Child Contact Arrangements

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the issue. I completely agree that unfortunately we are seeing far, far too many mothers who are disbelieved and have had their children removed from them without any basis for doing so at all. Lives are being destroyed.

If a parent complains, there is a very significant risk that that will be used against them. Ultimately, it should not matter whether an expert is regulated or unregulated if regulated and unregulated experts both rely on the same harmful pseudoscience and inflict equally devastating consequences, particularly on mothers and their children. The advice provided by experts can have a significant influence on the judge’s decision about child contact arrangements: the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 harm report highlighted the fact that allegations of parental alienation are often accepted by the family court without robust scrutiny. Evidence from survivors continues to show that counter-allegations of parental alienation are taken more seriously than those of domestic abuse. In many cases, claims of alienation can lead to the child being removed from the survivor parent, despite existing evidence of abuse. A constituent of mine had her children removed in an alienation case when the theory was introduced after she alleged domestic abuse.

The non-profit Right to Equality has 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 quite clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for their mothers.

I have heard countless seriously concerning stories about children put into high-risk arrangements by the family court. Julia Margo, the co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing, with which I have been working closely, had a traumatic experience with the family justice system. After discovering that her former partner had been convicted of child sexual abuse, she endured years of legal battles, during which he took her to court 37 times demanding access to their children. Meanwhile, she felt dismissed and disbelieved by the system. She said that the court seemed more concerned about the risk of parental alienation than about the safety of her sons being left alone with a paedophile.

In another case, a child was taken away from her mother without warning at 10 years old. That day, a social worker came to the house and told her that she had half an hour to pack her things. The child recalled:

“I stuffed my favourite outfit in a bag—this blue shirt and leggings—along with a photo of me and mum. And then I got this bunny, my favourite soft toy, and I left it on her bed. It is what mum would do for me if she ever had to go away.”

The young girl later discovered that that simple goodbye had been used to criticise her mother, who had been her main carer since her parents had separated two years earlier. She said:

“The social worker said to my mum that no child should be worried about their parent’s feelings, and it was a sign of abuse.”

At 12 years old, the child wrote to the president of the family division, England’s most senior family judge, seeking the representation that she was previously denied. A district judge had found abuse from her father and found that her mother harboured a great deal of anger against him. A consultant psychiatrist, Dr Mark Berelowitz, was then brought into the case and claimed that the reason she was opposed to seeing her father was that she had been subjected to her mother’s

“unresolved angry feelings about the breakdown of their relationship.”

The judge then ordered that the child should move to live with her father, as her mother was not giving her emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with her father.

It is clear that in this case, as in so many others, parental alienation allegations represented the complete disregard of a child’s wishes during the court process. In the child’s words:

“I was removed from my mother’s care within hours of a court order being made…I spent the ensuing five years faced with professional after professional who refused to believe me. They said I was repeating my mother’s words and that, despite findings of domestic abuse, it was better to have a relationship with the person who frightened me.”

Parental alienation is a harmful ideology that profoundly impacts children. However, there are signs that the winds of change may now be moving through the family courts. In February this year, the president of the family division handed down a landmark judgment dismissing findings of so-called alienation against the mother. She had been prohibited from seeing her children for five years after alleging abuse in private family law proceedings. Lawyers have since characterised the initial ruling as draconian and extraordinary.

In December 2019, the court ordered that the children, who were then aged nine and 12, be removed, and it granted the father sole custody. The evidence was given by an unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill. In overturning court findings informed by Gill’s reports, the president of the family division’s ruling could open the door for other families assessed by Gill, who has acted as an expert witness in up to 200 cases. Guidance published by the Family Justice Council in December 2024 says that experts should not be appointed to look for alienation; instead, judges should take a factual approach to identifying specific alienating behaviours. It was this new information that enabled the mother to bring her case back to court.

In a historic part of the judgment, the president of the family division has recognised the significant barriers that mothers face when seeking to appeal and has asked the Family Justice Council to consider an alternative procedural approach proposed by the legal team representing the mother and her son. I urge the Family Justice Council to consider that proposal as a matter of urgency, so that children and their parents who have been wrongfully separated because of pseudoscientific claims can finally have their cases reviewed.

However, there is still more work to be done. Hundreds of children and mothers have been wrongfully separated by family courts in England and Wales. This is a matter of national shame. Although the 2024 guidance and recent judgment from Sir Andrew McFarlane are clear and consistent, there is a risk that by themselves they will not be able to prevent the underlying error. As a route to justice, such judgments depend on the protective parent securing legal representation, identifying the procedural defect and bringing a part 18 application to set aside, years after the original order.

As I have mentioned, the president of the family division himself has acknowledged that mothers in this position face significant barriers to appeal. That is why I have been working on an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill; I am grateful to Baroness Levitt KC, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, for the time she has taken to discuss it with me. Through the amendment, I propose to introduce a statutory presumption operating at the front end of proceedings, before findings of fact are made and before residence is disturbed. That would effectively prevent harm, rather than relying on a remedial route that few will successfully be able to navigate. We need to ensure that the family justice system is reformed so that the voice of the child is always put at the centre of proceedings, and so that allegations of alienation never take precedence over allegations of abuse.

I welcome the fact that, thanks to timeless campaigning by the indomitable Claire Throssell and by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement set out in the Children Act 1989. This is a long-overdue correction to the pro-contact culture identified in the 2020 harm report and will address what the court must presume about contact in general. I also welcome the Government’s rolling out of child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and resolve cases quicker.

An important question remains unaddressed, however: when a child resists or refuses contact with a parent against whom abuse is alleged, what weight should the court give to that response as evidence? That gap is currently doing significant harm. Too often, in current practice, the answer has been to reframe that resistance as the product of so-called alienating behaviour by the protected parent. Doing so risks reinterpreting the child’s voice not as a possible indicator of harm, but as evidence of manipulation.

I am also aware of cases in which a child discloses abuse by their father, particularly child sexual abuse, and those disclosures are then used as evidence of alienation against their mother, meaning that when a child makes a disclosure it can work against the mother, who risks losing the child. My simple amendment would effectively prevent the use of counterclaims of alienation to undermine or distract from allegations of domestic abuse, and would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves.

Does the Minister agree that for many of the hundreds of children and mothers who have been forcibly separated, the route to justice through appeal is hard to access? Does she agree that further reform is urgently needed to ensure that children’s voices carry the evidential weight that they should carry in family court proceedings? Does she support strengthening the Courts and Tribunals Bill further so that if a child has experienced or witnessed abuse, the child’s not wanting to see the perpetrator is first assumed to be a reasonable reaction in the family courts?

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I completely endorse the hon. Lady’s calls. I have talked about how we need reform to the family courts. Will she support my calls for the Government to support family contact centres? In my constituency, the Woking Family Contact Centre has been run by volunteers for 25 years, which is an amazing achievement. We need to ensure that children are well supported after a traumatic incident. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to do much more to support family contact centres?

[Alison Hume]

I have raised with Baroness Levitt not only the lack of access to child contact centres but the cost of access. It appears that many of them are unregulated, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue.

To conclude, everybody wants to see the family justice system evolve to better recognise children’s lived experiences, support safer and more effective participation, and make decisions that promote long-term recovery and healthy outcomes. I ask the Government to seize the opportunity presented by the Courts and Tribunals Bill to totally discredit the use of experts who subscribe to parental alienation and to enshrine the rights of the child in law, to ensure that those speaking their truth are properly heard.

Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Westminster Hall

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

My hon. Friend raises the important issue of knife crime, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson). Every incident of knife crime is taken seriously and has a devastating effect on the victim, their family and the community. As I said, knife crime is down 8% under this Labour Government. That is a good start, but we have also just announced record investment in early intervention services, whether that is the Turnaround programme or youth justice services more generally. In the coming weeks, we will publish a cross-Government strategy for tackling knife crime, which will involve work by colleagues at the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. That is the best way of ensuring that we tackle the causes of knife crime.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

T2.   The Justice Secretary will no doubt be aware of the tragic case of Sara Sharif from my constituency. Her father, who went on to murder her, was given custody of Sara by the family court, after her Polish mother was unable to give evidence because she did not have an interpreter and could not follow proceedings. Please will the Justice Secretary agree to implement the Sara Sharif safeguarding report in full, and ensure that everyone can take part fully in family court proceedings, to protect the vulnerable going forward?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and his tireless advocacy, which is a way of honouring Sara, who was brutally murdered at the hands of the very people who should have been protecting her. Of course, it is essential for justice that all court users understand what is happening in hearings. We believe that Sara Sharif’s birth mother was entitled to an interpreter, but she did not request one. However, we need to look into what should have been done to guarantee that she had an interpreter. We make over 200,000 interpreter bookings every year to ensure that people can understand proceedings, but I look forward to working with him to see what more we can do to implement that review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I was glad to visit Barnet court in my constituency, which has newly reopened after a year. I noticed what many who cross the threshold into our courts see: the first welcome from court staff, which often allays nerves and anxiety in an alienating environment. That is critical, and it is why we want to support our court staff, we are investing in legal advisers who support our magistrates, and we are supporting all of them. I would be happy to visit my hon. Friend’s local court in Watford if the opportunity arises.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I am pleased to hear from the Minister how the Government are supporting magistrates and that she visited a recently reopened magistrates court. The biggest single thing that the Government could do in my constituency in my county of Surrey is reopen Woking magistrates court, which was closed by the former Conservative Government. Will the Government consider reopening Woking magistrates court?

[Sarah Sackman]

We keep our court estate and the assessment of need under constant review. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me so that we can look into the provision in his area.

Criminal Court Reform

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I can confirm that the jury remains the cornerstone of our system, and must do for obvious reasons. I want to see the backlog coming down, but this is a mountain to climb, and that is why I have said that I want reductions by the next general election. The trend at the moment is upwards, and we have to throw everything at the problem if we are to solve it.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I have previously raised the case of my Woking constituent Dani, a victim of grooming and sexual abuse, who is having to wait more than six years for justice. Although I am concerned about these proposals from the Justice Secretary, I and others can probably be convinced if they do genuinely put the victims first without undermining our justice system. To persuade me, please will he agree to publish the impact assessment in full and let the Justice Committee fully scrutinise these proposals before a Bill is introduced?

[Mr Lammy]

As the hon. Member would expect, there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation, and full scrutiny of these proposals both in this place and in the other place. I just say to him: listen to victims’ voices today, to our Victims’ Commissioner, and to the groups that support victims. They support these proposals because they know that, combined, they are our best attempt to recalibrate the system and bring it back to where it should be.

Domestic Abuse: Children

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Ms Jardine. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing the debate. I had thought that I might need to intervene on him to allow him to catch his breath, but he managed to share some deeply emotional stories very well.

I am here to talk about Sara Sharif, a constituent of mine who was abused, tortured and murdered by those who should have loved her. The safeguarding report was published earlier this month. I will not read it all, but I want to highlight some particular issues to shape the debate, and I hope the Minister will respond to them. The safeguarding report had 15 recommendations, some national and some local. I would like the Minister to confirm that she and her team will read the safeguarding report and act on those recommendations with the urgency they deserve. We need to set a precedent that safeguarding reports with national implications are responded to by the Government as a matter of policy and urgency. That has not happened yet.

I hope that the Minister will take away the lessons learned on the home-schooling rules that were highlighted in the safeguarding report. Home-schooling is hugely beneficial for some children, but Sara Sharif’s father used those loopholes to hide the abuse. I hope that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will ensure that we register all children and that any parent suspected of abusing their child loses their right to home-schooling. People should have a right, but not when there are safeguarding concerns. Lots of amendments have been tabled to the Bill, and I hope that that one is taken forward.

Will the Minister comment on the inadequacies not only of Surrey county council’s children’s services, but of under-pressure children’s services across the country? Vulnerable children are being looked after by overworked social workers who need better training—the safeguarding report says so. We should train and support them better. They wanted to take Sara Sharif away from her family before she was born, but they were convinced otherwise. Can we learn those lessons and empower people to protect our future generation?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this timely and poignant debate, highlighting that children in their own right are victims of domestic abuse, and sharing some powerful words from his constituents. That is never easy to do, and I commend him for that. Children should be growing up in a safe and loving home, free from violence and fear, and that is not the case for so many. The hon. Member shared a really powerful phrase—domestic abuse does not affect one generation; it echoes through the next. By the end of my speech today, the police will have recorded 11 more instances of domestic abuse. Every 40 seconds, a call is made to the authorities reporting a domestic abuse incident, but analysis shows that only one in five victims of domestic abuse will actually make a report.

The Office for National Statistics estimates that there were nearly 4 million victims in the year ending March 2025; 800,000 cases were recorded in that year. Of those 800,000 cases, only 41,000 offenders were actually convicted. Behind those shocking statistics are women and men who are living in fear, and children, scared for their parent and often for themselves and their siblings. As the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) said, these are often our nation’s hidden children.

Failure to protect children should be at the forefront of our minds as policymakers. That is why I absolutely share the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls throughout the duration of this Parliament, thus protecting more children from harm.

The Liberal Democrat campaign, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who grew up in a household experiencing domestic abuse, led to the Government introducing a domestic abuse identifier at sentencing. I thank the Government for working so constructively with my hon. Friend to see that realised in the Sentencing Bill. It will allow the Government to track the data more efficiently and to understand how many domestic abuse perpetrators are currently serving a custodial sentence. It will allow the Government to exclude those abusers from any future early release schemes, and it will show whether the Government’s reducing reoffending programmes are leading to a reduction in reoffending rates of domestic abuse.

We Liberal Democrats have also called for an expansion of the high-quality perpetrator programmes within prison settings to prevent repeated harm. That is not the end of our ambition to better protect victims of domestic abuse. I hope that the collaborative relationship to tackle the issue continues across the House, because there is so much more that can be done.

The system to protect victims and their children is currently disjointed. Often, the gaps in provision are filled by the incredible voluntary sector and charitable organisations. In my constituency of Chichester, organisations such as My Sisters’ House, Paragon and Safe in Sussex, as well as Lifecentre, provide exceptional support to those who have suffered at the hands of domestic abusers.

The reality of increased costs associated with running those organisations, alongside an increasing number of cases, means that those organisations recognise that they could be supporting so many more victims. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West alluded to, with more families coming forward and children being rightly identified as victims of domestic abuse, the numbers are rising.

We need sustainable funding for support services for survivors, including multi-year settlements, so that organisations can plan for longer term programmes, rather than waiting to find out if they can continue to support victims in their area every year.

[Mr Forster]

Surrey is further advanced than Sussex in local government reorganisation. Something I am experiencing in my constituency that I fear my hon. Friend will soon see in hers is that charities such as Woking’s Your Sanctuary women’s refuge are really nervous about LGR. We do not yet have multi-year settlements, and it is almost impossible to even get a one-year settlement out of an authority that does not yet exist or is about to wound up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to take that point away and ensure that LGR does not hurt the funding that supports women and girls?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about local government reorganisation. Voluntary and charitable sector organisations rely on local authority funding and Government funding—they rely on multiple streams of income. I plead with the Minister to make sure that the Government funding, at least, is secured beyond one year, so that these organisations have the reassurance during LGR that they will be able to maintain their provision in some sense.

We also need a statutory definition of honour-based abuse, and better training for police, social care and education professionals. In every police force, we need specialist violence against women and girls taskforces, and every force should undergo training via Naturewatch on the links between domestic abuse and the abuse of animals. Perpetrators of domestic abuse identify the special bond people build with their pets and can use that to exert control over partners or children. Across the country, we have seen cases where warning signs were missed, reports were ignored and opportunities to intervene were tragically lost. The programme run by Naturewatch has been taken up by police forces across the country, including the Metropolitan police and Sussex police, but we should encourage every force to take it on, as there is a direct link between the treatment of animals and domestic abuse. We must set up support services so that they are in the ideal position to listen to a child crying out for help, no matter how hard it is to hear them.

We in the Liberal Democrats are also extremely concerned by the chronic underfunding of children’s social care. After a decade of cuts to local authority budgets under Conservative Governments, many councils have been forced to scale back their early intervention services. I have been told by those working in the sector that they feel like they are firefighting every day, rather than spending the time they so desperately want to spend with the families they could prevent from entering crisis. Instead, they are dealing with mounting caseloads, burnout and an inability to resource their departments properly. This is short-sighted and dangerous. Tragically, too often, the consequences are felt too late.

The report into the heartbreaking case of Sara Sharif is a damning indictment of Surrey county council’s failure to protect a young girl from her abusers. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a passionate plea for the recommendations of the safeguarding review to be explored by the Government so that lessons can be learned nationally. Early support does prevent crises from escalating, it protects children who witness domestic abuse in their household, and it identifies risks at the earliest opportunity.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for greater integration between health and social care, with far more involvement from local authorities in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services. This must include education settings, which play a vital role in identifying situations where abuse may be present. We need to ensure that training and support for teachers is readily available, so that they can spot the signs and call for help. Teachers have an increasingly challenging role in our complex environment: they are not only teachers but, quite often, caregivers and social workers. They may be the only lifeline that a child has, so they need to be able to spot the signs of domestic abuse, be they misbehaviour, withdrawal or a failure to engage in the classroom. In addition, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) mentioned, it is so important to have education campaigns so that children understand and can spot the signs of what is not a happy household, and understand what is normal and what is not, and what they should and should not put up with.

Another vital part of the picture is the family court system, which plays a key role in protecting children from situations where domestic abuse is present while also considering the importance of keeping families together. It is a desperately difficult job, yet there have been a number of situations where the system has failed and, frankly, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. I thank the Government for their recent steps, including removing parental responsibility from those convicted of the most serious sexual offences, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Dulwich and West Norwood. Campaigners fought hard for that change, and it is welcome. Could we also consider removing parental responsibility from those on bail, to ensure that individuals capable of committing horrendous abuse are kept away from their children as early as possible?

With that in mind, what are the Government doing to integrate health and social care services across the country to ensure that as much protection as possible is provided for vulnerable children and families? What are the Government doing to raise awareness of the warning signs of a child living in a household with domestic abuse? When will we see further legislation to deal with the rising issues in our family court system? Will the Government consider specific measures to keep those on bail on charges of offences against children away from their children? The Liberal Democrats stand ready to work with Members in all parts of the House to ensure that every child is protected, every survivor is heard and every perpetrator is held to account.

Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

What a sorry state of affairs. This case highlights the consequences of a prison system, which includes separation centres, that was overstretched and under-resourced by the last Conservative Government, of which the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was a prominent member—he has now forgotten that.

Please will the Minister confirm what assessment the Ministry of Justice has made of the decade of Tory underfunding and overcrowding, which left prisons unable to safely manage violent extremists such as those we have been talking about? Will she also outline how Abu’s ideology and violent behaviour escalated the need for extreme segregation measures? Finally, violent attacks on prison staff are on the rise. We have seen high-profile cases of prisoners, including one from my constituency of Woking, being accidentally released. What assurances will the Minister give us, as MPs, that public safety and the protection of prison staff will be prioritised in the under-resourced prison system that the Government inherited from the Conservatives?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions and for the constructive way in which he asks them. He is right to highlight the chronic underfunding of our Prison Service and our criminal justice system over 14 years of Tory austerity. He is right that if there is a dereliction of the duty to look after our criminal justice system, this, sadly, is the result. We are slowly beginning to pick up the pieces of what was left of our criminal justice system when we came into office 18 months ago, and this is yet another example of how the previous Government failed to keep us safe and failed to invest in our Prison Service. This is the result.

We realise that more needs to be done and we are committed to doing it. I pay tribute again to the brilliant prison staff and prison officers who work in intolerable conditions. We are committed to investing in them to make sure they are safe, as I have stated, with effective body armour and better training. We are listening to them and to the governors of prisons directly about what they need, because they are the best people to identify the needs on the ground, and we are seeking to provide reassurance. I extend a hand across the aisle and offer to work with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and his party to ensure that we get this right for the sake of everyone.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]

Will Forster Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak once again in this Chamber on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which creates a modern legal framework that will allow Britain to take every opportunity we can while protecting ourselves in an ever-changing digital age.

The Liberal Democrats support clause 1. It states that a “thing”—including a digital or electronic thing—will not be deprived of legal status as an object of personal property rights merely by reason of the fact that it is neither a thing in action nor a thing in possession. The clause responds to the development of new types of assets such as crypto-tokens, which challenge the traditional categories of property. I am grateful to the other place for scrutinising this legal framework incredibly well. As a result, we have a fine piece of legislation to discuss.

The digital world is often mired in legal ambiguity about how common-law systems treats digital assets. At present, the law recognises two primary forms of personal property: things in possession and things in action. However, digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do no count for a claim against another person, do not really fit easily into either category. The need for clarity is imperative. We risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving cryptoassets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings.

The Bill goes far in ensuring that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the normal categories. Consequently, we also support clause 2, as it requires the Secretary of State to publish codes of practice on the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The clause aims to provide guidance to the courts on how to assess whether a digital asset is the object of personal property rights.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations. Financial Conduct Authority figures indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold cryptoassets—I know because constituency cases are raised with me when things go wrong—and that figure has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, people seeking restitution in insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold, have been operating in a murky legal landscape. The Bill leaves room for the common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individual rights and support our economy.

We know that digital assets can also present risks, particularly fraud, volatility and abuse, but we cannot ignore them; we must face them head on. We need a modern legal framework that bolsters confidence in our economy and in the use of digital assets, and supports the rule of law. The Bill is clear, well written and makes doubly sure that UK law remains relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners and by the Liberal Democrats. I urge colleagues on all sides of the Committee to support its passage.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Minister to wind up the debate

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Will Forster]

I thank colleagues from across the House. It is a good example of cross-party working, delivering a Bill that has been well-scrutinised and is fit for purpose. In that spirit, I hope that the Minister can take that away and encourage her colleagues to do the same with other legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]

Will Forster Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I rise in support of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which stands to bring our legal framework into the 21st century and better equip it to meet the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. This Bill is firmly rooted in the rigorous work of the Law Commission, which was followed by careful scrutiny in the other place. I thank peers for their work on the Bill, particularly Lord Tim Clement-Jones for scrutinising it on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

This Bill confronts the long-standing legal ambiguity about how our common law system treats digital assets. As the Minister explained, and as I vaguely remember from my days at law school, the law as it stands recognises two primary forms of personal property—things in possession and things in action. However, we live in an ever-changing digital world, in which everything is much more based on digital than that common-law approach allows for. Digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do not constitute a claim against another person, do not fall into the two traditional categories. Without clarity about the law, we risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving crypto assets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings. That is why this Bill matters; it ensures that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the two normal categories. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations.

This Bill is appropriate at this time, when we are seeing a growing use of digital assets across a variety of sectors. They are being used as investments, stores for value and tokens of identity and ownership by more and more people than ever before—recent figures from the Financial Conduct Authority indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold crypto assets, a figure that has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, those seeking restitution in cases of insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold have been operating in a murky legal landscape. This Bill leaves room for common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the ever-evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individuals’ rights and support the economy.

We know that digital assets mean potential risks—whether fraud, abuse, or volatility—but ignoring them or failing to regulate them effectively will not make those risks disappear. A legal vacuum only increases the risk of criminality and injustice, while a clear, modern legal framework empowers the honest majority, boosts confidence and supports innovation. This Bill is measured, cautious and essential. It provides legal clarity, upholds property rights, and ensures that our laws remain relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners, and by the Liberal Democrats. I hope everyone in this Chamber supports it, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I am desperately sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend describes. Once again, the best thing that we can do for those families, to ensure that they get swifter justice and get their day in court in a timely fashion, is bear down on the Crown court backlog. That is why we are waiting for Sir Brian Leveson to report in the spring, and why we will act promptly on his recommendations.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

13. What steps her Department is taking to ensure child safety during private law proceedings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

The welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration for family courts, which should follow the welfare checklist, as set out in the Children Act 1989. Our new approach to private law proceedings—the pathfinder pilot courts—focuses on problem solving, putting greater emphasis on the voice of the child, but we are acutely aware that more needs to be done.

[Mr Forster]

The previous Government’s harm panel report stated that there is a crisis in family courts and that they are too pro-parental contact, despite there being concerns about the child’s safety. As with many things under the previous Government, the Conservatives did nothing about the report. Will this Government and the Minister commit to reversing the parental presumption where there are concerns about child abuse?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As I have stated, the child’s welfare must be the court’s paramount consideration. The presumption of parental involvement states that a court should

“presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare.”

I take this opportunity to state, however, that that applies only if the parent does not put the child at risk of harm. We will publish our review of the presumption in due course.