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.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  One of the many challenges facing rural constituencies such as mine is the rising cost of fuel. When the war in Iran pushed up prices, I had constituents telling me they could no longer afford their planned orders of heating oil and would try to manage without heating for as long as they could. As we might expect, residents in Frome and East Somerset rely heavily on car use, and therefore fuel such as diesel and petrol, to access health services. I am very concerned about the lack of community input into decisions being made about health services, which disproportionately affect those in communities who have to drive or get the bus, or run patient transport services in rural areas. The King’s Speech brings forward plans to abolish NHS England, but in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset, NHS Somerset has been running what it calls a test and learn exercise at Frome community hospital. For six months the number of beds was temporarily reduced from 24 to 16, and at the end of that period the test and learn was simply extended for another six months, meaning that for a full year capacity has been reduced and no full consultation with communities about these changes has been required. People are rightly concerned that a reduction in their local service will require them to travel further afield, the cost of which is rising. I have serious concerns about whether the evidence provided so far is strong enough to justify making these changes permanent, and I am deeply troubled by how little the community has been involved in that conversation. I decided to do my own consultation, hosting a pop-up in Frome two weeks ago, and asking local people to tell us why the hospital was important for them. One constituent wrote, “I feel strongly that Frome Hospital provides so many services for local people. When I hear from elderly friends who have ended up with long stays in Bath, I find it incomprehensible that once they reach a certain stage of recovery they cannot be moved nearer home.” Another constituent said, “It is a shame we must lose beds. My friend was in Bath for five weeks, then had to go to Wincanton Hospital for another seven weeks as there were no beds in Frome, and this was so hard for her family, who live miles away.” The people of Frome and its surrounding villages rely on their community hospital, yet they woke up one morning to find that a decision had, in effect, already been made to reduce its capacity, a decision that means some of the most vulnerable members of our community will not have a bed in a local community hospital setting if they are discharged from our general hospital in Bath. For an elderly person, for a carer managing on their own or for those without access to a car, the risk of being placed in a community hospital somewhere else in Somerset is a serious barrier to suitable care. A lack of public transport and increasing fuel costs place a huge additional stress on families and carers. Two weeks ago, I was pleased to meet the Minister for Care to discuss the Government’s plan for neighbourhood health centres, a policy I broadly welcome and one that I believe could genuinely benefit parts of my constituency. In the meeting, the Minister was explicit that our integrated care board was required to consult local MPs and other stakeholders on their plans for the new health centres. Not only has our ICB not been in touch, but when we followed up with them ourselves, we were told two things: first, they had no idea they were expected to engage with MPs on this matter; and secondly, they had already decided where the hubs would go, without consulting anyone else. In both the cases I have set out, there seems to be a lack of mechanism to force ICBs or trusts to consult local people and a total lack of sanction if they fail to do so. People who live in Frome and the surrounding villages are the experts in their own lives, and they have helpful, constructive and innovative ideas to input into decision making around the future of local health services. The Government are also overseeing the removal of Healthwatch and the Citizens’ Senate, two additional bodies that centre patients’ voices at the heart of discussions about their care. I am worried that without those bodies being replaced or without mechanisms in place to ensure good consultation, communities risk being entirely unheard in decisions that will, for some, affect their daily lives. I hope Ministers will co-ordinate with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport and elsewhere to ensure that people in Frome and East Somerset can get the health services they need in the places they need them and in an affordable way.

• 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 absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I will talk about lighting in due course. In her book “Invisible Women”, Caroline Criado-Perez documents how the built environment has historically been designed around a default that is male, and how data on street use, transport planning and public space has been gathered without disaggregating by sex. The result is infrastructure that works reasonably well for men and imposes a hidden cost of time, money, anxiety and constrained freedom on women. That cost is not inevitable. It is a design choice, and it can be designed out. Women are four times more likely to experience sexual assault than men, and more than twice as likely to experience stalking. Many such offences happen not in the home but in public spaces—on paths, at bus stops, in car parks and on the routes between places. They happen disproportionately in spaces that are poorly lit, poorly overlooked and poorly served by transport. The consequences extend far beyond the incidents themselves. Girls’ loss of freedom in public space is directly and measurably linked to poor mental health. Women who feel unsafe curtail their physical activity, social lives and working patterns. Violence against women and girls costs hundreds of lives a year, alongside widespread and serious harm that ripples outwards into health services, the economy and the fabric of communities. To circle back to my opening point, we know what works, but the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government seems determined not to implement it. On 16 December 2025, the Government published the revised national planning policy framework, and just two days later they published their violence against women and girls strategy, rightly declaring VAWG a national emergency and committing to a whole-of-society approach to prevention. Those two documents should have been in conversation with each other, but they were not. The revised NPPF contains no reference whatsoever to women, girls, gendered safety or violence against women in the built environment—not one. Chapter 8, on promoting healthy and safe communities, discusses safety, health and crime, but does so in entirely gender-blind terms, despite overwhelming evidence that safety is not experienced equally by all people in all spaces. A chapter about healthy and safe communities which does not acknowledge that safety is not experienced equally is not, with respect, a chapter about healthy and safe communities. It is a chapter about healthy and safe communities for some people. In January I wrote to both the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Safeguarding to raise the issue directly. I have yet to receive a substantive response from either of them, but when The Guardian asked MHCLG for comment, the response received was frankly jaw-dropping. MHCLG 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.” The Department said it was “unclear as to why anyone would expect the two things to be combined”. That tells us that, alarmingly, the people responsible for designing our spaces and places apparently do not understand, despite huge bodies of evidence, why planning with women in mind might be relevant or useful. That raises serious concerns not just about the policy position but about the Department’s basic understanding of the relationship between planning and women’s lives. What makes that omission particularly hard to defend is that it was not an accident. The previous Government explicitly raised this issue in the 2022 NPPF consultation, asking whether greater emphasis should be placed on making women and girls feel safe in public places. Responses were received, but nothing changed in the December 2025 revision, under the current Government. I want to be precise about that means: MHCLG was asked whether it should do better on this issue, received evidence it should and chose not to act. That is not an oversight; it is a decision. International best practice in gender-responsive planning is really well established: clear sight lines and natural surveillance; active street frontages that keep eyes on the street; thoughtful lighting design—not simply more but better lights, placed in the right locations; and safe, well-connected public transport routes that do not leave women stranded after dark. Make Space for Girls, the UK campaign that has done forensic and compelling work on how public space is designed for teenagers, has shown that the spaces we build for young people—the parks, play areas and recreational spaces—are overwhelmingly designed with boys in mind. The default is a multi-use games area: a hard, caged, male-dominated space that girls report, in study after study, feeling excluded from and unsafe in. Girls do not lack interest in outdoor space; they lack outdoor spaces that were designed with them in mind. The consequence is that girls retreat indoors earlier, exercise less and lose the freedom of movement that is so fundamental to adolescent development and mental health. This is not a minor amenity issue; it is a public health issue—and it starts with planning. The principles are well established, but without explicit inclusion in national policy, they remain optional. As a result, women’s safety in public space is a postcode lottery—and nowhere is that lottery more consequential than in rural areas where the baseline is already so much lower. The omission also creates a tension with the Government’s international commitments. UK infrastructure policy is explicitly aligned with the UN’s sustainable development goals, including SDG 5.2, on eliminating violence against women and girls, and SDG 11.7, on safe and inclusive public spaces explicitly for women and girls. The NPPF discusses the safety and design quality of green space at length, but does not mention either of those commitments. A further tension is emerging that I do not think has received sufficient attention—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to it. Nature recovery and biodiversity policies are rightly being pursued with increasing ambition, with green corridors, rewilded verges and, in some cases, reduced lighting to support wildlife. Those are good objectives, but in some instances they are pursued without adequate consideration of what they mean for women’s safety. A dark, overgrown footpath may be an excellent habitat, but it may also be a route that women no longer feel able to use. We should not have to choose between environmental policy and women’s safety. Without gender-responsive planning guidance, that tension will not be managed; it will simply produce worse outcomes by default. The NPPF is not a neutral document; it is a statement of priorities, and right now it does not include women’s safety among them.

• 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?

• 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.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for bringing forward this important topic. The severe lack of driving tests has a profound impact on people’s ability to work, study and participate fully in everyday life. Also, as a parent of teenagers, I really need them to be able to pass their test and not rely on me for lifts, so this is an important subject for me personally. [ Laughter. ] I acknowledge, as many colleagues have done, the Government’s recent announcement to limit the use of bots that scrape and reserve driving test slots. That is certainly a step in the right direction, and I welcome any action that reduces unfair access to appointments, but evidence from my constituency makes it clear that the problems in the system run much deeper than automated bots alone. I recently conducted a survey of learner drivers in Frome and East Somerset, and the results were stark. About 80% of respondents told us that they were learning to drive because public transport is unreliable or simply not available. I know all too well the problems that people have with buses locally: it is almost impossible to travel from east to west across the constituency. Others said that they work right across the UK and employers increasingly prefer, and in some cases require, staff who can drive. A significant number told us that employers simply will not hire someone who relies on public transport. When asked why they needed a licence, 23% said it was essential for accessing education and 54% said it was necessary for travel to work—more than half of respondents need to drive simply to be employed. Learning to drive is often an economic necessity. However, the greatest concern that people raised was the severe shortage of driving tests. In our survey, the majority of learners waited four months or more for a test date, one in five waited more than six months, and nearly 29% waited between four and six months. When two thirds of candidates are waiting more than four months for a test, the system is not merely stretched—it is absolutely failing. Some constituents were forced to book their initial test in Liverpool, Nottingham, Swansea, Plymouth, Newport or even Aberdeen, and then spend months trying to swap to a local date. That is not a functioning national system. Let me use the example of my constituent Poppy, a graduate who has come back to Frome after finishing university and is looking for a job. Poppy tells me that no driving tests are available to book, seemingly anywhere in the country, for the next 24 weeks. She says: “The govt’s idea to ban bots and booking tests in other areas is a good start”, but she goes on: “Basically the solution is more examiners; there isn’t really a way around it.” Poppy has already missed out on promising local job opportunities thanks to her lack of a licence, so will the Minister explain what the Government are doing to increase the availability of examiners? The consequences of the lack of tests are severe. When we talk about NHS waiting lists, we often talk about how people’s lives are on hold while they wait for an appointment. The same is true of many young people in constituencies like mine, waiting for a test and feeling that their lives are on hold. Families face significant financial pressure from having to book additional lessons to remain test-ready, travelling to unfamiliar cities, paying for multiple apps and even retaking the theory test because their pass has expired during the wait. That burden falls hardest on low-income families, students and apprentices. There is then the emotional toll: the stress of trying to secure a booking, the anxiety of delaying work or education, and a sense of utter frustration. Constituents who took part in my survey described the system as “a nightmare”, “a joke” and the “bane of my life”. Limiting bots is welcome, but it is only part of the solution. We urgently need a modernised booking platform, increased test capacity and targeted support for rural and semi-rural areas where public transport simply cannot meet people’s needs. When access to a driving test is delaying education, limiting employment and placing real financial strain on households, we cannot call this a minor, administrative issue: it is a barrier to opportunity and growth. My constituents, like so many across the county, deserve a system that supports them, rather than one they have to battle against.

• 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

  Is there any chance that when the Minister is looking at the point about children with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, he could look at the fact that certain groups of children, with certain conditions, may require much higher levels of financial support than others to get the diagnoses they need?

• 16 Oct 2025 · World Menopause Day · Hansard source

  More

  It seems to me that an awful lot of what we have talked about today—the impact on women, particularly in the workplace—would also apply to periods, so I wonder whether the Department of Health and Social Care might think about employers considering periods as well.

• 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.

• 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.