Domestic Abuse: Children

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of protecting children from domestic abuse.

You will be pleased to know what a marvellous pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I would like to begin where we typically end our debates in Westminster Hall, and that is by thanking all hon. Members present. I am well aware that, on a topic such as this, what often compels people to speak is painful lived experience; so I sincerely thank everyone who has come here today, whether to bravely share their own experience or to represent the children in their constituency who otherwise do not have a voice in this place. It is appreciated and truly important.

This debate unfortunately stems from deep tragedy and systemic failure. As many will know, I have tabled it in honour of the 19 children killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse between 2015 and 2024. Their stories are solemn reminders of the danger of placing an outdated emphasis on parental contact above all else.

I recognise that there have been important strides in recent months, and I want to sincerely commend the work of my Government in repealing the presumption of parental contact in family courts and introducing a new police duty to notify schools of domestic abuse incidents. Those are significant steps forward, but we cannot stop here.

While I have rightly praised this Government, I also want to acknowledge the previous Government for introducing the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We are here today because, for the first time, children were recognised as victims in their own right in that legislation. That Act was a vital step forward. It diagnosed the problem we face, but it did not provide an adequate cure.

Paragon, which does incredible work in my constituency of Isle of Wight West, told me:

“As children are now being recognised in their own right as victims of domestic abuse, we are seeing an increase in referrals for support. We have had no increase in funding to provide additional capacity to support children and young people and as a result we have a short waitlist in place. Waiting for this crucial support is not ideal.”

This reality is grimly reflected in the national picture. Women’s Aid’s “On Track” data reveals that there are more children than adults living in refuge spaces, but accessing a refuge does not mean that life returns to normal for those children. Further research by Women’s Aid shows that extended stays in refuge often disrupt education, school and routines. Many still face significant barriers to securing a school place after moving, because their mothers often have to cross local authority boundaries to stay safe. For those children, safety often comes at the cost of stability.

I am deeply grateful to have spoken with abuse survivors, including one of my constituents whose experience illustrates why prevention is so vital. As both a child victim and later a victim in her own relationship, she would have benefited enormously from early intervention. She has bravely agreed for me to share her story today. The following words are hers:

“Before I had even started primary school, domestic abuse had already shaped me. When home isn’t safe, fear becomes your earliest teacher. You don’t play freely in the world—you withdraw from it. Trust feels dangerous, friendships feel risky, and when every day is lived in the shadow of survival, confidence has no chance to bloom, nor your dreams any chance to grow. And in the classroom where children would feel free to learn and explore, that same fear follows you. Concentration becomes impossible, achievement feels out of reach, and you fall behind long before anyone realises, you’re not struggling with the work, you’re struggling with the trauma.

And, like so many children, I became part of a cycle that I never chose. After watching my mother suffer abuse, I unknowingly followed the same pattern. My daughter was born into a home where she, too, witnessed fear, control, and harm—things no child should ever see. Left unchecked, domestic abuse doesn’t just scar one generation; it echoes through the next.

What’s even more tragic is that my abuser had once been a child victim himself. He grew up watching violence without the support, education or therapy he so desperately needed. Without intervention, he grew into the only model he had ever known.

The cycle only ends when children are supported—when they are protected, when they learn about healthy relationships, are given tools to recognise abuse, and helped to heal from the trauma they witness. When they are shown that the devastating effects of domestic abuse do not have to be their inheritance.

I count myself lucky to live on the Isle of Wight, where support for my daughter exists—support that can quite literally save children’s futures. But across the country, too many children do not have this help. And without it, they stand little chance of breaking the cycle themselves.”

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, given that the concept of parental alienation—largely used by fathers against mothers in cases involving domestic violence in the family courts—does not have a robust, methodologically sound or scientific basis, the use of regulated and unregulated experts on it should be prohibited in the family courts?

[Mr Quigley]

There is very little I can add, other than to say that I wholeheartedly agree. That is a very important part of this debate, so I thank my hon. Friend sincerely.

That survivor’s story is, heartbreakingly, just one among many that I know will echo across our communities. In the year ending March 2024, an estimated 1.8 million children in England were affected by domestic abuse. Although 70% of affected children have stated that they would seek support for domestic abuse, 61% state that they would not know where to go to find it. The Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls is noble, but we must ensure that every child is protected, that court-ordered safeguards are robust, and that trauma support for newly single parents is properly funded. Education and community support must play a central role in breaking the cycle of intergenerational abuse, empowering future generations to prevent harm, protect potential victims and stop abusers before they begin to engage in this behaviour.

I therefore call on the Government to take the following actions: to amend the Children Act 1989 to reflect better the lived experience of children and young people affected by domestic abuse, and to embed our enhanced understanding of abuse, making it clear that coercive control constitutes harm to children; to publish a clear timeline for implementing the family court reforms recommended in the Ministry of Justice harm panel review of 2020; to roll out mandatory multi-agency training on domestic abuse across the family justice system; and to invest in the design and delivery of the violence against women and girls prevention programmes in schools and other educational settings. The political will is there, and I believe that we have the right voices in charge to enact the change that we need and that our children deserve, but we must take decisive action to stop this silent crisis from escalating into a catastrophe. We owe it not only to survivors, but to the women and children who are no longer with us. Their stories cannot be in vain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Quigley]

I sincerely thank the Minister for her response, for the steps that have already been taken by this Government to protect children from domestic abuse, and for the commencement of the Pathfinder programme in 2026 on the Isle of Wight. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

As Women’s Aid reminds us, children do not just passively witness abuse; they absorb it. It becomes a weight that they carry every day, following them into school, into their friendships and, most damagingly, into adulthood. One survivor told me that, as a child, their Friday afternoons at school were not spent counting down to the weekend, like other kids; instead, they were silently begging the clock to slow down, dreading the moment they would have to go home and hoping that Monday would come back round quickly.

Some 50% of young people who access our child and adolescent mental health services say that they have witnessed domestic abuse. There is a clear moral and economic case to get this issue right. Women’s Aid estimates that support from specialist domestic abuse services can save the NHS well over £150,000 per survivor, which includes the cost of visits to A&E, hospital treatment and appointments with GPs and other professionals. Protecting children from domestic abuse is about not just safeguarding their present, but securing their future. Every child deserves a home that feels safe, not one that they fear to return to. Let us make sure that no child is left silently begging the clock to slow down.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of protecting children from domestic abuse.

Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences

Richard Quigley Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I will come as no surprise to you, Sir Roger, to hear me say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship.

I want to be transparent: I do not believe that the law has always got it right in these cases—there have been failures, and there must be room for scrutiny and reform. But I am compelled to speak in this debate because of the hypocrisy and double standards perpetuated by many on the Opposition Benches—those who brand themselves as defenders of free speech, yet who seem to confuse freedom of speech and freedom from consequence.

Something I taught my children from when they were very young was, “You are free to use your words, but you must be prepared to face the consequences of them.” People may think that writing an offensive post—which takes only seconds and is quickly forgotten—is inconsequential, but as we have seen over the past year, and especially in recent months, such words can have devastating effects. They can fuel radicalisation, target minority communities and make individuals feel unsafe in their own homes, schools and streets. Although some demand the right to speak without restraint, they ignore the reality that others lose their freedom to live without fear—a freedom that was hard fought for by those we pay tribute to on Armistice Day.

I find it genuinely astounding that parties such as Reform UK, and many in today’s Conservative party, espouse the importance of personal responsibility and accountability, yet are fundamentally unable to stomach it when individuals on their side of the political argument are held accountable for their words. My personal position —and, I think, that of many of my Labour colleagues—is clear: hate speech is hate speech; words have consequences. No matter whether someone passionately disagrees with someone else politically, if they use social media to call for the death of or harm to another, they should be held accountable by any means the law deems fit.

Regretfully, I do not believe that the same clarity exists on the Opposition Benches. It has been astonishing to watch some Members tie themselves in knots—on one hand decrying Britain under Labour as a return to Soviet-style communism, while on the other hand demanding the removal of the Oxford Union president-elect for comments made in a private group chat, not on social media. It seems that, for the right wing, free speech is not a two-way street: it is Schrödinger’s version of free speech.

Nowhere has the hypocrisy and knot tying been clearer than in the case of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who rightly disavowed, and welcomed the imprisonment of, an individual who used social media to threaten his life, but readily platformed during his party conference a woman who said:

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care...If that makes me racist, so be it”.

I am genuinely intrigued as to whether free speech is deemed acceptable only if it is used to threaten the lives of refugees and not the Reform party leader.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Mr Quigley]

No.

My point is this: it is completely wrong to call for the death of the hon. Member for Clacton, just as it is completely wrong to call for hotels housing refugees to be burned down. In both cases, the law rightly intervened, and justice was served. What is deeply concerning is the warped suggestion that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said. That is not justice; it is politicisation. Our legal professionals are not the enemy. Our justice system, widely regarded as one of the foundational models of fairness and due process, is not the enemy. And our police, who enforce the law but do not create it, are not the enemy. We must defend the principle that the law applies equally to all, regardless of political affiliation, background or platform.

That should not be controversial. It is in fact one of the oldest principles in our democracy. Magna Carta, the cornerstone of our unwritten constitution, states:

“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”

That commitment to fairness and equality before the law is not just historical; it is foundational. Ultimately, if we in this Parliament believe that the law needs to change, we have the power and the responsibility to change it through the proper democratic process. Those who seek to twist justice, who argue that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said, should ask themselves this: are they defending the spirit of British democracy, or are they defending a warped version of it, shaped not by principle but by popularity on X?