Lizzi Collinge MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I was surprised to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), say that our culture understands consent, bodily autonomy, misogyny and violence against women and girls, given that every day women experience violations of their bodies. I just do not think that that is true of our culture at all. I have an 11-year-old son. I worry about the violent and misogynistic material that boys and young men can be exposed to, and the potential for their radicalisation. Can the Minister assure me that prevention will start at a sufficiently young age for boys, and that every boy will have access to that preventive work?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Puberty Suppressants Trial · Hansard source

  More

  Some of the political debate around this subject has saddened me, not least the way that trans people’s reality and experience has been denied. We even have evidence of British trans people from the 4th century—they have existed forever. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the trial is a real attempt to get a proper evidence base for treatment for young people that is really needed?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I very much welcome the independent review into foreign financial interference in our democracy. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the inadequate oversight of foreign donations, particularly moneys funnelled through cryptocurrency, and the potential for malign actors to seek to influence our democracy through crypto donations?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has been talking about the dangers that children are exposed to. Does she believe that parents are equipped to talk to their children about these dangers? Is there more we can do to support parents to have frank conversations with their children about the risks of sharing images and talking to people online?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. It was interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) about the experience of smaller hobby sites and their concerns about the Online Safety Act. I am sure that Ofcom and the Government will listen to those. The Online Safety Act is not about controlling speech or about the Government deciding what adults think or read or say online, but about responsibility. More specifically, it is about whether we are prepared to say that the online world should have the same safety features as the offline world—whether we expect the online world to be a wild west or not. A lot of the opposition to the Online Safety Act has centred on the freedoms of adults, which I appreciate are important. Adults must be free to build their online lives as they see fit. However, that does not trump the right of children to be safe, whether online or offline, and rights are always a matter of balance. Before I go further, it is worth being clear about what the Act actually does. It requires online services to assess the risk of harm on their platforms and put proportionate systems in place to reduce those risks. That includes harm from illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material, and harm when children are able to access content such as pornography or material that promotes suicide or self-harm. Alongside that, the Act contains proactive requirements to protect freedom of expression, and the largest platforms are now legally required to continually assess how their decisions affect users’ ability to speak freely online. That obligation is explicit and enforceable. In many ways, the principles behind the Act are not new. Technology companies have moderated speech and removed content from their platforms since the very beginning. The difference is that, until now, those decisions were driven by opaque corporate priorities, not a clear and accountable framework of public harm. The stakes here are high. These are some of the first young people whose entire life has been permeated by the online world. It shapes their values, relationships and mental health. For many children, when it comes to sex, self-harm or body image, the first place they turn is not a parent, a teacher or a GP; it is the internet. I want to talk today about pornography. I think we all accept without controversy that children should not be able to access pornography offline—an adult entertainment shop does not let a 12-year-old walk in and buy a dirty video with their pocket money—but when it comes to internet pornography, we as a society have allowed children to freely access material that they are simply not mature enough to deal with. Pornography is more violent and more dangerous than ever before. Despite that, it has never been easier for children to access it. The door to the store has been wide open for too long. According to a 2023 report by the Children’s Commissioner—before the Online Safety Act came into force—the vast majority of children surveyed said that they had seen pornography online by accident, through websites such as X, formerly known as Twitter. Kids were not even needing to seek it out; it was being fed to them. When they did seek it out, dedicated sites did not put up any barriers. The previous requirements for websites such as Pornhub were simply for someone to enter a date of birth, which meant the sole access requirement was the ability to subtract 18 from the current year. I think we all know that is not good enough. That matters because online pornography is not passive; it teaches. It shapes how children understand sex, intimacy, power and consent. It sets expectations long before young people have the tools to question or contextualise what they are seeing. According to that same report by the Children’s Commissioner, more than half of respondents said they had seen pornography involving strangulation, and 44% reported seeing depictions of rape, many of which involved people who were apparently asleep. Such content does not stay onscreen; it spills into real life. The Children’s Commissioner’s research showed that frequent exposure to violent sexual material is associated with a higher tolerance of sexual aggression, distorted ideas about consent and an increased likelihood of sexually aggressive behaviour. Almost half of young girls surveyed expected sex to involve physical aggression. What children learn online does not disappear when the browser closes. With the Online Safety Act, for the first time, adult content is being age-restricted online in the same way it is offline, and sites must now use effective age verification tools. That includes third party services, which should use privacy preserving techniques to confirm users’ data without sharing personal information with the platform itself. Since the new law came into effect, Ofcom has been monitoring compliance, and many of the most visited pornography sites have introduced highly effective age checks. I will be honest: I really do not have a lot of sympathy for pornography users who object to having their age verified. If they are bothered about their privacy, they can just not use it. Pornography is not a human right; people can choose not to use it. Pornography is not the only harm that the Act addresses: for years, platforms such as Twitter, Tumblr and TikTok have hosted vast amounts of content related to self-harm and suicide—some of it framed as support, but much not. Posts and forums provide copious instructions on how to self-harm: the implements to use, how best to hide it and where to cut to do the most damage without killing oneself. Some children accessed that content entirely by accident, before even knowing what self-harm is, while others found it when they were already struggling, and were pulled deeper into it by algorithms that reward repetition and intensity. That content not only risks normalising those behaviours; it risks glamorising them. So many adults have no idea what is out there, and because they are not fed it on their own feeds, they do not understand the danger and the extremism. Investigations have shown that teenage accounts engaging with suicide, self-harm or depression content were then flooded with more of the same. A single click could trigger what one report from the Molly Rose Foundation described as “a tsunami of harmful content”. I am not saying that we should shut down places that offer support to young people who have urges to self-harm, but we need to make sure that young people can access evidence-based support and are not exposed to content that could encourage harm. That is why organisations such as Samaritans have praised the Online Safety Act. Under the Act, platforms that recommend or promote content to users—for example, “For You” feeds on TikTok—must ensure that those systems do not push harmful content to children. Not only does that put the onus on platforms to prevent children from seeing such content, but means that, if children do come across or search for harmful content, platforms should avoid showing them more of the same so they do not go down a very harmful rabbit hole. Clearly, it is still early days. The legislation includes a formal review, with a report to Parliament due within a few years of full implementation. We will, and should, look closely at what is working and what needs to be improved—as lawmakers, we have that responsibility—but the signs are encouraging. Sky News spoke to six teenagers before and after the new rules came into force, and five of them said that they were seeing much less harmful content in their feeds. I know that is anecdata, but it is important to listen to the experiences of young people. Ofcom has opened investigations, and benefits have already come from them. For example, following an Ofcom investigation, file-sharing services that were being used to distribute child sexual abuse material have now installed automated technology to detect and remove such material. Proportionality is at the heart of it, and Ofcom has developed guidance to support compliance. I understand the concerns about smaller or volunteer-run forums, but some of the most harmful content appears on very small or obscure sites, so simply taking out smaller sites would be a disservice. I am sure there will be problems that must be worked out. We should continue to explore how best to provide children with age-appropriate experiences online, and think about how to get age verification right. But while we refine and improve the system, we cannot ignore the reality that there have been serious harms and that we have a responsibility to tackle them. For the first time, the UK has a regulatory framework that forces tech companies to assess risk, protect freedom of expression and give the public far greater transparency on how decisions about online content are made. Other countries have banned young people from social media. I have been thinking about that a lot, and I currently do not think it is the right thing to do. Online communities can provide friendship and solace to young people—particularly those who are marginalised, perhaps due to their sexual orientation, or who are restricted in life, perhaps because they are kept at home by ill health or disabilities. Online communities can offer a lot to our young children, but children have a right to be just that: children. They should not have to deal with the complexities and hardships of adult life, so we as adults must do what we can to build safe online spaces for them, just as we build safe physical spaces.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Resident Doctors: Industrial Action · Hansard source

  More

  I am very concerned that flu has hit hard and hit early this year. Hospital bed occupancy for flu is more than 50% higher than it was this time last year and resident doctors are central to tackling that. I have to admit to being very shocked that the BMA turned down an offer that would allow it to postpone next week’s strike. Does the Secretary of State share my worry that any strike action would make tackling this flu crisis much harder?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak specifically to clause 2 and the duty of candour and assistance to inquiries, but my remarks are relevant to the Bill as a whole. I want to let the Committee and anyone watching know that I will be talking about the death of a child. I should have a six-year-old constituent called Ida Lock. She should be at school, playing with her siblings and running rings around her parents. But I do not have that six-year-old constituent, because she died in 2019 at just one week old, despite having been healthy in her mum Sarah’s womb. Ida’s death was preventable: the coroner described her death as caused by gross failures in her care. There were eight opportunities to save Ida, and after Ida’s death there were many more opportunities to make sure that what happened to her never happened again. However, the hospital trust, rather than opening its arms to the family and trying to learn from its mistakes, instead carried out a completely inadequate internal investigation and then, according to the timeline laid out by the coroner, attempted to head off further investigations. In fact, Ida’s case went to the coroner only this year, in 2025. Ida died in 2019. It went there because of the family’s persistence and for no other reason. It was not referred to the coroner, as it should have been, by the hospital trust; in fact, the trust originally graded Ida’s death as “moderate harm”.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Constituents of mine—such as the parents of Ida Lock, a baby whose death due to failings in care was preventable—have described inquests to me where the behaviour of public bodies made the inquest adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Information had to be dragged out of public bodies, and there were hostile legal teams. As a coroner, do you recognise that picture? What challenges does that behaviour give to coroners in their duties? Do you think that the Bill will change that situation? Judge Durran: There is certainly an impression that inquests are becoming more adversarial because lawyers seek to use them as some early form of litigation, with an eye to any consequential litigation down the line. My predecessor and I have done a lot to convey the message that an inquest is inquisitorial—it should not be adversarial. It is a summary hearing, not a surrogate public inquiry. Increasingly, I tell coroners about the existence of the advocate’s toolkits, which have been designed specifically with inquests in process. I have encouraged coroners that if lawyers are seeking to turn an inquest into a public inquiry, they should pause, look at the advocate’s toolkits, remind the lawyers to look at those and remind them of the nature of the proceedings, because it is not the correct forum to make those sort of arguments.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will try to be quick, Mr Dowd. Families have told me that they have experienced during coroner’s inquests the following: information having to be dragged out of public bodies, hostile legal teams and a process that is meant to be inquisitorial becoming adversarial. Do you have any comments on whether the Bill will improve that situation? Deborah Coles: The first thing to say is that the legal aid provisions will quite clearly have a transformative effect, because families will no longer have to go through intrusive funding processes, crowdfund or represent themselves. In terms of a change in culture and the duty of candour, at the moment, as I explained, we see exactly what families have spoken to you about: a process that is adversarial in nature and victim blaming. Time and again, families describe their experiences as a battle. These are grieving families who have experienced death, very often where the state has a duty of care; something has gone catastrophically wrong, yet they have to try to drag information out of the people responsible. It is utterly unacceptable. If the Bill actually lands on the ground, meaning that organisations have this duty of candour from top to bottom, and people are called to account if they continue to behave in the way you have had described, I feel that it will change the experience. The other thing to say is that there might be some suggestion that this is going to cause problems within the coronial system, which is our area of expertise. The Bill is trying to stop the battle to drag information out of people. There will be proper disclosure and open honesty from the outset about where things have gone wrong. It should mean that processes are shorter and less traumatising, and that they can deliver the answers that not only families need but we as a society need to learn, so that deaths are not repeated. Professor Waters: The characteristics you mention were absolutely mine and my family’s experience of the inquest, with Ofsted withholding information or providing redacted information. In fact, it was so heavily redacted that it required us to have a second pre-inquest review, so it extends the process and adds to the expense. I know there has been some discussion about the legal funding potentially being delayed because it might lead to a bigger budget, but parity does not mean more money. In the case of the Ofsted legal team, the coroner had to instruct them not to bring more than seven members of their legal team into the court, and we had Reading borough council and the NHS trust’s legal team up against us. Actually, balancing might mean reducing the amount of money that public bodies spend. May I say one more thing, if this really is the last question, because I know we both want to say it? Something else that absolutely needs to happen, whether as part of the Hillsborough law or something separate, is that there must be some kind of national oversight mechanism to make sure that the recommendations that come out of inquests and inquiries are acted upon. As I said, it is two years today since my sister’s inquest, and it speaks volumes that I am still battling, frankly, just to try to prevent future deaths and to get Ofsted to do what it is necessary to make its school inspection system safe. I should not have to do that, There ought to be some independent objective body that makes sure that those recommendations happen, so that it does not happen again.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think that the Bill will help to improve that situation? Judge Durran: It is disappointing that the duty of candour has to be written into law. I hope that the Bill is a considerable step in the right direction, as a vehicle to enable a coroner, through conduct reports and compliance directions, to better get people to engage with the true intentions, which is to find out answers to the four questions and primarily how someone died. However, I cannot over-emphasise that the compliance directions and conduct reports add a burden to a strain that is already under strain and under-resourced.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My understanding is that some NHS organisations currently view being transparent as the legal risk. Do you think the Bill will change attitudes, in that it flips the legal risk on to being non-transparent? I have struggled, in representing my constituents, with the fact that this is about not just processes, or even law, but culture. It is about changing the culture of a care organisation that responds to harm not by trying to find out what happened and stop it happening, but by trying to cover its own back. Will both NHS England and NHS Resolution speak to that? Helen Vernon: Just briefly, we hope that it will bolster transparency and the existing duty of candour, but perhaps Professor Fowler wants to come in. Professor Fowler: I certainly agree with that. We have had the opportunity to talk about the sad case of Ida Lock. Thinking about where organisations have not been sufficiently transparent, we see occasions on which it is a failure to understand. I was involved with some training for staff who had worked in an organisation—it is not appropriate to name the organisation—where they had seen considerable failings. They were in tears during this training about reporting incidents because they realised they had been getting it completely wrong. It is incumbent upon us to work with organisations to change culture, but also to educate, train and support people, and to professionalise the approach to reporting and openness that we want to see, but that has to be done in a way in which people feel psychologically safe to do so. I recognise anxieties about people suffering harm as a result of exercising the freedom to speak up, but it has been very successful when we look at the number of people we have seen coming forward with issues, most of whom I would argue do not suffer detriment as a result. This is about psychological safety, training, encouragement, support, standardising and professionalising around safety. A lot of the work we have done around safety has been about the governance and organisational principles of how it is done, and underlying all of it is a clear statement about systems and culture.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think it is accurate that some organisations in the NHS still see being transparent, and admitting harm and problems, as the legal risk? Helen Vernon: They should not, but as we mentioned, there is inconsistency. Part of our collective role is to make sure that people understand its importance, how to do it well and how to deliver candour in practice. Professor Fowler: You mentioned closed cultures. I spent six months recently working as an interim in the CQC in the gap between chief inspectors. One of the things we recognised is that where we saw organisations with challenges, there was often also a closed culture. To be clear, that is a minority of organisations, but I think the two go together. Dr Chopra: I recognise your questions, and I agree with what Aidan said. I have seen instances where what you have described is the case—as Helen said, it is inconsistent—and I have seen brave clinicians who have said, “Right, if it is not going to trigger the organisational statutory duty of candour, I do have a professional duty of candour, and I am going to raise it that way.” I hope the Bill will bolster that, as we have said.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q First, it is a matter of public record that my husband works for NHS England—for now. I ask these questions as a representative of constituents who have been harmed, including my constituent Vicki, who died, and baby Ida Lock, who died a preventable death. Her death was graded as “Moderate harm”, which was one of the many, many failings that came afterwards. NHS Resolution focuses on resolving issues and harm caused without resorting to legal processes. How will the Bill contribute to that aim? Helen Vernon: Those are incredibly sad circumstances and sensitive issues. I think it will be a big help and support that aim because, as I mentioned earlier, an open and transparent response right at the start has the best chance of not only avoiding somebody consulting lawyers or initiating a claim just to get answers, but avoiding that claim subsequently escalating into unnecessary and adversarial legal proceedings. We have driven down the number of cases that go into formal litigation by using alternative dispute resolution, which generally involves bringing clinicians and the organisation together with the family. But you can do that only if there is an atmosphere of trust and clear transparency as to the information that is being shared.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I would just like a little more detail—thank you for your briefing—on the difficulty of proving intent and recklessness in a corporate body. For those of us who are not legally trained, could you explain a bit more about why that is difficult to prove? Pete Weatherby: We have set the standard very high indeed, because we are not interested in criminalising people and we are certainly not interested in scaring people. One example thrown at us during the discussions with the Government was that we might be criminalising junior civil servants who turn up late for work—absolutely not. Intent and subjective recklessness are high hurdles, but they are individual hurdles. A corporate body cannot easily act recklessly. It is not a legal impossibility; you do have health and safety or companies law offences, where there are corporate offences and you prove the mens rea—mental state—through the directing minds, but that is an incredibly difficult complication, and it does not really work with the offences that we are looking at here.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Professor Lewis, you spoke about the burden of proof lying with the prosecution. Have I understood correctly that if someone puts forward the defence of reasonable excuse—I think this is the phrasing—it would then be for the prosecution to prove that it was false rather than for the defendant to prove that it was true? Professor Lewis: Yes. I would phrase it slightly differently: I would say that the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable excuse, rather than thinking about truth or falsity. But, yes, once the defendant introduces evidence that raises the defence of reasonable excuse, they will have met their evidential burden, and the persuasive or legal burden will then rest on the prosecution.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you. That is very helpful. Mr Guest, you talked about some of the guardrails against unmeritorious or vexatious prosecutions. One of the things that we have seen in previous cover-ups is that junior members of staff have felt the burden, either when they try to tell the truth or because they are punished when the truth has not been there. I have been told—although I disagree—that the Bill could create a fear of unreasonable prosecution, or could cause junior members of staff to take responsibility, rather than senior members of staff. Do you consider that a risk? Does the way the law is set out mean that it will work as intended? Tom Guest: When I mention that risk, it is to guard against the risk of unmeritorious prosecutions. Before there is a prosecution, there has to be an investigation. Again, you can have private investigations or police investigations. We at the CPS do not see a prospect of unmeritorious police investigations, and we do not see a present risk, although we see some risk, of unmeritorious private investigations. The DPP’s consent comes in at the point of asking, “Is this going to go into the court system or not?” At that point, we as the CPS are assessing whichever investigation has happened against the standard tests of, “Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute the suspect?” and, “Is a prosecution required in the public interest?” Whoever the suspect is, we will assess that against those standards.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q So there is no easy way to show corporate collective actions, which are obviously the sum of a number of individual actions. Pete Weatherby: The Bill creates some individual duties, so you can prove them against the individual, but on the corporate duty, the simple way of dealing with it is the one that we put forward. It is really simple: it is a couple of lines, as you can see from the amendments we have put forward. You make the head of the organisation responsible for the discharge of the corporate duty. There is no problem with that.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  On energy security and ensuring a diverse range of clean energy sources, does my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the Government’s commitment to responding to the nuclear regulatory review within three months, so that we can change the way that nuclear is regulated and ensure that it is kept safe and up to date, and can get building new nuclear?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the report from North Lancashire Citizens Advice about child poverty in our area. Its top recommendation to combat child poverty was to scrap the two-child limit. Will she join me in thanking North Lancashire Citizens Advice for its fantastic work to help local people? Will she continue to work with me, as she often so generously does, to tackle child poverty in our area?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Could the right hon. Gentleman remind us which Government led to that 11% inflation and which Government crashed the economy? Could he also speak to the estimated 1,970 children in Morecambe and Lunesdale who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap and tell them why they should continue to live in poverty?

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  The objections to global and national action on climate change frankly baffle me, not least because of the climate emergency, but also because of the opportunity it brings to our country. My constituency has had good clean energy jobs for decades through Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations—I keep pushing for Heysham 3. Does the Secretary of State agree that the agreements at COP30 and the Government’s actions on climate change are an opportunity to not only fight climate change and create good jobs, but improve living standards in our country and across the globe?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. The Palestinians must be in the driving seat. A solution should not be imposed on them. Palestinians know best what is right for them and their country, and that has to be central. Any moneys that go in have to be properly accounted for, and any reconstruction done properly. As I have said, civic infrastructure is key. It is right that Hamas play no role in the governing of Palestine going forward. It is an horrific organisation, and its extreme ideology and violent actions have caused immense harm, both within and without Palestinian borders. It cannot be allowed to control Gaza’s future. However, history offers crucial lessons on how to shape post-war civic society. For example, in the wake of the Iraq war, the restoration of essential services was strained by the absence of administrative and management personnel. The de-Ba’athification of the Iraq Government decimated the state bureaucracy and hollowed out civic infrastructure. Any holder of a Ba’ath party card was dismissed. That included teachers and low-level functionaries, who needed the card to work.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that Israel must release prisoners, particularly those who are there for their non-violent actions against the occupation. The Palestinians will need all talents, and the Israeli Government must take action on that. I was speaking about the aftermath of the war in Iraq. Obviously, the situation in Gaza is not a carbon copy of what happened there; that was simply an example of where thoughtless implementation of a reasonable headline policy had an impact that went far beyond the stated intent.