Richard Quigley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Social Media: Dangerous Content · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the Government’s plans to ban social media for under-16s. However, when it comes to content promoting eating disorders, the risks do not simply disappear at 16. The eating disorder charity, Beat, recently pushed ChatGPT to stop generating restrictive meal plans altogether, which it did, so it is possible. Other platforms, however, have failed to act, with X still allowing users to search for harmful hashtags, such as #proana and #bonespo—I apologise if that is triggering. Will the Minister work with me and the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group to ensure that platforms such as X can no longer exploit mental ill health for engagement and profit?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Social Media: Dangerous Content · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps she is taking to help remove dangerous content from social media platforms.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  I must confess that Opposition days are beginning to feel a little bit like groundhog day. A party that largely sat on its hands during some of the most significant and difficult challenges is now returning to tell us where this Government are going wrong, and doing so with all the fervour of a party that has never held power, let alone governed for 14 years. Just to warn everyone, I will not be taking interventions. This is a deeply emotional issue, and I recognise that it provokes strong and differing views across the House. I am not here to shout down or dismiss any perspective. I have never had to face this decision myself, either as a parent or as a young person. It is a decision that invites intense scrutiny and judgment, often unfairly casting those involved as villains for doing what they believe is right for a child. We would all do well to remember that we can never truly know what it is like to walk in someone else’s shoes. Too often, this debate has been shaped by vilification and misinformation, much of it amplified by opposition voices and anonymous social media accounts, to the detriment of one of our most vulnerable communities. We hear the warped suggestion that people simply wake up one day and decide on a whim to embark on years of hormone treatment, to face discrimination and to fight for legal recognition, or, worse, that clinicians involved are reckless experimenters intent on subjecting vulnerable children to harm. The Conservatives are, of course, entitled to their opposition, but what alternative are they actually proposing? As usual, they have found an apparent problem, but where is their suggested solution? Is it to return to a time when children experiencing gender incongruence were ignored or dismissed as an inconvenience? That approach belongs to the era of section 28, not to 2026. If their answer is an outright ban, they risk driving vulnerable young people into what Dr Hilary Cass has described as “unregulated and dangerous routes.” We are already seeing reports of children presenting at clinics having already accessed irreversible treatments at a very young age. The outrage we hear today about so-called experimentation rings hollow when it is accompanied by no viable alternative, only a return to the same vacuum that previously existed. I do not suggest that this trial will provide all the answers, but it is undeniably better than turning our backs on a complex reality and leaving young people without safe, supported options.

• 5 Mar 2026 · World Book Day · Hansard source

  More

  May I say what an incredible pleasure it is to serve under your superb chairship, Mrs Hobhouse? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate. As in so many other ways, I am proud to represent an area that truly punches above its weight in literary tradition, not only through the talent the Isle of Wight has produced past and present, but through the inspiration the island has offered to many of our country’s most celebrated authors. Just two weeks ago, I was honoured to attend the Isle of Wight story festival, a wonderful event supported by the national lottery and Arts Council England created for island families during the February half term. The festival showcases not only the passion for creativity and storytelling across all ages on the island, but its founding principle that stories are around us, wherever you live, whoever you are and whatever your circumstance. It is a precious reminder that imagination and creativity exist in all of us, even people in this place. I touched only briefly on the island’s rich literary tradition earlier, so I hope Members will indulge me as I offer a small humblebrag about the remarkable authors and the stories that have been produced on or inspired by the Isle of Wight. Charles Dickens spent several months on the island while working on his semi-autobiographical novel “David Copperfield”. During a visit to Bonchurch, he described it as “quite the prettiest place I have seen”. Despite not being in my constituency, I agree. Today, the island proudly commemorates his 1849 family holiday through the Charles Dickens trail, which guides visitors around the locations he knew and loved. The Isle of Wight was also home to Queen Victoria’s beloved poet laureate, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, who lived at Farringford House in Freshwater. Although he ultimately felt compelled to leave due to the rather overenthusiastic attention of local residents and curious tourists, he maintained ownership of Farringford House until his death. Upon his elevation to the House of Lords in 1844, he took the title Baron Tennyson of Aldworth and Freshwater, suggesting he did not harbour too much ill will towards the island, despite the disruptions he endured during his time there. However, the island is so much more than its literary past. I think of the Isle of Wight literary festival, which has not only hosted such authors as Dr Stuart Lawrence, Susie Dent and Martin Edwards, but also does fantastic outreach through its schools programme, which brings these celebrated authors into almost every local primary classroom, allowing local children to see these stories and the authors behind them in real life. While I am pleased to celebrate the island’s rich literary heritage, it would be remiss of me not to highlight that, despite the inspiration that the island has provided to some of our greatest writers, we remain one of the UK’s most disadvantaged areas for literacy and have the second-highest level of educational deprivation in the south. One in three children leaves school unable to read at the expected level. Without straying too far from the subject of today’s debate, the contrast speaks to why the island is so often left behind in terms of funding and outcomes. Our historic reputation and perception as a holiday destination for the wealthy masks the reality experienced by most islanders, particularly our children. Too often, these outdated assumptions rather than the stark realities I have set out influence funding allocations. When I have spoken to officials inside Government, there has been genuine shock to learn that relative child poverty on the island is 10% higher than the regional average and nearly 3% higher than the national average. That goes a long way to explaining the gap between the perception of the island and the reality. Despite these obstacles, I know there is a strong determination, nationally from the Education Secretary to the brilliant education team in the Isle of Wight council, to improve that picture. I am absolutely certain that the talent and determination is there to ensure that our literary tradition is matched by equally strong outcomes from young readers and students. As we celebrate World Book Day, I end with a nod to author and admirer of our island, Jane Austen. In the novel “Mansfield Park”, Maria and Julia tease their cousin Fanny for her devotion, saying: “She thinks of nothing but the Isle of Wight, and she calls it the Island , as if there were no other island in the world.” As any Austen reader knows, it is Fanny and perhaps the Isle of Wight itself that has the last laugh, proving in time to have a depth of understanding and awareness that her cousins never quite match.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Listening to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), is quite something—one would think that the recipients of this benefit were spending the money on soft furnishings for their second homes. They are not; they are spending it on food, rent and clothing for their children. The rise in child poverty under the previous Tory Government has been a shameful stain on this country, and I am proud to be part of a Government who are taking action, not only to provide food and basic necessities but to give children the opportunity to escape cycles of poverty and build secure, independent futures. In the months since this policy was announced, we have heard some truly shameful language from Opposition Members, including describing this Budget as a “Budget for ‘Benefits Street’”. In doing so, they completely denigrate the 450,000 children who never chose to be born into poverty, and who for the most part have simply had the misfortune of growing up during years of successive Conservative Governments. It is telling that using taxpayers’ money to lift children out of poverty is framed by the Conservatives as an irresponsible use of public funds, while the £10 billion lost to covid fraud is something we are apparently expected to forget and move on from without consequence. I would genuinely welcome the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition to my constituency, so that they can explain directly to the nearly 1,600 children who will be lifted out of poverty by the removal of the two-child cap why the Leader of the Opposition so routinely denigrates people like them and their parents—parents who themselves are paying the price for a Government she was part of, who sent mortgages soaring and allowed inflation to reach 11%. Sadly, I will not hold my breath. When she is not using the Isle of Wight as a punchline for one of her poor, laugh-less jokes, she treats it as a photo opportunity, without having the basic respect to engage with local people, local media or, indeed, the local MP. Perhaps we should not be surprised. The Conservative party has consistently failed to understand the real, tangible difference that such policies make to people’s lives. Instead of reckoning with the impact of their poverty-accelerating decisions, they choose to vilify those who stand to benefit from the Bill. As I understand it, Reform would now reverse the two-child cap to find money to pay for a cheaper pint at the local pub. Presumably Reform’s next policies would increase the drunk-driving limit to whatever people think they can get away with and lower the age of buying cigarettes to 12, because daddy will be too busy down the pub saving money to buy his own cigs. As a small business owner, I know too well the damaging legacy of austerity, and the removal of the two-child cap represents the clearing away of one of the most shameful legacies of the austerity years. I know from first-hand experience the impact that Government decisions have on local economies. Austerity was not just a line in a Budget; it was a decade of under-investment that hit businesses such as mine hard. It hollowed out our high streets, weakened consumer confidence and squeezed the incomes of working families. This policy is about more than tackling poverty and the intergenerational damage it causes; it is about giving hard-working families the chance to feel that they are a part of their high street again, and supporting those who have lost a wage earner or whose wages have simply failed to keep pace with the cost of living. It is called social security for a reason, and it is the solemn responsibility of any Government to provide a safety net to those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times. This policy is not just about the removal of the benefits cap; it is an investment in our greatest asset—the British people—and in our future. It is about ensuring that the next generation do not go to school hungry or without the basic necessities and about putting our country on a stronger footing by giving every child a fair start in life.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Digital Exploitation of Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  It is a beyond fantastic pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing such an important and extremely timely debate. As we have seen over the past weeks, months and years, the exploitation of women and girls comes in many forms; the digital landscape does not automatically protect them from physical harm. We have seen recently how easily predators can sexually exploit women and girls through deepfakes on social media, and how these actions are actively promoted by platforms. That exploitation can also translate into the exploitation of physical insecurities, which can lead women and girls down a dangerous and unattainable path. Unrealistic body standards in advertising are not a new phenomenon, but AI has deepened the problem. It is beyond the pale: it now enables girls to be exposed to imagery promoting body types that quite literally defy the laws of physics. Such content is not something that they stumble on; it is actively pushed at them through targeted advertising. Once a social media platform identifies a user as a girl or a young woman, the algorithm begins promoting harmful material directly into their feed. A recent Government report found that 19% of girls aged between 14 and 16 had been exposed to harmful content promoting extreme thinness—nearly three times the figure reported by their male classmates. A leaked internal report from Meta went further, indicating that its eating disorder-related algorithm is more likely to target users who have previously engaged with content about body dissatisfaction. That is a malicious example of how these companies, which by the way are fully aware of these risks, continue to exploit the insecurities of women and girls. Some of the most distressing cases of deepfakes and technology-facilitated sexual abuse have resulted in women losing their job, their reputation and even access to their children. These incidents send an appalling message that perpetrators can wield overwhelming power over their victims. They confirm the very fears that many survivors live with every day. If social media and AI companies are willing to stand by while their algorithms amplify content about dangerous eating disorders and give abusers free rein to harm women and their children, we must act. This is a significant fight, but one that I and many of my colleagues are absolutely committed to continuing. If we are not vigilant, we risk allowing our digital world to be shaped by the misogynistic impulses of figures like Elon Musk and the wider manosphere, rather than building an online world that safeguards and protects women and girls.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Gambling Harms: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  What a fantastic pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this important debate, and for his wider campaigning on this issue. Gambling is not harmless. For young people, whose minds are still developing and are far more susceptible to addiction and social pressures, the risks are even greater. Some on the Opposition Benches often warn of a so-called nanny state or of Government overreach, but failing to act on gambling harms would be turning a blind eye to a growing crisis that is harming the most vulnerable in our society. In many tragic cases, it is tearing families apart. Declan Cregan has bravely spoken out about how he became addicted to £1-spin gambling websites during his school lunch break. What began as a seemingly low-stakes, low-risk habit spiralled into a 10-year struggle that ultimately cost him around half a million pounds. It is not only those living with addiction who suffer the consequences; parents Peter and Sadie Keogh have faced the unimaginable pain of losing their son, who ended his own life after being overwhelmed by a gambling addiction. Early exposure to gambling does not simply pose a risk but casts a devastating and far-reaching shadow over young people, families and whole communities. We know that gambling is harmful for adults, and often targeted at those who are already financially vulnerable, but the safeguards designed to protect children and young people have simply not kept pace with the realities of the digital age. Some 31% of young people report seeing gambling content promoted by influencers and, according to GambleAware, 30% of 11 to 17-year-olds have spent their own money on gambling in the last 12 months—a 3% increase since 2024. Despite those trends, GambleAware has warned that as a nation we still rely far too heavily on self-regulation, with responsibility spread across multiple Government Departments and no single point of accountability. Meanwhile, existing intervention and support services are often designed with adults in mind. Young people who seek help frequently describe wanting confidential, youth-friendly support that feels private and accessible, but instead find services that make them feel further alienated and misunderstood. Many young people do not recognise their behaviour as harmful; they do not see themselves as problem gamblers, and see their actions as normal, or even expected, youthful risk taking. Tragically, they realise only when they are financially, socially and psychologically deep into the addiction that what seemed like harmless fun has taken a profound toll. Gambling companies, whether online or on the high street, have repeatedly shown their unwillingness to take genuine responsibility for safeguarding their customers. Only last week, in response to a signature on a joint letter on the harms of gambling led by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), I received a reply that effectively told me how wrong I was. It informed me of the virtues of gambling for our high streets and local economies. If these organisations are so convinced of the good they do, they should have nothing to fear from proper scrutiny. But we know that they are all too happy with the status quo, and wish to continue to mark their own homework. If we are to meaningfully confront the escalating crisis of youth gambling, the Government must move beyond incremental tweaks and adopt a proactive, uncompromising approach to addressing the well-evidenced harms associated with it. We need swift, decisive action to modernise protections so that they reflect the realities of a digital world—one in which young people are routinely targeted and relentlessly exposed to risk. The support we offer must be designed to genuinely resonate with children and teenagers, meeting them where they are, speaking in a language they trust and providing services they will actually use. Only then can we stem the rising tide of harm and safeguard the wellbeing of the next generation.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate and for the hard work that he has already put into this area. I am very pleased that broadband coverage in my Isle of Wight West constituency is improving—it was at 94.2% in 2022 and is projected to reach 99.4% by 2040—thanks to our very own fibre company, WightFibre. However, actual take-up tells a different story, and it is one that we cannot ignore. Only 63.5% of households were using high-speed broadband in 2022, and even by 2040 only 76.1% of households are expected to be using it. That means that in 15 years’ time, nearly a quarter of households still might not be online. For such households, terrestrial TV is not a back-up; it is their primary connection to news, entertainment and public service content—and not just reruns of “Mrs Brown’s Boys”. That is especially true for older residents, those in rural areas and families facing financial pressures. As hon. Members have already said today, terrestrial TV is free, reliable and accessible. It does not require expensive subscriptions or high-speed internet. It just works. At a time when loneliness and isolation are growing, it plays a vital role in promoting wellbeing, inclusion and a sense of community. Three quarters of people say that terrestrial TV has helped to reduce loneliness, and among those aged 65 and over the figure rises to 87%. Additionally, I worry that any decision to switch off terrestrial TV could further exacerbate the cost of living crisis and deepen existing inequalities in our communities. I know that not everyone on the Isle of Wight has the means to afford high-speed internet or multiple streaming subscriptions. For many households, especially those on fixed incomes or struggling with rising bills, terrestrial TV is not just a preference; it is a necessity. Asking such families to transition to online-only services could mean they face additional costs of hundreds of pounds a year, not only for subscriptions but for upgraded devices and internet packages. That is a burden that many of those families simply cannot bear, and it is imperative that we do not impose it on them. It is also important to realise that any imposed switch-off would not have a limited impact; it would be deeply felt across our communities. The reality is that some people would be left behind, and many people would feel a greater sense of entirely avoidable social isolation. This shift is not just a technical one, but a social one. If we move too quickly or without providing proper support, we risk entrenching inequality, whereby access to media and public service content becomes a privilege available only to those who can afford it. Terrestrial TV helps to level the playing field. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their income or their location, can stay connected to other people around the world—and that is worth protecting.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Eating Disorders: Prevention of Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. I agree that this is a family-wide illness. We must reach the point where no one in the UK dies from an eating disorder, where every individual—man, woman, girl, boy—regardless of age, location or clinical classification has access to the support they need when they need it. I want to finish with the story of a young woman called Zara. She was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa in May 2013 and was admitted to an eating disorder unit almost immediately. Instead of being good news for her recovery, that was when the nightmare began. From May 2013 to June 2021, Zara endured 13 in-patient admissions across seven different units, including three years as a continuous in-patient, nearly two of which she spent without leaving one of the units or going outside. With each admission, her eating disorder and mental health deteriorated further. During that time Zara was restrained daily, often by a minimum of six people holding her down. She received very little therapy; instead there was a culture of patient blaming and shaming. In the last two years of her life, Zara was crying out for help but no one would listen. The eating disorder unit eventually discharged her completely, handing her over to the community mental health team. Her mum, who is with us today, spent nearly every day taking ligatures off her neck, lifting her down from a wardrobe when she was nearly unconscious, and performing CPR when she was found unresponsive in the shower. Zara’s mum states there was little to no support from the community psychiatrist; her family were left to cope alone. No matter how much they pleaded for help, it was a constant battle and they never received the support Zara so desperately needed. Zara should never have died of this illness. There was a whole world out there for her and she had so much to give, but ultimately she felt everyone had given up on her. She was only 24 when she died, but she was exhausted and did not know any other way to keep going without support. Unfortunately, Zara’s story is just one of many, and it is a story unfolding for countless others across the country. Behind these tragedies are systemic failures, often overlooked and hidden behind a lack of national data, questionable legal decision making and cost-saving agendas. In many parts of the UK, the treatments available to patients are not supported by evidence and can even be harmful, rather than providing integrated and evidence-based care. Underfunded services and poorly trained staff often leave high-risk patients institutionalised or without any meaningful or appropriate support. The system currently fails to listen to those who matter most—the patients, their families and supporters. Too often, it fosters a harmful culture of patient blaming rather than delivering compassionate, personalised care that supports recovery. We now know that eating disorders do not discriminate, and neither should our services.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  While the facial expressions of Opposition Members are worth an intervention all on their own, does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill provides stronger financial oversight and increased fan involvement, promotes equity and inclusion, protects club heritage, and increases transparency and accountability? The reason the Opposition oppose it is because those are alien concepts to them.