Reproductive Coercion

Debate between Jim Shannon and Natalie Fleet

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.

Sixth-form Provision: Bolsover

Debate between Jim Shannon and Natalie Fleet

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sixth form provision in Bolsover constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.

Residents of Bolsover must feel like they have déjà vu. My predecessor, Mark Fletcher, first raised the need for a sixth form in Bolsover in Parliament on 2 March 2020. On 7 March 2023, he spoke in this very Chamber about the need for Bolsover to have its own sixth form. On 6 September 2023, the then Prime Minister congratulated Mark on getting a sixth form. So the question that residents rightly ask is: why are we here today? Why have I raised this issue in Parliament five times in the past year? Why have I met Ministers and the Education Secretary to make representations? Why are Andrew Burns, the chief executive officer of Redhill Academy Trust, and Richard Pierpoint, the regional director, here with us to see this debate today?

As one resident succinctly put it, getting the promise is one thing, but making sure that that promise is delivered is another thing entirely. Despite Mark’s determined campaign and the tireless work of The Bolsover school executive headteacher Matt Hall, who sadly cannot be with us today because he has an Ofsted inspection, the previous Government’s promises have not been delivered.

Although I wish I was here congratulating Mark as new pupils enter North Derbyshire university academy, I saw as soon as I was elected that I needed to take up the baton. I will not rest until the young people of Bolsover, Clowne, Shirebrook, Creswell and the surrounding villages have the sixth form that they so desperately need.

Why is this so important? For far too many of our young people, Bolsover today is a story of unfilled potential. Bolsover covers a huge area, from Pinxton to Whitwell, Shirebrook to Wessington, yet there is no sixth form. When it comes to barriers to opportunity, surely one of the biggest is that the closest sixth form is a 30-minute bus ride away at a cost of £25 a week. The inability to access any form of education past the age of 16 without getting on one or two buses and travelling for up to an hour is why so few teenagers attend a school sixth form—only 25% from The Bolsover school, 13% from Heritage high school in Clowne and just 8% from Shirebrook academy do so. For those who live anywhere else in the country, the average figure is three times higher than for Shirebrook.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate and for her campaigning in this Chamber, which has clearly been instrumental—the people here and those at home watching will be greatly inspired by her, so well done. In my constituency in Ards, we need to ensure that our teenagers have support and sound career advice for the next steps, including in the sixth-form college at Regent House school and the South Eastern Regional college; the King’s Trust works alongside schools there. I know that the Minister is always looking for examples of good work, so may I suggest, through the hon. Lady, that he looks at the good things we are doing in Northern Ireland that could address the very issues she is working so well to address for her constituents?