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?

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

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We need an infrastructure-first approach that also has women and girls’ safety in mind. I hope with all sincerity that the MHCLG’s official view is not the one that was set out by whoever gave that comment to T he Guardian . I hope the Labour Government aspire not just to match but to exceed the standards of the previous Government when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of women. I also hope the Minister will commit today to taking steps towards putting VAWG at the heart of the NPPF. That would have a genuinely transformative effect on women’s lives in the UK. Along with a series of experts in urban design and planning, I am calling on the Government to commission an independent review—a serious, systematic review of violence against women and girls and the built environment. It must be a review with teeth that establishes an authoritative evidence base, that examines the structural gaps between the VAWG strategy and planning policy, and that produces recommendations that require developers and planners to treat women’s safety as a fundamental component of design, not an optional extra. I am sure the Minister will be pleased that all this is included in a second letter that I will send to him today. Alongside that, I urge the Government to take the following specific steps without delay: to amend the NPPF to explicitly require the consideration of women and girls’ safety, particularly in chapters 8 and 12, so that local authorities have a clear national mandate to act; to update the national design guide and national model design code to include substantive guidance on designing for women’s safety, drawing on the international best practice that already exists and is well evidenced; to require major developments to demonstrate how they contribute to SDGs 5.2 and 11.7—commitments the Government have already made on the world stage; and to introduce gender impact assessments for large-scale developments as a standard part of the planning process. I also urge the Government to look seriously at gender budgeting as a tool for local authorities when they design streets, parks and public spaces. Gender budgeting does not mean ringfencing money for women; it means asking at the point of allocation, “Who benefits from this spending? Is the distribution equitable?” Vienna, Helsinki and Seoul have all used gender budgeting in the design of public space to reveal and correct the systemic underfunding of spaces that women and girls actually use. It is a practical, evidence-based mechanism, and it is entirely compatible with the fiscal constraints that local authorities are operating under. We should be using it here. Finally, I hope the Minister will ensure that MHCLG is formally integrated into cross-Government delivery of the VAWG strategy. A whole-of-society approach that excludes the Department responsible for shaping the physical environment is not, in any meaningful sense, a whole-of-society approach—it is a strategy with a very large hole in it. The Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade is genuinely welcome, but ambition without structural delivery mechanisms will not achieve it. Right now, the NPPF—the primary lever for shaping how this country is built—contains nothing that would materially help to deliver it. That gap must be addressed if the strategy is to be credible. The women who responded to my survey in Frome and East Somerset were not asking for the extraordinary. They were not asking for anything that other countries have not already delivered. They were asking to walk home safely, to go for a run, to catch a bus without calculating the risk, and to move through their own communities with the same unconsidered freedom that most men take entirely for granted. This is not a radical demand; it is a basic one, and the tools to deliver it in planning policy, design guidance and cross-Government strategy are well within our grasp. I urge the Minister to act. The evidence is there, the need is clear, and the gap in policy is glaring and, as I have shown today, entirely without justification. Let us work together to close it.

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats have always pushed the BBC to be better, delivering genuinely balanced reporting, rigorous investigation and the best journalism in the world. We believe in a strong, independent, publicly funded BBC that values factuality, scrutiny and accountability in our democracy. The BBC clearly is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake, and we welcome the BBC’s apology. The resignations of Tim Davie and Deborah Turness must be an opportunity for the BBC to turn over a new leaf, rebuild trust and return to its core mission to inform, educate and entertain. However, it is obvious to everyone that this issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to the dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories that populists such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Donald Trump trade on, and we cannot let that happen. As the Government navigate Trump’s latest tantrum in threatening to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what is the Secretary of State doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC—which is the most trusted source of information in the world? Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Secretary of State truly believes in an independent BBC, will she now sack Robbie Gibb, end the political grip on the BBC board and listen to Liberal Democrat calls to guarantee that the appointment of the next director general is transparent, impartial and worthy of the trust that the British public place in the BBC?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Support for Dyslexic Pupils · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate. He has raised the topic consistently and I know it is personally very important to him, as well as to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell). As we have heard, dyslexia is a common, lifelong difference in how a person processes language that affects reading, writing and spelling, but not intelligence. In fact, many people with dyslexia excel at creative thinking, problem solving and seeing patterns that others miss. As we have heard, it is estimated that up to one in 10 people in the UK are dyslexic—this is not a rare condition—yet too often the system treats those strengths as an afterthought. Families wait months, sometimes years, for an assessment; in the meantime, children are told to try harder, when what they need are simple, evidence-based adjustments. Teachers do their absolute best, but without the training and resources to confidently support different styles of learning, provision can become a postcode lottery, and school budgets that are already stretched leave little room for specialist staff, assistive tools and the protected time that inclusion requires. For many, diagnosis comes too late. If a child is not diagnosed early, they can find they are already years behind other students when it comes to reading and writing. Early identification and practical support can change the trajectory of a child’s education and their life beyond school. What should we do? First, we must put early identification at the heart of special educational need interventions. That means streamlining NHS processes so that families are not stuck before support need is recognised. It means investing to reduce waiting lists—constituents of mine in Frome and East Somerset struggle to get timely diagnoses. Crucially, it also means empowering schools to implement reasonable adjustments at the first signs of need, without forcing children to wait for a piece of paper before help arrives. Secondly, we need to equip teachers and schools to include every child, every day. That starts with initial teacher training and continuous professional development that is practical, hands-on and focused on what works for dyslexia in real classrooms. It continues with a national inclusion framework, so that every school has a clear, evidence-based blueprint for inclusive practice. It includes a national parental participation strategy, recognising that families are experts in their children and must be partners from the start, not last-minute consultees. We must also strengthen the role of the SENDCO. They should sit on senior leadership teams and have protected time to do their work. They are the bridge between strategy and practice, and they cannot do their job effectively if they spread impossibly thin. We should reform Ofsted so that inspections look seriously at inclusive provision, not just exam results. Inclusion is not a footnote: it is the mark of a great school that every learner is seen, supported and stretched. Thirdly, we should normalise simple adjustments and assistive technology. This is not about lowering standards; it is about measuring understanding, not just handwriting speed. Coloured overlays or paper, clear fonts, chunked instructions, alternatives to copying from the board, text-to-speech and speech-to-text tools—that is incredibly difficult to say—help students to access the curriculum and express what they know.

• 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.