Anna Sabine MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this debate. I will talk largely about Frome community hospital, but a lot of what she has said about test and learn and trial closures applies to Frome as well. I will also talk about the issues that occur when communities are served by organisations in different health authority boundaries and the impact of a lack of communications there. Community hospitals, as we have heard, are the backbone of local healthcare. They keep people closer to home, ease pressure on our general hospitals and allow families to support loved ones through recovery without the burden of long journeys. That is especially so in more rural areas like my constituency, where travel times can be long and public transport is limited. For many of my constituents, Frome community hospital is an important community hub, where people access lifesaving care for themselves and their families. In fact, my husband’s life was saved by a team at Frome hospital earlier this year when he went into anaphylactic shock and was able to get to the urgent care department in Frome much quicker than he could have got to the general hospital in Bath. I put on record my thanks to the nurses who treated him that day. Last summer, Somerset ICB cut the number of beds at Frome hospital as part of a test and learn consultation, the criteria for which seem very unclear to me. I know from visiting the Royal United hospital, our general hospital in Bath, that one of the biggest challenges facing it is getting patients discharged to appropriate community settings. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds talked about ambulances queueing; as I understand it, one of the main reasons that ambulances queue at our general hospital is because, at the other end of the hospital, patients cannot be discharged to community settings, yet we are cutting beds in those settings. I am therefore unconvinced that those cuts can be justified. I have continued to push for the restoration of the beds at Frome hospital, but I have also spoken to the ICB about the possibility of the hospital becoming one of the community hubs that the Government have rolled out, which I think could be a really good opportunity for semi-rural areas. Across the country, ICBs are taking very different approaches to consulting MPs on the roll-out of these hubs. Some have engaged constructively and early, but in Somerset there was unfortunately no consultation with me at all. Instead, I was given a list of locations that had already been chosen, none of which were located in Frome and East Somerset. I do not believe that that is how engagement with elected representatives is supposed to work, which matters particularly for constituencies like mine. Much of east Somerset sits across different local authority and health boundaries. Many of my constituents’ usual experience of hospital care is at a hospital that until recently was outside of our own ICB area altogether. When that hospital does not have proper joint working arrangements with our ICB, those patients find themselves effectively pushed to the back of the queue, simply because joined-up planning between the two systems is not happening. That is no fault of the patients or of the staff trying to care for them. It is a structural failure that leaves whole communities at a disadvantage because they happen to sit on the wrong side of a line on a map. However, in the Somer valley in my constituency, things are working rather differently. There, the relationship between Bath and North East Somerset council and the ICB appears to be working well, with genuine collaboration shaping local services. It shows what can be achieved when councils, communities and ICBs sit down together as equal partners from the outset. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Department reinforces to ICBs, including Somerset, that consultation with local MPs and councils on community hub proposals is not optional but essential if communities are to be properly heard. My constituents deserve a community hospital that reflects the needs of a growing town and a process that treats them as genuine partners in shaping it. At a time when the Government are closing down Healthwatch, I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can prioritise patients’ voices in health provision.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I was recently on a cross-party visit to Israel and Palestine. We met the Norwegian Refugee Council and talked about the issue of dual use items, where the Israeli Government do not let certain items into Gaza because they argue they can be used for terrorist purposes. That includes situations where young children are able to leave Gaza to get hearing implants in countries such as Jordan, but are then not allowed back into Gaza because the component parts are considered to be dual use items. What pressure can the Government bring to bear on the Israeli Government to prevent the weaponisation of this issue against the Gazan people?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this debate on one of my favourite topics. I represent the market towns of Frome, Midsomer Norton and Radstock, as well as many larger villages, such as Evercreech and Peasedown St John. On 18 May, five services failed to run on the 172 and 171 bus routes that serve Midsomer Norton, which meant that for nearly three hours during the morning rush hour, between half-past 6 and half-past 9, there was no bus service at all. I have had emails from constituents for whom it meant missing a shift at work or missing medical appointments. I raise this incident not to criticise one operator on one morning—in fairness, the operator has apologised—but because it illustrates something systemic, which is that when the margin for error is zero because there is no back-up or redundancy, any failure becomes a crisis. That is the reality for communities whose transport links are threadbare to begin with. I have constituents who cannot take a job in the next town because the bus does not run early enough to get them there. I represent many young people, including those in my own family, who cannot get a job or see friends because there is no suitable public transport. My constituency is a radiotherapy desert—without a car, there is not one place in my constituency where you could reach radiotherapy treatment within the recommended timescales. Such stories represent the lived experience of a significant portion of my constituency. The Government’s briefing on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill speaks of bringing power closer to communities, but devolution delivered through metro mayors in large urban centres offers little comfort to places like Frome and East Somerset. We have seen millions for buses being poured into the West of England combined authority, which is welcome, only to find that the focus is on getting people in and out of Bristol even more effectively than they currently are. Devolution that does not reach rural communities is not devolution: it is a redistribution of power to a slightly different tier of city. We need a funding model for bus services that does not treat rural routes as commercially unviable afterthoughts. We need the franchising powers in the Bus Services Act 2025 to be accessible to county councils, not just combined authorities with mayoral structures. We need a duty on operators to provide genuine contingency when services fail and guarantees that, when new housing developments are approved, transport infrastructure is not an optional extra or included in section 106 agreement only to be quietly watered down later. I have spoken in this place before about the link between transport and safety, and in particular about women in my constituency who have told me that they gave up running, cycling or going out after dark in the winter because waiting at isolated bus stops on unlit country lanes did not feel safe. Transport is not just a technical issue, but a question of who gets to participate fully in public life and who is excluded from it, which is why I will continue to campaign for the Government to include mention of women and girls’ safety in the national planning policy framework. I welcome much of the Government’s rhetoric about the importance of improved public transport and the fact they are making spending commitments to support it, but I urge them not to forget places like Frome and East Somerset, where the potential for economic growth is huge if only people could get where they need to go.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this debate on a subject he is very passionate and knowledgeable about. He is a fellow bassoon player—I hope I am right in saying that—and music ensembles are another brilliant example of community groups. I also know that, like me, he supports the wider cause of music education, which could not take place easily without community spaces. At the heart of every thriving community are its voluntary organisations. They are essential for fostering social cohesion and community spirit, and for enabling support and solidarity when people need it most. Across Great Britain, there are around 21,000 community centres and halls, and in 2022 we were home to 166,000 voluntary organisations. That is no accident. It reflects their importance and the undeniable need for the role they play in strengthening our communities. Voluntary organisations act as vital bridges between individuals, particularly those who may feel isolated or without strong family connections. The groups that people find at these local hubs can effectively become their family. The organisations also serve as a safety net, catching people who fall outside Government or other public support. With over 1.8 million people currently on NHS mental health waiting lists, some community centres have stepped up to run suicide prevention projects and mental health peer support groups, filling gaps that statutory services cannot reach. However, because of decades of real-terms funding cuts, a cost of living squeeze on donations, rising operational costs and the Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions without exempting voluntary organisations, pressure on these organisations has piled up. Community centres are vital for tackling the loneliness epidemic in our country, which is why the Liberal Democrats launched our plan to introduce a new wave of third spaces, called hobby hubs, to help to rebuild in-person connection. The initiative would support existing community spaces to expand the services they offer and reach even more people who need them. In my constituency, I am fortunate to have many outstanding community services, but I want to highlight two in particular. The Hive in Peasedown St John is a powerful example of the vital support that community centres offer, including a community fridge, a citizens advice bureau, family support, financial guidance, a youth worker for local people and access to the Peasedown community library. Another organisation, Southside, runs community hub groups across north-east Somerset, including a regular group that I visited in Writhlington last year. Its after-school sessions are run entirely by volunteers who entertain children with painting, dancing and outdoor activities, while parents are able to sit down with a cup of tea, something many have not had a chance to do all day. The groups create space for parents to discuss the challenges they are facing, and volunteers are trained to support those experiencing domestic abuse and refer parents to other services, if needed. Centres such as The Hive and Southside face several key challenges. Securing funding is time-consuming and difficult. Leases are very tricky to negotiate, and I was happy to help The Hive with that issue. Buildings are costly to run and hard to maintain, and many centres operate in isolation without the networks or resources they need. I will quickly depart from my speech to mention Volunteer It Yourself, which is so good that I am mentioning it even though it is not in my constituency. I was pleased to meet that organisation yesterday, and I was going to write to introduce it to the Minister, but I am glad to do it in person now. It is an excellent organisation that works around the country to identify community centres and places that are important to local communities, and it invites local young people who are not in employment, education or training to come along to refurbish them. Those spaces could be community centres or sports grounds, and Volunteer It Yourself is about to announce a project with the Music Venue Trust to refurbish music venues. That is a fantastic way of solving two problems: refurbishing places that may not otherwise be refurbished and getting young people into education and training. It has a live project in Deptford, which it invited me down to visit, and I would happily take a cross-party group of interested MPs for a couple of hours to see what those young people are up to. The crisis facing voluntary and community organisations is severe, and we stand to lose the organisations that feed the hungry, support the isolated, counsel the bereaved and reach those in crisis when statutory services cannot. That is unacceptable. Community centres and voluntary groups are indispensable to the strength and resilience of our communities. I hope the Minister will encourage the Government to consider Lib Dem proposals to expand community events, reduce loneliness and protect these centres from closure so that they can continue their crucial work in fostering community cohesion.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Women’s Safety in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of planning on women’s safety in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I secured this debate because I think the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has made an oversight; I hope it is a genuine oversight and that MHCLG is willing to rectify it. I am genuinely delighted that the Minister for Housing and Planning is here to respond, as I have been trying to contact him about this issue for some time, with no reply from his Department. I am confident that when he hears about the issues at first hand, he will be keen to act. I want to start by paying tribute to my constituent Holly, who was the catalyst for this whole discussion. Holly lives in a village in my constituency and was flashed not once but three times by the same man while out walking in the countryside. When Holly came to see me, it was in a spirit of outrage that this had happened to her, and with a determination that we should do something about it. UN Women UK has found that 71% of women have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces. Most of them never report it—not because it did not happen but because they believe nothing will be done. That alone should give us pause. When the House has debates about women’s safety and place, we often talk about the same issues—quite rightly—that women face when they are out and about. Do they take the longer, well-lit route? Do they run before dawn, or wait until it is light? Do they walk home, or pay for a taxi they cannot afford? Do they have a phone signal if something goes wrong?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  For decades, local people in Frome have used Packsaddle fields as a valued space for walking, recreation and nature. Plans to build housing on the site were refused twice last year, because of the harm it would cause to the communities who use the land. Despite that, and the fact that it has no live planning application, LiveWest is now taking legal action relating to access to the fields and has forced Somerset council to fence off the area, which simply denies local people the many benefits of being able to enjoy the outdoors. Will the Leader of the House urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider whether it can be reasonable for land to be fenced off in that way and help me to organise a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it?

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

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come to another example of the way in which such sexism is embedded. I recently wrote to both the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls to ask why the recent draft national planning policy framework made no mention of the safety of women and girls, as that document sets out how we design and build the spaces and places in which we live. The response from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government was jaw-dropping. It said: “The NPPF is a planning document. It sets out guidelines for housebuilding and planning in England. The VAWG strategy is about protecting women and girls from violence and misogyny. It is unclear as to why anyone would expect the two things to be combined.” If it is unclear to the Department responsible for planning that violence and women and girls should be considered in its work, we have a structural problem. That is where structural sexism becomes inseparable from power. It matters who makes the decisions. In this country, a remarkably small circle of people—disproportionately male and drawn disproportionately from the same networks—still make the most consequential choices.

• 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.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate. I want to start by paying tribute to the brilliant work being done in my constituency by news outlets such as the Frome Times , The Midsomer Norton, Radstock & District Journal and The Somerset Leveller . Publications like these hold power to account. They inform people on issues that matter locally, and they keep our communities engaged. They are exemplars of what local journalism should be. Many of us in this House would not be as connected to our local community without local papers, often thanks to columns in our local papers that reach people who might not otherwise be following politics or who may not have access to the internet. However, local news is facing many challenges. As we know, audiences are migrating from print and television to online sources. Advertising revenues have fallen dramatically. Online intermediaries dominate the news value chain, and local publishers face fierce competition for attention from audiences who are increasingly unwilling to pay for news. Perhaps most worryingly of all, a growing number of people are disengaging from news entirely. News providers have responded with innovation—for example, exploring AI, developing podcasts and implementing paywalls and subscription models—but conditions remain extremely tough, and that has led to a huge variation in local news provision across the UK. Some communities are well served, while others face local news deserts, and this postcode lottery of democratic accountability should concern us all.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Local Media · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree, and I will come on to talk about the community impact of how we support local news. The Frome Times —which, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill might like to know, does slide through letterboxes for free every fortnight and employs a band of teenagers to do newspaper rounds—is an example of a local newspaper that is serving communities. A recent survey by the town council found that the newspaper is the way that most people in Frome find out what is happening locally. The editor of the Frome Times told me: “For many years, successive governments have discussed local journalism, including the 2023 report on the Sustainability of Local Journalism. Yet, from the coal face, little has changed. The most meaningful support the industry could receive is a genuine ‘levelling of the playing field’. For too long, dominance has rested with three corporate publishers, whose sales are declining and whose journalism is increasingly distant from local communities. Yet, government bodies (via Omnicom) and local authorities continue to rely on them for advertising spend. Decisions about which parts of the industry to support must ask one simple question: does this actually serve the community it claims to represent?” I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to reviewing how local councils and Government Departments procure their advertising spend and ensuring that some account is taken of the community impact of that spending. The DCMS’s BBC mid-term review published in January 2024 made 39 recommendations for the BBC and Ofcom. Ofcom’s subsequent review of local media examined how we maintain widespread availability of local news, communicate its importance, provide easy access to reliable news online and secure genuine audience engagement. Its proposals deserve serious consideration: an innovation fund for local news providers, a public interest news institute to support sustainability and develop a talent pipeline, and news vouchers, allowing citizens to directly support their local outlets. It is frustrating that the Government have recently taken steps that will make funding for local journalism less sustainable. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure that when public notices are printed, at least one must appear in a local newspaper. Public notices are worth £32 million a year to local journalism. We cannot pull the rug from underneath the sector while business costs are skyrocketing. Liberal Democrats also support the expansion of the BBC’s local democracy reporting service. That scheme has been a lifeline, placing dedicated reporters in local newsrooms to cover councils, courts and public bodies, although we recognise the challenges that the online content can pose to local news outlets. The scheme thrives, but only if it is provided with sustainable funding. Has the Minister spoken to colleagues in the BBC about future funding for the scheme? In a time of fake news and misinformation, we increasingly recognise the importance of an independent and free press in our society. It is not a luxury; it is essential to a healthy democracy. My party has consistently defended public service broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4. We need to ensure that we protect their independence and impartiality. That is why we want the BBC to remain universally available, properly resourced and free at the point of use, and why we will continue to champion high-quality independent journalism at both local and national level. If we are serious about protecting our democracy, we must ensure that local news is properly supported, fairly funded and given the tools it needs to continue informing, empowering and connecting the communities it serves.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Children’s Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq— I hope my voice is going to survive this. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for everything that she and the Committee have done on this fantastic report. It is a really important piece of work, and it has been wonderful to hear all the personal stories from people in this debate about this issue. Children in care, and those at risk of being taken into care, deserve the very best start in life. They deserve the love, stability and support that every child should be able to take for granted, yet for far too long this country has failed them. The previous Conservative Government did not grasp the scale of the crisis in children’s social care. Their response to the independent review of children’s social care, which called for more than £2 billion to deliver whole system reform, amounted to less than a tenth of that figure. That failure to invest is a failure to protect vulnerable children. It is also a false economy, because when we do not provide children with stability, we pay the price later in lost potential, poor health and lives that never had the chance that they should have had. The Liberal Democrats believe that every child deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter their circumstances. That is why we would make care experience a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010—so that young people who have been in care are not left behind or discriminated against, but recognised and supported. We have also called for proper support for the 150,000 children in England being raised by grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and friends—our kinship carers who step up when families fall apart. These carers deserve the same respect and resources as foster carers. We are calling for a weekly allowance equivalent to that for foster carers; paid leave for kinship carers when a child comes to live with them, just as adoptive parents have; and priority access to schools and pupil premium plus funding for the children in their care. Love alone is not enough; it must be matched with practical, financial and emotional support. The points today on foster care have been particularly well made. My constituency is Frome and East Somerset, and we are desperately short in Frome, particularly of foster care places, which means many children have to go into residential settings, often very far from their home and hard for local people to access, as we have tricky rural bus routes and a lack of trains. It is also much more expensive for a struggling local authority. Support for families has been undermined by the Government’s handling of the adoption and special guardianship support fund. That fund has been a lifeline, enabling traumatised children to access specialist therapy, healing and hope, yet earlier this year families were left in the dark for months about whether the fund would continue. It was only after Liberal Democrat pressure, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) with an urgent question, that the Government confirmed the funding for ’25-26. The truth is that the details of severe cuts were quietly slipped out once Parliament had gone into recess. The therapy limit has been slashed from £5,000 to £3,000, and a separate £2,500 allowance for specialist assessments has been scrapped. Support can also no longer be carried across financial years, robbing families of the flexibility they need. For some, these consequences are especially devastating. Children with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which I have campaigned on, are among those most affected. FASD is a lifelong condition caused by exposure to alcohol before birth. It can lead to developmental delays, learning and emotional regulation difficulties and a range of physical and cognitive challenges. Many children with FASD are adopted or in special guardianship arrangements. They often require specialist assessments, ongoing therapy and expert support to manage complex needs. The withdrawal of funding for those diagnostic assessments is catastrophic for those children. Without a proper diagnosis, they cannot access tailored support at school or appropriate interventions at home. The cuts to the adoption and special guardianship fund are therefore not just administrative tinkering; they are an act of neglect towards some of the most vulnerable in our society, including those living with FASD, whose future prospects depend on early and sustained support. We call on the Government to reverse these harmful cuts immediately and to reaffirm their commitment to adopted children, special guardians and kinship carers. Every child, whether in care, adopted or living with extended family, deserves the same chance to thrive.

• 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.