Lizzi Collinge MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Morecambe football club is in crisis. The current owner is delaying a sale, despite us already having a buyer ready and approved by the English Football League. The staff have only been paid one third of their wages, and the board has been dismissed without proper process. Can the Minister outline how the Government are working to prevent other towns like Morecambe from suffering in this way?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  We all know that Morecambe and Lunesdale is the most beautiful constituency in the country, and the village of Dent is particularly beautiful. Unfortunately, 40% of homes there are now second homes or short-term holiday lets. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of short-term lets on rural housing availability, and on how regulatory reform might help?

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that we hear a lot of facts and figures about what happens in the west bank and Gaza, but what really matters is the human stories, which bring it right home to us?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Space Weather · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner, and I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for securing this important debate. Space weather has profound effects on our planet, particularly now that we rely so heavily on technology that can be affected by radiation or changes to the magnetosphere. What is space weather? Basically, it is the sun chucking out gas and particles into space. It varies over time, and has peaks and troughs. We are currently just past the highest peak, but we are still in a very active period. Three main types of solar weather events affect us on Earth: solar flares, solar energetic particles and coronal mass ejections. Those travel at different speeds, have different make-ups and have different impacts. Essentially, they all sneak past our normal protections—the magnetosphere and our atmosphere—and cause problems for us on Earth. The extra radiation and geomagnetic storms from the events can cause high-frequency radio blackouts and affect all sorts of electronic systems, both in space and on the ground. I also wanted to discuss the Carrington event in 1859, but time is short, so those watching at home will have to google it. What can we do about the risks of space weather? First, I support the calls of the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. I asked my friend, astrophysicist Dr Alfredo Carpineti—I always keep a tame astrophysicist on hand—what he thought Parliament needed to know about space weather. He agreed with me that we must continue to invest in the Met Office space weather operations centre, which monitors and forecasts space weather, and promote its work. It has done a great job in reaching the public with its aurora forecasts, and I would love people to know more about the rest of its work. I have very much enjoyed educating my colleagues about space weather this week. Dr Carpineti told me that we need more research on how the UK would cope with a Carrington-level event and work out how to mitigate the potential impact. Another key research topic is around the degradation of technologies from the continuous stream of particles from space. I am told that that is particularly relevant for British territories and facilities at higher latitudes. I am very pleased that this debate is taking place, and pleased that I could contribute.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is worth being absolutely clear about what new clause 1 would and would not do. It would simply remove the threat of prosecution for women who end their own pregnancy: it would not change the abortion time limit, which remains. The rules around telemedicine remain. The requirement for two doctors to sign off remains. In recent years there has been what I consider to be a worrying rise in the number of people being investigated, prosecuted and even imprisoned under the law. These prosecutions are deeply distressing and, in most cases, entirely disproportionate. It is far more common for a woman to miscarry or to miscalculate the stage of her pregnancy than to wilfully break the law. To fully address the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), I do not think it is right, in the context of what is actually happening in investigations and prosecutions, that any woman should be prosecuted. The harm caused by the number of investigations and prosecutions where it is absolutely not justified outweighs that.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely think it is not helpful to go against those women. New clause 1 would retain the criminal prosecution of men who force women to have an abortion, or indeed anyone who coerces a woman into having an abortion. One in eight known pregnancies end in miscarriage, yet we have seen women subjected to invasive investigations, delayed medical care and lengthy legal processes because they have had an abortion or a stillbirth. Many colleagues have already spoken about the intense distress that legal proceedings inflict, whatever the circumstances. In the case of Nicola Packer, it took four years to clear her name. During that time, the scrutiny she faced was entirely dehumanising, with completely irrelevant matters treated as evidence of wrongdoing. For every woman who ends up in court, many more endure police investigations, often including phone seizures, home searches and even, in some cases, having children removed from their care. All that not only is distressing and disproportionate for those women, but makes abortion less safe. If women are scared of being criminalised, they will not be honest with their midwives, GPs or partner. Abortion is healthcare, and healthcare relies on honest conversations between care providers and patients. I will rebut a bit of the misinformation that says that new clause 1 would allow abusive partners or others to avoid prosecution. That is simply not true. NC1 applies only to the woman who ends her own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals who act outside the law, and partners and other family members who use violence or coercion would still be criminalised, just as they are now, and quite rightly so. The amount of misinformation about abortion is distressing—I have seen it within and without this Chamber. What are the facts? Some 88% of abortions happen before nine weeks. As a woman who has lost two very-much wanted pregnancies at about that stage, I am very aware of what that actually means physically, and of what stage the foetus is at then. Abortions after 20 weeks make up just 0.1% of all cases, and those are due to serious medical reasons. Women are not ending their pregnancies because of convenience. NC1 would not change what is happening with abortion care, but it would protect women from being dragged through these brutal investigations, which are completely inappropriate in the majority of cases anyway. Women are extremely unlikely to try to provoke their own abortion outside the time limits. A criminal sanction for that, or a distressing and intrusive investigation, is entirely disproportionate. It is not in the public interest to subject these women to these investigations. I will finish with this: women who have abortions, women who have miscarriages and women who have children are not distinct sets of women. Many of us will experience at least two of those things, if not all three. Let us stop making false distinctions and trying to pit groups of women against each other, and let us stop brutally criminalising women—many of them very vulnerable women—in the way that the current law does, because it serves no purpose. Today, we can end that.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am very concerned that the amendment tabled by Opposition Front Benchers would fly in the face of the body’s independence, so I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will not be pushing it to a vote. Will he confirm whether his party supports an independent process and the ICGS? If his party were in government, would it make changes to the scheme or even scrap it?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady not feel that the provisions in the Bill already have safeguards? Also, and most importantly, does she not feel that putting a family through a coronial process when the death is expected is unfair, unjust and completely beyond the bounds of what coroners are meant to do?

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Marriage is one of the most profound commitments we can make. It offers us a lifelong partner to grow with, a loving relationship to strengthen us and mutual support throughout our lives. When two people choose to marry, it matters that they can do so in a ceremony that reflects their beliefs. I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, to which Humanists UK provide the secretariat. However, I speak today not on behalf of any organisation or formal grouping, but on behalf of people like me who share strongly held beliefs and convictions about the world and their place in it. I am sure that most people in this Chamber are familiar with what humanism is, but it is worth briefly setting it out. Humanism is the belief that this life is the only life we have, and that the world is a natural phenomenon that we can understand, with no supernatural side. It is a worldview grounded in reason, evidence and compassion—a commitment to living ethically and meaningfully, not because of fear or doctrine but because of a shared humanity and a belief in people. For those of us who hold these beliefs, they shape the biggest moments of our life, including marriage. Humanist weddings are personal, thoughtful and deeply meaningful. They are conducted by celebrants who share the couple’s values and are co-created to reflect the couple’s commitment and outlook on life. They are no less significant than religious ceremonies, yet right now humanist couples in England and Wales face a fundamental unfairness, because their weddings are not legally recognised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) set out, the Government already have the power to right this injustice. The reform does not require primary legislation and it does not need a review. The Secretary of State already has the power, under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, to lay an order, and a draft order already exists. It would require just 90 minutes of debate in each House. We could be done tomorrow—well, maybe not tomorrow; we are all a bit busy tomorrow. Instead of the Government using that existing power, there have been delays and the issue has been referred for more and more reviews. The latest was the Law Commission’s full review of marriage law, which produced proposals that, in my opinion, would be difficult and slow to implement. The High Court made it clear that once the review was finished, the Government should act, but rather than taking that straightforward step, we have new proposals that complicate the process unnecessarily. I fundamentally disagree with some of the proposals, and I will highlight my concerns in the hope that I might influence the Minister’s thinking about any new legislation. I am particularly worried by the Law Commission’s proposal to permit commercial celebrants—anyone, regardless of training—to become authorised wedding officiants with the same powers as registrars. I understand the impetus to expand choice, but this risks turning weddings into Las Vegas-style free-for-alls, which would be unprecedented in Europe. Marriage is a binding contract between two people and the state. It is a choice that takes huge commitment and should not be entered into lightly. It is of such significance that we cannot reduce it to a mere transaction or moment or entertainment. We have to safeguard the integrity of the marriage ritual. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that how we get married matters. It signifies the seriousness of the contract we enter into. That obviously does not mean that it needs to be dour or cheerless—my wedding very much was not—but we need to safeguard the integrity and meaning of the ceremony itself. Humanist celebrants are carefully trained. They are insured, accredited and supported through continuing professional development. That commitment is what gives their ceremonies the weight and respect they deserve. It is not just humanists who have concerns; the Church of England and local registrars share them. I rarely use the word “sacred”, but here it is entirely fitting. Allowing a free market for celebrants risks undermining the solemn and profound nature of the marriage contract. I should also highlight the aspects of the commission’s proposals that I support. For instance, the move away from the building-based system is a positive step. As society is changed, so too is marriage. As a woman, I am very aware of the changes in both marriage and society. However, the values that marriage represents—love, commitment and stability—are fundamental to the fabric of our society, and I do not think that anyone in this room would challenge their importance. If we want to truly uphold and embed those principles in our society, they must be accessible to everyone, regardless of belief or background. Marriage rights should reflect the profundity of the commitment made. Put simply, every citizen of this country, whatever their belief system, should have the same right to equal recognition of their solemn commitment, made in accordance with their beliefs. I hope we can act on this opportunity and finally introduce this long-overdue change.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  I used to live in Andalusia, close to the Gibraltar border, so this issue is very close to my heart and I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the deal. The people of Spain, Gibraltar and Britain are very close, we have very deep links and, as they say in Spain, “Hacemos buenas migas.” Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is not only a great deal for the economy of Gibraltar, but a chance to deepen those relationships and continue those friendships that have gone on for so many years?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power: Investment · Hansard source

  More

  If I had known it was your birthday, Mr Speaker, I would have brought you down a Chorley cake, but never mind. As you know, my constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations. As the Secretary of State is aware, I am pushing for Heysham also to host new nuclear. Will he tell me how today’s announcement supports nuclear communities such as mine and will enable the next generation of nuclear across the country?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome raising the threshold for the winter fuel allowance. As I am sure the Minister knows, the threshold was at the heart of my concern about means testing, although the principle of means-testing is absolutely correct. Morecambe and Lunesdale has an older than average population. Can the Minister assure me that my pensioners will not have to do anything special—make any application—to get their winter fuel allowance?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear to all that the actions of the Israeli Government are morally abhorrent. I welcome the further sanctions announced by the Secretary of State two weeks ago, but I plead with the Minister now: we must go further on sanctions and consider trade measures. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), I now believe it is time to recognise the Palestinian state. I was willing to accept the Government’s position on it, but I cannot any longer. I beg the Minister: come back to this House extremely soon—tomorrow, or next week—with further concrete measures.

• 22 May 2025 · Access to NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Prevention is always better than cure. When I sat on Lancashire county council’s health scrutiny committee, we took evidence that showed that things such as supervised brushing and help with fluoride were some of the most cost-effective interventions, and they could prevent the horror of 30,000 children going into hospital for preventable tooth removal. Dental health has become a stark marker of inequality. Without ongoing care and access to that preventive care, children in less well-off families are more likely to suffer worsening dental problems. The contract was a major problem. It locked in those perverse incentives, but the situation was then worsened by over a decade of neglect of all areas of public health under the previous Government. Too many families do not go to the dentist until it is too late and it is very expensive, so we need those preventive measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington spoke about and we need access to NHS dentists. We know that if people are not able to go to the dentist, it means they turn up at A&E, but they are sent away with painkillers and antibiotics, and that does not fulfil their needs. I am pleased that our Government are taking this issue seriously. I am pleased that we recognise the scale of the problem, and I am pleased that we are taking action not only on NHS dentistry, but on preventive care. We owe it to families in Morecambe and Lunesdale and across the country to fix this broken system. We need a dental contract that actually works, fair funding for local services and access to care that is available when people need it.

• 22 May 2025 · Access to NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  NHS dentistry has been a recurring theme for me both before the election and since, as I know is true for most colleagues, which is why this Labour Government have made it a priority. However, we are starting from a very difficult place. Let me set out just how bad the situation is in Morecambe and Lunesdale. Last year, I knocked on the door of a man in Morecambe who had lost most of his teeth because he did not have access to dental care. Just yesterday, a constituent wrote to me asking me to speak in this debate. She and her husband travel more than 80 miles four times a year just to see their NHS dentist. They are retired and cannot afford to go private, and, like many older people, they need regular and more complex care. We do not have to look far to see the root of the problem—so to speak. Dentists have been telling us for years that the NHS dental contract is not fit for purpose. The contract creates perverse incentives. Dentists are discouraged from treating the patients who need them the most. I appreciate that this is partly because in the ’90s and early ’00s, the contract incentivised the over-treating of patients, but now the pendulum has swung back too far the other way, and we have to find a balanced approach. Dental decay is one of the leading causes of hospital admissions in children. In 2023, over 30,000 children ended up in hospital needing their teeth removed.

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  This deal is very welcome, particularly for my farmers in Morecambe and Lunesdale. When I was a young person, I benefited from a year in New Zealand and a year in Spain. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will do everything he can to ensure that other young Brits get the same opportunities that I did?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will expand on this, but that is exactly why good medical practice requires all options to be on the table. Patients should not be influenced by the opinions, whether philosophical or medical, of a doctor; they should be able to give full and informed consent. I believe that new clause 1 would chill those discussions, and limit the option of an assisted death to those already in the know, those who are the most medically literate, and those who are often the least marginalised in society. It would result in unequal access to a legal process, and flies in the face of good medical practice, which has moved away from the paternalism that harmed patients and took away their individual control. After many years of fighting, mainly by women and marginalised communities, it is now established that good healthcare practice means patients having full information to make their own decisions.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very mindful of time, so I will finish with this point. Colleagues may wish to look at the NHS constitution, which says: “You have the right to be involved in planning and making decisions about your health and care with your care provider or providers, including your end of life care, and to be given information and support to enable you to do this.” That can be the case only if people are given the full information. All people should have access to full information on matters of care. To do otherwise is to deny people their decision—it is paternalistic, and we should move away from that model. People have fought so hard for that to happen. We have a chance today, colleagues, to ensure that the legislation is the best it can be. It has been a pleasure to listen to the contributions of colleagues across the Chamber. I am minded to support the amended Bill on Third Reading, because the current situation for terminally ill people, with no safeguards, no protection and no choice, is absolutely unsupportable.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am mindful of time, so I will continue. Why, then, would we now choose, as a House, to hide from patients information about their options? For so many years, people have been put through that. Informed consent to treatment, including end of life care, is informed only when it includes all options. There is also the practical element of what would count as a patient raising it first. Would they have to make a specific statement? Would they have to use specific language? It would create a legal and medical minefield for doctors and patients.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had intended to speak about new clauses 1 and 10, but I will restrict myself to new clause 1 for the sake of time. New clause 1 says: “No health professional shall raise assisted dying…unless that person has first raised it.” If the patient does not mention the issue and specifically ask for it, the doctor would be entirely prohibited from even mentioning it. That is problematic for many reasons. It goes against good medical practice, and is actively opposed by the British Medical Association. For me, the new clause would undermine the hard-won rights of people to be fully informed of their medical options, and would make the application of the Bill unfair and unequal, to the detriment of marginalised people in particular.

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. Many of my constituents have contacted me with serious concerns about the proposed changes to PIP. Putting aside the human cost of that worry for one moment, we already know what happens when we take money away from early intervention and preventive support. It does not save money; it simply shifts the cost, and often ends up increasing it. We have evidence for that. When the disability living allowance was replaced with PIP in 2013, people with multiple sclerosis were often taken off the benefit. The MS Society investigated the effects of those changes on 2,500 people with MS who lost the higher rate of DLA. Unsurprisingly, it found that those people relied more on NHS services, particularly GPs and A&Es. In one year alone, those GP and A&E costs were £7.7 million for just 2,500 people. We are still dealing with the real human cost of 14 years of Conservative austerity and cuts to health and social care. We have to learn from the failure of those policies and do something differently. This party was elected on a promise of change. I stand by that promise, and I stand by my Government, but no one is denying that our welfare system needs serious reform. That should not come at the cost of disabled people.