Westminster Hall

Thursday 21st May 2026 Westminster Hall

Thursday 21 May 2026

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship

Thursday 21st May 2026 Westminster Hall

10:29

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I want to flag at the beginning of this debate that I will be using a selection of words that big tech deems too sexual for its platforms. I hope everyone in this room can hold their composure and not get too flustered when I mention “sexual” terms such as vaginal atrophy and pelvic prolapse. To reassure the Chair, the precedent has already been set in the House for most of these terms. “Vagina” was first used in the House in 1961; “labia minora” in 1983; “orgasm” in 1974; “clitoris” in 1971; and “vulva” goes all the way back to the 1880s.

I must make a point about the historical use of the word “orgasm”. My team had a really interesting time searching Hansard for this debate. As they trawled through it, they found really interesting examples of “orgasm” being used, which I find quite entertaining. In 1978 the former Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch spoke passionately in favour of the creation of the Defence Select Committee, saying:

“I am firmly convinced that to discuss defence in the House in the traditional way is merely to give everyone the chance of an emotional orgasm.”—[Official Report, 3 April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 144.]

In 1982 the former Member for Grimsby spoke against the horrors of what would happen if cable television became the norm, warning that

“We shall finish up with wall-to-wall orgasm”

and

“constant pornography”.—[Official Report, 2 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 471.]

With the country totally fed up with politics, I find it refreshing to remember that we in this House have the ability to discuss with passion what most of the country would find very dull. For millions of women and girls today, social media is where they learn about things like menopause, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, fibroids, vaginismus, dysmenorrhoea, bacterial vaginosis—are we all managing to control ourselves hearing these terms?—and countless other aspects of women’s health. If social media had been prevalent when I was desperately trying to figure out why my periods hurt more than giving birth, I am sure I would have been able to advocate for myself with my GP and receive my adenomyosis diagnosis far earlier than I did.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important topic. She is very kind to give way. Does she agree with me that social media and the internet are great tools for people who suffer from unusual conditions or are a part of small communities? It is important that tech platforms do not penalise those communities by letting their algorithms stop those topics being discussed.

[Emily Darlington]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a really important point. It is so ingrained in us to go first to the internet to search for information. We have agreed ways to make sure health information is proper health information and that we are not getting bad science, but even when using the ticks that are supplied by various platforms, advice is still being shadow-banned. The online world is where women ask questions when they are often too embarrassed to ask elsewhere about period pain, discharge, lactation, or how to use a tampon safely.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

I speak as a recently departed member of the ministerial team that delivered the women’s health strategy and a former Minister responsible for digital health. Of course we must protect people from harmful content, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that at a time when medical misogyny is alive and thriving and women’s health outcomes are worse than men’s, we should think about how we can more responsibly leverage the algorithms to generate discussion, not silence it, about reproductive rights, cancer awareness, menstruation, menopause and everything else that she has mentioned?

[Emily Darlington]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I met some survivors of vulval cancer this morning. Even though they included a former midwife, a health advocate and other people who were well-informed, they told me about their struggle they experienced when advocating for themselves and to be taken seriously by their GP. They knew something was wrong with their vulvas, but they could not get through to their GP. Luckily, they all did; they are all doing well and have responded to their cancer treatment, but they might have been able to advocate effectively sooner had they been able to access more information than they found online. There are more women out there in exactly the same situation.

Words such as “tampon” are being suppressed by big tech platforms. “Shadow-banning” is the term for when users can still technically post but their visibility is secretly throttled. Their posts stop appearing in feeds, their reach collapses, their engagement disappears and their followers cannot find them. In the examples I have seen, the user is never clearly informed about it. That is censorship without accountability, which is harming education, charities and businesses, reinforcing stigma and, in some cases, putting women’s lives at risk. We need to call that what it is: algorithmic sexism.

Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has removed or restricted dozens of accounts belonging to abortion providers, women’s health campaigners and reproductive health organisations across the world. These takedowns began last October and have affected more than 50 organisations globally, some of which support tens of thousands of women. Repro Uncensored, a non-governmental organisation that tracks digital censorship focused on gender, health and justice, documented 210 instances of account removal and severe restriction this year, compared with 81 last year. That is not random moderation, it is escalation.

The Sex Talk Arabic, a UK-based Arabic-language sexual health platform, says it receives warnings from Meta almost weekly. The organisation’s former director, Fatma Ibrahim, said that Meta repeatedly informed it that posts about sexuality, reproductive health and sex education would not be recommended to others because they supposedly violated the platform’s rules. Then the warnings escalated, and Meta began to simply remove its posts.

Examining Meta’s community guidelines allows us to understand why these organisations are so alarmed. Meta says that it allows nudity for “educational”, “medical” and “awareness-raising content”, but that is clearly not what is happening in practice. Under its policies relating to “adult sexual activity”, which it supposedly bans outright, Meta includes “menstruation” alongside “dismemberment”, “cannibalism” and “bestiality”. Something that every woman does monthly—an involuntary biological process connected to the menstrual cycle that is experienced by billions of women—is grouped alongside acts of violence and abuse. What does that tell women about their bodies and how they are being understood by these systems?

This morning, I met representatives of the Eve Appeal, the UK’s leading gynaecological cancer charity, who handed me a letter that they wrote to Meta after attempts to reach it by other avenues failed. They told me that they are extremely concerned about the suppression of some of their content. Last month, The Eve Appeal shared a medically accurate illustration of vulval anatomy on Instagram. It was not pornography or explicit material, but a labelled, educational diagram intended to help people understand their vulva, recognise changes in their cervix and identify symptoms of vulval cancer. The post had a Patient Information Forum tick, the gold standard for health information content. The Eve Appeal has posted the same content three or four times over the last five years, but last month, Instagram removed the post for alleged “nudity or sexual activity”. The Eve Appeal’s account received a warning and its appeal was rejected. Eventually, the post was reinstated, but it was hidden under a “sensitive content” screen, warning users that the image “may be upsetting”. I have seen the image, and it is literally a line drawing. The Eve Appeal received no explanation, and the sensitive content warning has stifled engagement on its post.

One of the Eve Appeal advocates, Zoe, told me,

“When I was diagnosed with vulva cancer, I was clueless. Why? Because I was taught the whole thing was a vagina. The use of pictures with labels of anatomy and names would have been a great help. Penis, prostate, balls, breasts, ovaries, cervix and womb are not taboo, however vulva and vagina, the two rarest of the gynaecological cancers, are being censored and dismissed.”

The Eve Appeal’s educational posts are designed to save lives. Hiding women’s anatomy behind “sensitive content” warnings does not protect women; it silences them.

Such policies can even put lives at risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who could not make it here today, has been raising awareness of another extraordinary case involving Thames Valley Air Ambulance. The charity launched a campaign highlighting that one in three women suffering cardiac arrest do not receive CPR before emergency crews arrive. Why? Because bystanders are often hesitant to touch women’s chests, remove bras, expose nipples or remove clothing in an emergency. Thames Valley Air Ambulance created an educational content video using a female CPR mannequin to demonstrate how to apply defibrillator pads correctly. Facebook removed the post and Instagram temporarily deleted it. The reason? The female mannequin breached community standards. Again, after appeal the content was restored with a blurred sensitivity warning. The charity responded:

“If we can’t even share an image of an educational use manikin online without it being deemed ‘inappropriate’, how are we expected to normalise removing a real person’s bra to…save their life?”

As you can imagine, similar content with a male mannequin is never removed or shadow-banned.

Education campaigns like those save lives, yet the algorithms of big tech treat them as indecent. While charities are struggling to share lifesaving information, women’s health businesses are also being throttled. The global femtech market is projected to exceed $97 billion by 2030. It should be one of the great growth sectors of the future; instead, female-led health businesses are facing relentless moderation barriers.

Bodyform’s Vagina Uncensored campaign was censored 22 times in one month across Meta, TikTok, Instagram and X. One advert containing the words “menstrual cycle” and showing a sanitary towel with blood was rejected by Meta unless it carried an 18-plus warning. To remind people, periods start much younger than 18 years old and the questions start even earlier than that. Apparently, period products are considered inappropriate for under-18s despite the fact that the vast majority of girls begin menstruating well before that age.

Sixty-four per cent. of women’s health businesses have lost revenue because of those restrictions. Some businesses report losses of half a million pounds a year. One company said their app downloads collapsed from 250 per week to just 50. Another said years of content creation vanished overnight. Smaller femtech start-ups are the hardest hit. Hanx, a women’s sexual wellness company, said nine out of 10 of its adverts were rejected in the early days, and even now 34% of all its adverts are rejected. Meanwhile, treatments for erectile dysfunction are explicitly permitted under Meta’s advertising rules; women’s libido products are not.

Tommy’s, the pregnancy and baby charity, had a video flagged as inappropriate because it included the word vagina. The video featured a researcher studying the vaginal microbiome to better understand infections linked to premature birth and miscarriage. Again, educational, evidence-based medical information was treated as inappropriate content.

Ordinary women are seeing this happen every day. Influencer Charlotte Emily has more than 90,000 Instagram followers—something I think every politician in this room would like. She said that posts about periods, body image, menopause and women’s health perform dramatically worse than her fashion or lifestyle content. She said that simply using the word “period” instead of euphemisms like “Aunt Flo” reduces visibility. Think about the message that sends to young girls online: that medically accurate language about their own body is unacceptable and that they should hide behind euphemisms and embarrassment.

This is not accidental. Words connected to women’s healthcare are treated as suspect content when they should be treated as healthcare education. That is the same prejudice that women have faced for centuries, simply translated into code. Victorian doctors dismissed women’s suffering as hysteria; today’s algorithms suppress the words that women search when they need to find out whether what is happening to their body is normal. The technology has changed, but the sexism has not.

This censorship has consequences far beyond embarrassment or inconvenience. When trusted information is hidden, misinformation flourishes. The Government have now acknowledged that poor-quality online health information harms women’s outcomes—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for his work on that—particularly around reproductive health, contraception, miscarriage, menstruation, menopause and infertility. I am glad to see us acknowledging that, but tackling misinformation means nothing if accurate information is suppressed in the first place. If charities are hidden, educators are shadow-banned, doctors are down-ranked and medically approved content about the uterus, cervix, vulva and vagina is blurred, conspiracy theorists and grifters fill the vacuum and women suffer.

I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to mention that Essity surveyed about 4,000 adults and found that two thirds look online for health advice, while half rely on social media for health and wellbeing information. Among young people, that number is even higher. Overwhelmingly, the public reject this censorship. Nearly eight out of 10 adults said that words such as “vagina”, “period”, “boobs” and “menopause” should not be restricted when used educationally. The public understand what platforms apparently do not: women’s anatomy is not obscene, women’s health is not inappropriate and education is not pornography.

So what must happen now? First, big tech companies must stop hiding behind opaque moderation systems. They must explain how their algorithms operate, why women’s health content is disproportionately targeted and how appeals are reviewed. Secondly, the Government must stop allowing this issue to fall between policy silos. This is simultaneously a health issue, a women’s equality issue, an online safety issue and a digital regulation issue. It requires co-ordinated action between departments, regulators and the affected organisations. Thirdly, platforms should work directly with clinicians, educators and trusted charities to establish verified pathways for evidence-based health content. Finally, we need a cultural shift. Women and girls deserve to talk openly about periods, menopause, infertility, miscarriage, sex, orgasms, puberty and breastfeeding and every other aspect of their health without shame. They deserve medically accurate information without censorship.

Ultimately, this debate is not only about algorithms. It is about power: who gets heard, who gets visibility, whose bodies are treated as acceptable and whose health is considered legitimate. Right now, the message that many women receive online is this: “Your body is inappropriate. Your anatomy is shameful. Your health is controversial.” It is also about autonomy. If we can make informed choices, we have autonomy, but until big tech changes course, women will continue to pay the price in lost education, lost opportunity, lost trust and, in some cases, lost lives. The technology companies have the money and they have the ability; what they lack is the will. It is about time they found it.

13:49

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I strongly back this Government’s commitment to tackling online gender-based harms. I am pleased by the progress that has been made, which includes making intimate image abuse, cyber-flashing and choking priority offences under the Online Safety Act and fast-tracking legislation to ban the creation of non-consensual intimate deepfakes.

Recognising the growing threat of technology-enabled abuse is vital for the Government’s targets to halve violence against women and girls during the next decade, but we must ensure that these efforts do not lead to unintended consequences that could undermine the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in other ways. The shadow-banning of medically accurate, evidence-based women’s health content can seriously restrict women’s ability to speak out and find information about their bodies online.

I recently led a Westminster Hall debate considering the e-petition on statutory menstrual leave for people with endometriosis and adenomyosis, which affects 1.5 million women in Britain. In the lead-up to the debate, I spoke to campaigners including Michelle Dewar, who organised the petition. For her and many others, social media is a tool to spread awareness, educate and campaign. Indeed, it was on social media that Michelle was able to encourage signatures for the e-petition, which eventually led to the debate in Parliament.

Like many other women’s health conditions, endometriosis and adenomyosis face serious social stigma. Social media can offer the space to help overcome that, establishing support networks where women can connect and feel understood. However, the unrefined and blanket approaches that many social media platforms take to address broader online harms often lead to the suppression of women’s health content. That can include restrictions on certain words associated with women’s health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) referred to, and the banning of paid-for ads, including for women’s health and sexual wellbeing products.

This has real implications for women. It can seriously impact the reach of content online, reducing access to potentially lifesaving information or vital support networks. It also has economic implications; research by CensHERship indicates that 64% of women’s health businesses have experienced lost revenue as a result of these types of barrier. Once there is a shadow ban, it can be very difficult to resolve and can lead to loss of revenue and other long-term issues.

Social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook have failed to properly engage with the issue. There remains a lack of transparency about how shadow-banning operates. That is particularly concerning because although content around women’s menstrual and sexual health often faces removal, the same cannot be said for men’s health content and the language used to describe male bodies. We must join the calls by Essity and other campaign groups for meaningful action to change this. Cross-Government working groups to examine how platform moderation practices affect women’s access to health information, and alignment between the women’s health strategy and wider digital and online safety frameworks, can ensure that women’s access to health information is treated as a priority.

Women must be allowed to own the narrative around their own bodies. It is therefore time to ban the ban.

13:53

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this important debate.

Getting accurate health information is essential, and it is a fact that most people go online to get it. Some 48% of UK adults have used online health information, including from social media, to self-diagnose at least once in a year, according to a 2024 study by AXA. The same study found that 30% of young adults have turned to social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram to access health information.

Machine-learning tools such as ChatGPT are now, according to a 2026 study by AXA, the first source for symptom-checking for 36% of people—twice the number who would first go to the NHS website. That is worrying in and of itself, given how entirely inaccurate machine-learning tools such as ChatGPT can be. They do not necessarily give accurate information; what they do is build plausible sentences, but that is a debate for another day.

We have already heard how medically accurate women’s health information is being systematically removed or downgraded by the algorithm. This is also known as shadow-banning. Content creators quite often do not know that it is even happening. We have also seen products removed from sales platforms, including Amazon, with adverts or posts being blocked for using words such as “vagina”, “period”, “menopause”, “pregnancy” or “fertility”. At the same time, adverts for erectile dysfunction or testosterone products remain visible. That is just one example. Advertisements for at-home fertility testing kits were automatically rejected by Amazon because they contained the word “vagina”, although the word “semen” was allowed. For context, the word “vagina” was contained in safety advice that said, “It’s not safe for you to use this product if you’ve had vaginal or cervical surgery within the last three months.” That is a safety implication, never mind anything else.

A recurring pattern in reports and research is that algorithms and moderation systems appear to interpret women’s anatomy and women’s reproductive language as adult or sexual in nature, in a way that comparable men’s health content simply is not. A vacuum of information is being created by medically accurate language being removed or downgraded. What happens in this vacuum? What fills this vacuum? Misinformation.

Unfortunately, the health and wellbeing advice online is quite often entirely without scientific basis. It often appeals to language like “natural”, “gentle” or “traditional”, or uses the accurate chemical names of everyday products or food to make them sound scary or unhealthy. That is easy to do. Take the chemical dihydrogen monoxide. That sounds like a very scary chemical, doesn’t it? That is water. It is easy to make things sound unhealthy and unsafe.

We see this pattern again and again: good, anatomically and medically accurate information is buried while nonsense is peddled by grifters—sorry, “influencers”—who usually have their own supplements to sell, funnily enough, or are being paid to promote things that they simply do not understand. The shadow-banning of certain words—the removal of anatomically accurate terms—means that content providers who do know what they are talking about, such as medics and scientists, are drowned out. As a result, women are left with a sea of misinformation, bad advice and often poor health.

What should we do about it? I recognise that some of these problems can come as an inadvertent and unintended consequence of important action to make online spaces safer, particularly for children. But children are not harmed by hearing medically accurate words or understanding how adult bodies work. As a parent, I make a point of using the correct anatomical terms. I am not going to lie: occasionally that has led to a bit of public embarrassment, especially when you have toddlers, but it means that my kids can now understand and find information about their own bodies.

I ask that social media and online sales platforms work with campaigners and Government to figure out how to keep people safe online while not restricting vital, medically accurate content. That work needs to be done across different Departments, and it needs to include regulators. We need to align the very welcome women’s health strategy with wider digital online safety frameworks so that women’s access to accurate health information is treated as a shared priority.

We need to find successful ways to disseminate valid, scientifically based women’s health information. That would involve the active testing of possible solutions, such as trusted expert accreditation, co-designed with clinicians, women’s health organisations and the platforms themselves. There is wider work to do on general health and scientific literacy in the population and the content creator space. I am sure that many of the people peddling nonsense do not know what they are doing because they do not have the critical thinking skills or the simple baseline knowledge to know what it is that they are selling.

In conclusion, women must be able to get medically and scientifically accurate information about their health—and we must work together to deliver it.

13:58

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I apologise for running late, Mr Stringer; I had an emergency constituent issue.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) not only for securing this vital debate on the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online, but for her ongoing campaigning on this issue. I was delighted to join her roundtable on the subject with Essity. We need strong voices in this place and, my word, I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s strong voice on this issue.

We are here to talk about women’s health, so I will focus on that, but I want to make it clear that we are all fierce advocates for men’s health as well. It is clear that women’s health is being pushed to the edges of the internet by systems that fail to distinguish between pornography and public health. Posts about periods, endometriosis, fertility, pregnancy loss, pelvic pain and menopause—ordinary facts about ordinary bodies—are down-ranked, age-gated or quietly buried, while explicit content remains only a tap away. This is not a harmless quirk: it reflects design choices made by tech companies, often heavily influenced by men, the male lens and the male view of the world.

As founder of Labour: Women in Tech, I have been campaigning for years to get more women into the industry and creating tech that is made to serve more people. More recently, I have launched a campaign for age-appropriate, inclusive and lifelong sex education with Cindy Gallop of MakeLoveNotPorn and the MakeLoveNotPorn Academy, a platform for creating the Google of sex education. Talking of tech, I know she is watching this debate live online—so hello, Cindy Gallop.

We want to take the shame, guilt and embarrassment—all of which are perpetuated by shadow banning—out of talking about sex. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) mentioned some embarrassing things that can happen in public, and she is a fierce advocate for giving parts of the body their proper anatomical names.

I will focus on the huge role that sexual wellbeing plays in our health and happiness. We cannot rest on our laurels and assume that everyone had relationships and sex education in school. In fact, completing formal education at 16—RSE is not mandatory to 18—does not mean that the relationships and sex education provided to a student was adequate. A recent Youth Select Committee report found that relationships and sex education in UK schools is woefully lacking, particularly for LGBTQ young people. Like many adults, young people therefore turn to the internet and social media to fill the gaps.

When the online classroom censors the syllabus, we fail people twice: first by not teaching them enough, and then by hiding the very information they seek. These failures play out across a lifetime. After cancer treatment, for example, a woman may experience significant changes, such as early menopause, pain, vaginal dryness and changes in desire. She may look for practical, compassionate advice, but find it flagged as “sexual content”. That delivers not support but silence.

When it comes to pregnancy and the months after birth, evidence-based guidance on pelvic floor recovery or painful sex is frequently hidden behind warnings, while myths about “bouncing back” flow freely, leaving new mothers to stitch together care in the dark. Content on perimenopause and the menopause, an experience that will touch half the population, explaining brain fog, joint pain, dyspareunia—genital pain before, during or after sex—and the role of hormone replacement therapy is throttled by filters that bury the very help that women need.

Censorship compounds existing inequalities. Disabled people receive very little support around having a healthy sex life. Even straightforward, evidence-based facts about masturbation helping some people to relieve menstrual cramps are too often treated as indecent rather than educational. On top of that, creators and clinicians feel compelled to contort language to avoid suppression, writing “seggs” instead of “sex”, or “b00bs” instead of “breasts”. This is not merely absurd; for some neurodivergent people, misspelled language is confusing and exclusionary, making essential health information harder to understand and access.

We should also acknowledge the pressures on the very people trying to provide education. Some sex educators on mainstream platforms, especially TikTok and Instagram, feel forced to use coded or alternative language to get any reach at all.

Milly Evans, who has nearly half a million followers on TikTok, told me she never knows what rules might be imposed from one day to the next. She has had her account suspended; had stretches where algorithms would allow her to reach only existing followers, therefore not expanding her reach; and had periods of outright shadow banning, meaning that no one saw what she posted. When educators must choose between clarity and visibility, the public loses. This is especially true for those who rely on free, accessible information.

There is a gendered double standard that we must confront: women are penalised for posting clinically accurate information that men can share with far fewer consequences. Cindy Gallop’s “Fairness in the Feed” campaign on LinkedIn highlighted this starkly, with women who changed their profile gender to male seeing their posts reach further. When the same message travels differently depending on who says it, bias is no longer incidental: it is embedded in the system. Of course, LinkedIn denies it, but I say look at the actions, not the words.

The knock-on effects are not only personal but are economic. Women’s health companies, start-ups, clinics, apps and retailers struggle to reach the very people they exist to serve because their content and advertising are throttled. Lucy Litwack is the owner and CEO of Coco de Mer, a company that helps women with desire and sexual pleasure, which are central to health and wellbeing. She said that she cannot even run promotions for her lingerie on Facebook because her company also happens to sell sex toys. That is not just a ban on the promotion of sex toys, which is questionable in itself—I do not see why that should be banned—but a blanket block on lingerie because of association.

If responsible brands cannot speak to consenting adults about lawful products, innovation is chilled and growth is starved. The founders then walk into investor rooms and are told, “Sorry, your reach is too small and your traction is too thin.” The system is creating problems and then punishing those who try to solve them.

Shadow banning is especially corrosive because it is deniable. There is no clear refusal, only diminishing visibility, fewer views and a creeping signal that plain speech about women’s bodies is unwelcome. The predictable result is self-censorship: creators soften terms, clinicians dilute clarity, charities tiptoe, and the space left in respect of accuracy is quickly filled by misinformation and predatory products.

All that is why, alongside Cindy, I have launched a public consultation alongside our campaign for lifelong sex education. It is not a fixed blueprint but a genuine invitation for contributors to share their evidence and lived experience. We are asking people to tell us what is working well, what needs to change and where they would like the agenda to land.

In the spirit of listening, I will outline some ideas that people might suggest we explore together. People might call for greater transparency from and due process for platforms, including through clear rules for sexual and reproductive health content. That would mean having explanations when posts are limited and timely, and human-reviewed appeals so that educational material is not swept up by blunt filters and biased enforcement.

People might propose a mechanism to recognise verified educational and clinical content, thereby allowing NHS bodies, registered charities and qualified clinicians to label health education so that it is not misclassified as adult content, while still meeting robust safety standards.

People might ask for independent scrutiny and measurement so that we can track the visibility of sexual health content for women and men, LGBTQ communities, neurodivergent people and disabled people. That would allow us to compare enforcement patterns across genders and communities, audit algorithms and training data for bias, test whether changes actually help people to find the information that they need, and help responsible women’s health companies and educators to reach them.

People might also recommend partnerships that place trusted resources where people already are, such as GP surgeries, workplaces, community centres, schools and the large public platforms. That would make accurate guidance available at key life stages such as puberty, when making decisions about consent and contraception, pregnancy and postpartum recovery, illness and treatment, and the menopause transition.

What I have outlined are not conclusions; they are suggestions. They are invitations to shape a programme that is built with the public, rather than being handed down to them. Yet whatever solutions emerge will succeed only if the channels that carry our information stop choking on the words that we need to use.

Censorship by algorithm is still censorship, and when it hides women’s health, it harms half the country—quietly, cumulatively and needlessly. We should not accept an internet where it is easier to encounter pornography than to find clinically sound advice about pelvic pain, menopause, cancer recovery or accessible sexual wellbeing for disabled or neurodivergent people. We should not accept rules that police women’s language while allowing men to say the same things more frequently, nor a market that punishes health founders and educators for trying to solve the very problems that the system creates.

The consultation is open and we want people to share what already works, identify the gaps and point us to changes that would make the greatest difference. Together, we can bring women’s health out of the algorithmic shadows and into the light.

14:09

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on securing this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), for Colne Valley (Paul Davies), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for their contributions.

Women’s health has been under-represented, under- discussed and under-researched throughout human history. As a result, women in my constituency, across the country and around the world are suffering needlessly. We are here today to discuss and highlight the fact that the online world has not changed that for the better, and that there is evidence that social media and tech giants are censoring women’s health issues, while men’s issues seem to be posted, shared and discussed with relative ease. That doubles down on centuries of health inequality, and it needs to stop.

There is, of course, a balance to be struck in identifying what is and is not appropriate to be shared with an increasingly wide audience online and on social media platforms—indeed, there is an active and growing discussion of that issue—but the censoring of accurate and lifesaving health information or of the promotion of effective products cannot be allowed. Social media companies are systematically censoring content relating to menstruation, fertility, menopause and postpartum recovery by classifying it as adult content.

At the same time, algorithms continue to push extreme material every single day. Violence, misogyny and racism proliferate online with alarming ease, yet educational and medical content about women’s bodies is apparently where tech companies choose to draw the line.

Meta introduced new health advertising categories earlier this year and rolled out additional restrictions designed to prevent advertisers from sharing what it classifies as sensitive health data. In practice, that has led many femtech and women’s health companies to claim that they are being disproportionately censored. We have seen reports of adverts for egg testing being removed, while sperm testing adverts remain. Educational posts are taken down for using medically accurate language. Charities such as Tommy’s have reportedly had research content flagged as inappropriate simply for containing the word “vagina”.

A 2023 campaign by Bodyform highlighted more than 40 banned or restricted words, including “cervix”, “PCOS”, “infertility” and “menopause”. That is shocking and idiotic. Words associated with normal biological functions and serious medical conditions are being treated as taboo.

The campaign group CensHERship found that 95% of women’s health creators experienced censorship in the past year, and more than half said that they now self-censor their own language to avoid having content removed. That should concern us all. The Removing or restricting medical and educational information does not protect people from dangerous content; it limits discussion and learning on subjects that are already not talked about enough, and the consequences are serious.

Medical misogyny, systematic under-research and poor education around women’s health are already deeply embedded in society. Only about 2% of UK public research funding is spent on female reproductive health. Against that backdrop, unnecessary restrictions risk further exacerbating inequalities and leaving women and girls without access to information that could genuinely improve and, in some cases, save their lives.

It is frankly ridiculous that women are increasingly forced to use euphemisms online to discuss medically accurate terms such as “vagina”, to avoid censorship. What message does that send to young women and girls? What message does that send to our children? I grew up in the ’90s—in an age when talking about women’s heath was too often shameful and euphemisms were normal. I remember TV adverts extoling the possibilities of rollerblading along a California beach in hot pants, and mystery blue liquids were used to demonstrate the absorbent qualities of the latest sanitary towel.

Things have changed. I have noticed that my local supermarket no longer has the obscurely named “feminine hygiene” aisle, and that the blue liquid on TV adverts is now red. Things have got better in the last 30 years, but the internet is the not-so-new frontier where we must continue to make the case that these subjects are not shameful and that women should not feel embarrassed about their own bodies and health. Shame and stigma stop women from coming forward with their problems, which delays diagnoses and worsens outcomes, as when patients present later the consequences can be devastating.

Of course, there are legitimate concerns about medical misinformation online, and the Government must absolutely continue to tackle harmful information, but the systematic restriction of women’s health content is not the answer. Social media and the internet are now central conduits of knowledge and learning, particularly for younger generations. They have enormous untapped potential as tools for public health education and awareness.

I am afraid the Government’s recent women’s health strategy was a missed opportunity to begin to address the issue, but at the very least the Government should bring tech companies, campaigners, clinicians and women’s health organisations around the table to establish a workable and transparent solution. Women should not have to fight algorithms simply to access accurate health information, and in 2026 medically accurate discussions about women’s bodies should not be treated as inappropriate, shameful or obscene. It is time for us to stop allowing technology to reinforce existing inequality, and instead use it as a force for good.

14:15

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we are discussing health, I should declare that I am a former NHS doctor and my wife is an NHS doctor.

I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for her detailed and highly researched speech, as well as all other Members who have spoken. This has been a most concerning debate in relation to the systemic impact of health promotion, and it has thrown up bigger, more fundamental challenges that we, as a society, must start to grapple with. I will come to that later in my remarks.

My first job in the psychiatric training scheme—and my first consultant job—was on a women’s ward in south-east London. That was one of the most amazing jobs I have ever done: looking after very poorly women and doing my bit to deal with complex physical health issues and to promote women’s health. I totally appreciate and agree about the importance of reducing what is—let us face it—ridiculous stigma and social taboo around women’s health issues, but I come at this as a doctor, so I have a particular perspective.

Equally, I am mindful that my perspective—how I look at society—has changed during my 44 years. If someone had asked the Ben of 20 years ago, “Do you think we live in a society that is equal for men and women?” he would have said, “Yes, of course we do.” In the past 15 years, I have come to know that that is completely wrong, things are nowhere near where they should be and we still have a huge amount of work to do. Sadly, what we have heard in this debate, and the list of de-promoted words that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central handed to me, are further evidence of the challenges that we must tackle. She is 100% right to raise this topic, among others, and to call out what has been happening.

But—and there is a “but”—this issue is not simply about access to information. This is not just a question of whether the information should or should not be accessible—in my view, it absolutely should be—or of how to determine the threshold between adult content and factual material. The debate also relates to decisions made by private companies to impose limits on what they permit or promote on their sites. That is the nub of the issue: should companies be allowed to make those decisions, or should it be the role of Government to regulate those choices or actions?

To be clear, I do not believe that this debate is about the scope of the Online Safety Act, which does not restrict companies in the publication of factual health information. At no point does that Act says that information on breasts, vaginas, fertility, menstruation or menopause, or on any other body part, condition or medical term, should be restricted or classified as adult material. The way that that information or imagery is presented may indeed come within the scope of the Act, but its existence does not. Inappropriate adult content should not be accessible to children—that is right—but factual and educational material should not meet that criterion. It is also worth bearing in mind that, in some ways, this is not a new issue. I am sure that, just as people looked at information in anatomy textbooks for educational purposes before the internet, plenty of people looked at it for other purposes—but, again, that is not a matter for Parliament or the Online Safety Act.

Under our current legal framework, private companies have the right to choose what information they permit on their websites. That is a commercial decision, and if we are not happy with such a decision—my very strong view is that we should not support the restriction of information relating to women’s health—we should call them out and persuade them to change their position. Algorithmic transparency is important, but it is also critical, given the evidence that we have heard in this debate, that companies are not able to hide behind the Online Safety Act.

A bigger problem that we will have to tackle or process at some point is the status of social media in our society. Is it private or is it something bigger? Should it be regulated, like news outlets? That would be a huge change in our position, creating such regulatory burdens as to make the UK wholly uncompetitive in the market and having an extreme impact on people’s access to information. It would also be counterproductive, because it is nigh-on impossible to do.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom I welcome to his place. This is the first time I have had the pleasure of being opposite him at the Dispatch Box. I reiterate the Opposition’s strong support for what Members from both sides of the House have said about the importance of destigmatising these matters. I hate even using the word “destigmatise” because I worry that that is stigmatising in itself—it is ridiculous, in some ways, that we have to have this debate in the modern age, but we are where we are. We must ensure that everyone has access to sensible and appropriate information, without the biases that have been mentioned in the debate.

Finally, as a former NHS mental health doctor, I point out that social media is not the only online source of health information. I signpost people who have questions to the NHS website, where there is plenty of stuff on all health areas—I looked it up on my phone during the debate. We do not have to rely on big-tech social media; we have plenty of services in which other information is available.

14:23

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr James Frith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this debate, and all Members who have spoken.

As ever, my hon. Friend made a powerful and compelling argument. She is a compelling advocate for the people she argues for and the case she makes. That is met with deep appreciation and understanding. I think I understand most of the very helpful list that she provided, which I have handed to my officials, but I do not know whether I can pronounce every word on it. She made her point brilliantly, as did so many Members in their own speeches. My hon. Friend is right to challenge platforms that arbitrarily remove legal health content or engage in the practice of shadow-banning people, particularly where people struggle to appeal those unfair decisions.

I will set out the Government’s position clearly. First, we believe it is crucial that every woman and girl can access trusted health information online. Secondly, the Online Safety Act does not prevent adults or children from accessing legal content about women’s health. Thirdly, the Online Safety Act will require the largest user-to-user platforms—designated by Ofcom as category 1 services—to have clear, accessible terms of service. Those must explain what legal content for adults they do and do not allow, and when a user may be banned or suspended. Category 1 services will also need effective routes for users to challenge content being wrongly taken down. Their complaints processes must be clearly set out in their terms of service, and platforms will be expected to act appropriately when complaints are made.

Ofcom is due to publish the register of categorised services in July of this year, alongside a consultation on these additional duties, including strengthened terms of service requirements. Ofcom will consult over the summer and aims to publish final policy statements and guidance in 2027. Once those duties are in force, the largest platforms will have much clearer and stronger appeal mechanisms, and expectations on them, for users whose content has been removed inappropriately. Ofcom will be required to send out annual notices to categorised services, which may require them to disclose information about the design and operation of their algorithms.

As the online safety regulator, Ofcom published guidance in November 2025 setting out practical steps that technology firms can take to make their platforms a safer and more inclusive place for women and girls online. The guidance is clear that safeguards for freedom of expression must remain in place, including routes for users to challenge wrongly moderated content. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is working closely with Ofcom to support the effective implementation of those measures.

In March 2026, the Secretary of State held a roundtable with social media firms and set clear expectations that firms should implement Ofcom’s guidance by the end of this year. I hear the call from the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for a repeat roundtable with all parties, and I absolutely agree that that is a way forward. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), is absolutely right to say that this is about dialogue first—we agree on that. Where required, we must call out, but calling in is a good start.

The Online Safety Act also requires Ofcom to raise awareness and understanding of misinformation and harmful content, especially when vulnerable groups are affected. As part of that requirement, Ofcom must publish a media literacy strategy every three years. The first focuses on research, evidence and evaluation, and on engaging with platforms, people and partnerships, which includes the delivery of targeted media literacy interventions for priority groups.

DSIT is ensuring a more joined-up approach to media literacy across Government, aligning policy, education and communications. We are working to ensure that every person can access trusted health information online. That is why our media literacy action plan, published in March this year, highlights the central role that online sources play in helping people to learn about important topics such as health. It is also aimed at supporting parents in building their children’s resilience to the creeping-in of misleading content.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology continues to work with the Department of Health and Social Care on ensuring that people have access to safe and trusted health information online. Social media companies must realise the role that they play in women and girls accessing accurate information about their health. The Government agree that social media companies must do more to enable women and girls to access accurate health information.

Ofcom has set out clear guidance on what companies must do to make the online world a safer and more inclusive place for women, and the Government have been clear that platforms need to implement this guidance by year-end. The Online Safety Act does not prevent adults or children from accessing legal content about women’s health. Safeguards for freedom of expression are built into the framework of the Act, which places duties on platforms to protect users’ right to freedom of expression when introducing safety measures.

The largest services regulated by the Act will have additional duties: they cannot arbitrarily remove content; they must be clear what content is acceptable for their adult users; and they must enforce the rules consistently. Users will have access to effective complaints procedures to appeal when content is unduly taken down.

On the specific points that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central raised about the Eve Appeal’s letter, the Government acknowledge that censorship of terms and diagrams relating to women’s anatomy is a problem, especially when such material can help to increase awareness about the spread and risk of cancer. In April 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care published a renewed health strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) is no longer in his place, but I commend him for the work he did on that strategy and for the powerful statement of intent that it is a Government priority, alongside the strategy to halve violence against women and girls in this Parliament.

The strategy represents a decisive shift towards addressing long-standing failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences and access to care. It applies the Government’s 10-year health plan to women’s health, aiming for faster and more equitable improvements through fundamental reform rather than incremental changes. It aims to tackle medical misogyny and rebalance power within the healthcare system, to ensure that women’s voices and choices are prioritised.

Central to the strategy is improving women’s and girls’ awareness of and access to services, and driving research that will benefit women’s health. Alongside this, the strategy recognises the need to tackle misinformation about women’s healthcare. That is why it focuses on making credible health information easy to find.

I will now address a few specific issues mentioned in today’s debate. The renewed women’s health strategy has committed to invest £1.5 million in femtech, via the femtech healthcare challenge. Health information is critical. The sophisticated algorithms that we all experience as they target us with adverts should—indeed, must—be used to identify health-based information to ensure that women and children do not miss out on crucial health information.

The role of the NHS social media team is to make credible health information easy to find, understand and trust, in the places where people already spend their time. It is using channels such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook to explain topics including menstrual health, contraception and conditions such as endometriosis. The team also uses audience insight and social listening to understand how people talk about these topics, what they are worried about and where they have gaps in their understanding. That helps us to make content that is clearer, more empathetic and genuinely useful.

Finally, the Government agree that platforms need to do more to address how they moderate content. We will continue to engage closely with platforms and with Ofcom to understand better how enforcement is being conducted. We all agree that we want to see women and girls being able to access trusted health information, and we must remain vigilant on this issue.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central for securing this critical debate.

14:34

[Emily Darlington]

I thank everyone who joined us for the debate. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, it is one that we needed to have because so many people do not know about this issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for reaffirming that this Government recognise medical misogyny.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for reminding us about health advice. We both participated in a debate about endometriosis and adenomyosis not too long ago. In that debate, I said that periods can be uncomfortable but should not be painful, and Members from across the House came up to me afterwards to ask, “Is that true?” Yes, it is true. Periods should not be painful. That shows how we all lack advice on women’s health.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) talked about her children creating embarrassing situations, which I recognise, too. My daughter had a conversation with her friend at the school gates, alongside many other mums and school- children, about her favourite word. She declared, very proudly, that “vulva” was her favourite word. She had learned it at school as appropriate. She knew the difference and told me proudly that I must not misuse “vagina” for “vulva”.

That raises an important point about child abuse, which is a little outside the scope of this debate, but not entirely, because we have to use the correct terms. Police find it extremely frustrating, and it does not meet legal thresholds, when children say, “He touched my cookie,” or, “He touched my ginny.” They need the child to say the right word in order to proceed, and it is another angle in this debate that we must not forget. Using the correct medical terminology allows us to crack down on paedophiles and groomers.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), whose embarrassment threshold is even lower than mine, which is hard, talked about important post-birth advice and how shadow-banning is particularly problematic because it is deniable. What it says to women, doctors, gynaecologists and femtech entrepreneurs is, “You are just creating content that is not interesting. That is why it does not do well.” Actually, they are creating content that is being deliberately suppressed.

I appreciate what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), said about the difference between this and adult content, violent misogyny and racist language. All of that is allowed, yet these terms are not. It shows the power that these platforms have: they say that they cannot suppress these words, but they can. Terms like “rape” or horrible terms that are racist, antisemitic or anti-Islam could be in the same position as women’s health terms, yet they choose for them not to be. I loved her mention of blue liquid. We all remember the blue liquid, and we all remember being surprised, if we were told beforehand, when it was not blue liquid. I imagine that many men were quite surprised, when they got married or entered a relationship, to find that it was not blue. And we certainly were not all out rollerblading.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, asked an important question: should Government dictate what platforms publish? He is right, and the OSA does not say that women’s health information cannot be published. Where I have a bit of an issue with his argument is that, although he is right that it is a commercial decision, it is also a commercial decision that allows the platforms to continue to push pornography, violent material and misogynistic material. If they want to make money off people in this country, we need to make sure they are not doing damage to this country.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

I appreciate where the hon. Lady is coming from, but unless I am wrong, those examples are all within the auspices of the OSA.

[Emily Darlington]

Yes, they would be. I am trying to say that the OSA does not limit this, but it does limit some of the other material. It is important that there is a place for the Government to say what platforms should or should not be able to publish, but they should not micromanage. I agree on that. It should not be like the Lord Chamberlain saying, “Here are the words that you are allowed to use”, or, “The Queen does not approve of those phrases”, but we should be clear that we limit free speech where it has a real, negative impact on individuals or on society, and that we are protecting people because of their age, gender or other protected characteristics.

The shadow Minister raised an important discussion about publishers, plurality and biases that are already in the system. The systems are designed by men and the content, for the most part, focuses on men—not completely, but the algorithms are traditionally designed by men and therefore feed what they think men want, or not even what they want, but what will keep them on the platform the longest. That is their business model.

I appreciate the Minister reiterating the Government’s position that we believe that women should have access to accurate medical information. There are two sides to that: making sure that we suppress inaccurate medical information; and making sure that we have the mechanisms to show what is medically accurate with a tick. We should then make sure that that is the material that people see.

I appreciate what you said about appeal mechanisms, but it is difficult to appeal against shadow-banning, so we need to talk further about that. Again, that is about transparency on algorithms, which you were talking about, and about our dialogue with social media platforms. We need to ask them, what is more damaging? Is it the sexualised content, the misogynistic content or the health advice? We need to have that serious discussion with them.

We also need to think much wider than the four big social media companies. That is not always where people go for such advice. We have heard of experiences on LinkedIn and many other platforms that show that this is a widespread issue. Finally, you are absolutely right about media literacy, so that we know what is good health content and what is based on rubbish science. That is part of how we get through this. [Interruption.] I thank everyone for attending.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady in what has been an interesting debate, but I remind hon. Members that if you say “you”, that is me—

[Emily Darlington]

You are absolutely right, Mr Stringer. I apologise.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I did not want to interrupt the debate, but it is worth remembering for future debates.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online.

14:42

Sitting suspended.

Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding

Thursday 21st May 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

15:00

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. The family courts make some of the most important decisions that any institution can make. They determine where children will live, how they will maintain relationships with their parents, and how families rebuild their lives after separation. At their best, they provide protection, stability and justice, but far too many survivors of domestic abuse do not experience the family court as a place of safety. Instead, many describe it as a continuation of abuse through legal processes, repeated trauma and unsafe decision making.

Today’s debate is vital because there is now substantial evidence from survivors, frontline organisations, legal professionals and independent reviews that domestic abuse is too often minimised, misunderstood or inadequately recognised in family court proceedings. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday business”, published in 2025, found evidence of domestic abuse in around 87% of the family court cases that it examined. Yet the report concluded that abuse was frequently not treated as an active safeguarding issue. How can that be right? That finding should concern everyone in this House. If abuse is present in the overwhelming majority of cases but is not consistently recognised in decisions about children and contact arrangements, there is clearly a systemic problem that requires urgent attention.

It is important to understand the nature of domestic abuse in this context. Abuse is not always physical violence; it can involve coercive control, intimidation, economic abuse, emotional manipulation, stalking, harassment, and patterns of behaviour designed to dominate and undermine another person. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 rightly recognised coercive and controlling behaviour in law, yet many survivors continue to report that coercive control and post-separation abuse remain poorly understood in family court proceedings. For many perpetrators, separation does not end abuse. Instead, the family court can become another avenue of control through unnecessary litigation, manipulation of child contact arrangements and prolonged interaction with an abusive former partner.

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that perpetrators should not be rewarded through the court process with reduced sentences when they change their plea to guilty at the last minute? It is just a continuation of the coercive and controlling behaviour that they have already displayed.

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: somebody should not be rewarded when they have been difficult for months and months—probably years—and then at the last minute change their mind to get a reduced sentence. The judge probably sees them as being helpful, but they have not been helpful for a long time. The hon. Member makes a really good point.

Some have described the family courts process as very traumatising. We must recognise sophisticated tactics like DARVO—deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender—where perpetrators deny the abuse, attack the credibility of the survivor and then present themselves as the true victim. A survivor may therefore find themselves portrayed as hostile, manipulative or obstructive, and genuine attempts to protect children can be reframed by perpetrators as attempts to alienate a child from the other parent. That is one reason why specialist expertise in the courts is so important.

In a child custody case, a constituent of mine was told by a judge to stop making reports of domestic abuse against the ex-partner as it had no relevance to the case, despite their being presented with police reports. The ex-partner also used manipulative DARVO tactics and eventually gained custody of the child. Intimidated by the process, my constituent’s experience highlights the urgent need for stronger protection and specialist expertise in court.

I also want to address concerns surrounding the recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse. While many survivors and safeguarding organisations welcomed the reform, there is concern that some perpetrators may increasingly attempt to weaponise allegations against survivors by claiming that they themselves are the victims of abuse, or by claiming parental alienation in response to genuine safeguarding concerns. Domestic abuse specialists like Kaleidoscopic UK have long warned that allegations of so-called parental alienation can be used to discredit survivors and shift attention away from abuse allegations.

The charity Right to Equality undertook a survey on child removals and found that 81% of mothers who had their child removed were accused of parental alienation. It is a strategy routinely weaponised by abusers and often backed by unregulated experts who have no place in the courtroom. These bogus allegations can often lead to a child being removed from a safe parent and transferred to an abusive one. That is precisely why independent domestic violence advisers and the newly created children’s domestic abuse advocates are needed as experts. They can help courts to distinguish genuine safeguarding concerns from manipulative litigation tactics and identify patterns of coercive and post-separation abuse that might otherwise be missed.

At the centre of all of this is children. Children are not passive witnesses to domestic abuse. We know from extensive evidence that exposure to abuse and an environment of fear and instability can have profound, lifelong effects on emotional wellbeing, mental health, educational attainment and future relationships. The consequences of unsafe decisions in the family courts can be devastating. Women’s Aid has documented 67 child deaths over the last 30 years linked to abusive contact arrangements. We are not talking about abstract statistics, but children whose safety should have been paramount and families left with unimaginable grief.

Every one of those cases demands that we ask difficult questions about whether the system is adequately equipped to identify risk and respond appropriately. We must also acknowledge the wider human cost of domestic abuse. Home Office data recorded 98 suspected suicides following domestic abuse in the year to March 2024. Behind each figure is a life lost and a family devastated. The statistics remind us that domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a serious public protection issue.

I pay tribute to the work of survivor-led organisations such as Kaleidoscopic UK, whose representatives are in the Gallery. Its members have campaigned tirelessly for reform in this area, and support adults and children affected by domestic abuse. Many of those involved with Kaleidoscopic are themselves survivors of abuse and have first-hand experience of navigating the family court system. Policymakers and justice institutions should listen carefully to those experiences when considering how the family court system can better protect vulnerable families.

I want to be clear that there are many dedicated professionals within the family justice system who are committed to safeguarding children and supporting families under immense pressure. This debate is not about criticising individuals; it is about asking whether the system as a whole is sufficiently equipped to deal with the complex realities of domestic abuse. I believe there is a strong case for the mandatory involvement of independent domestic violence advisers as specialist domestic abuse experts within the family court process. IDVAs understand patterns of coercive control, risk escalation, post-separation abuse, and the barriers that victims and children face in disclosing abuse. They possess specialist expertise that can help to identify risks that might otherwise be overlooked.

At present, however, access to specialist domestic abuse expertise within the family courts is very inconsistent. That inconsistency can lead to inconsistent outcomes and an unacceptable postcode lottery for survivors and children. Independent domestic abuse experts could help courts to identify patterns of abuse that are not immediately visible; strengthen safeguarding assessments by ensuring that risk assessments fully account for the realities of post-separation abuse; and improve consistency across the system and survivors’ confidence in the family justice process.

Importantly, this is not about undermining judicial independence. Judges must of course remain the ultimate decision makers, but they should have access to the best expertise available when dealing with complex safeguarding matters involving domestic abuse and child welfare. Sadly, several of my constituents have experienced being undermined and ignored in court by a judge who has had complaints made against them for overlooking their allegations of abuse and refusing to recognise abusive tactics in court. Having an expert present in this setting would provide my constituents, and all victims, with much more protection and understanding.

This House has already recognised the seriousness of domestic abuse through landmark legislation and policy reforms. The Domestic Abuse Act was a significant step forward. The recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse was also welcome and necessary, but legislation alone is not enough if implementation within systems and institutions does not reflect the realities that survivors face. In most cases, relationships between children and parents are important and beneficial, but where abuse is present, safety must always come first. The welfare of a child must remain the court’s paramount consideration, not simply the continuation of contact in principle.

There is also the broader issue of the culture in the family justice system. Survivors and advocacy organisations have raised concerns about myths and misconceptions surrounding domestic abuse, including assumptions about why victims remain in abusive relationships, expectations around perfect victim behaviour, and misunderstandings about post-separation abuse. Specialist domestic abuse expertise can help challenge those misconceptions and ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and understanding.

I acknowledge the important work carried out by organisations supporting survivors every day: Women’s Aid, Refuge, Rights of Women, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Kaleidoscopic UK and many others have consistently highlighted these issues and advocated for reform. Their work has brought forward evidence that this House cannot ignore. Members across the House will know from their constituency casework that these concerns are not isolated incidents, and will have heard from constituents who feel failed by a system that was supposed to protect them and their children. Those experiences deserve to be heard.

This debate is about recognising the complexities of domestic abuse and that improving safeguarding within the family courts is both necessary and achievable. Family court decisions shape lives for years—sometimes generations—so I urge the Government to embed domestic abuse experts more effectively within the family justice system, to ensure that survivors and children are truly protected throughout court proceedings and beyond. Above all, we must build a family justice system that survivors can trust, that properly understands domestic abuse and that places the safety and welfare of children at the heart of every decision.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to be called.

15:17

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on bringing this topic to the Chamber, where it belongs. We need to keep the pressure on to ensure that survivors have an improved sense of trust in the system.

I have experience of this issue as an MP. I would not say that I have been inundated, but many amazing women have shared their stories with me in my constituency surgeries. I pay tribute to and thank them for being brave enough to come forward. Without wanting to disclose characteristics or anything identifiable, I will share a flavour of what I have been told, which I am sure will not be unheard of for either the Minister or other Members.

For example, one mother and her children lived under coercive control, financial abuse and violence for many years. After separation, the abuse did not stop but simply changed form—the hon. Member for Wokingham described a similar case. The perpetrator continued to exert control through child contact arrangements, intimidation and financial manipulation, the children required to attend overnight contact despite repeatedly expressing fear and distress to professionals, including to their school. Critically, the abuse has never been tested in court. The survivor was discouraged from seeking a fact-finding hearing and had no access to legal services advice at that stage. As a result, her experience was minimised as “conflict” rather than recognised as abuse.

Coercive control and abuse are still not fully tested in court. Abuse is often reframed as conflict rather than what it actually it is, which leads to significant delays in therapy and support for children and a continuation of harm. The Home Office harm panel’s 2025 research on family courts found systematic failures, including the minimisation of domestic abuse. Having IDVAs or those that specialise in domestic abuse within the court system is a good suggestion, and one that I also call for. The court process is incredibly traumatic for families, and children’s voices are not listened to within it. Many survivors have reported to me unsafe contact orders that often allow public and unsupervised contact. In north Kent, there is a lack of supervised contact centres.

Children’s voices are being silenced—the voices of children with special educational needs are missing in this space. Within the court system, a lack of education and expertise means that people do not always understand why children’s behaviour changes when they are distressed, especially when they are unable to communicate verbally in the traditional way. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the special educational needs aspect of this issue.

We have a new supervised contact centre in Gravesham, which is welcome news for many families, whether they have gone through court or not. It will be housed at the Maltings Child Contact Centre at the City Praise Centre and will provide a safe, structured environment for well-behaved parents who should have contact with their children. The contact centre is one of only 340 centres nationally to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres. Given that there are 650 MPs, that is not even one per constituency. That needs to change.

We need people to speak up and come forward when they are experiencing harm and abuse, and we need to make sure that the system, including the court system, backs them and protects our children and survivors.

15:22

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this vital debate. I know that, since his election almost two years ago, he has spent much of his parliamentary time raising the issue of cancer and getting investment into cancer services. Now he is speaking about domestic abuse; no one can accuse him of not having his heart in the right place. I thank him for leading the debate.

As the MP for Woking, I have spent much of my time protecting vulnerable children, and I know that the Government do great work in tackling domestic violence and protecting families, women and children. Last week, I visited Surrey’s Steps to Change hub, which is based in my constituency of Woking and was established back in 2023, thanks to a £1 million grant from the Home Office. It brings together services, such as the local authority, the police and domestic abuse charities, such as Woking’s amazing Your Sanctuary women’s refuge, to ensure that they work together holistically.

Tragically, the hub is one of only two in the country. It supports those who have experienced, or are experiencing, domestic abuse, and separately it supports children impacted by what their family has gone through. Vitally, the hub also works with those who have committed domestic abuse, or those likely to do so, to encourage them to change their behaviour to prevent future abuse. It was really eye-opening to spend time with the volunteers and, above all, with some of those who have received the support that this amazing organisation provides.

I am pleased to welcome the new Safeguarding Minister to her place. Surrey and only one other county have one of these hubs; I ask the Minister to draw attention to us as an example of best practice, but we should not be the only ones. Will she ensure that such support is rolled out across the country? It is saving and improving lives in my constituency and my county of Surrey. That is fortunate for me and my constituents, but it is far too rare and it should be rolled out nationwide.

I am concerned about the local government reorganisation in my area next year and that Surrey’s police and crime commissioner will be abolished in 2029 but not replaced by a directly elected Mayor, in which case the funding and convening power for the hub could go. I am pleased that the commissioner is going and that we will have new local authorities, but the risk of the transformation is that it could reduce the protection for families and children in my constituency. That would be unacceptable. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that the funding is maintained over this uncertain period?

As I said, the Government centrally and the whole public sector have done so much good to help survivors of domestic abuse recover and to protect them, and to ensure that such abuse does not happen in the first place. But all too often that fails catastrophically, with unthinkable consequences for some of the most vulnerable people. My 10-year-old constituent, Sara Sharif, was abused, tortured and murdered by her father and stepmother. She was failed from the day she was born, including on the day before she was murdered. She was failed by Surrey county council children’s services and by the family court system. That is why I echo the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for reform.

When Sara was born and before she was even one year old, Surrey county council children’s services wanted to take her away from what they knew to be an abusive father. Tragically, they changed their mind and the family court did not say, “Surrey, are you sure? Surely you want to do that.” The day before Sara was murdered, Surrey county council children’s services tried to visit her home, because they were concerned, but they went to the wrong house and they did not try to go back.

Previously, I have urged the Government to put Surrey county council children’s services into special measures, but thankfully they are being abolished next year. I would urge the Safeguarding Minister to ensure that that appalling culture at Surrey county council is not transferred to the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils. Sadly, other children’s services are failing in this country, and I know that other areas across the country are going to have local government reorganisation. Will she ensure that this Government see local government reorganisation as an opportunity to change such a culture and to put vulnerable people first, to change child protection?

Sadly, Sara’s is not the only child protection case I have had in my constituency. Judith is another constituent. She and her children suffered years of domestic abuse from her former partner and she feared for her children’s safety. The family court eventually gave her full custody and no visitation rights for the dad. Surrey county council recently insisted that the father be reintroduced to the children, to see if it is safe for the family to court to give access. I hope that the Minister agrees that that is an appalling use of child protection rules and family court processes. I wholeheartedly welcome the ending of the presumption of parental contact, but that is a whole-system failure, and I hope that the Minister makes it a priority to tackle it in her new role.

I echo the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for domestic abuse experts to be embedded in the family court system. I am incredibly disappointed that reform of the family court system and investment in, and changes to, the child protection process were not in the King’s Speech. Does the Minister not find that shameful? Will she ensure that it becomes a priority in other legislation and that the Government look favourably on amendments proposed to the legislation that was in the King’s Speech?

15:29

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate and on his excellent opening speech.

There are countless amazing organisations across the country that support victims of domestic abuse. I pay tribute to Independent Domestic Abuse Services, the largest specialist charity in Yorkshire, which does sterling work to support my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby.

It is clear that our family justice system needs urgent reform to ensure that children are at the heart of proceedings. That was made incredibly clear to me earlier this week when I chaired a roundtable with charities, legal professionals and women with lived experience about improving outcomes for children in domestic abuse cases. Everyone on the panel agreed that children’s voices are lost in the system.

One of the many inspirational speakers was Julia Margo, co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing. After experiencing the unimaginable—discovering that her partner, the father of her two children, was a convicted child sex offender—her ordeal was continued by the family court system, as her ex-partner claimed legal aid and took her to court 37 times over the next eight years to demand access to their children. About the process, she said:

“The lawyers, magistrates and judges seemed to look on me as a hysteric, whose claims of trauma were exaggerated…The courts were more worried about ‘parental alienation’—that I should turn our sons against their father—than about two little boys being left alone with a paedophile.”

Since being elected to Parliament, I have been motivated by a brave constituent to work on reforming the family courts so that abusive partners cannot claim parental alienation to undermine and silence survivors and influence child contact arrangements. In recent years, there has been a rise in the use of experts to “prove” alienation—a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. A perpetrator of abuse will allege that a child’s refusal of contact or reluctance towards it is due to the survivor parent alienating the child from them. That has led to survivors having their children removed from them, which is against the interests of the child and the mother.

The non-profit Right to Equality conducted a large-scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings. The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for the mothers.

I welcome the fact that the Government are rolling out child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and will resolve cases more quickly, saving children months of trauma. Repealing the presumption of parental involvement—a long-overdue correction to a pro-contact culture that has failed to put children first—is a brilliant step forward. However, there is still a gap in legislation that risks the wellbeing of children in private family law proceedings. It simply does not address the question of what happens when a child resists or refuses contact with a party against whom abuse is alleged. What evidential weight does the court give to the child’s response?

I am currently drafting an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that aims to stop counter-allegations of alienation being used to undermine or distract from reports of domestic abuse. It would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves. It would ensure that a child’s resistance towards an abusive parent is treated not as evidence of manipulation, but as evidence of harm. When a child is reluctant or refuses to spend time with a person against whom allegations of domestic abuse have been made, it should be regarded as reasonable and justified. As the Government move forward with putting children at the heart of the family justice system, will the Minister commit to working with Parliament on changes to ensure that a child’s resistance to contact with an abusive parent is treated as credible evidence of harm and not of manipulation?

15:34

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate. May I also congratulate the Minister? This is my first opportunity to speak in a debate to which she is replying. Perhaps I should be congratulating the Government on her appointment, since I know she will do an excellent job.

Victims and survivors of domestic abuse who are separating from their abuser will often be involved in proceedings in the family court, for example to obtain a non-molestation or occupation order, divide assets following divorce or determine arrangements for children where these are in dispute. Sadly, perpetrators of domestic abuse often use proceedings in the family court as a means of coercive control and abuse post separation.

In the case of private law children proceedings, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office, which gathered and analysed data from three court sites in England and Wales throughout 2024, found overwhelming evidence of domestic abuse, identifying it in 73% of the hearings observed. As I think the hon. Member for Wokingham said earlier, 87% in the sample of cases reviewed had reference to domestic abuse, which has led the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, to describe domestic abuse as

“the everyday business of the family courts”.

There are very significant numbers of these cases. In 2025 alone, more than 55,000 private law children cases started. Clearly a great number of people, including children, are affected.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Like all Members of this House, I have had people coming to my constituency surgeries having suffered from domestic abuse. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I want to place on the record the fantastic work that Glasgow Women’s Aid has done to support my constituents and people across the city in this most difficult of circumstances.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful for that intervention. Many Members here will have local organisations that they help to signpost, champion and try to obtain funding for. What I am arguing for is something that is comprehensive and reliable, in terms of funding and support. In addition to the excellent work that Members may do, we need a better structure to support the family court system and victims in it.

Just to review where we have got to so far, the June 2020 publication of the harm panel report, which has been mentioned, began a series of significant policy and legislative developments relating to domestic abuse and the family courts. Following extensive evidence gathering, the panel found that domestic abuse allegations and related risks were not taken sufficiently into account by the family court, due to “deep-seated and systemic” failings.

Many of the report’s recommendations were brought in by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. For example, section 1 gives legal recognition to different forms of domestic abuse, including economic abuse and coercive control, and section 3 gives recognition to children who see, hear or experience domestic abuse as victims. The Act also requires that victims and survivors be provided with special measures to reduce the traumatising nature of proceedings and enable them to give their best evidence, such as the use of screens and the provision of separate entrances, exits and waiting rooms. Furthermore, it prevents unrepresented perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of abuse from cross-examining their victims or alleged victims during proceedings.

In response to the harm panel’s recommendation that the voice of the child should be enhanced during proceedings, the previous Government piloted child-focused courts, then referred to as private law pathfinder courts. The pilot, which began in north Wales and Dorset in 2022, was designed to test a less adversarial problem-solving approach. At the outset of a case, the risks posed to children from domestic abuse allegations are identified and specialist support is provided where needed. The results of the pilot indicated faster resolution of cases, children’s voices being placed at the foreground in proceedings and a transformed experience for domestic abuse victims.

Last year, the Justice Committee, which I chair, examined the effectiveness of these recent reforms. We heard from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the then president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. We were keen to understand, five years on from the publication of the harm panel report, what progress the family court had made on reforming its approach to domestic abuse in the cases before it.

One of our key findings was that there is wide approval and enthusiasm for the work and outcomes of child-focused courts, which our witnesses said should be rolled out across England and Wales with urgency. We are extremely pleased that that is now under way, with a substantial investment promised by the Government in this financial year.

However, a note of caution was sounded that I wish to highlight to the Minister. The model places much greater pressure on CAFCASS and other specialist support providers, particularly at the outset of a case, so they need to be resourced accordingly. In the words of one witness to our inquiry:

“If you are going to have specialist domestic abuse provision supporting the courts, then it needs to be baked into the budget and resource that are coming down the line. It is not the model of the court that will sort the experience of children and victims out; it is the quality of the risk assessment that goes on to present advice to the court.”

Our witnesses also reported on the success of the family, drug and alcohol court, which takes a problem-solving approach to care proceedings for parents with complex needs, including experiences of domestic abuse and substance misuse. I highlight to the Minister the great potential of that approach.

The former president of the family division was a great proponent of FDAC in domestic abuse cases. In his evidence to the then Committee in April 2024, he said that

“there is a domestic abuse component”

in every case dealt with by FDAC, and that FDAC had

“found a way of supporting that victim to deal with the fact that they may have a series of abusive relationships that they have gone through and to break the cycle.”

Despite this, FDAC provision is patchy, to say the least. There are currently FDAC teams supporting families in about 39 local authorities and 24 family courts. They are in an uncertain position, though, with Newcastle having lost its FDAC in the last year and with provision in the midlands looking precarious. Our witnesses pointed out that despite the strong evidence base demonstrating its success, the FDAC

“depends on small pots of funding year to year”,

usually from local authorities and dedicated individuals who understand its potential and cobble money together.

I therefore urge the Minister to consider the expansion of FDAC, which would enable courts hearing public law proceedings to respond more effectively to domestic abuse, in the same way that child-focused courts are doing in private law proceedings. FDAC must be looked at across Government, and I hope that the Government’s forthcoming family justice strategy will consider it. The Ministry of Justice is involved in providing the courtroom and the judge, but the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education also have an interest in its beneficial outcomes.

Finally, in line with the recommendations of the harm panel, the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989, ensuring a child-centred approach when deciding what contact a child should have with their parents. I hope that we will see the Bill returning to the House soon—I would be grateful if the Minister indicated today when that might happen, as there is a lot in the Bill that we would like to see more of—so that this important safeguard can be implemented without further delay.

15:43

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this really important debate. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. I also welcome the new Safeguarding Minister to her place.

I thank the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), who reiterated calls for domestic abuse specialists to be embedded in our family courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke movingly about the case of his constituent Sara Sharif, and about how the family court in that case did not question children’s services and the appalling culture that was described. I thank the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who described the case of a paedophile and an abuser accessing legal aid to use the court system against his ex-partner and effectively continue that abuse. I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who highlighted the value of the FDAC’s role in domestic abuse cases and the way it proactively supports victims to break cycles of abuse, but also the fact that it needs expansion and long-term and more secure funding.

As many Members have pointed out, the family courts are in serious need of reform. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has worked tirelessly to ensure that children are recognised and understood as victims in their own right. The statistics alone are staggering. The crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2025 estimated that in the past year alone around 3.8 million people in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse. At the same time, one in five children in the UK experienced domestic abuse, with only one in 10 child victims receiving any support, according to Women’s Aid.

That reinforces wider findings that despite the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, children are too often overlooked as victims of domestic abuse by police, social care and health services. As other hon. Members have set out, perpetrators continue to manipulate loopholes in the Child Maintenance Service system to further coerce and control victims emotionally, economically and physically.

I entirely support colleagues calling for urgent reshaping of the CMS system and for the Ministry of Justice to fully implement the findings of its own 2020 harm panel report. That report identified harmful practices including a pro-contact culture, adversarial court processes, resource constraints and siloed working between agencies, all of which allowed abuse to go unnoticed or even continue through the system itself, as we heard earlier.

I wish to focus on economic abuse, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham highlighted so well. Research by Surviving Economic Abuse has found that a third of UK women with a child under 18 have had child maintenance payments deliberately blocked or manipulated by an ex-partner, despite that ex-partner being able to afford those payments. Meanwhile, the National Audit Office estimates that CMS arrears could reach £1 billion within five years. That is only one example of where change is urgently needed. The Government’s child poverty strategy promised an overhaul of the system, yet there is still no clear timeline for implementation, and our children are the ones suffering.

We Liberal Democrats welcome the continued roll-out of child-focused courts, which have shown reductions in case length and therefore in the re-traumatisation of victims who are forced through drawn-out proceedings. I sincerely hope that the Government fulfil their promise to expand those courts nationally.

I also recognise the important steps that have been taken in recent months, on which I will take this opportunity to congratulate the Government. The removal of the long-criticised presumption of contact established under the Children Act 1989 finally places children’s voices and experiences back at the centre of decisions that affect them. However, survivors now need clarity on its implementation. When will the repeal come into force?

Before the Minister claims that some of these matters fall outside her direct remit, I would like to make it clear that I and organisations including Surviving Economic Abuse, Rights of Women, Women’s Aid and Refuge have jointly written to her to underline the urgent need for a practical, cross-departmental action plan to protect and support victims of domestic abuse. The violence against women and girls strategy must be matched by that cross-Government delivery.

Economic abuse frequently involves perpetrators controlling finances, restricting access to income and withholding key documents. As a result, many victims are unable to provide the evidence required under the legal aid system, and are therefore excluded from support precisely when they need it the most. That heavily ties into the safeguarding aspect of today’s debate. Victims feel completely at a loss and deserted by the justice system.

There is also a significant cliff edge for working victims of domestic abuse. Many individuals earning slightly above the eligibility threshold are deemed to be ineligible for legal aid, yet cannot realistically afford legal representation without sacrificing substantial portions of their income. That gap risks deterring victims from pursuing protection, or even from resolving cases safely through the courts.

Even when the grant of legal aid is technically possible and victims make the means test cut, access to justice is again undermined by the severe shortage of family law legal aid solicitors. In rural communities such as mine, the legal aid deserts are among the worst in the country. I would welcome further discussions with the Minister and the Justice Minister responsible for legal aid, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), on increasing legal aid fee rates in line with inflation, similar to the increases that we have already welcomed for immigration and housing law. Only then will we attract more legal aid solicitors to where they are most needed. That is particularly important given that legal aid was mentioned only fleetingly in the Government’s 2025 violence against women and girls strategy, despite legal representation often being one of the most important protections that victims have when facing their abusers in court. The Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group have long called for urgent improvement in this area.

From my constituency casework, I know that many victims face severe bias once they enter the family court system, even when they are represented. I therefore echo Women’s Aid in calling for all family court professionals, including judges and court staff, to receive high-quality, mandatory and regularly updated domestic abuse training.

This issue cuts across every aspect of domestic abuse within the justice system. Around 75% of child arrangement cases in the family courts involve allegations of domestic abuse. Although much of the issue falls within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, I must take the opportunity to reinforce Refuge’s demand that the VAWG strategy should explicitly reflect plans to improve the response of the family justice system to domestic abuse. As we have heard, too many victims still feel that the courts minimise their experiences and fail to understand the realities of coercive and controlling behaviour. We cannot continue with a system where victims are forced to act as litigants in person because they cannot access or afford legal representation. I therefore share the disappointment expressed by many VAWG charities and organisations regarding the lack of substantive focus in the recent King’s Speech on protecting women and girls in practice.

Warm words are not enough. Victims deserve a justice system that protects them, listens to them and enables them to access safety without traumatisation and without financial ruin. I urge the Minister to ensure that this year’s violence against women and girls strategy is accompanied by meaningful cross-departmental implementation, including vital action on legal aid, family court reform, judicial training and economic abuse.

15:52

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate on domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system. Members in the Chamber will not be alone in having regularly encountered this issue in constituency casework. I expect all MPs across the House have constituents who are struggling with these issues, and perhaps even they are in their private lives.

This subject demands seriousness, sensitivity and honesty from all of us. Behind every statistic in this debate are children living in fear, survivors trying to rebuild their lives and families navigating court processes at moments of enormous stress and vulnerability. For too many people, the family justice system is not an abstract institution; it is the place they have to go to where decisions are made that will shape their safety, their relationships with their children and often the trajectory of their lives for years to come. That is why getting the system right matters so much.

As we have heard, domestic abuse is present in 73% of active family court proceedings and 87% of closed cases. One in five children in the UK experience some form of domestic abuse, and 78% of those children are directly harmed by the perpetrator. Those are sobering figures, and they remind us that domestic abuse is not something that exists separately from family justice proceedings.

We also know that children are too often affected directly by failures of the system. According to Women’s Aid, over the last 30 years 67 child deaths have been linked to unsafe contact arrangements, with 19 having occurred since 2016. When we discuss safeguarding in family courts, we are discussing not peripheral procedural matters, but the core responsibility of the state to protect vulnerable people—women, children and also men.

I want to acknowledge the work of survivors, campaigners and charities who have driven progress in this area through their extraordinary courage and persistence. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham for bringing representatives from Kaleidoscopic UK, who I understand are attending the debate. I would be grateful to catch up with them afterwards, if that is possible. Many other groups and individuals work in this area. For example, I recently worked with Paula and Tony Hudgell and their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), to secure the establishment of the child cruelty register, so that parents and other individuals who commit child cruelty offences are monitored and tracked in the same way that child sex offenders are.

The Opposition also supported the Government’s measures to restrict the parental responsibility of serious child sex offenders. During the passage of that legislation, we successfully argued, alongside others, that the provisions should go further than was originally proposed. They would only have applied to parents who perpetrated offences against their own children, but with Members across the House, we persuaded the Government to change that to those who commit offences against all children. We agreed that, on balance, a threshold of “serious offences” was the suitable way to go, but that if that worked well and was effective, we should consider lowering that threshold. Why should anyone who commits any sort of offence against a child not automatically have to argue for their own parental responsibility?

It is important to recognise the work that was undertaken by the previous Government, which others have mentioned. In particular, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognised as victims in their own right children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse. Dame Nicole Jabobs and others long advocated for those changes, and the Act made victims automatically eligible for special measures in court. Those changes and others reflect society’s growing understanding in recent decades of the importance of confronting and tackling domestic abuse and abuse of children.

The previous Government also commissioned the harm panel review in 2020, which was an expert-led review into how family courts handle domestic abuse and serious offences. We launched a review into the presumption of parental contact, and we piloted the pathfinder model, now the child-focused model, to improve information sharing, increase judicial continuity and ensure that children’s voices are heard more effectively throughout proceedings. Alongside that, we invested £3.3 million in the mediation voucher scheme, helping thousands of families to resolve disputes outside the courtroom where it is appropriate and safe to do so. There is still room for mediation and other measures to reduce the burden on our courts and save them for the most complicated and difficult cases.

Last year, the independent “Everyday Business” review painted a deeply worrying picture of how survivors often experience family court proceedings. Survivors described feeling that their abuse was minimised or treated as secondary to maintaining contact arrangements. Judges and magistrates identified serious pressures on them arising from limited court time, delays and lack of continuity. Only 21% of cases reportedly had judicial continuity—a striking figure that shows that even when cases as complex as these go through the court process, we cannot rely on a single judge seeing them through from start to finish.

The report also highlighted siloed working between different parts of the system. In many cases, there are overlapping criminal and family proceedings, yet delays and backlogs can mean that family courts proceed before criminal matters are resolved. That can have a huge impact. If an individual subsequently receives a criminal conviction, that may well unpick and call into question the original rulings.

These are not easy issues to solve. I recognise all of the work done and the arguments made by campaigners, but legislating in this area is incredibly challenging because the dynamics of families, particularly those experiencing breakdown, are very complex. There are also strongly held views in different organisations on, for example, the presumption of parental involvement and how family courts should approach contact arrangements.

Many campaigners argue that abuse has historically been minimised in decision making. In too many cases that is true, but whatever view people take, there should be broad agreement on one central principle: safeguarding and child welfare must come first. That includes ensuring that professionals throughout the system are properly trained to understand the dynamics of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid has argued that we need not just legislative reform but a wider cultural shift across the family justice system. There is real substance to that argument, because even the best legislation will fall short if victims feel that they are not listened to, believed, or welcomed and facilitated to participate. I will be grateful if the Minister says more about how the Government intend to deliver cultural change in practice.

I also want to talk about accountability. We have heard discussion of the Sara Sharif case. I have mentioned in the House before that I first encountered these issues as an MP through an amazing lady, a constituent of mine, who was fostering a young girl who had been removed from her family on a temporary basis. The wider family did not want that young girl to be given back contact with her immediate family, the foster carer did not think it was a good idea, and social services did not think it was a good idea—but the judge awarded custody back to her parents.

That young girl is now in a wheelchair. She is highly dependent and severely disabled. The exceptional individual I mentioned went on to adopt her in those circumstances, which is one of the most noble things I have ever seen anybody do. She approached me because she was aware of all the mechanisms of accountability that everybody else in the system has to go through, particularly teachers and social services. She simply wanted to know what accountability was available for the judge. I wrote to the Lady Chief Justice and said, “Obviously, you can’t comment on this case, but what are the systems, for a case like this where things have gone badly wrong, for a judge to have to account for the decisions they have taken?” There are none, outside of complaints about extreme behaviour, which none of us would consider to really test the issues, or if the judge makes a legal error, for which the threshold is, again, really high.

I think we have a lot to do. Certainly, in the Conservative party we are working on how we can introduce much more accountability in the judiciary—not to make them accountable to the Government, because the separation of the judiciary and the Government is very important. I draw on my experience as a doctor; we have done loads to improve the accountability of highly trained, highly specialist medical professionals who we would not want the state interfering with. It is simply about ensuring they are not a law unto themselves when it comes to making poor decisions. Previously, the test was pretty much whether a doctor had made a decision that any other doctor thought was reasonable. Now, the test is much more about whether that decision was objectively reasonable.

I also want to touch on the pathfinder courts. As we have heard, 10 of 43 courts have now been implemented. I would like to understand the Government’s timetable for the very welcome decision to roll them out more widely. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), talked about the interdependencies around access to specialist services to make that a reality. I think requesting a timetable is not asking too much of the Minister.

Those are important things that we are all in agreement on, but at the same time this Government are taking what I think are catastrophic decisions in relation to the justice system. The Government have legislated for perpetrators of domestic abuse as serious as rape, child abuse, stalking and harassment—very many offences—to get out of prison earlier. Right now, there are people in prison for the rape of their partner, or sexual offences against their own children, who will get out of prison earlier because of the steps that this Government have taken. I will continue to press that matter with them, whatever else they are doing that is positive. People go to the court system because they want justice, and seeing rapists being let out early is not justice. That is something the Government should continue to reflect on.

16:02

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am honoured to speak in my first Westminster Hall debate as the Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, particularly given how important this topic is. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing the debate. He and many Members, including the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), clearly set out the concerns around family courts enabling the continuity of abuse. The hon. Member for North Cornwall also set out concerns in relation to economic abuse; I would welcome further work with him on that.

The Government have a clear commitment to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, and I want to begin by making it clear that ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are protected in the family court is a core part of the work that we are undertaking to achieve that aim. The courts must deliver safe outcomes for the children and families involved in proceedings, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) set out the additional concerns that can be raised when there are further vulnerabilities or special educational needs. There is mandatory training for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, and the judiciary is supported by the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” to enable that effective participation in proceedings. Importantly, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service must always consider the impact of protected characteristics, including additional needs or neurodiversity, in relation to a child’s ability to engage. However, there is always more that needs to be done to ensure that the most vulnerable have their voices heard.

I reassure Members that the family courts have a range of measures available to them to protect victims and stop perpetrators. The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who has incredible experience, set out some of the special measures that already exist, which include allowing someone to give evidence via video link or from behind a screen. Members also raised the importance of independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers, who are permitted to accompany parties in proceedings in order to provide them with support.

I am also aware that, in some instances, abusers seek to use repeated and vexatious applications to the family courts as a method of furthering their abuse. That is clearly unacceptable. There are means to stop perpetrators when they attempt to make vexatious applications, including making orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 to prohibit further applications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick set out, the courts can prohibit in-person cross examination by alleged abusers and appoint a qualified legal representative to undertake cross-examination instead.

While those measures represent important protections, we are committed to going much further, both in relation to safeguarding victims and reforming the family courts. It cannot be warm words; there needs to be action. A core part of our work to reform the family courts is the child-focused model, which is a new approach to certain private law cases relating to children that is designed to improve the experience and participation of children and families in proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and others mentioned the harm panel, which has hugely informed the work of child-focused courts.

Under the child-focused model, families benefit from a streamlined problem-solving approach, which brings forward a holistic assessment of needs and risks, and enables the court to make safe decisions without delay. The model ensures that victims of domestic abuse and other harms receive specialist support from independent domestic violence advisers, who also undertake a risk assessment to provide the court with expert insight into the risk of domestic abuse within the case.

Critically, under the child-focused model, the voice of the child is made central to the case, with the percentage of children seen by social workers more than doubling. Evidence from areas where the model is in place shows that it is working. Cases are being resolved up to seven and a half months faster, and the backlog has fallen by over 50%. That is why, in March, the Deputy Prime Minister committed to rolling out child-focused courts nationally over the next three years, along with an investment of £17 million in 2026-27 to support the next expansion to a further eight court areas across the north-west, the north-east and the midlands.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick also talked about the effectiveness and impact of FDAC courts. I am conscious of how important they have been in many areas and would welcome further engagement on that.

Beyond the new model of child-focused courts, we are committed to a significant legislative package to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can have confidence in the family courts. Through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we have introduced to Parliament the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement. Alongside our wider changes, that sends a clear signal that the welfare of children must remain paramount. Courts will adopt an open-minded inquiry into what is in the child’s best interests, rather than starting from the assumption that the involvement of parents will be appropriate.

I pay tribute to the Family Justice Young People’s Board and a number of organisations, including Women’s Aid, as well as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner. I also pay tribute to Claire Throssell, whose sons were killed. She has been campaigning for years on this issue. The repeal of the presumption of parental involvement must be dedicated to her and her sons, Jack and Paul.

Through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we have legislated to automatically restrict the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility where they have been sentenced to four years or more for a serious child sex abuse offence committed against any child, or where rape has led to the birth of a child. That is in addition to Jade’s law, passed in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which will provide for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility where one parent kills the other. Baroness Levitt has made it clear that the Government will implement it by the end of this year.

We are also working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including unregulated “parental alienation” experts, because we know that allegations of parental alienation can be made in response to allegations of domestic abuse, often when a perpetrator is seeking to deflect attention from their own behaviour. The hon. Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) both raised the issue really powerfully, and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has undertaken in this area.

The Family Procedure Rule Committee approved changes to the family procedure rules in April, and the intention is that those changes will be introduced through a statutory instrument in the summer. Once implemented, the rule changes will require any expert instructed in children’s proceedings, subject to limited exceptions, to be regulated by a UK statutory body or by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007, or be on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care.

Taken together, these measures will protect thousands of children every year. I understand the point that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), raised in relation to accountability. The training that the Judicial College provides is essential to ensuring we have the consistency and expertise that we need.

[Dr Mullan]

It is all very well to send people on training. As a doctor, I have sat in on training sessions. People can be in a training seminar together, and some will pay attention and some will not. Some will take it seriously, and some will not. If there is not a system of accountability at the other end, training can become a tick-box exercise if we are not careful.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, as he set out, we always need to be mindful of long-established principles of judicial independence in these matters. However, ensuring that we have the right training in place will go a long way towards ensuring that we have the family courts that we need, and towards ensuring that we have effective systems in place.

Collectively, these reforms represent a large body of work. We want to make sure there is clarity on what we are doing, which is why the Ministry of Justice is working with the Department for Education and partners across the family justice system to draft the family justice strategy. The strategy will be published later this year, and it will set out the Government’s plans to improve the family justice system, reduce court delays and ensure that all families get the support and the outcomes they need.

Alongside that, we must ensure that we support all victims of abuse to recover and rebuild their lives. Over £1 billion is being invested over the next three years to support victims of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse survivors. That includes funding for safe accommodation, advocacy, counselling and specialist services. In particular, my Department is increasing funding for victim support services, year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery.

[Dr Mullan]

I have asked the Minister about this before, and she did not answer. Maybe I will get an answer this time. One thing she might set those additional support services to do is let people know when perpetrators will get out of prison earlier because of the Government’s decisions. Can she at least commit to writing to victims to let them know in advance that their perpetrator is going to be let out of prison earlier?

[Catherine Atkinson]

Communication is absolutely essential, and a huge amount of work is being done to ensure it is in place. I am proud to be building on the work of my predecessor in that space. In relation to victim support services, it is important that, in total, the Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million in support services over the next three years of the spending review.

Many hon. Members raised the incredible and essential work that so many support services do. I thank Kaleidoscopic UK for being here, and for its work. Many other services were mentioned, including Your Sanctuary, IDAS, Glasgow Women’s Aid and Women’s Aid more broadly, Rights of Women and Refuge. I pay tribute to the work they do and the difference they make to people’s lives.

I hope my remarks have reassured the hon. Member for Wokingham and all hon. Members who spoke in this vital debate. I thank him for securing a debate on such an important subject. We all share a deep commitment to safeguarding victims of domestic abuse, to ensuring that they are fully protected and supported, and to making sure that the family courts cannot be used as an arena for perpetrators to continue their horrific acts.

The Government will continue to press forward with our reforms to the family courts. We will continue to work with operational partners, the courts and all the many groups that do vital work to support victims and protect children and families, and to make those important changes. The hon. Member said that children are at the centre of this, and I agree. They must be our focus, and they always will be.

16:16

[Clive Jones]

I start by apologising to the Minister for not welcoming her to her new position. I am pleased that she reiterated the Government’s commitment to halving domestic abuse in 10 years, which I am sure we all want to see.

I have a couple of questions that came up in the debate. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the lack of expertise in working with children with special needs. Will the Minister write to all of us who have contributed to the debate on what the Government might be able to do about that specifically? The hon. Member for Wokingham—

[Mr Forster]

That’s you!

[Clive Jones]

It is so easy to make that mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke about the good work of lots of local organisations, but he has real concerns that council changes over the next few years will put the funding for the work of those organisations in jeopardy. Could the Minister tell us what she may be able to do about that? My hon. Friend also spoke about the need for IDVAs, as I and several others did. Is that something the Minister could support over the next year or so?

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) said that children’s voices are not heard in the family court system. How can we, as MPs, and the Minister make sure they are heard over the next few years? My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) spoke about domestic abuse training for everybody in the family courts. Is that something the Minister will champion over the next few years? The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) talked about how important it is to get it right and about the need for a cultural shift. I am sure the Minister has lots of ideas, and I know her predecessor did. It would be nice to hear about them.

Finally, I thank the Minister for coming, and for confirming that the welfare of children must always be paramount.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.

16:19

Sitting adjourned.