Anna Sabine MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2025 · Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for bringing this debate, although I do not think it will surprise him to know that the Liberal Democrats do not agree with most of what he has said either, I am sorry. The Equality Act was a landmark in our legal and social history. It consolidated decades of anti-discrimination laws into one clear piece of legislation and gave expression to values that I think most of us share: fairness, dignity and equal opportunity. Since it came into force, the Act has had a real impact. It has given workers stronger tools to challenge discrimination in the workplace. It has supported equal pay claims and required organisations to make accessibility a priority. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) produced an absolutely brilliant video on Instagram yesterday, showing the BBC around this place and, in the process, demonstrating how absolutely inaccessible it is for people like her. Just as importantly, the Act has helped to normalise the idea that equality is not optional but the baseline that we expect in a modern society. But legislation is only ever as strong as the means of enforcing it. The cuts to both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and to legal aid have made it much harder in practice for people to challenge discrimination. We can pass the most ambitious laws in the world, but if people cannot access justice, rights remain theoretical. There is also more to do. Although the Act has been vital in tackling workplace discrimination, carers still face significant barriers at work. Too many people—often women—find themselves having to choose between their job and their caring responsibilities. At the last election, the Liberal Democrats called for caring to be recognised as a protected characteristic under the Act, which would place a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for those with caring responsibilities, so that people can balance work and care more effectively. This would be a practical reform and it is long overdue. We must also acknowledge where the Act has gaps. It does not explicitly address intersectionality, whereby people can face multiple and overlapping forms of discrimination. For example, someone might be disabled and from an ethnic minority background, but the way that those disadvantages interact is not always recognised by the current framework. We need to consider that more carefully. Also, new challenges are emerging. Much of our daily life now takes place online—at work, in education and in our social lives. Digital exclusion and online discrimination and abuse are real and growing problems. If equality is to mean anything in the 21st century, the protections that we offer must evolve to meet new realities. The Equality Act should provide a framework that protects all groups. It should not be used to stoke so-called culture wars or to set the rights of one community against those of another, for example by pitting the majority population—whoever they are—against the diverse. Our approach should be evidence-based, respectful and rooted in the belief that upholding the rights of one group strengthens the rights of all. The Equality Act was a landmark. Our task now is to defend it, to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to live up to its original promise of fairness, dignity and equal opportunity for everyone.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing this important debate. As someone whose parents both died as a result of cardiac arrest, I know the impact that these kinds of sudden medical events can have on families. Every minute without defibrillation after a cardiac arrest reduces a person’s chance of survival by 10%. That means just five minutes of delay could cut their chance of survival in half. Yet in the south-west, in constituencies like Frome and East Somerset, access to these lifesaving devices remains dangerously limited, especially in rural communities where ambulance response times can be alarmingly long. Defibrillators are already expensive, typically costing between £800 and £1,500 per unit, but there is a hidden barrier that the Government could easily remove—the 20% VAT on them. This tax drives up costs, making it harder for schools, sports clubs, public buildings and community centres to afford them. For a device that can mean the difference between life and death, charging VAT is simply unacceptable. I endorse the calls that have been made here for first aid training in schools, and the call by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for defibrillators in new developments, but removing VAT now would make defibrillators more affordable for community groups and local councils. It would also signal a clear commitment from the Government to improving survival outcomes in the UK, particularly in more rural communities. In Frome and surrounding villages, we are very fortunate to have 29 defibrillators that are monitored and maintained by eight dedicated defibrillator guardians, who are part of Friends of Frome hospital. These eight guardians regularly check the defibrillators to ensure that they are in working order and fit for the community. When originally supplied, the defibrillators had a service life of 10 years, but this was reduced to eight years in 2018. This year, 20 of Frome’s defibrillators will reach the end of their service life. Their replacement will come at a significant cost to the Friends of Frome hospital, made worse by the added burden of VAT. We are incredibly lucky in Frome to have this group of dedicated volunteers, but for many people in more rural areas of my constituency, access to a defibrillator is still too far away. I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government will not remove VAT from this essential device. This would allow more to be installed and ease the financial worries of volunteers and communities who work tirelessly to keep their neighbours safe.

• 1 Sept 2025 · PIP Application Process · Hansard source

  More

  8. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the personal independence payment application process.

• 1 Sept 2025 · PIP Application Process · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, I was contacted by a woman who had suffered two strokes, resulting in permanent right-side paralysis and ongoing mobility difficulties. Despite her condition being permanent, she has had to undergo reassessment for PIP and has appealed for it to be reinstated. I welcome the Government changing the reassessment requirement for people with long-term health conditions. Will the Minister clarify what steps the Government are taking to reduce the stress and difficulty of the PIP application process for people with those serious health conditions?