What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The UK is stepping up its defence of the High North. This year, our carrier strike group operated in the region, alongside 19 NATO allies, and 1,500 of our Royal Marines have trained in Arctic conditions. We are also doubling our military presence in Norway, investing in key anti-submarine warfare and undersea surveillance capabilities, and our carrier strike group will be returning shortly to NATO’s northern flank.
We are rightly proud of the work that we are doing with partner nations in the JEF. In July this year, the carrier strike group deployed to the High North, working alongside 19 NATO allies, and is due back this autumn. The UK has recently taken command of NATO’s Joint Force Command Norfolk, which oversees all NATO operations across the High North, and the Royal Marines took part in Exercise Cold Response, alongside approximately 25,000 personnel from 14 allied nations.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of our icebreaking capability. Project Shackleton is looking at the longer-term options for the capability.
We have recently launched Project Shackleton, which is looking at some of the very questions that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is a very important capability, and we will look at the options to ensure we are mitigating the risks that we know we all face.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important topic. Protecting the vital sea routes on which Britain depends is a fundamental task of the Royal Navy. We are strengthening these capabilities through the strategic defence review and defence investment plan, including through investment in the hybrid Navy, which will bring together crewed warships, submarines and uncrewed systems.
T3. Dorset Innovation Park has rapidly become a hub for defence companies, but we now need a college on site to ensure that more young people can gain the qualifications they need to stay and work locally. Will the Minister work with Yeovil college, the innovation park, the Department for Education and me to establish a satellite college on site, which will give more young people a direct pathway into high-skilled, well-paid defence jobs?
I would like to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for taking the time to meet me and a formidable local veteran from Ayrshire, Alan Middleton, who does fantastic work with the local Army Cadet Force under the West Lowland Battalion. My right hon. Friend has worked tirelessly and, most importantly, has listened to those of us who feel strongly about this legislation and to the veterans who have concerns, which deserve to be heard. When the Bill was first introduced, many veterans feared that the new legacy framework would simply become another route to the repeated investigations that have caused so much anxiety, frustration and trauma over recent decades, so I welcome the fact that the Government have listened and that the amendments they have tabled significantly strengthen the Bill. New clause 32, for instance, recognises the unique context in which members of the armed forces operated during the troubles. Amendments 192 and 195 help ensure that investigations are rigorous and evidence-led, with clear statutory duties on the director of investigations before cases progress further. Perhaps most importantly, new clause 45 protects veterans from unexpected or intrusive contact by investigators years or, in some cases, decades after their service has ended. It places safeguards in law, including the involvement of the Secretary of State, and helps to ensure that veterans are treated with the absolute dignity and respect they deserve. Taken together, these changes have made the Bill more balanced and, as a result, have secured my support. Nobody is asking for immunity; nobody should be above the law, but equally, there should be no witch hunt against those who served our country honourably. Investigations should be driven by genuinely new evidence, not by the endless revisiting of matters that have already been examined time and again. The conversations I have had with veterans in Ayrshire, including those who served during some of the most difficult periods of the troubles, have left me in no doubt about the anxiety that the repeated investigations, or even the prospect of such investigations, have caused for them even decades after their service has ended. What they seek is not special treatment, nor to be placed beyond the reach of the law; rather, they seek a process that is fair, proportionate and focused on genuinely new evidence. Ultimately, this legislation must command confidence among victims and their families, the wider public, and those who served their country honourably. I believe that the changes made to the Bill will help us move closer to that objective. They strike the right balance between accountability and fairness. For those reasons, I will be supporting the Government’s approach, and I urge Members across the House to do so too.
16. What steps he is taking to improve skills in the defence workforce.
Last week, BAE Systems in Rochester launched its Movement to Work initiative, a three-week programme that will develop practical skills, provide real work experience and build the confidence that Medway needs. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the company on that fantastic initiative, and outline how he is working more broadly with the defence sector to help tackle the crisis of people not in education, employment or training across the UK?
10. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to strengthen national resilience.
Whether the threat is from Russia, Iran or rogue AI agents, keeping our country safe is the precondition for growth and progress here at home. Protecting ourselves means protecting the critical national infrastructure on which our constituents’ lives depend, whether that is our banking systems, road and rail networks, or electricity grid. As the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Secretary of State have said, we face a society-wide threat, and we must prepare and respond with a society-wide effort. Will the Secretary of State say more about what he is doing with Cabinet colleagues to protect our critical national infrastructure, and will he advise my constituents on what they can do to play their part in keeping us all safe?
In the last few days, Ukraine’s satellite intelligence has been badly disrupted. Nobody’s defence should be dependent on someone else’s decision on whether to provide that support. What can the Secretary of State and the Government do to ensure that our defence intelligence is kept secure and sovereign?
The issue that we are discussing today goes back decades, and we in this place still have unfinished business to deal with. Today is an attempt, although not a perfect one by any means, to do our duty. It reminds us of our duty of care to the people of the whole of this country—in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and elsewhere—who have been so badly affected, so traumatised, with lives lost, as a result of what is euphemistically called “the troubles”. Today I have listened to harrowing accounts from Members of what they have experienced themselves or have heard from others. We, as Members of this place, have a duty to speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves—those who are no longer with us because they were killed in the so-called troubles, and those who are no longer with us because they never lived to see the truth of, or justice for, what happened to their loved ones. Today we are once again trying to right some of those wrongs of the past, but let us be clear about the fact that we cannot turn back the clock. We cannot bring those lives back. So what can we do? What we can do is ensure, or try our best to ensure, that people who have suffered in all their different ways can, if not get closure—we have heard about that again today—at least find out more about what happened to those they lost. During the debate it has been said a number of times that we should not have this dichotomy between victims and those who were sent by our Government to try to keep the peace—because that is what it was to start with: an attempt to keep the peace, not to fight and win a war, because nobody won out of those troubles. The end of those troubles began, apparently, in 1998 with the Good Friday agreement, but the violence went on, did it not? Since then, successive Governments have tried to bring about some form of justice, some way of bringing back the truth about the people who suffered in that violence, and time and again, that has not happened. I wish to God that, as a Member of Parliament elected only two years ago, I did not have to deal with this, but I know that, actually, I do have to deal with it. We all have to deal with it. I cannot speak for all the victims, but we have heard much about them today. I want to focus on a group of my constituents who have come to me and asked for answers and reassurance. They are a group of local veterans who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. They were not trustful, because they saw an attempt to take away their protections under the legacy Act and thought that we in this place were going to leave them exposed. I said, “Let’s sit down and talk. Let’s find out about this.” I can tell Members that when we sat down, it was a very tense environment. I thought, “I’d better not talk now. I’d better just listen.” I listened to them go through, one by one, what had happened to them when they were serving for Her late Majesty in Northern Ireland. Each had their own traumatic experiences, and a couple were in tears. One said to me, “Will this ever end? I still live this trauma, and I don’t see how you or this Government are going to protect me.” I gave them my word that I would take their concerns to the Government. We went through their concerns, and we summed them up in just two points. They were not saying, as has been said before, that we should not talk about the past or that we should just brush it under the carpet and repress it. They wanted to know that if and when anyone asks them, “What were you doing there?”, they will not be judged guilty from the start but will be protected. The veterans were scared of receiving a letter from a commissioner, a lawyer or whoever, and one said, “Will the MOD not protect me?” I took that question on board. Another said, “What happens if I do have to give evidence or get involved in proceedings that I don’t understand? Will the Government be there to give me the support that I need?” I took those points away, and I know that the Government have been listening to many individuals, groups and Members of this place since then. I am pleased to see that there is progress on that. I am particularly pleased that we will not be cold-calling veterans, who still need support. I have said that I will give them that support, and after our debate in this place, I will go and meet them again. I will listen to them again and say, “Does that give you reassurance?” If it does not, I am pleased—and I will say this to them—that it does not end here. We cannot ever draw a line under the troubles, and we must remember that. We will listen again, and I am pleased that that provision is included in the Bill. We have to carry on listening and learning from the people who suffered, the people who served and all the people we represent, who expect us to do the right thing. We should not talk about “traitors” or “betrayals”. We are trying to do the best we can, because we have not been able to do that for decades in this place. We have a chance again to make things a bit better, and some of the amendments that have been tabled do that. I will support the Government amendments later, but it does not stop here. I want to say to everyone listening, whether they are a victim, a veteran or otherwise affected, that we have a duty to carry on listening: we have a duty of care to you all.
Across Scotland, including in my constituency, innovative companies are helping to develop the UK’s space capabilities. Innovation in the sector, however, comes with considerable up-front costs, as new technologies require extensive research and development and rigorous testing to the point of destruction. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to support research and development, overcome these financial barriers and help businesses in the space sector to grow and thrive?
It gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate. On the whole, the debate has been wide-ranging, honest and balanced, recognising the complexity of this matter. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for his honest and personal account, which reminded us that everybody—regardless of our background and the roles we have played—reacts as a human being. Regardless of the circumstances we have lived in and come to this debate from, when we are scared, we can react differently at times. Nobody should be held to account for being scared. We have talked a lot about WAVE and the other victims groups. Many survivors and family support groups have given evidence and lobbied, whether in the past couple of weeks, over the past year in which we have been debating this Bill, or before that. They are people who come from very different perspectives, with very different backgrounds. However, all of those people have given their time and talked about their experiences, their trauma and their families’ trauma. They have said how they are trying not to pass that trauma on to the next generation, but the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren cannot help but experience what their families have lived through, because of everything that we carry with us. I thank them for every time that they have addressed us and every time that they spoke to those who came before us. I hope to God that they never have to come back to this place after this Bill is passed to do it again.
As Members will have seen, quite a lot of Members wish to speak in the debate, so please think of each other.
I tabled a dozen amendments. There is not time to go through any of those now; in the few minutes I have, let me briefly explain what those amendments were all about. I do not think anyone else in the Chamber was here in ’97 and ’98 when the Good Friday agreement discussions were taking place. It was an incredibly precarious and fragile time. People had to go out, convince different constituencies and give them confidence in the peace process. Mo Mowlam went and saw the prisoners, which was a huge breakthrough. They were prisoners on all sides—it was not sectarian. One of the constituencies we had to convince, as well as part of the Irish diaspora in this country, were the families of victims on all sides. We had to try to get them to have confidence that peace would deliver justice for them. To be frank, I do not believe that we can have peace without justice. I desperately want to support this legislation, but I am struggling. I am worried about the message that we are getting from victims. I do not know whether people have seen the letter from the Relatives for Justice that came in overnight. The debate has been dominated to a large extent by veterans. I understand that—we have veterans among us—but we need to take heed of the victims. Let me quote very briefly from the letter, which is from 200 families. It states: “We have listened with great concern and growing anger to the tone of recent discussions about how to resolve the legacy of the conflict. We have read government statements and press releases and followed debates in parliament and recent media interventions made on the legacy—our legacy. It is as if we don’t exist and the only ‘real victims’ are veterans.” I worry that, if we lose the confidence of the victims’ families, we lose the confidence in the overall process. The architecture that we designed was intended to give them confidence. One of the key elements of it was the independence of the legal system. In 2000, there was a report on the criminal justice processes and the recommendations that we installed in part of the agreement. It stated that “there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters.” It is also stated: “The functions of the Director” of Public Prosecutions “shall be exercised…independently of any other person”. The problem is that we are now undermining that architecture. We are giving power to the Attorney General to determine cases and, if necessary, even to introduce an element of immunity by refusing to allow cases to go forward; power to the Attorney General over the distribution of sensitive information; and power over appointments to the judicial panel. I welcome the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave with regard to the exercise of that power, but that exercise is then determined on the basis of a new expansion of the term “national security”. We are no longer talking about the threat to actual national security. We are talking about the “risk” to national security. That puts into people’s minds a concern that the breadth of the interpretation of national security can undermine the independence of decision making. We have even undermined our own legislation, which I believe we supported, in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, wherein decision making, for instance, about the issuing of warrants on national security grounds is at least determined by a test of whether it the warrants are necessary and proportionate. That test is not built into the Bill. The debate has been dominated by the issue of veterans. As someone said, 300,000 veterans served. Between 2010 and 2024, there have been 25 prosecutions. Six of them were of veterans, and there was only one conviction. Let us get this in context. Victims are standing to one side, thinking that they are not even being heard or listened to. The independent structure that we thought we supported during the peace process is now being undermined. We are on a dangerous edge here, and I hope that, as the Bill moves to the House of Lords, we can get some assurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that can restore confidence, not just for the victims and their families, but for some of us who were here during that very difficult and precarious period in which peace was secured.
T8. Last month, I visited Ukraine with colleagues from across the House. It was clear that Putin’s tactic of terrorising Ukrainian civilians is putting a huge strain on air defence, so I thank the Secretary of State and his Department for all we are doing on that front. We also saw the reckless damage done at Chernobyl, so I was pleased to see last week’s announcement of support for repairs there. Could the Secretary of State update the House on the timeline for that project, and the importance of securing that really sensitive site?
I am once again championing the brilliant Valour bid from Veterans Contact Point in my constituency. We have the backing of 10 cross-party MPs in the region, which highlights the strength of feeling and our dedication to our armed forces. More than 2,500 veterans are set to benefit from locally delivered community support, and I am proud to mention that VCP is rolling out its female veterans transformation programme alongside that. Will the Minister please update us on how quickly we can start work to transform the lives of our veterans in Nuneaton and across the wider region?
2. What steps he is taking to help improve skills in the defence workforce.
I recently opened the new cyber-competence centre at Bournemouth University, which provides courses in cyber-defence intelligence and autonomous systems in partnership with industry. The centre is creating a vital pipeline of talent to keep our nation safe and ensure economic resilience. Will the Secretary of State tell us how we can encourage more partnerships between industry and our higher and further education institutions to ensure that this pipeline of talent continues and we keep the nation safe with those skills?
T7. How food reaches us is important, and 40% of British food is imported, almost all of it by sea. The combined value of British imports and exports by sea is around £1 trillion. During a crisis, it will be the role of the Royal Navy to protect that essential trade and ensure that imports reach Britain. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Royal Navy is ready for that role, should we need it?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the Travellers’ Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026 (SI, 2026, No. 981). It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The purpose of the order is straightforward: it updates the way alcoholic products are grouped within the duty-free allowances available to travellers entering the UK from the rest of the world. The changes make the system simpler, clearer and more consistent with the alcohol duty reforms introduced in 2023. The order makes four principal changes. First, cider moves into the same allowance category as beer. That means that cider now forms part of the 42-litre beer allowance instead of the separate nine-litre allowance for drinks of up to 22% alcohol by volume. Secondly, the existing still wine category is replaced by a single wine category covering both still and sparkling wine. Sparkling wine now forms part of the 18-litre wine allowance rather than the separate nine-litre category for drinks of up 22% alcohol by volume. Thirdly, the order updates the terminology used in the 1994 order by replacing references to “alcoholic beverages” with “alcoholic products”, in line with the Finance (No.2) Act 2023. Finally, where travellers exceed their duty-free allowance, simplified rates of duty may apply up to specified thresholds before standard rates of duty apply. The order raises the simplified rate threshold for still and sparkling cider from 20 litres to 110 litres, bringing it in line with beer. The thresholds for other alcohol products are unchanged. Travellers will not need to do anything differently when using the allowances, but the revised categories change the combinations of products that can be brought into the UK duty-free. The changes were announced at the 2025 Budget and follow a review of travellers’ allowances after our exit from the European Union. That review identified areas where the structure could be simplified and similar alcoholic products could be treated more consistently. Individuals travelling to Northern Ireland from the EU continue to operate under separate arrangements that were retained following the exit from the EU. The measure is not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impact. Its administrative impact on businesses is expected to be negligible, although some businesses may update guidance or customer-facing material. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs systems and guidance have been updated to reflect the new categories and thresholds. The order took effect from 1 October 2026. I commend it to the Committee.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the support of the official Opposition for this measure, and acknowledge the long-standing conversations that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne and I have had on different sides of the aisle along Committee corridor. The order delivers a targeted simplification of the travellers’ allowances rules. It aligns the treatment of cider with beer, brings still and sparkling wine into a single wine category, updates the statutory terminology and aligns the simplified rate threshold for cider with that of beer. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, asked how many people would be affected and which ports would be impacted. This is a change to the overall way in which the duty system works. Although individual travellers will not need to do anything differently when using the allowance, the revised categories will have changed the combinations that can be brought into the UK duty-free. The existing 42-litre beer allowance remains unchanged, but cider is now included in that allowance. Likewise, still and sparkling wine now share a single 18-litre wine allowance. The purpose of the changes was not to alter the way that individual travellers interact with HMRC, but to provide clearer and more consistent frameworks for the combinations of alcohol products that people may bring into the UK. The Government recognise that the changes have affected travellers differently. Some travellers are now able to bring back more of certain products duty-free, while those who previously maximised allowances across separate categories may be able to bring back less of those products in total. However, the overall duty-free allowance remains the same. The revised approach therefore offers greater consistency between similar products, and better reflects the reformed alcohol duty system.
The overall volume of alcohol that individual travellers are allowed to bring back remains the same; it is the categories that different alcohol products fall into that is changing. Where people have previously maximised allowances across separate categories, they may be able to bring back less of those products in total. Overall, individual travellers still have access to the same total volume of products, but spread across different categories that are grouped in slightly different ways. As I said, it offers greater consistency between similar products. I mentioned that beer and cider and still and sparkling wine are grouped together in specific categories of the allowance, which better reflects the reformed alcohol duty system. The shadow Minister asked about the impact on different ports and businesses. I can reassure him that the measure is expected to have no significant macroeconomic impact and only a negligible administrative impact on businesses, but HMRC will, of course, monitor the change through routine data collection and engagement with stakeholders. I commend the order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
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.
I have made it abundantly clear that I will not relitigate the Sentencing Act.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important Adjournment debate. Does he agree that it is shameful that the Glasgow School of Art has been left in this state, leaving a cultural void in Glasgow’s architectural heritage, and that innovative solutions should be explored to right this wrong?
What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that the people involved in the Hillsborough campaign, the contaminated blood campaign and the many campaigns that have highlighted state cover-ups in this country should just give up because of the passage of time.
As we debate this Bill, we must never lose sight of the families whose decades-long fight for truth and justice has brought us here: mothers who have waited 50 years to understand why their children were killed; siblings told to move on; widows denied information about their husbands’ deaths; and children who grew up without a parent and still await answers. For many, the question is not simply whether the state failed to protect their loved ones but whether parts of it were involved in, enabled or concealed what happened. Allegations of state collusion have hung over these cases for decades. Families have been left wondering whether the institutions they turned to for answers were themselves implicated. They were promised that this legislation would begin to repair the damage caused by the legacy Act, but that promise will ring hollow if the state continues to control how much families are allowed to know. The Government published substantial amendments shortly before the Committee stage. These significant changes will have serious consequences for bereaved families, yet Members have had too little time to scrutinise them properly. One concern is the proposed requirement for consent before prosecutions for the most serious troubles-related offences can proceed. In Northern Ireland, that consent would rest with the Advocate General, a role held by the Attorney General for England and Wales. The independent Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland already applies tests of evidence and public interest. Under this proposal, even where those tests were met, a Government Law Officer could withhold consent. I agree with Amnesty International UK that Ministers must explain why this additional power is necessary and how it will command families’ confidence. Where the state itself is under investigation, including allegations of collusion, concealment or misuse of public power, families will understandably question why a Government member should have the final say. Whatever the Government’s intentions, the risk of further undermining confidence is clear. We must also remember the Dillon litigation. The courts in Northern Ireland found the legacy Act’s immunity provisions incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. Those declarations were not appealed and remain in force. The Government must ensure that this legislation delivers meaningful accountability and respects their human rights obligations. The protections underpinning the Good Friday agreement must be upheld. As a Labour Government, we have a particular responsibility to protect that achievement and never, ever undermine it. Nor do the concerns end with prosecutions. Families have raised questions about the Secretary of State’s control over sensitive information, restriction notices that may exclude them from proceedings and the independence of appointments to the judicial panel. These are fundamental issues: who controls the evidence, who can see it, and whether families can trust the process. They are especially pressing where families believe that state agencies failed to act, withheld information or colluded with those responsible for violence. The state cannot determine for itself which evidence matters, how much is disclosed or how much truth families may hear. That is why I have tabled new clause 56. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the duty of candour and assistance created by the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, known as the Hillsborough law, to inquisitorial proceedings under part 4 of this Bill. Those regulations would require approval by both Houses. The principle is straightforward: public authorities and officials must be legally required to assist proceedings established to discover what happened. They must be open and honest, provide relevant evidence and actively help to establish the facts.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I look forward to working with him and the Department to ensure that what comes out in the House of Lords is the Hillsborough law, that it does exactly what we wanted and that it applies to Northern Ireland, because families should never, ever depend on the goodwill of institutions whose conduct is being examined, or face a lesser standard of candour because their case is before the legacy commission rather than a coroner. Amnesty International UK has highlighted the importance of disclosure, transparency and accountability in legacy cases. The Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutiny report on this Bill recommends that the Hillsborough law duty of candour must apply equally to revived coroners’ inquests and proceedings conducted by the legacy commission. New clause 56 would apply these principles directly to these proceedings, and I thank the Secretary of State for his words. An investigation can establish the truth only if evidence is brought forward. If public bodies withhold information, provide incomplete accounts or protect themselves, families are forced to fight the same battles again and again. That is how allegations of collusion remain unresolved, suspicion becomes distrust and justice is denied for generations. We should do everything possible to prevent that. As a survivor of Hillsborough, I know the damage caused when the state closes ranks against the people it has failed. Ninety-seven people were unlawfully killed. Their families and survivors endured decades of lies, smears and cover-up. The consequences continue today. Families should never have to fight to establish why their loved ones died. Survivors should never have to defend themselves against lies. Public authorities have a duty to tell the truth and assist in establishing it. Instead, those same institutions protected themselves. Evidence was withheld, and the truth obstructed. That experience is why we fought for, and fight for, the Hillsborough law to require public bodies and officials to be honest, to disclose evidence and to assist the search for truth, not block it.
That is a very poor point. Of course they matter, but lots of people are speaking out for veterans tonight. I wanted to give the families the voice and give my experience in fighting the state for truth, justice and accountability, so that is what I focused on tonight. Lots of people have rightly spoken about veterans with great expertise and, of course, I have met veterans in my community and sat down with them, and I have friends who are veterans. It was a pretty poor point that the hon. Member just made.
Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the amendments that he has tabled. Notwithstanding what we have just heard, I think that they show beyond doubt that the Government have listened to the points made by many Members, veterans and others. They have been carefully thought out. They are balanced, reasonable and fair. They maintain the principle that everyone is equal before the law. Amendment 47, tabled by Opposition Members, would not ensure that, because it singles out one group for special treatment. The Government amendments recognise the special circumstances in which all those who served with such distinction in Operation Banner found themselves, and in my view, those amendments will enable the House to send the Bill to the other place with confidence. The Bill, and the amendments, are needed for two principal reasons: first, because of the manifest failings of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023; and secondly because we need a system that can command confidence and provide help for all those people who are still searching for answers after all these years. That is what this is about—how their loved ones died, and at whose hands. I say “all those people”, because if I have a cause for regret, it is that it strikes me, when I reflect on the debate on the Bill in the House over the last year and a bit, that much of it has focused on just some of the people who were involved. Veterans are hugely important—many of them were killed, and many of their families are looking for answers on how and at whose hands their loved ones died—but if we are honest, we must recognise that we have failed collectively, as a House, to reflect the hurt, pain and suffering of the vast majority of families who lost loved ones during the troubles, and that is what I want to focus on in my brief remarks. Some conversations and stories that we hear as Members of Parliament never leave us. Some remain with us and are imprinted on our very soul. I can think of many that I have had in Northern Ireland, including the first time I went to WAVE, a wonderful organisation that supports so many people affected by the troubles. I had a meeting in Newry with Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, which was found by an inquest—I shall return to this point—to have been carried out by the IRA; Eugene Reavey, whose three brothers were shot on the same day by the Ulster Volunteer Force and all died; and Michael O’Hare, whose 12-year-old sister Majella was shot and killed by a soldier while on her way to mass. I remember standing in the bleakness of Bragan bog, to which reference was made earlier, with Columba McVeigh’s family as the search teams continued patiently to scrape, bit by bit, the surface of the black and grey earth, trying to find his last resting place. He was 19 years of age when he was kidnapped and murdered by the IRA. I remember the family of Private Tony Harrison, who was shot dead by the IRA on his fiancée’s sofa in her home in Belfast, and so many others. I am not alone; many Members of this House have heard such stories. Too many times, I have heard people say that somebody came from the police and said, “Don’t worry; we will leave no stone unturned to find out what happened,” but they never heard another word. I think all of us understand that, at the height of the troubles, the number of killings was so great, and the circumstances in which investigation would need to have been carried out were so challenging—indeed, in some places, downright dangerous—that it was difficult for that work to be done. That is why it is so important that we now have a mechanism that allows such work to be completed, and in which all families in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom can have confidence. I have criticised the 2023 Act many times in exchanges. Much of it failed to command support from any of the political parties in Northern Ireland, or from victims and survivors. We should not forget that the legacy commission, which the Act established, has the power to undertake criminal investigations as well as fact finding. People listening to debates that we have had about this Bill might think that it introduces a new thing called criminal investigation, but it does not; that was provided for in the Act. However, the Act did establish the legacy commission. When the report on the murder of Rory O’Kelly came out, I think it proved what the commission is there to do. For me, most important of all was the reaction of his family. Even though they could not name who was responsible for the killing, his daughter said that when they heard the details of what happened, it moved the family into “a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away.” It has always been the case that the success or failure of the commission rests in the hands of the families who go to it, and on the judgment that they pass when the commission comes back with answers, in so far as it is possible to find them. I would say this about inquests, which we will debate in detail tomorrow. I have heard some people make the criticism that they achieve nothing. I disagree profoundly, even though the inquests will now come to an end. Eight had started—and in my view, it was profoundly wrong to cut off an inquest that a family had seen begin—and the Solicitor General will deal with the remaining ones. I was puzzled when I became the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because I had grown up thinking that, if there is a suspicious death, there is an inquest, but I found that there were many cases in which there had been no inquest at all for over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. We only have to look at the impact on the family of the recent Springhill inquest, its findings and the apology that the former Prime Minister made from the Dispatch Box to see what it meant to the family, who had been waiting for 54 years to hear that their loved ones who had been killed, including children, had presented no threat to anyone.
The hon. Member—my hon. Friend, if I might call him that—makes a very powerful point. Every family deserves, in so far as it is possible, to find an answer to how and at whose hands their loved ones died. We are debating all these amendments in order to create a means of finding those answers—a means that people can have confidence in; that was the point on which the previous legislation failed.
I want to finish, because many Members wish to speak. This is unquestionably the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement. Those who signed that extraordinary document knew that this issue had to be dealt with, and knew that it could not be done at the time. However, it is 12 years since the Stormont House agreement, and people think, “Right, we might be moving forward now.” Everyone is getting older, and sadly people are dying. The trauma is being passed from generation to generation. Is the legislation perfect? Of course it is not, but if we wait for the perfect, we will never do this. Now is the time to take forward this legislation, so that the families who still wait patiently for answers, after all these years, finally have the chance to find them.