Sarah Gibson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Nov 2025 · Level 7 Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered level 7 apprenticeships. In the interests of transparency, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before entering Parliament, I taught architecture at the University of Bath and I ran an architectural practice. As my entry states, I still hold an advisory role with the university and I am in the process of winding down the business. I have additional connections in that I was a Wiltshire councillor on planning committees. It will therefore come as no surprise that I am deeply committed to both education and the built environment. In addition, I represent a rural constituency in the west of England, which has no university, but does have an outstanding college of further education, Wiltshire college and university centre, with strong apprenticeship programmes. A recent Government assessment identified acute areas of deprivation across all four towns in my constituency, driven in large part by limited access to education and skills. For many young people in rural areas, apprenticeships are the only realistic route.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Level 7 Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. For underprivileged children, apprenticeships are a fantastic route into higher education. Certainly, in architecture, apprenticeships mark genuine progress in opening the door to a profession that has been closed to those from lower incomes or from under-represented backgrounds. The Government’s decision to restrict apprenticeship funding to those aged 16 to 21 threatens that progress. A level 6 architectural assistant apprenticeship takes four years, meaning that anyone starting after school will be at least 22 before progressing. Others complete a three-year undergraduate part 1 degree first. In practice, almost no apprentice reaches level 7 before the age of 21 —in fact, in all my years in the business, I have never met anyone who completed the entire course before the age of 25. This decision simply removes the apprenticeship route altogether for architecture. The consequences for the country are quite serious. Skills England has estimated that more than 250,000 additional workers will be needed by 2028 simply to maintain current construction output. Architects are explicitly identified as essential to delivering the Government’s own target of 1.5 million homes.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Level 7 Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  My specific point earlier was about some of the built environment professions being different from big engineering firms; they are not Jaguar Land Rover. A large architectural firm—even the largest ones in London—probably has no more than 50 to 60 employees. They are small businesses and, in the same way that local authorities are constrained, they are not in a position to finance their apprentices. They rely on the levies because they are just not big enough as businesses. That makes a difference to the sector, as does the fact that it is one qualification, not a separate thing. The constraints in the profession are quite acute because of the size of the business. That makes a difference—it is not the NHS.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Level 7 Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Right across the built environment, careers take a long time, and therefore we need to be supporting different types of people into those careers at a later age. If we want to meet housing targets, we need planners, architects and surveyors. Otherwise, we will not meet our net zero commitments and we will not be able to unlock the large-scale retrofit of existing homes that is needed and that, as we know from experience, requires technical support to get right. We cannot meet those ambitions while simultaneously shrinking the pipeline of qualified professionals across the built environment. In addition, the Government’s proposal is prejudicial to those already in the system. Level 6 apprentices cannot access the same undergraduate student finance as their full-time counterparts. Although a full-time part 2 student may receive up to £46,000 in support, a level 7 apprentice progressing to part 2 would receive only £10,000. The very pathway that has enabled young people without family wealth to enter the architecture profession risks becoming a dead end. The Architects Registration Board has been undertaking major reforms of the initial education and training of architects. It has stated that a key plank of those reforms has been to increase access to the profession for those taking non-traditional routes and, in particular, those from disadvantaged backgrounds or minority ethnic groups. The apprenticeship route in architecture is still in its infancy, but it is a very important part of the wider strategy that the Architects Registration Board is trying to achieve. Architectural practices are overwhelmingly small and medium-sized enterprises. They rely on the growth and skills levy to train apprentices; without it, they simply cannot take them on. The engagement that the Architects Registration Board has had with trailblazers, employers and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has led it to conclude that the removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships could close off this route entirely. The benefit of being able to learn while you earn, in a profession that takes seven to 10 years to qualify for, cannot be stressed enough. Extending the date until which those over 21 can receive funding would help to reduce the cliff edge and would give universities, learners and employers time to adapt. I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. What assessment has been made of the impact of restricting level 7 funding on the future diversity of the profession that requires this level as part of its final qualification? What impact will this restriction have on the ability of the profession to deliver the homes and infrastructure that the country desperately needs?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent’s sister was stillborn many years ago, in a situation in which my constituent’s mother was simply told, “Don’t worry, dear, you’ll have another one next year.” There was no bereavement counselling and, more importantly, no marked grave. My constituent found out some years later—quite recently—that his sister had been buried in a communal unmarked grave. It appears that, because this practice went on until the late 1980s, there are some 89,000 such children. These families have had the lifelong pain of not knowing where to grieve, how to grieve or where to focus their attention, with no chance of finding it. These children deserve our support, and I hope that this House will share my view that the Government need to step in to provide a small memorial so that these families can have a focus for their grief, and some acknowledgment that these children existed. I would be grateful if the House shared this call, which I have tabled as an early-day motion. I know the Minister has kindly offered to meet these families, and I am extremely grateful for his support.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  With that in mind, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment and therefore new clause 12, but as soon as Royal Assent is received, I will remind the Minister of exactly what he has said today. I will bring the subject up again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 13, in clause 12, page 12, line 26, at end insert— “(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. (6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must— (a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks; (b) Publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation. (6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.” — (Dame Harriett Baldwin.) This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 35 is a technical amendment that introduces a provision for product recall, which is set out in new clause 12. The new clause would establish a robust and centralised product recall system that truly protects consumers when safety risks arise. The current product recall landscape is fragmented, inconsistent and difficult to navigate, and the new clause is an attempt to fix that. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of passing the Bill to strengthen and standardise product recall processes across the UK market. The product regulations must include several key elements, including the creation of a publicly accessible, Government-hosted online database listing all active product recalls in the UK. This is about visibility—people need a single, reliable source to check whether a product that they have bought is affected. The proposal sets out clear duties on manufacturers, importers and distributors to promptly notify the relevant authorities and to upload recall information as soon as the safety risk is identified. The new clause also includes details of mandatory content for recall notices, including details of the affected product, identified risks, corrective actions and how consumers can access a refund, repair or replacement. It would also establish minimum standards for direct communication with affected consumers, which may be by email, SMS or post. The importance is that people are actively alerted and not left to find out on their own. Importantly, the new clause also guarantees consumer rights during a recall, including a right to a refund, replacement or repair within a reasonable timeframe, as well as access to support and guidance, even in cases when the product is no longer being manufactured. Finally, the clause requires consultation with key stakeholders, consumer groups, trading standards and industry before the regulations are made. This ensures that the system is practicable, enforceable and effective. New clause 12 is about building a centralised and transparent recall mechanism, which is long overdue. Unsafe products must be removed from circulation swiftly, and consumers must be able to take action easily and confidently. The existing system is not working and it is not always easy for people to know which products have been recalled. The new clause seeks to address that issue. I urge the Committee to support it.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think we all have to recognise the reality of our starting position, which is that an awful lot of our product regulation is currently aligned. We cannot throw that out and start talking about “foreign law”, as if any country that we happen to have a trade deal with will have similar levels of scrutiny of its products.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is indeed the case that the standards bodies failed to check that the products they were being presented with were actually the ones on the certificates they were being asked to approve. So it was a failure of our system.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, at end insert— “(i) provision described in section [ Product recall ].”

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the amendments, specifically amendments 8 and 9, which would take the remaining regulations subject to the negative procedure and make them subject to the affirmative procedure. These powers raise serious constitutional concerns. They risk undermining Parliament’s role and shifting too much authority to the Executive. Such powers should be tightly constrained and used only when genuinely essential and accompanied by robust safeguards, including clear limits on the scope of the mandatory scrutiny procedure. We must be vigilant: laws passed by Parliament should not be easily rewritten by Ministers behind closed doors without full debate or democratic accountability. We are therefore supportive of the amendments, and I urge the Government to realise them.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Given that addressing the changes in retail, especially the rise of online marketing, is an important part of the Bill, I feel that the clause is vital, and I will support it. It is slightly sad that colleagues on the Opposition Benches allow their ideology regarding the EU to get in the way of supporting British businesses, which, as we know, want clarity and continuity.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Although I am extremely excited about any future and new trade deals the UK might have across the globe, I am a little worried that we are back to Brexit benefits, which we did not quite see. We have to be realistic: our businesses need continuity and clarity, and I believe that the Bill provides them. It would have been much more useful if we had been able to concentrate on the valid points that Opposition Members made about parliamentary scrutiny, which we could quite clearly support. I will be supporting the clause. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the very complex Fire Safety Act 2021 was brought about following a serious fire caused by people who were supposed to be in charge of scrutinising product safety, but actually lied about it, presenting different products that were not part of the original product and were put together slightly differently. The reliance on experts we do not know about is quite a concern. The points made by my Opposition colleagues are extremely important: who are these experts and what scrutiny are they held to?

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, at end insert— “(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”. This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods. The amendment is important because it adds a crucial provision that extends regulatory accountability to those involved in the broader handling and marketing of products. Specifically, it covers storage, transportation, packaging, labelling and disposal—all key parts of the product journey from manufacturer to consumer. The aim is to close a potential loophole in the powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill. Without the amendment, there is a risk that certain players in the supply chain, such as fulfilment houses, third-party logistics providers or re-packagers, could escape regulation even if they are handling non-compliant or unsafe products. We know that consumer harm can arise at any point along the supply chain, not just at the point of manufacture or sale, so it is vital that all relevant organisations, regardless of their legal status or physical location, can be held accountable where necessary, The amendment supports stronger consumer protection, promotes fairness in the marketplace and ensures that everyone involved in putting products on the market plays to the same rules.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Very possibly, but the rights of consumers in the UK still need to be protected, regardless of where those fulfilment centres are. I take the right hon. Member’s point, but I feel that the provisions in the amendment still need to be included. The amendment supports stronger protection, promotes fairness in the marketplace and ensures that everyone involved in putting products on the market plays by the same rules. It provides practical, targeted safeguards to ensure that the regulatory responsibilities reflect how modern supply chains operate, so I urge Members to support the amendment.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert— “(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.” This amendment inserts safeguards to help ensure non-regression from existing legal protections to help ensure greater certainty and a level playing field. It addresses the omission on the face of the Bill of the current legal requirement that products placed on the market must in principle be safe. I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones) would speak far more eloquently than I can, but I will make a couple of points to relay to the Committee why I think amendment 38 is important. We are trying to ensure that the Secretary of State can make regulations under clause 1 only if satisfied that doing so will not lead to a reduction in consumer protection or regulatory standards. It is not about regression; it is about preserving the baseline of legal protection that we already have, especially when it comes to product safety and regulatory quality. We are all aware of recent cases of consumer products bought online that arrive in a substandard and dangerous state. I suspect that the Minister will say that no Secretary of State will lower existing legal expectations. That is great, but why not just put it in the Bill? Amendment 38 would direct the Secretary of State to make reference to equivalent regulations in force at the time, offering clear and objective standards for comparison. It creates greater certainty for business and confidence for consumers. We think that it is important to include in the Bill the explicit legal requirement that products placed in the market must be, in principle, safe. Without that kind of safeguard, there is a risk of regulatory weakening over time, whether intentional or through oversight, which could undermine consumer trust, market fairness and even public safety. By locking in a non-regression commitment, we would help to maintain a level playing field, especially for businesses in the UK that already meet high standards and do not want to be undercut by those who are cutting corners. It is about ensuring that as regulations evolve, we do not compromise the public interest in the name of flexibility and deregulation. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert— “(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.” This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As Liberal Democrats, we are clear that the circular economy is not just a sustainability concept; it is a practical, forward-looking economic model that responds to the urgent challenges of waste, resource scarcity and climate change. At its core, the circular economy is about keeping resources in use for as long as possible, through reuse, repair, remanufacturing and recycling, rather than relying on the traditional “take, make, dispose” model. That shift is essential because the current, linear economy is inherently wasteful. We extract raw materials, use them briefly and discard them, often sending valuable resources to landfill or incineration. The shift should be a win-win approach. For the environment, it reduces waste, lowers carbon emissions and reduces the pressure on our economy and ecosystems. It creates new business models, and jobs in repair and innovation, and it makes the supply chain more resilient, especially in a world facing geopolitical events and material shortages. It also brings clear benefits for consumers by encouraging the creation of products that are longer lasting, easier to fix and more affordable to maintain, which in the current climate of economic difficulties is always welcomed. For Government and industry, the circular economy offers a strategic opportunity to modernise production, drive clean growth and lead global sustainability. We need to embed the circular economy principles, not only in waste and resource policy but across our industrial strategy, product design, and procurement and investment decisions. If we are serious about achieving net zero and protecting future generations, the circular economy must be a central pillar to our economic and environmental thinking. While the circular economy is not necessarily new, it is something that we have lost. It was not many years ago that a faulty washing machine was mended—or even a noisy fridge, such as the one the hon. Member for West Worcestershire was concerned about. I feel that there are skills that we are beginning to lose and skills that we could be taking forward. Now, when something goes wrong, it is cheaper to replace it than to mend it. That is wrong, and this is a good place to start addressing that. I urge the Committee to support these amendments.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This is only my second Bill Committee, so please accept my apologies if I fail in any of the protocol. I want to make a small point on our new clause 9, which interestingly, being on the subject of the EU, is grouped with amendments tabled by the official Opposition. I feel that new clause 9 provides a certain compromise between the two positions. It is important to recognise that the EU continues to be one of our biggest trading partners. Currently, a lot of product legislation is aligned, and therefore divergence is a concern for business. A lot of our small enterprises find that exporting to the EU is an important part of their business, so they need clarity and certainty if any legislation or product safety regulations are going to change or diverge. Our new clause would ensure that any such change, whether a continued alignment or a divergence, is scrutinised and made the subject of a statement to the House. I would be grateful if Members supported the new clause, which I feel offers a compromise between the two positions.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister. I have served on a Bill Committee with him before, and he knows how to appeal to the technical side of my expertise. He gave a compelling example, and I thank him for his consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Chair. I am actually Sarah Gibson.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the Government feel that this issue is captured elsewhere, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. However, further work needs to be done to ensure that third parties that are involved are given the protection that they need. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response. Given that work is being done elsewhere on the circular economy, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not agree that, at the same time, he reduced the threshold at which that measure steps in, such that any allowances mean that it is counterproductive to most small businesses? There is an increase in NICs once they pay it, and the fact that they pay it on a £5,000 rather than £10,000 employment means that lots of part-time workers are suddenly liable for employment contributions when they were not before.