Anna Sabine MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 24 Feb 2026 · Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree—I could not have said it better. The people in those circles appoint, defend and rehabilitate one another. Sometimes they do so in ways in which many women looking on would not. When the same small group repeatedly decides what is reputationally survivable, politically convenient and worth overlooking, women’s confidence in our institutions erodes. That is how this circles back to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor: the issue is not only his personal conduct, but the culture of deference, protective networks and systems in which rehabilitation for powerful men can move faster than justice or safety for women. That is precisely why transparency matters. When decisions are taken within small, powerful circles, sunlight is not a luxury; it is a safeguard. If Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed and maintained as special trade envoy, the public is entitled to understand how that decision was reached, what advice was given, what risks were assessed and who signed it off. We cannot say we are serious about accountability while withholding the very documents that would allow this House and the public to scrutinise how power was exercised. Releasing all correspondence, risk assessments and internal advice relating to his role as trade envoy is not about political point scoring, but about restoring trust. Transparency is the antidote to institutional deference, and without it structural sexism continues to operate behind closed doors.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this debate on a subject she knows so much about and on which she is such a passionate campaigner. Rural areas are too often the last in the queue when it comes to decent mobile internet connectivity. I certainly receive many emails—although not as many as I probably would if they were better connected—as well as calls and letters from constituents who tell me how woeful mobile connectivity is in parts of Frome and East Somerset. One elderly constituent told me how anxious she is that she or her husband will suffer a fall and have no way to contact the emergency services as their home has no mobile signal. The Liberal Democrats believe that mobile coverage is a basic utility that is as essential these days as running water. People need mobile connectivity when they are travelling, working, running businesses or responding to emergencies. Yet for too long, Government targets have not been ambitious enough, and have been based on connecting households directly rather than on geographical coverage. The Government claim to have reached 95% of geographical broadband coverage, but residents in rural areas tell a very different story, and the problem lies in how coverage is measured. A constituent wrote to me about persistent signal blackspots throughout the village of Rode. He told me he no longer expects to receive any mobile signal at his home. Ofcom’s mobile coverage checker suggests he should have a strong outdoor signal from every provider, but his experience proves otherwise. This is why we support a nationwide programme to install hyperfast fibre optic broadband across the UK, with a particular focus on connecting rural areas. Ofcom’s capability to understand coverage relies on measurements based on grids of 100 metres by 100 metres, which means that vast swathes of rural areas are underserved in areas such as Rode. More accurate techniques based on smaller grids would offer better coverage pictures to allow for targeted support. Rural businesses are crying out for better connectivity. A survey by the Countryside Alliance found that 85% of rural businesses cited their connectivity as poor but manageable, with 80% saying better-quality connectivity would be the single largest improvement to their business. In Midsomer Norton, a fairly sizeable market town in my constituency, Zen Rebel Studios has long struggled with poor mobile signal and inadequate broadband. Mobile reception inside its premises is extremely limited, and despite being only a few metres off the high street, it has been unable to secure an extension of the fibre network. As a result, only a handful of people using its café can currently use its wi-fi at any one time before the system crashes, which is simply not sustainable for a modern business. This really matters for productivity. Rural areas are 18% less productive than the national average. Closing this gap would be worth up to £43 billion in England alone, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in areas too often blighted by underemployment. Some rural stakeholders have complained about a lack of transparency about where coverage improvements will be delivered. Ultimately, it is up to the mobile network operators to decide where to deploy coverage. The Government and Ofcom do not have legal powers to force them to build masts in specific locations. However, when the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) served as Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, he convened a working group with MPs and mobile providers to explore how to accelerate mast installation and improve rural mobile coverage. Unfortunately, this has not yet been restarted under the current Minister, who I hope will consider reinstating it. I want to conclude by raising something that has not yet come up, but which is a consequence of rural connectivity failure that goes beyond economics or inconvenience. I have a constituent who, after leaving a long-term coercively controlling relationship, experienced sustained cyber-intrusion by his former partner over several days. He reported it to the police and obtained a crime number, but his abuser retained sole control of the broadband account for the home in which he was living. As the coercive controller was the named bill payer, my constituent could not take over the account. His former partner explicitly refused to release it, even when requested to do so during separation proceedings. Here is where the absence of mobile coverage becomes critical: there is zero mobile signal at my constituent’s property. In fact, that goes for the whole village. Broadband was therefore his only means of communication. His abuser controlled whether he could make a telephone call, access support services or even work. Through locked devices connected to the network, my constituent remained vulnerable to surveillance. A private security sweep, costing £5,000, discovered that his TV sound bar had been configured as a listening device. He had to live with his wi-fi turned off, activating it only when absolutely necessary, leaving him feeling desperately vulnerable and unable call for help during the moments it was on. My constituent contacted his broadband provider four times and, while staff were compassionate and escalated the situation, there was no safeguarding protocol available to them and no mechanism to transfer control. His former partner continued controlling his internet access and which devices could connect. Currently, broadband is regulated as a consumer contract and not as essential infrastructure; while an energy supplier would have had to recognise domestic abuse and allow an account transfer, telecommunications providers face no such duty. When reviewing rural connectivity policy, will the Minister also consider requiring telecoms providers to have such safeguarding mechanisms, and will they ensure that where police evidence documents abuse, broadband control can be transferred to the person at risk? I am sure that the Minister hears similar frustrations from his own constituents as we have heard today, and I hope he recognises how urgently these issues need addressing. If we are serious about protecting people, supporting rural communities and enabling economic growth, we must treat digital access as the essential service it has become.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate. We have had the findings of the Hughes report for over two years now. It called on the Government to provide financial redress to patients and families affected by the use of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The previous Government refused to act and increasingly it feels as though the current Government are also burying their head in the sand rather than confronting the scale of this injustice. My constituent Nick is one of those living with the consequences of that inaction. His son Oliver was born with foetal valproate syndrome after Nick’s wife took valproate during pregnancy to control her epilepsy. Tragically, Nick’s wife has since died, leaving Nick to raise Oliver alone. Nick told me that it is hard for him to adequately explain how difficult Oliver’s life has been and how much he worries about his son’s future. Valproate has changed Oliver’s life forever, and all Nick wants is answers and meaningful action from the Government. Quite rightly, Nick continually chases me for answers on when the Government will make a decision on the Hughes report. On behalf of Nick and Oliver, I ask very directly: can the Minister say when we will finally get a response to the Hughes report? How much longer do the Government need to “carefully consider” recommendations that have already been scrutinised, evidenced and endorsed? Families such as Nick’s cannot wait indefinitely while the Government deliberate. I take this opportunity to say that it is also vital that we recognise the devastating impact of Primodos, a hormonal pregnancy test used until the 1980s. Primodos was not considered by the Hughes report, but it was part of the Cumberlege review of hundreds of children born with foetal abnormalities. Many of those affected are now older; tragically, some of them are dying without ever receiving acknowledgment, accountability or compensation. The pelvic mesh, valproate and Primodos scandals are some of the most significant health scandals of modern times. They have disproportionately affected women, yet time and again we see the same pattern: warnings being ignored; evidence being dismissed; and victims being left to fight for justice on their own. These scandals have gone on for far too long, with little action from successive Governments. Those affected by valproate and Primodos are not asking for the impossible; they simply want those responsible to acknowledge the mistakes made and to take responsibility for the harms caused. If we are serious about restoring trust in our healthcare system and serious about supporting women, we must start by delivering justice to those who have been failed so profoundly.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. It may be that she is coming on to this issue but, while everything she is saying on active travel is fantastic and I recognise the point about the manual for streets, does she recognise that if the overarching framework, the national planning policy framework, does not pay regard to women’s and girls’ safety, it is much harder to enact those subsets such as active travel?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this important debate. I am passionate about women’s safety, especially in semi-rural areas such as Frome and East Somerset. This is not an abstract policy discussion. As has been discussed, it is about the constant calculations that women make every day: “Do I take the longer, better-lit route? Do I run before dawn, or wait until daylight? Do I walk home, or pay for a taxi that I cannot really afford?” These decisions are so ingrained that many women barely register them any more. But this should not be accepted—it is not normal. No one should have to limit their freedom of movement because they feel unsafe. Last year, I met a constituent called Holly who had been the victim of repeated incidents of flashing when she was out walking in her village in Somerset. As a result of talking to Holly, I launched a survey in my constituency to hear directly from women about safety in rural areas. With nights getting darker, I wanted to understand how safe women feel when getting to work, socialising or simply going about their daily lives. The responses were sobering. Women spoke about being followed on dark country lanes with no street lighting, waiting for buses on isolated roads with no shelter or CCTV, giving up running and cycling altogether because it simply did not feel safe, and above all, the constant vigilance required just to get home. Rural areas face particular challenges. Public transport is limited and street lighting is sparse or non-existent. Communities are spread out and mobile signal is often unreliable. The scale of the problem is clear: UN Women UK found that 71% of women have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces, yet most never report it because they believe nothing will be done. The Government are right to call violence against women and girls a national emergency. I know that members of the Government are committed to this issue, but there is currently a glaring gap between Government Departments on planning policy. Just days before publishing the new strategy on violence against women and girls, the Government also published a revised national planning policy framework, with no reference to women, girls or gendered safety. That omission matters. The places we build determine whether women feel safe walking home, waiting for a bus or going for a run. Planning policy is one of the most powerful tools we have to prevent harm before it occurs. A place cannot credibly be described as “healthy” if half the population feel unable to use it safely after dark. We know what works: good lighting, clear sightlines, active streets, safe transport routes, and design that considers how women experience public space. Without explicit national policy, women’s safety becomes a postcode lottery. I put it to the Minister that if we truly believe in a whole-society approach to ending violence against women and girls, women’s safety must be designed into our streets, paths, transport networks and public spaces, not just bolted on as an afterthought. Will the Minister talk to colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office about the importance of this joined-up thinking? Women are not asking for the impossible; they are asking for the freedom to move through their communities safely. Let us commit to making that a reality.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Improving Outcomes for Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Data suggests around 50,000 children are not getting the music education they deserve and the cuts to music PGCE—postgraduate certificate in education—bursaries will exacerbate the problem. While £25 million of new musical instruments announced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be left to collect dust in storage cupboards, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Department for Education to ensure we have the teachers to teach the musicians of the future?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. Some 35,000 children, including my constituent Clover, live with uncontrolled, life-threatening epilepsy. Those who can afford it already benefit from prescribed medical cannabis, but families face endless delays, confused trials and a Home Office process designed for criminal misuse, not for healthcare. Will the Prime Minister meet me and affected families to discuss moving paediatric medical cannabis out of Home Office control, creating a pathway for proper trials, and NHS access, and ensuring that all children with life-threatening epilepsy get the care that they deserve, regardless of their family circumstances?

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for bringing forward this debate. People of an age where their first exposure to television was watching “Play School”, “Danger Mouse” and the often overlooked but still culturally significant series “Bananaman”, may, like me, have a built-in childhood affection for the BBC. The Liberal Democrats have always been firm supporters of the BBC: we have long championed it as a publicly funded, impartial model of public service broadcasting and we believe it has a vital and unique place in the UK’s media landscape. There has been a lot of discussion today about unsubscribing from the BBC. The NHS and education are two examples of public services that we all contribute to but can opt out of by going private, yet we do not say that everyone should be able to stop contributing to them; we consider them to be of wider public benefit. I hope that Members recognise that the BBC falls into that category. As we look ahead to charter renewal, we want to see sustainable, long-term funding settlements that guarantee the BBC’s independence and protect it from political interference. That must include an end to political appointments, particularly to the BBC Board. Recent attempts by political figures, both at home and abroad, to exert pressure on the BBC only underline the importance of safeguarding its editorial independence. Allowing political or foreign interference in our media does not bode well for trust in public broadcasting. As has been mentioned, the BBC is the backbone of our world-leading creative industries. It delivers outstanding economic value, doubling its investment across the creative economy and contributing around £5 billion each year. It produces hugely popular programmes such as “The Traitors”, while also supporting smaller and more diverse content that may serve niche audiences, but is no less valuable. As a huge fan of BBC Radio 6 Music, I point out that in an age of plastic pop—at least that is what it all sounds like—such stations are key in supporting new, emerging and diverse acts that would not otherwise get national airtime. That is part of the wider role the BBC plays in developing talent. Its apprenticeship schemes allow young people to enter the industry and learn from some of the best in the business before going on to contribute across the wider creative sector.

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree enough. If we speak to other broadcasters and people involved in the industry, we hear that they are just as worried about the future of the BBC—for exactly that reason: if we start to pull that plug out of the ecosystem, it causes problems for everybody else. As we sit here today, many of us agog at what is happening on the international stage, it would be remiss of us not to highlight the importance of the BBC World Service. It provides trusted, high-quality news to audiences around the globe, and is a powerful counter to disinformation and authoritarianism. However, its funding was subjected to repeated and unhelpful changes by the previous Government, often limiting its ability to plan strategically. The Lib Dems would increase Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office funding for the World Service. Can the Government confirm that they will sufficiently support the crucial work of the BBC World Service, so that it can continue to provide trusted news to a weekly audience of 453 million people worldwide? Much of today’s debate has focused on the licence fee, which is central to discussions around charter renewal. The Lib Dems believe that the Government must protect the BBC and categorically rule out moving to a subscription model. The BBC itself has acknowledged that subscription funding would undermine its universality, public value and long-term sustainability. The Government should maintain stable, secure funding through the licence fee until the end of the current charter in ’27, and ensure equivalent public funding beyond that point. Charter renewal must deliver long-term financial certainty. However, we want future decisions on the level of the licence fee to be made transparently by an independent body, to strengthen the BBC’s financial, operational and editorial independence from the Government of the day. It should consider a permanent charter as part of the renewal process. Has the Minister considered whether that would be a viable option for the BBC? The BBC is one of Britain’s greatest sources of soft power and is trusted around the world for its independence and accuracy. It helps defend democratic values and Britain’s global standing, and it needs our support.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, we have not just a lot of farmers but a huge number of other businesses and livelihoods that rely on those farmers, and the whole of that rural economy has been negatively impacted over the last 14 months. Will the Minister undertake not just to apologise to communities like mine, but to ensure that the Government will genuinely start listening to rural communities? At the moment, they do not feel listened to, understood by or even cared for by this Government.