Anna Sabine MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this debate on a subject she knows so much about and on which she is such a passionate campaigner. Rural areas are too often the last in the queue when it comes to decent mobile internet connectivity. I certainly receive many emails—although not as many as I probably would if they were better connected—as well as calls and letters from constituents who tell me how woeful mobile connectivity is in parts of Frome and East Somerset. One elderly constituent told me how anxious she is that she or her husband will suffer a fall and have no way to contact the emergency services as their home has no mobile signal. The Liberal Democrats believe that mobile coverage is a basic utility that is as essential these days as running water. People need mobile connectivity when they are travelling, working, running businesses or responding to emergencies. Yet for too long, Government targets have not been ambitious enough, and have been based on connecting households directly rather than on geographical coverage. The Government claim to have reached 95% of geographical broadband coverage, but residents in rural areas tell a very different story, and the problem lies in how coverage is measured. A constituent wrote to me about persistent signal blackspots throughout the village of Rode. He told me he no longer expects to receive any mobile signal at his home. Ofcom’s mobile coverage checker suggests he should have a strong outdoor signal from every provider, but his experience proves otherwise. This is why we support a nationwide programme to install hyperfast fibre optic broadband across the UK, with a particular focus on connecting rural areas. Ofcom’s capability to understand coverage relies on measurements based on grids of 100 metres by 100 metres, which means that vast swathes of rural areas are underserved in areas such as Rode. More accurate techniques based on smaller grids would offer better coverage pictures to allow for targeted support. Rural businesses are crying out for better connectivity. A survey by the Countryside Alliance found that 85% of rural businesses cited their connectivity as poor but manageable, with 80% saying better-quality connectivity would be the single largest improvement to their business. In Midsomer Norton, a fairly sizeable market town in my constituency, Zen Rebel Studios has long struggled with poor mobile signal and inadequate broadband. Mobile reception inside its premises is extremely limited, and despite being only a few metres off the high street, it has been unable to secure an extension of the fibre network. As a result, only a handful of people using its café can currently use its wi-fi at any one time before the system crashes, which is simply not sustainable for a modern business. This really matters for productivity. Rural areas are 18% less productive than the national average. Closing this gap would be worth up to £43 billion in England alone, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in areas too often blighted by underemployment. Some rural stakeholders have complained about a lack of transparency about where coverage improvements will be delivered. Ultimately, it is up to the mobile network operators to decide where to deploy coverage. The Government and Ofcom do not have legal powers to force them to build masts in specific locations. However, when the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) served as Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, he convened a working group with MPs and mobile providers to explore how to accelerate mast installation and improve rural mobile coverage. Unfortunately, this has not yet been restarted under the current Minister, who I hope will consider reinstating it. I want to conclude by raising something that has not yet come up, but which is a consequence of rural connectivity failure that goes beyond economics or inconvenience. I have a constituent who, after leaving a long-term coercively controlling relationship, experienced sustained cyber-intrusion by his former partner over several days. He reported it to the police and obtained a crime number, but his abuser retained sole control of the broadband account for the home in which he was living. As the coercive controller was the named bill payer, my constituent could not take over the account. His former partner explicitly refused to release it, even when requested to do so during separation proceedings. Here is where the absence of mobile coverage becomes critical: there is zero mobile signal at my constituent’s property. In fact, that goes for the whole village. Broadband was therefore his only means of communication. His abuser controlled whether he could make a telephone call, access support services or even work. Through locked devices connected to the network, my constituent remained vulnerable to surveillance. A private security sweep, costing £5,000, discovered that his TV sound bar had been configured as a listening device. He had to live with his wi-fi turned off, activating it only when absolutely necessary, leaving him feeling desperately vulnerable and unable call for help during the moments it was on. My constituent contacted his broadband provider four times and, while staff were compassionate and escalated the situation, there was no safeguarding protocol available to them and no mechanism to transfer control. His former partner continued controlling his internet access and which devices could connect. Currently, broadband is regulated as a consumer contract and not as essential infrastructure; while an energy supplier would have had to recognise domestic abuse and allow an account transfer, telecommunications providers face no such duty. When reviewing rural connectivity policy, will the Minister also consider requiring telecoms providers to have such safeguarding mechanisms, and will they ensure that where police evidence documents abuse, broadband control can be transferred to the person at risk? I am sure that the Minister hears similar frustrations from his own constituents as we have heard today, and I hope he recognises how urgently these issues need addressing. If we are serious about protecting people, supporting rural communities and enabling economic growth, we must treat digital access as the essential service it has become.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate. We have had the findings of the Hughes report for over two years now. It called on the Government to provide financial redress to patients and families affected by the use of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The previous Government refused to act and increasingly it feels as though the current Government are also burying their head in the sand rather than confronting the scale of this injustice. My constituent Nick is one of those living with the consequences of that inaction. His son Oliver was born with foetal valproate syndrome after Nick’s wife took valproate during pregnancy to control her epilepsy. Tragically, Nick’s wife has since died, leaving Nick to raise Oliver alone. Nick told me that it is hard for him to adequately explain how difficult Oliver’s life has been and how much he worries about his son’s future. Valproate has changed Oliver’s life forever, and all Nick wants is answers and meaningful action from the Government. Quite rightly, Nick continually chases me for answers on when the Government will make a decision on the Hughes report. On behalf of Nick and Oliver, I ask very directly: can the Minister say when we will finally get a response to the Hughes report? How much longer do the Government need to “carefully consider” recommendations that have already been scrutinised, evidenced and endorsed? Families such as Nick’s cannot wait indefinitely while the Government deliberate. I take this opportunity to say that it is also vital that we recognise the devastating impact of Primodos, a hormonal pregnancy test used until the 1980s. Primodos was not considered by the Hughes report, but it was part of the Cumberlege review of hundreds of children born with foetal abnormalities. Many of those affected are now older; tragically, some of them are dying without ever receiving acknowledgment, accountability or compensation. The pelvic mesh, valproate and Primodos scandals are some of the most significant health scandals of modern times. They have disproportionately affected women, yet time and again we see the same pattern: warnings being ignored; evidence being dismissed; and victims being left to fight for justice on their own. These scandals have gone on for far too long, with little action from successive Governments. Those affected by valproate and Primodos are not asking for the impossible; they simply want those responsible to acknowledge the mistakes made and to take responsibility for the harms caused. If we are serious about restoring trust in our healthcare system and serious about supporting women, we must start by delivering justice to those who have been failed so profoundly.

• 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?

• 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?

• 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.