details similar guidance and gives the same examples. The maximum penalty for the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, including reproductive coercion, is five years in prison. In the year ending March 2025, nearly 50,000 cases of coercive control were recorded by police in England and Wales, yet reproductive coercion remains unprosecuted—not because it is not happening, but because the Crown Prosecution Service does not record that it is. The term reproductive coercion now exists in guidance and policy, but it has no clear home in law.

What are we asking for? First, we want an acknowledgment that cases like Liv’s occur and need exposing in the public interest. As lawyers have said:

“Legal reform in the area of sexual deception is not straightforward, either legally or in social terms. Indeed, the law is unlikely to move forward in a meaningful way until the wider public debate on such issues is also able to progress and mature.”

That is not enough. We need the offence to be seen in the eyes of the law. While I have spoken about reproductive coercion being mentioned in the statutory guidance for two of our laws, in the CPS’s policy, in safeguarding manuals and in a few judgments, we want to see it given a place on the statute book. There needs to be a clear route for investigating it as a crime, charging offenders and protecting victims.

The question before us is not whether reproductive coercion exists—we know that it does—but whether our systems are prepared to recognise it where there is evidence. When a condom is removed without consent, it is recognised as rape; when a disease is knowingly transmitted, it is assault; but when a woman is deliberately impregnated through deception and control, the abuse is not clearly named, prosecuted or safeguarded against.

Liv has described reproductive coercion as our wombs being hijacked, our futures being derailed with our children ultimately the victims, and our nervous system and trust in the world shot. There are cases like Liv’s where the evidence is present, and yet it is still not being named. That must change. My ask of the Government is for clearer recognition of reproductive coercion in the law. We need greater awareness and training to ensure that coercive behaviours—particularly those involving deception and reproductive autonomy—are properly understood. We need to ensure that patterns of behaviour are examined, not dismissed, and that individuals who raise legitimate concerns are not penalised for doing so. No woman should hear the words, “I was going to tell you after you had the baby,” and have that dismissed as something that does not require recognition. Without recognition, coercion cannot be addressed.

No change has ever happened via the state alone. As important as my previous asks were, my final ask is to women—women in the Public Gallery and women out there listening to this debate. If there is any element of what has been said today that is happening to you, reach out. You are not alone. You are surrounded by women going through exactly the same, not calling it out, feeling fear and shame, and feeling like they cannot speak. We regain control by speaking out and reaching out. That is how Liv and I connected in the first place.

Liv and Mim got in touch after hearing me on “Woman’s Hour”. I remember that interview vividly. I thought I was going to faint beforehand. I hugged the show runner, and that gave me the strength to carry on. The presenter was so lovely, and I spoke up despite being full of fear and shame. That shame never belonged to me, but I needed to undo a lifetime of society telling me that it did. When I spoke up, women heard me—women I had never met or crossed paths with. I met them and found out that one of them had been traumatised in ways that I had never even thought of. They are now speaking out too, and that has power.

Every time somebody speaks out about abuse—abuse that happens regularly, and abuse that happens equally as much but we have never heard of, as it is better hidden—we are heard by somebody who can support us or by women we have never even met who have been through the same or other forms of abuse that also need shouting about. For too long, we as women have been condemned to silence, and silence is where abuse thrives. If we instead use our voices, speak out and say, “This is not okay,” allow others to believe us and support us, and encourage survivors to come together—because nothing achieves change like an army of angry women—we can come together and force that much-needed change.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for bringing forward this really important debate. To echo the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), she always uses her voice in this place to amplify the voices of those who have been silenced. I am truly in awe of her; I find her an inspiration.

This is an important debate. It matters because controlling or coercive behaviour is one of the most harmful, least visible and most misunderstood forms of domestic abuse. It causes deep and lasting harm, yet is so often difficult to recognise, disclose and even evidence, both for victims and the professionals who are meant to support them. Before turning to the substance, I acknowledge the lived experience that has helped bring the issue into sharper focus. I understand that the survivors and campaigners Olivia and Mim Nervo have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and other parliamentarians in the Chamber to raise awareness of reproductive coercion and post-separation abuse. I am so grateful that lived experiences have helped prompt this debate.

I also put on record my personal thanks to Olivia and Mim for meeting me today. Olivia’s story is so moving. What she has been through is horrific beyond measure, and I sincerely thank her for speaking out, because undoubtedly she will have helped many other women who are sadly in the same position. It takes courage to speak out in that way and campaign for change. However, I must be clear about one boundary: I cannot comment on individual cases, court decisions, or any ongoing investigations. That is not for lack of concern—quite the opposite—but about respecting the independence and integrity of our justice system. I can, however, speak directly to the system issues that the debate raises.

As we have heard, reproductive coercion is a form of controlling or coercive behaviour. It involves using power and control to interfere with a person’s reproductive autonomy—something that should belong to the individual alone. The statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour already recognises reproductive coercion, and includes behaviour such as restricting access to contraception, refusing to use contraception, forcing pregnancy, deception about contraception, or forcing or denying access to abortion, IVF or any other reproductive procedure.

Reproductive choice is a basic human right. We understand the long-term emotional, psychological and sometimes physical harm that this abuse, or the denial of this right, can cause. We also recognise how difficult it can be for victims to identify and disclose this type of abuse, particularly when it occurs within an intimate relationship or alongside any other form of control. This is not about isolated incidents. Reproductive coercion is often part of a wider pattern of coercive control, which could also include emotional, economic, sexual or physical abuse.

To understand reproductive coercion, we must first understand how coercive control-type abuse operates. It is about domination, fear, and the gradual erosion of someone’s autonomy. It includes isolating someone from friends and family, depriving them of basic needs, and enforcing degrading rules monitoring movements, controlling finances or taking control over everyday decisions. Sadly, that is not an exhaustive list, because abuse adapts to the victim’s circumstances. Victims may not recognise what is happening to them as abuse until the pattern becomes clear, sometimes years later. That complexity places a responsibility on us all to ensure that our systems are equipped to recognise patterns, not just incidents.

Controlling or coercive behaviour has been a criminal offence since 2015, under the Serious Crime Act 2015. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 strengthened the framework by explicitly recognising controlling or coercive behaviour as domestic abuse, and by extending the offence to ex-partners and family members who do not live together.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her positive response to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). The Minister obviously understands the issue very clearly. In my earlier intervention, I gave the example of Northern Ireland, where the sentence for coercive behaviour is 14 years. Over here on the mainland, in England and Wales, the sentence is only five years. Would the Minister and the Government consider strengthening the sentence to make it similar to that in Northern Ireland, ensuring that the time fits the crime?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the distinction in the sentencing for this crime in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, the sentence is a maximum of five years, but as I have said, the crime normally comes alongside other forms of abuse, for which the CPS will look to charge and seek the highest sentence. Sentencing is an independent judicial matter—it is for the judge to determine—but as I have said, coercive behaviour is part of a pattern, and we need to get the framework right for agencies so that they can support victims and survivors.

The changes that were made were vital. They recognise the reality of post-separation abuse, and abuse by family members outside the household. They offer protection to victims who continue to experience coercive control long after a relationship has ended. Although I cannot comment on any individual case, it is right to reflect on the system-level issues that have been raised by campaigners here today. The concerns shared with the Department by many survivors include the impact of prolonged family court proceedings, post-separation abuse continuing through legal processes, and the distress caused by long delays and uncertainty in criminal investigations into coercive control.

There are also serious questions about how mechanisms that are intended to support confidence in the justice system, such as transparency and privacy provisions, can in some circumstances be experienced as silencing or controlling. Those concerns underline a central point: our justice system must never become a tool through which victims are abused even further. It must be there to protect victims and not compound harm. To echo the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I totally agree that this is something that Baroness Levitt, the Minister in the other place, will look at in relation to family court reform.

This debate sits squarely within the Government’s wider mission to tackle violence against women and girls. The scale of violence against women and girls in this country is intolerable. The Government are treating it as a national emergency, with a clear ambition to halve the levels within a decade. Our “Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy”, published in December, sets out how we will prevent abuse, pursue perpetrators and support victims. Addressing controlling or coercive behaviour, including reproductive coercion, is central to delivering that ambition.

Since controlling or coercive behaviour became a criminal offence in 2015, the police and the CPS have been working hard to improve how they recognise and respond to it. Those trends are improving year on year: last year, police recorded more than 54,000 offences and CPS prosecutions have gone up by 38% compared with the previous year, to more than 1,500 defendants prosecuted. However, we recognise that more needs to be done about understanding controlling or coercive behaviour, which has evolved significantly since the statutory guidance was last published in 2023. That is why the Government have committed to updating the guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour by the end of this year.

The updated guidance will reflect the latest policy and practice, including clearer recognition of reproductive coercion. This is about supporting frontline professionals—police, prosecutors, health professionals and others—to identify abuse early, gather evidence more effectively and support victims through the criminal justice process.

More than anything, education must be central to prevention. Through relationships, sex and health education, we will help children and young people understand healthy relationships, consent and controlling behaviour from an early age. We are backing that with practical support for schools and parents. We are investing in teacher training, bringing in external expertise when needed and tackling harmful behaviours, such as teenage relationship abuse.

In health settings, women are rightly routinely asked about domestic abuse in private, during antenatal care, for example. If abuse is disclosed, women should be offered support, help with safety planning and access to specialist services. Abortion providers are required to be trained to spot signs of coercion or abuse and respond appropriately. We are also strengthening how health professionals respond, through the violence against women and girls strategy, through improved safeguarding training, and with the steps to safety programme in general practice.

Supporting victims to recover and rebuild their lives from abuse is a core priority. More than £1 billion is being invested over the next three years to support victims of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse survivors. That includes funding for safe accommodation, advocacy, counselling and specialist services. In particular, my Department is increasing funding for victim support services year on year from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. In total, the Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million in victim support services over the next three years of the spending review period.

This debate highlights why controlling or coercive behaviour, and reproductive coercion in particular, must be taken seriously at every level. Reproductive coercion is coercive control and domestic abuse. Addressing it is essential if we are to deliver our ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

I again acknowledge and place on record my sincere and incredible gratitude to the survivors and campaigners whose experience has brought urgency and clarity to this issue. We will continue to work across Government, and with all of you and with our partners, on this guidance and our practice to ensure that our system accurately reflects the reality of this abuse, so that we can deliver justice and safety for victims.

Question put and agreed to.

Court and Tribunal Transcripts

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s points. They were some of the key ones picked up in the Justice Committee’s report, because they not only advocated for better use of technology but argued that there was a skill challenge among the various courts. That feeds back into the issue’s narrative: when the tender was given back in June 2023, it was geographically based, and once that tender was locked in, it was very difficult to alter it, despite challenge, our raising it in the House of Commons, and a petition coming down the line with more than 200,000 signatures. So I would like put the hon. Member’s points directly to the Minister.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman can give way, but the hon. Member for Strangford knows, because he has been here a very long time, that it is courtesy and a convention of the House to be in the Chamber at the start of somebody’s speech before trying to intervene—I think he came in some minutes after the beginning of the speech. It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, but that is the usual courtesy.

[Robbie Moore]

That is very kind, Mr Pritchard, but I will give way.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate; he is absolutely right to underline these issues. He has given a number of examples of where the process has fallen down because evidence could not get to the victim—I always focus on victims, as I know he does. Is he aware of any cases or examples where, because of not being able to get the evidence, and the victim not being able to ascertain all the necessary information, cases have fallen and justice has not been delivered?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Those points were not put to me in the outreach I have done, but based on the narrative and level of concern about transparency and reassurance, there could be examples of that out there. I suspect that is why more than 200,000 people have signed the petition and feel so strongly that this should be brought directly to the Minister’s attention, so that we can give better clarity and reassurance to many victims and survivors who have been through horrendous court cases.

Victims should, and must, be at the heart of the justice system, yet time and again they are made to feel completely disregarded—like an inconvenience, as some victims have put it to me. The feeling among victims I have spoken to is that trust needs to be rebuilt, and that is partly done through increasing transparency.

This is a timely debate: the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which represents the most significant reform to the criminal procedure in decades, is making its way through Parliament. It will abolish jury trials for crimes likely to carry a sentence of fewer than three years, but the Institute for Government has warned that judge-only trials risk damage to public confidence in a criminal justice system. The Bar Council chair has cautioned directly that the reforms

“compromise public trust and confidence.”

In addition, local media is facing unprecedented pressure —gone are the days when each paper had a local court reporter to sit in on court proceedings. Despite the Government’s recently announced local media action plan, investing in local news while maintaining cost barriers to court transcripts is directly contradictory. Without affordable access to clear records of what is said in court, local journalists cannot hold the justice system to account or ensure that accurate information is shared with the public.

What can be done to increase transparency and trust in the justice system? Increased access to court and tribunal transcripts will absolutely be part of that, hence the nature of this debate. I acknowledge that some progress is being made towards greater availability of court transcripts. The previous Conservative Government launched a pilot scheme that enabled victims of serious sexual assault to request a free copy of the sentencing remarks, and that pilot was extended by the previous Government last year. More recently, following pressure from the Conservative Opposition, who tabled amendments during proceedings on the Sentencing Act 2026 and the Victims and Courts Bill, the Government agreed to expand free access to Crown court sentencing remarks to all victims, but disappointingly, they confirmed that they had no plans to do so in magistrates courts.

There are several legitimate options for increasing transparency through access to court and tribunal transcripts. To start with, HMCTS could absorb the cost by paying suppliers for public request transcripts rather than passing the costs on to individuals. A central transcript repository could also be created, which would require transcripts already produced to be held in a central system, such as the National Archives. The current tender process is locked in until 2027, but it is essential that a public access requirement is built into the next framework tender from the outset. The Government could also dedicate parliamentary time to producing legislation that would place a statutory duty on courts to provide transcripts, with funding flowing down into procurement requirements.

Having spoken to others in preparing for this debate, I also encourage the Government to relaunch the senior data governance panel, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government to provide independent expert advice on the use of justice data across courts and tribunals. I understand, however, that that has not been taken forward, much to the annoyance of many involved in the process.

I remind Members that this petition has more than 200,000 signatures from across the country. The issue clearly demands time and good debate, which I am sure we will have. Whatever views the public and Members have on this petition, we clearly have a justice system that is stuck in the past and becoming less transparent, and which makes the victims that it exists to serve feel the least important of all.

I come back to the overarching question put forward by the petition: does Parliament think that court and tribunal transcripts should be treated as a public good? When I think of the cases I have outlined, and particularly of a quote from Fiona Goddard, who described the current system as just another

“way in which the victim is treated like the least important person”

in the judicial system, I think the answer is most definitely yes. It is in the interest of the public to make sure that these transcripts are free to access for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will have heard that we are also piloting new digital and AI-enabled tools to support listing, helping the judiciary to make better use of data. I hope she will have seen that the reforms we are introducing under the Courts and Tribunals Bill include introducing independent legal advisers and expanding the principles of Operation Soteria into the courtroom, making sure that victims have the protection and support they deserve throughout the justice system. The Bill also introduces crucial reforms to ensure that rape victims are no longer unfairly undermined by evidence at court that relies on myths and misconceptions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his positive answer. When I think of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I am always keen that we share improvements, whether that is from Northern Ireland for here or from England for Northern Ireland. Could the things that the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) has asked for be put to the Policing and Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, so that we can improve our system in the same way as the Secretary of State intends here?

Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister]

My hon. Friend is correct, and I recognise his obvious expertise in this matter. I believe that he practised law, and in particular personal injury law, prior to being elected to this House. I thank him for his intervention and for all he does for his constituents in Wolverhampton West.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Shannon, were you here at the beginning of the debate? You were 90 seconds late—faster next time.

[Jim Shannon]

You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran the whole way. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the debate. Over the years as an elected representative—as a councillor and as an MLA back in Northern Ireland—I had a number of constituents who had unfortunately succumbed to mesothelioma and lung cancer as a result of working in the Harland & Wolff shipyard over the years. The illnesses took 10 or 20 years to catch up with them. Perhaps the Minister could look towards Northern Ireland and what has happened there—as ever, I am trying to be helpful. Northern Ireland has its own set of guidelines, called the green book, for assessing damages. General damage for lung cancer and mesothelioma in Northern Ireland is typically estimated at between £125,000 and £250,000. While symptoms from negligent causes are similar, the distinction between the treatments remains in place. Does he agree, as I think he does, that the loophole must be closed once and for all? Perhaps we can start that tonight by the Minister doing that very thing. Thank you for letting me in, Madam Deputy Speaker —you are very kind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It would not be an Adjournment debate without Mr Jim Shannon, would it?

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I know that when my hon. Friend is upset, his baritone deepens—it was not quite as deep today as it has been on other occasions. He will know that I take very seriously the review I did. I will say more about disparities in a moment, but if we look at that review, we see that it was clear that there is tremendous public trust in our juries. When I was asked by David Cameron to do the review, there was concern in some towns and cities and among some ethnic minority populations about situations where they perceived they had an all-white jury. They asked whether it was still fair. Broadly, it was found to still be fair, and there was no evidence that there were unfair trials in our magistrates courts, which do 90% of the work, or if a single judge is sitting on their own. For the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), it is right that we review how the system is working and fully understand how these changes will affect the system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister and the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place. They have to address the backlog while trying to ensure that jury trials are retained. The general public have deep concern that speed cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights. I know that the Secretary of State will ensure that does not happen, but can he reassure me that any reforms will preserve the right to have a jury trial where that is essential to justice, rather than making piecemeal changes that will, I suspect, prevent people who need jury trials from having them?

[Mr Lammy]

Juries remain a cornerstone, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is about protecting juries. Let us be clear, however, that the Bill is not just about juries; it is a whole package, and that is why I set out just a few weeks ago that investment was key. This is £2.78 billion of investment. As Sir Brian told us in part 2 of his reforms, modernisation and dealing with efficiencies in the system are fundamental.

Victims are worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free to roam the streets, to commit more crimes and to create more victims. To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available, with essential investment, modernisation and reform. Let me start by addressing the reform that has provoked the fiercest debate. The new Crown court bench division, or our so-called swift courts, are dealt with in clause 3 of the Bill. The new division will hear cases with a likely custodial sentence of up to three years, to be heard by a judge sitting alone. The independent review of the criminal courts predicts that this will reduce trial times by at least 20%, and Sir Brian believes that the gains could be greater still. It will free up thousands of hearing days for the more serious cases. That is not just Sir Brian’s view; analysis published today by the Institute for Government supports the modelling behind these reforms, and the predicted time savings that they will deliver. Let me be absolutely clear: indictable-only offences will remain for juries. The most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and grievous bodily harm with intent will never be heard in the new division.

This is not a new principle. Judge-alone trials operate successfully in countries such as Canada, where judges told me that such trials were as much as twice as fast as jury trials, and they are already a normal, everyday part of our justice system. District judges sit alone in magistrates courts every single day, youth courts operate without juries, and family courts deciding whether a parent can see their child always sit without juries.

Court Reporting Data

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I regard the data breach of the agreement as serious, and I referred it to the data officer at the MOJ. That is the conclusion they have reached, and I have accepted their advice. As I said, I have asked them to conduct a further review in the light of further information that has come to light, just as we have asked Courtsdesk for further information. The information came to light because Courtsdesk admitted that it had been inputting and sharing this data with an AI company, in breach of the agreement. We have to get to the bottom of that, but it is so important that we tighten up the licensing agreements and make court lists available to more companies, so that journalists can continue to access the information in a way that is safe for defendants, safe for victims, and safe for anyone who participates in the court process.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her full answers. The fact that justice should be open and transparent is not negotiable. Anything other than that is not democracy but, by its very nature, despotic. The Minister has provided a justification. However, it is clear that although the system could undoubtedly be tightened up, completely scrapping it without a viable alternative does not provide confidence in the judiciary; it does the opposite. Will the Minister reassure the House and those outside about the decision that has been taken?

[Sarah Sackman]

I want to be really clear that the data held by Courtsdesk is not an archive of criminal court case files. A number of Members have mentioned the importance of criminal court case records, which are held in a variety of places, not least the National Archives. They continue to remain available. The court lists, which I accept are important, continue to be available to the public—a member of the public can look them up now. Enhanced listing, which has a bit more information, remains open to journalists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is important to have transparency and open justice, and for reporters to have the ability to expose what goes on in our courts. That is why I want to make the data open to more people, but we will put it on a safer footing to ensure that data breaches like this do not occur again in the future.