Anna Sabine MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  The Green Paper rightly recognises the severe financial challenges facing our public service broadcasters, which have been vividly exposed by recent devastating cuts at the BBC. The Liberal Democrats have long proposed that the BBC World Service should be fully funded directly from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets, protecting its vital global footprint while freeing up £221 million a year to be reinvested at home. Will the Secretary of State take on board our proposals? What urgent conversations has she had with her Foreign Office colleagues to make that a reality? Turning to online spaces, the proposal to highlight trusted news sources on social media is welcome, but unfortunately this is just a sticking plaster over the fundamental issue that big social media platforms are already rigged against truth, fairness and impartiality. The real threat to our democracy are the harmful platforms themselves, which use algorithms deliberately engineered to amplify foreign disinformation while systematically choking out trusted journalistic sources. Should the Secretary of State not be focusing the full weight of her Department, and that of her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on cleaning up social media platforms once and for all, rather than fighting a losing battle against bad actors on systems that are built to work against us?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Ticket Tout Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I would also like to start by congratulating the England football team on their win yesterday. While fans are rightly excited to finally see England bring it home this summer, some world cup tickets this year have surged to over £24,000. Fans should not be forced to choose between remortgaging their homes or missing out on supporting their country. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ call for an international fans charter to safeguard supporters against unfair ticket pricing?

• 16 Apr 2026 · World Cup: Support for Fans · Hansard source

  More

  Thousands of people across the country—although possibly not the Arts Minister—are very excited for the world cup this summer, but that excitement is being ruined by the prospect of fans, not football, coming home. Under new US border directives, fans face having their social media history weaponised against them, with the threat of being turned away at the gates for as little as sharing an unflattering meme of President Trump. Will the Secretary of State urgently meet with US counterparts to ensure British fans are not denied entry at the border, and will she demand that the US embassy picks up the tab for tickets and travel for any fan unfairly denied entry?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gambling: Regulatory Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for bringing forward this incredibly important debate. We have heard some sad and powerful stories. Reforms to address the risks and harms associated with gambling are long overdue. Many families and communities across the country continue to feel the consequences of problem gambling. The gambling industry has grown significantly in recent years. Excluding the National Lottery, it is an £11.5 billion sector, with profit margins in some companies well above the UK average for non-financial businesses. Yet taxation levels in the UK for online gambling remain lower than those in several other countries. At the same time, gambling harm imposes a substantial cost on society. It is estimated to cost our economy around £1.4 billion a year through financial harms and impacts on physical and mental health, employment and pressures on public services. Research from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that a person experiencing serious gambling problems may cost the public purse an additional £3,700 a year. Further analysis from NERA indicates that the economic contribution of remote gambling is relatively modest compared with other forms of discretionary spending. We must also acknowledge the serious mental health consequences linked to gambling. Public Health England has estimated that there may be more than 400 gambling-related suicides a year. Recent data from the Gambling Commission also suggests that the scale of harm may be greater than previously understood, with 2.5% of respondents in its latest survey scoring eight or above on the problem gambling severity index scale, placing them in the highest risk category. The numbers are concerning and highlight the need for a regulatory framework that can better identify and reduce risk. The Liberal Democrats have long called for an increase to remote gaming duty. we were pleased to see the Government implement that policy at the Budget, but we believe they can go further, by ensuring that more of the revenue raised is directed specifically towards treatment and support for those affected by gambling-related harms. Taxation alone will not reduce risk or ensure accountability. That is why the Liberal Democrats have consistently called for stronger restrictions on gambling advertising, particularly given the sheer volume of adverts on television and online, and for effective, proportionate affordability checks, so that people are not gambling at levels that put them at significant financial risk. It is also essential that the Gambling Commission has the tools and resources it needs to take firmer action against the black market, where unregulated operators pose serious dangers to consumers. These proposals are not about demonising gambling or those who enjoy it responsibly. Many people do so every day without experiencing harm. Rather, the proposals are about ensuring that our regulatory system reflects the realities of today’s gambling landscape, particularly the rapid growth of online gambling and the emerging risks faced by young people and vulnerable adults. We must ensure that policy is consistent and fair, so that we can protect those who are most at risk. By taking those steps, we can strike a better balance, and support a sustainable industry while ensuring that people are adequately protected from harm.

• 27 Nov 2025 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  The BBC removed a part of Rutger Bregman’s Reith lecture in which he alleged that Donald Trump was the most openly corrupt President in US history, doing so only after legal advice prompted by Mr Trump’s lawsuit against it. The threat of legal action is creating a dangerous precedent for media censure. If the national broadcaster cannot air robust and defensible claims even in a series of lectures designed to spark debate on contemporary issues, what hope is there for any part of our free press effectively to challenge power? We know that the Prime Minister has spoken directly with Mr Trump since the lawsuit was filed, so can the Secretary of State confirm whether the PM raised the issue of the BBC and insisted that Trump drop his ridiculous lawsuit?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Independent Football Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  The Lib Dems have welcomed the introduction of the new Independent Football Regulator. Our football clubs are huge, historic institutions that unite generations, bring local economies to life and inspire millions, both at home and abroad. As such, the Secretary of State carries a significant responsibility to earn the confidence of our world-leading football clubs and guide them through the introduction of these vital regulatory reforms. The news that the Secretary of State broke the governance code by failing to declare in a timely manner donations received from the newly appointed head of the regulator, David Kogan, has undermined trust at a crucial moment. This regulator is about securing the future of our national game, ensuring that clubs remain sustainable, rooted in their communities and capable of thriving for generations to come. She cannot shy away from the potential conflict of interest involved in the breaches of the code that have emerged in recent days. This oversight requires genuine accountability from the Government in order to restore confidence in the new regulator. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to order an independent investigation into the appointment of David Kogan and, if necessary, rerun the selection process for the IFR chair?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  The decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from attending their team’s Europa league match because West Midlands police could not keep the fans safe is a serious mistake, and sets a dangerous precedent. We appreciate the difficulty in ensuring the safety of fans and local communities, but the Liberal Democrats believe that this decision must be reversed, and that the Government should work alongside local authorities and the police to ensure that the match goes ahead with both sets of fans. The situation at Maccabi Tel Aviv’s match in Israel this weekend reminds us of the importance of ensuring that our police forces have the resources and support that they need to keep major events safe. The UK has made significant progress in tackling football hooliganism, but the police must always be prepared for small numbers of fans who seek to cause trouble. Will the Minister recommend “bubble-like” security restrictions to boost security checks and police presence around the stadium to ensure that everyone is served and protected? The Home Secretary said that she did not know about the fans being banned until the night before it was announced, but she was apparently aware as early as last week that a decision was being made. Can the Minister clarify when the Home Secretary was made aware of the potential ban? If she knew last week, why did she not intervene earlier?

• 16 Oct 2025 · World Menopause Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am proud that not one but two of my constituents are leading figures in the Menopause Mandate campaign, and they are here today. I would like to pay tribute to that organisation and all the work it is doing on this issue, ably supported by the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), whose passion and energy about this subject are so wonderful to see. I pay tribute to her for convening this debate. As someone who does not personally have direct experience of menopause yet, and whose mum is not around to advise her, most of what I know about menopause comes from following the social media accounts of organisations such as Menopause Mandate. That is a sad indictment of the lack of information that women in their 40s have about a health issue that will affect them. I am sure that Menopause Mandate and everyone else here agrees that it is time to stop tiptoeing around the topic of menopause and the perimenopause. Brain fog, hot flushes, night sweats, panic out of nowhere—they are not just inconveniences; they are symptoms that can knock women off their feet. Often, however, as with so many other health issues, women’s concerns are too readily dismissed. Women deserve serious, joined-up education, action and policy. They deserve to be heard, believed and supported, not left to suffer in silence. As has been mentioned, according to Menopause Mandate’s recent survey, only 12% of menopausal women were actually diagnosed by a healthcare professional, while around 60% had to figure it out for themselves. We are leaving women to google their way to an answer after years of avoidable misery, without guidance and often without treatment. That is not good enough. The Menopause Mandate team has a simple, sensible ask: education for all. If our health professionals are not adequately trained, and women are not given routine consultations about the subject, we are setting them up to face menopause and perimenopause ill-prepared and uninformed about the lifestyle changes, treatment options and support that could make all the difference. This is not a niche issue; it should be a mainstream health policy. It could be seamlessly integrated into standard mid-life check-ups. When I had mine a few years ago, menopause was not mentioned. There are specialist clinics doing great work in this area, but frustratingly many of the best have huge waiting lists unless women can afford to be seen privately. I know that is true of my local hospital. Most women have to speak to their GP or practice nurse, so we need to equip primary care properly to recognise symptoms, treat confidently and refer swiftly. Menopause is also not just a health issue, but an employment one. One of the most shocking findings in the Menopause Mandate survey was that—as has been mentioned—one in 20 women has left their job because of menopause symptoms. Those may be women doing brilliant work, often at the peak of their careers: teachers, nurses and business leaders—the kind of people this country cannot afford to lose. We need to keep that experience in our NHS, schools, offices and everywhere that this country relies on it. We should not be losing it because we fail to support half the population in a health issue that every one of them is going to face at some point. Here is the to-do list: let us make menopause education mandatory in healthcare training with regular refreshers; include perimenopause and menopause in routine health checks—so that I am not relying on Instagram to find out what is going to happen; work with employers to provide basic workplace support for flexible working, manager training, cool spaces and clear policies; and, above all, make sure women can manage this stage of life with dignity, confidence and proper support. This is not a women’s issue; it is a fairness, workforce and public health issue. It is time we gave it the serious attention it deserves.

• 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.