Richard Quigley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  Not enough to give way. If we cannot trust Dr Hilary Cass, the author of a report that the Conservative party itself has endorsed, when she says she is “absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don’t do the trial than if we do,” who exactly are we prepared to trust? Do we follow the evidence, the clinicians and the science, or do we retreat into denial, burying our heads in the sand and pretending that trans people do not exist and have never existed? The process the Government have chosen to follow is not reckless; it is rigorous. The MHRA and King’s College London have undertaken detailed scientific scrutiny, and a revised protocol has been agreed that meets the highest regulatory and ethical standards. That is exactly what responsible, evidence-led policymaking looks like. It is up to us to decide what kind of Parliament we want to be: one that confronts complex and sensitive issues with care, compassion and evidence, or one that turns away, leaving vulnerable young people to navigate these challenges alone and in the shadows. For me, the choice is clear: we owe it to those young people not to look away, not to inflame and not to exploit, but to act, guided by science, led by compassion and grounded in responsibility. I am once again proud to be part of a Government who are doing just that.

• 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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Women and Girls: Isle of Wight · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for women and girls on the Isle of Wight. It is a fantastic pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and it is of course a great pleasure to be here to advocate on behalf of the backbone of my constituency: the women and girls of the Isle of Wight. I am well aware of the fact that currently two men represent the Isle of Wight in Parliament, with the only diversity being that of our political parties, rather than our genders. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) is present, but the fact we are both men makes it even more important that we strongly advocate on behalf of women and girls on the island, who face added disadvantage not just because of their gender but because of where they were born and raised. Neither I nor the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East is a woman, which should be obvious, and the local council, on which we both serve, is only 30% female. That is nearly 10% below the national average for local authorities. Unfortunately, the picture is no brighter in business leadership: some estimates suggest that just 32% of the island’s business directors are women. I recognise that symbolic representation is not everything, but my central point is that I want girls growing up on the island to know that opportunities, whether in politics or business, are not reserved for men. Girls are equally capable and equally deserving, and should feel just as able to pursue such roles as their male classmates. I will touch briefly on transport, not to stray from the Minister’s remit but to highlight how poor ferry services have compounded existing inequality for women and girls on the island. The current ferry service makes it harder to access healthcare, secure job opportunities or escape domestic abuse. The challenges that exist for women and girls on the mainland are infinitely magnified for those who are effectively penned in by the Solent. The Minister will be well aware of the devastating impact of sexual violence. The trauma is profound in itself, but imagine, after experiencing rape or sexual assault, having to travel to the mainland for the dignity of having a medical examination in private. This is not a hypothetical scenario: for some sexual assault victims on the Isle of Wight, it is their lived reality. St Mary’s hospital lacks a dedicated sexual assault referral centre, forcing survivors to travel to Portsmouth to obtain the physical evidence needed to secure justice. Surviving an assault is already unbearable. Imagine then being forced to travel for well over an hour, still wearing the clothes you were attacked in, just so you can access the medical care and emotional support you need. This is far from an isolated problem: as of 2025, violent and sexual offences remain the most commonly recorded crimes on the island, and the lack of local provision to address the escalation represents a clear failure to meet the needs of those who require help the most. Crimes related to domestic abuse on the Isle of Wight rose by 25% between 2018 and 2023. Yet the island’s only refuge, which has a capacity of just six rooms, operates with severely limited space. The organisation that provides much of the vital support, Paragon, told me that many women have been forced to leave the island entirely, uprooting their homes and leaving their communities and support networks to reach safety. Estimates suggest that women on the Isle of Wight who attempt to escape domestic abuse face an additional “cost of escape” of around £10,000, compared with victims on the mainland. As I highlighted in the recent debate I led on protecting children from domestic abuse, the lack of local provision forces the most vulnerable into an impossible choice: take on crippling debt, or remain with an abusive partner because financial barriers make safety unattainable. Sadly, that is not the only area in which women on the island face inequality. Those who make the profoundly difficult decision to seek an abortion after 13 weeks are required to leave the island and cross the Solent to access care. The financial strain, the challenge of arranging travel and the absence of family or community support during such an invasive and emotionally draining procedure only compounds the distress. No woman makes this choice lightly, least of all in the later stages of pregnancy. Yet it is those with the fewest resources who shoulder the greatest burden, forced to undergo the ordeal far from home, without the reassurance of familiar surroundings, and often at overwhelming personal and financial cost. Medical inequality for women on the island does not end there. For those who continue their pregnancy, specialist services are not always available locally. St Mary’s has a special care baby unit, but it cannot manage the births of extremely premature babies, severe labour complications, or newborns who require intensive care or surgery. Although the maternity care provided at St Mary’s is among the best in the region, if not the country, the lack of advanced facilities means that women facing traumatic labours often endure the added stress of travelling off-island for critical treatment. Although it is true that many women across the country travel far when faced with complex pregnancies and deliveries, for women on the island the journey involves ferry crossings, adding another layer of discomfort and delay. For young women who are already navigating a frightening and uncertain time, it becomes yet another barrier to safe, equitable care. The healthcare inequalities alone make a compelling case for Government intervention, whether to improve maternal care or abortion services, but the challenges do not stop there. The educational outcomes and job opportunities for women and girls remain severely limited.

• 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.