Natalie Fleet MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Domestic Abuse and Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for raising this vital issue, and for her continued advocacy for victims and survivors of domestic abuse everywhere. There are parts of this job that I find really difficult, and I know that my hon. Friend shares that. And then there are parts of being here, in this Chamber and on these Benches, that are the most incredible privilege. As I sit here, as a Minister, to be able to hear your testimony as a survivor—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Domestic Abuse and Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the most incredible privilege to be here in this Chamber to hear how my hon. Friend triumphed against the most horrendous abuse and to see her surrounded by her colleagues in the most supportive way possible. That feels like a real privilege, and I am very grateful to have been here for that moment. My hon. Friend championed the importance of a whole system approach to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls more broadly. I also know how hard it is to come forward and share experiences of abuse. I am proud to use my platform to shine a light on the challenges many victims and survivors face, and I know that so many will have been listening to my hon. Friend’s account this evening and will take strength from it. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that tackling VAWG is a top priority for this Government. We have made it a mission to halve these crimes in a decade. Domestic abuse and violence against women and girls are the source of untold harm. The abuse can remain hidden, regardless of a person’s lifestyle, their social circles and their profession, including people in public life. It is something that affects every single part of society, and too often it is still hidden and accepted as part of everyday life. That is why this debate is so important, and I am so grateful for my hon. Friend’s testimony and campaigning on this issue. Her bravery and honesty, and that of other survivors, is crucial. Only by listening to those who have first-hand experience can we continue to champion and advocate for victims of these crimes. The Government have been clear that things must change. Our violence against women and girls strategy is driving that change by strengthening early intervention, pursuing perpetrators at every turn, and giving victims the best possible support. It is about not just responding to harms after they happen but focusing on stopping them in the first place. We are taking clear steps to challenge attitudes, norms and behaviours that allow abuse to continue. Through the updated relationship and sexual health education curriculum, we are giving our children the tools to spot and challenge unhealthy relationship dynamics. We are delivering “Enough”, our behaviour change campaign, to help young men and boys reflect on and question harmful behaviours that have absolutely become normalised. By raising awareness across our society, spotting those early signs, and teaching everyone to challenge those behaviours, I hope that we continue to reduce the shame and stigma that stop people seeking help early. We are taking a victim-centred approach to tackling violence against women and girls by investing £550 million to pay for counselling, court guidance and children’s services to support victims. In the Home Office, I am proud that this month we launched a £24 million competition for helpline and advocacy services. Those specialist helplines are for minority groups and will help victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence, honour-based abuse, intimate image abuse, and stalking. We have worked hard to secure multi-year funding that will give our services more certainty and reassurance. If we are going to make real change in tackling VAWG, however, we need to transform how we work across the public sector and services. We need a whole-of-Government and a whole-of-society approach, so victims can access housing, health, justice and the support they need. We have established the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection, so that victims receive a consistent VAWG response across our forces. Our strategy focuses on pursuing perpetrators, holding them accountable for their crimes, and managing them, wherever they are, to prevent further harm. An example of that is our domestic abuse protection orders, which bring together the strongest elements of protection orders into a single flexible order. That means that they can impose behaviour change programmes on perpetrators. The pilot has seen more victims protected and perpetrators held to account, with prison sentences able to be handed down where breaches occur. We are rolling out DAPOs across England and Wales as soon as we can, so that more victims can benefit from the impact it is having in pilot areas. Though we are taking active steps to combat all forms of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, there is so much more to do. My hon. Friend raised post-separation abuse. I found out today about the interventions that have been made in this area—it blew my mind that they were not always a thing. But they were not. Too often, abuse continues after a relationship has ended. That is why, in our changes to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, we extended the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour to former intimate partners. We have also removed the requirement for the victim and perpetrator to live together, to reflect that this can happen once the ex-partner has left the property. As technology advances, it amplifies the scale, severity and reach of abuse. That is why the VAWG strategy includes ambitious commitments to tackle online and technology-facilitated harm. We are already taking decisive action to protect all of us online. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced measures to ban nudification apps, and requires platforms to remove non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours. On 8 June, the Prime Minister announced that Britain will be the first country to prevent children from taking, sharing and viewing nude images on their devices. My hon. Friend mentioned how difficult it is for people like her to hold public office because of the challenges she has faced. Our democracy is richer with Members like her in this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Democracies across the world need women and survivors within them. In fact, public office should be open to everyone, regardless of background. All our democracies are better for it. Again, I thank her for her campaigning in this area. My hon. Friend mentioned our sister Jo Cox and her legacy more than once. The work taking place in this space to ensure that we support each other to be here is absolutely vital. The Government absolutely recognise that MPs face abuse and intimidation, and that they have a disproportionate impact on minority groups in politics, including women and those from minority ethnic backgrounds. Through the defending democracy taskforce, we are working with policing and electoral partners to ensure that candidates and elected officials are safe while campaigning and when in office. The taskforce is driving a whole-of-Government approach to tackle abuse targeted at elected officials and has taken steps to make it safer to stand for and be elected to public office. We continue to review and develop our approach, working with partners across law enforcement, Parliament and the third sector to identify and address any gaps in our response. On vexatious civil court proceedings, the Government are absolutely committed to preventing courts from being used as tools of abuse by perpetrators. We recognise the damage that vexatious litigation has on individuals. In England and Wales, the courts have several mechanisms to protect individuals from being subjected to repeated meritless or abusive litigation. Most commonly, a party can seek a civil restraint order, which restricts a person from making further applications or issuing claims without the court’s permission where those applications have been found totally without merit. CROs can range from limited orders, which apply only to current proceedings, to extended or general orders to prevent wider use of the court system without prior approval. In more extreme cases of persistent abuse, the High Court may declare an individual a vexatious litigant under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. If this happens, the individual must obtain permission before bringing forward any new proceedings. Along with those measures, courts must also strike out baseless claims and impose cost sanctions. In certain circumstances, where litigation forms part of a pattern of harassment, injunctive relief may be available. Together, these remedies help to ensure that individuals are protected from repeated unfounded claims while preserving the integrity of the justice system. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I have refrained from commenting on any individual case, but I will say that listening to the personal accounts in this debate has been an incredibly moving experience. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not just the powerful and thought-provoking contribution we heard tonight, but the contributions she continues to make across the House. I have heard her. As I hope has been clear from my response, the Government’s commitment to tackle domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is total. We have taken important steps forward, especially with our VAWG strategy to improve criminal justice outcomes, restore trust in policing and ensure that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is everyone’s problem. However, we all know that there is more to do. Across Government, Parliament, policing and beyond, we all must now step up our efforts to prevent abuse and protect the vulnerable as we work towards halving VAWG in a decade. I have been able to set out the measures that the Government are taking and where there is more that we can do, but I cannot overstate how powerful it is for survivors everywhere to see a survivor raising this issue here, surrounded by a group of her peers who support her without question. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution tonight. Question put and agreed to.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The VAWG strategy and the financial inclusion strategy set out ambitious commitments to tackle financial abuse. The Government are determined to embed the prevention of violence against women and girls across all Departments. Our VAWG strategy and the financial inclusion strategy are committed to exploring how we can make it harder for abusers to use joint financial products, including joint mortgages, as a tool of abuse, and how to better support victim survivors. Last week the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I hosted a roundtable with 16 banks and financial service organisations to underscore Government priorities, share best practice in the financial services sector, and agree how we can work together to deliver commitments in the VAWG strategy and the financial inclusion strategy.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I can absolutely confirm how close this issue is to my heart. Within the boundaries of operational independence, the Home Office is regularly engaging, and rightly so, with the Metropolitan police. Those women absolutely deserve justice, and I will do everything within my power to make sure that they get it.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Women and girls must feel and be safe everywhere, which is why we have provided funding for police to trial and evaluate Project Vigilant, where plain-clothed officers are deployed within the night-time economy to identify and de-escalate behaviours known to precede sexual offending. We are providing £13.9 million to improve the policing response to violence against women and girls nationally. New legislation means that someone causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress because of a person’s sex can now face up to two years in prison.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Mohamed al-Fayed: Alleged Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her work on the APPG and the vital work she is carrying out in supporting these women. Where there is evidence of criminal activity, it is the police’s duty to investigate, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics. My job and the role of the Government are to support the police to ensure that justice is delivered as swiftly as possible, and I am absolutely committed to that.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Mohamed al-Fayed: Alleged Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  It was an honour to be by the side of the Prime Minister when he met Fayed victim-survivors last week. I was proud that one of my first acts in post was to help facilitate the first meeting of this kind with these brave women. No one is above the law, and those who perpetrate or facilitate abuse must be held to account. I will continue to engage with my hon. Friend’s all-party parliamentary group so that victim-survivors know that this Government are listening.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Mohamed al-Fayed: Alleged Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing with the APPG. As the Prime Minister made clear, the Government are committed to engaging with the Fayed victim-survivors and ensuring that their concerns are addressed. I will shortly be in contact with them to follow up on the meeting last week, and we will set out the form that that engagement we take. We will absolutely ensure that this is the start of a process, not the end. These women absolutely need to be heard.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  It absolutely is, and I will come on to that.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this most important issue. I am also grateful to all Members who have contributed with such passion, sensitivity and care for the victims—those brave women—who are with us today, as well as those who are not. At the heart of this debate has been the theme that when women and girls come forward, we must absolutely believe them, and I thank hon. Members for that. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who provided a clear and balanced account of the petition’s main arguments. I also thank the petitioners for the role that they have played in bringing us together—including the 598 signatories from Bolsover—and in allowing us to have this cross-party debate with so much consensus. This is my first opportunity to respond to a debate as Minister for Safeguarding, and it is absolutely one of the most important issues that we face as a Parliament. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), for her tireless work in supporting victims of these heinous crimes. The grooming gangs scandal is one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history. Every time I meet one of the survivors, I hear the same story. Not only were the girls abused by these predators, but they were ignored, belittled and even blamed. Too many endured years of being told that the crimes against them did not matter, and therefore, they did not matter either. And now, as women seeking truth and justice, there are still those who seek to exploit them with lies and misinformation, spread daily by people claiming to represent the victims’ best interests. We keep seeing too many people who are not interested in victims, but only in themselves. Their lies do nothing but undermine the hard work happening to uncover the answers that survivors have long searched for. I am so proud to be a Minister in the Government who are fighting to get and deliver those answers. My policy responsibilities are broad, but they are connected by a single, sacred thread: the state’s responsibility to keep the most vulnerable in our society safe. There has been a lot of talk about data and evidence, and I will come to that shortly, but first, I will say a word for the victims and survivors of all the different types of abuse that we have been talking about. The testimony that we have heard has been absolutely horrendous, and I thank every Member who has brought it and every victim and survivor who has shared it. We will never forget the terrible suffering that you have endured. That is why I will be part of a team and a Government who will strive relentlessly to prevent others from going through what you have. That will be my focus every single day in this role as we drive forward the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. To meet that goal, we must tackle all forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation while taking every possible step to protect children from harm. Let me turn to the crux of this debate and the specific points that have been raised. As Members are aware—this has been mentioned often—in February 2025, the Prime Minister and the then Home Secretary commissioned Baroness Louise Casey of Blackstock to evaluate the scale, nature and drivers of group-based sexual exploitation and abuse. The Government immediately accepted the 12 recommendations from Baroness Casey’s audit. That included making it a requirement for police to collect the ethnicity and nationality data of individuals suspected of being members of grooming gangs or perpetrators of other group-based sexual exploitation.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  This is something that we can absolutely agree on: where an offence is committed, the perpetrator should face the full force of the law. On victims not wanting to be called “brave” and on politicians being called “brave” when they speak out—I am sure the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills has experienced that—no victim wants to be called brave. Instead, we want justice, and to see a Government and a Parliament that act. That is what we are getting to today. There has been much talk about transparency. Let me state again firmly that we recognise the need to expose the worst examples of human behaviour to the sharp glare of scrutiny. In our mission to protect children and vulnerable people from harm, we will never shy away from the truth, regardless of what is found. We will work to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice, and that victims and survivors receive the support that they absolutely deserve so that no child is overlooked, no warning signs are ignored and every child is better protected in every community in the future. Ultimately, this issue is about trust: trust that the system will act, that the victims will be heard and that these injustices will never be allowed to happen again.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I absolutely will come to that as part of this speech. Let me assert once more the Government’s unwavering commitment to delivering all the recommendations set out in Baroness Casey’s national audit, which exposed more than a decade of institutional failure. This was, without question, one of the darkest episodes in our country’s history, and every part of the state bears a responsibility to ensure that this is never repeated. Baroness Casey was rightly clear that the collection of suspect ethnicity data in grooming gang cases is poor. We agree and we are acting. That is why in July last year, the then Home Secretary wrote to all chief constables setting out the expectation that ethnicity data should be collected from all suspects in child sexual exploitation cases, and to urge them to make sure that they are fulfilling that obligation. We continue to work with policing colleagues to improve data collection and analysis. But incredibly importantly, we are legislating to give the Home Secretary the power to mandate the collection of ethnicity data by police officers. The police reform White Paper, published in January, set out our intention to put data standards for policing, including in this area, on a statutory footing. I say clearly to all those who signed the petition: the Government will legislate to ensure that we fix this issue. Baroness Casey was clear that given the evidence available in some local areas, we need better ethnicity and nationality data at a national level to strengthen understanding and accountability. We will follow that evidence without fear or favour, and we will not let cultural sensitivities stand in our way. The Home Secretary said it best last December: “We must root out this evil, once and for all. The sickening acts of a minority of evil men, as well as those in positions of authority who looked the other way, must not be allowed to marginalise or demonise entire communities of law-abiding citizens.” —[ Official Report , 9 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 179.] Members will be aware that the Government set up the independent inquiry into grooming gangs earlier this year. I am proud to be part of a Government who are delivering on this incredibly important work to uncover the truth. The inquiry has begun its crucial work to give survivors of these horrific crimes long-awaited answers. It will have a laser focus on grooming gangs, including the role that ethnicity, religion and culture played in these terrible crimes. It has a budget of £65 million, and the chair has confirmed that the funding is sufficient to deliver the inquiry. The inquiry has been designed to be time-limited for three years. That is long enough to go deep into where it matters the most, with a definitive end date to get the answers that victims and survivors need. Separately, the Government are also making sure that everything we do is underpinned by evidence. I welcome Members sending me any additional research and information they have in this area. If the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), could send me that it would be fantastic.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  I give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan).

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you. We will look at research, including on the role that ethnicity, culture and religion play in group-based offending so that our response can lead to lasting, systemic change that everybody in this House, including the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), is right to call for today.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely right that it is an independent inquiry, and it is not for me to decide where the local investigations will be. The hon. Member will find out shortly whether his area will be included. Before wrapping up, I will make some further general points. First, I reiterate that we are working closely with police forces to strengthen how suspect ethnicity data is collected, to identify gaps and to drive improvement so that our evidence base is clearer, more consistent and better supports action. We are strengthening how safeguarding agencies and key institutions work together to identify, disrupt and prosecute group-based child sexual exploitation. That includes bringing together police, local authorities, children’s services, schools and health partners to share intelligence, spot patterns and act faster. We are also reinforcing our expectation that all agencies play their full part so that the national police response and the statutory inquiry draw on the fullest possible evidence and are supported by a co-ordinated, intelligence-led system that leaves no gaps for offenders to exploit. Regarding the questions raised by the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), we have committed to legislate through the police reform Bill. Measures for tracking and enforcement will be introduced as part of that process. On rape gang inquiries, I again want to pay tribute to victims and survivors who have shared their experiences. I recognise how difficult and how personal that is. Their courage in speaking out is absolutely extraordinary and these issues cannot and will not be ignored. The independent inquiry into grooming gangs is an official statutory inquiry established under the Inquiries Act 2005. The inquiry has a clear mandate to uncover the truth and to deliver justice for victims and survivors. I want to be clear that if the rape gang inquiry encounters any evidence of criminal conduct as part of its work, that evidence should be passed on to law enforcement. I welcome the previous commitment of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth to work constructively with the statutory inquiry. I again thank the petitioners and all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. There is no doubt that this is an important subject. It is right that we expose it to the full scrutiny of Parliament. Like my predecessor as Minister, I will not shy away from having tough conversations. We have had them in this debate, and we will no doubt have more. I welcome them all. I have always been guided by an unshakeable belief that the protection of the most vulnerable in our society, especially of children, is one of the state’s most vital responsibilities. Where that duty has not been upheld, the consequences are devastating. This Government are taking action to ensure that the failings of the past are never repeated.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  It also made sense to wait until a draft term of reference, setting out the scope of the inquiry, was developed and published in December ’25. At that point, the chair of the inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, and the Home Office wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council and Home Office-sponsored arm’s length bodies in January 2026 to emphasise the importance of retaining documents. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also raised the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. The Government have set out a clear plan for how we will deliver against the IICSA recommendations. That includes reforms to the Disclosure and Barring Service, a new mandatory reporting duty, a removal of the limitation period for child sexual abuse civil claims, establishing a new child protection authority, and rolling out the child house model across England to improve support for victims and survivors, with £50 million additional funding. Where we have been able to move quickly, we have. However, many of the recommendations require systemic and legislative change. We are moving as quickly as due process allows, and we have recently introduced a tranche of measures in the Crime and Policing Act. Where we are not currently taking forward recommendations, we have been clear about the reasons for that. The hon. Member also made the case for including Bradford and Keighley in the independent inquiry. It is not for me to decide that, as set out at length to him by the chair of the inquiry on 19 May at the Home Affairs Committee. The inquiry will shortly set out its plans. On the funding of the inquiry, the chair has been clear that they are determined to deliver on time and budget, and that the inquiry believes that is achievable.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  We have all seen the impact of 14 years of cuts to services. There are lots of things that need improving, so I cannot speak specifically to that point. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), the inquiry will look at any current offending. As raised by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), from the moment the inquiry was announced in June 2025 organisations already had legal obligations to protect relevant information. A letter from the Government was not required to make that case.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I thank him even more for his apology about the appointment of Peter Madndelson. Speaking in the Chamber today, I want to once again commit to the record the words of Virginia Giuffre, which are particularly relevant to Peter Mandelson: “Don't be fooled by those in Epstein's circle who say they didn't know what Epstein was doing. Anyone who spent any significant amount of time with Epstein saw him touching girls in ways you wouldn’t want a creepy old man touching your daughter. They can say they didn’t know he was raping children. But they were not blind.” There is consensus among Members from across the House that we need to get to the bottom of this. I accept that the Prime Minister did not know about the security vetting, but can he update the House on when we can have the next tranche of documents from the Humble Address, so that we can get to the bottom of who did know what and when?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Reproductive Coercion · Hansard source

  More

  We have all heard the narrative—the one where the devious woman gets pregnant to trap the man: “She’s only after his money. She just wants to trap him.” That was what I heard on loop when I was impregnated as a child. If anyone questioned why he, an older man in a position of power, got a 15-year-old girl pregnant, I did not hear them. I have also never heard any woman saying, “He did this to trap me.” It is not something that we say or acknowledge, even when it is really clear that that is what is happening. That is why it is so important—in the public interest, even—that the story of Olivia Nervo is heard. Liv’s story exposes a form of domestic abuse that our legal system in the UK still struggles to recognise. Liv and her twin sister, Mim, are incredibly successful. They are Grammy-award-winning DJs who come from Australia, but they have made their home here when they are not touring the nightclubs of the world. Liv’s ex-partner is a very wealthy and prominent New Zealand businessman. They were in love and living their best lives, and they decided to start a family. He flew around the world to ensure that they were together when she was most fertile. They wanted a baby and were not leaving it to chance. Six months into what Liv believed was a planned pregnancy with the man she wanted to build a family with, she discovered that her partner, Matthew Pringle, had multiple parallel lives. Their fairytale was a sham. As well as being in a relationship with Liv, Pringle was involved in a relationship with another woman, with whom he already had a child. The other woman was also pregnant. There was another woman with whom Pringle was in a serious relationship. In fact, there were multiple women and children in deliberately created overlapping family structures, each woman without knowledge of the others. Pringle admitted that he had deceived Liv because he knew that she would leave if he told her the truth and he wanted a baby with her. He said that he would have considered telling her about the other women and children only after their child was born. Liv had no opportunity to give informed consent to the pregnancy, because she was lied to and deceived for years. His confession to her that he knew that she would leave is significant. It demonstrates that he understood that knowing the truth would have affected Liv’s decision to have a baby with him. That is reproductive coercion. It is about control over a woman’s body, her choices and her future. Pringle refused to confirm with Liv any details about his life when she confronted him. He has instead used the court and legal system to silence, intimidate and isolate her and their child. He used non-disclosure agreements, legal threats and the family court to keep Liv’s silence about him being the father of their child. She could not have any contact with his family without prior consent and she was forbidden to make any public reference to him. The restrictions were tied to a financial payment that could be withdrawn, and that she would have to repay, if she breached the terms. Every action that Pringle took was a power play. He continually demonstrated that their child’s welfare was of little importance to him. He did not even meet their daughter until she was four. He played games with the legal system without repercussions. His control over Liv’s life via the courts went on and on. During legal proceedings, Liv raised the ongoing pattern of Pringle’s manipulative, controlling behaviour, but she always felt that the courts treated her as the problem. His patterns of behaviour included concealing other children, or siblings, from the court and its professionals; promising involvement, but failing to attend more than half of court-ordered contact; refusing to sign passport paperwork, obstructing their child’s identity; failing to contribute to education costs despite claiming that he would; refusing to complete court-directed life-story work for his child; linking backdated child support to an estrangement contract and conditions of confidentiality for him; and finally withdrawing from proceedings at the eleventh hour, leaving Liv with overwhelming legal costs. His behaviour was all about having control over Liv’s life. It was always about power—it was never about parenthood.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Reproductive Coercion · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Reproductive Coercion · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Reproductive Coercion · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the identification and prosecution of reproductive coercion. We have all heard the narrative about the devious woman who gets pregnant to get what she wants: “She’s got pregnant to trap him. She’s after his money.” That was what I heard on loop from my community—

• 17 Mar 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Since coming into this role, I have heard from more victims than I ever thought I would in a lifetime. They tell me their stories, and I believe them and listen. What I do not ask them to do is report, because nobody wants to put anybody in a system that is so unsustainable, and re-traumatise them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the changes being presented and driven through by our Government will mean that a victim is more able to report, more likely to feel like they can get an outcome in a reasonable amount of time and less likely to feel that they are the ones on trial?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start by pointing out that in this debate, we have called more barristers to speak than we have called women. It would be wrong of us not to realise that we are the absolute epitome of the British establishment. I have never come across as many barristers in my life; before I came here, the only time I ever saw a barrister was when I was helping a loved one who faced trial. This is about the reality of the real world, but we are more likely to have victims watching on than we are to have victims on these Benches. The voices of victims have been lacking from this debate. We have heard about the Bar Council and we have heard lots of references to men, but Claire Waxman emailed every single MP and said, “I want you to listen to the victims—their voices, their stories and the realities of the waits that they endure.” We have a system in this country where you can rape somebody and get away with it. It happens every single day. For too long, society has told women that it is their fault that they have been raped and that nobody will believe them if they do report, so five out of six of them do not. And if they do go to trial, they will face years of re-traumatisation, which is why 60% drop out. You know what is worse than being raped? I can tell you from personal experience: facing years of waiting to see if people believe you. We all have a role to play in eradicating our rape culture, but today we see the state stepping up for victims. This is about making sure that they are supported and believed by our institutions, harnessing the nation’s sense of urgency to do more, and smashing the status quo by cutting the standard half-a-decade wait for justice. We know that if we do not invest and modernise our courts system, everything else is just tinkering around the edges. A young woman named Sienna came up to me last week and said, “Natalie, I just don’t get it, but you do. What is happening? This is just complete common sense to everybody I speak to and everybody at work—I am a police officer. I just don’t get it. Where is the catch? Why are people so angry?” So what I want to do now is talk the House through the arguments for the status quo to remain. We keep hearing that we need more money. We are having record investment—and—I’ll tell you what—it is not enough. Trials by jury are part of our history, but we have to adapt. When trials are taking twice as long as they did in the year 2000, we need to keep up. Judges alone cannot hear trials. We have already heard about district judges and the work that they do; we need a jury of peers. I want to point out that nobody questioned the legitimacy of the trial of Gisèle Pelicot, the bravest woman I look up to. I am not saying that we should abolish jury trials. What I am saying is that if we create capacity and protect juries for the most serious trials, I will do everything I can to get as many rapists as I can into those courts. Hon. Members will hear that this is a class issue—and, yes, it is. This is about victims versus the establishment, which we are hearing far too much from today. Instead of putting themselves in the place of the defendant and imagining how that would feel, I am asking Members to put themselves in the shoes of the victim, because a quarter of us women become one. Imagine if this was you. This is not about denying anybody justice; it is about enabling victims and innocent parties to have a more efficient path to getting that justice. Once again, courage calls to courage everywhere. I call on our Government to replicate the courage of victims and use it to get our justice system moving. Show that we can be bold disruptors, smashing the status quo, taking the difficult choices, taking on the arguments, delivering for victims across the land, who need leadership and decisive action, and rebalancing power between victims and perpetrators. I back these reforms not because I am made to, but because they are right—because I want my granddaughter to grow up in a world where women can be believed, get fast justice and move on with their lives. I tell the 200 women in this country who will be raped today: I am sorry that you will have to wait until 2030 for a trial, but today we are doing something about it, and I am so proud to walk through the Lobby on your behalf.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?