Lizzi Collinge MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  As I reflect on VE day and the celebration of victory over fascism in Europe, it strikes me that the war effort was one of common endeavour by ordinary people such as my grandad, who was a translator at Bletchley Park, and Richard Brock, who, when I met him last year, was 100 years young. Richard was one of the men who liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. To sit with someone who had known that horror at first hand truly was a privilege, and it was a privilege to pass on my personal thanks on behalf of a survivor’s family. That is because my friend Krysh had a Polish grandma, and she survived Belsen. After her liberation, she came to Britain and settled here. The rest, as they say, is history. Except it is not just history, is it? It is not something that we can bring out to look at on special occasions and congratulate ourselves on beating fascism before putting it away until the next anniversary. It did not start with the camps, did it? It never does. No, it was more insidious than that. It was a slow and constant poisoning of minds by people intent only on power. It was a setting up of different groups as scapegoats. It was the use of pseudoscience to back up an ideology of racism and eugenics. It was the use of propaganda to turn people into caricatures and the use of the press to create a narrative of blame. It was the turning of ordinary people on their neighbours. It was taking the propensity of humans to group together and turning that into a sinister tribalism. Why look to the difficult solutions to complex problems when people can simply blame the groups, over there, that they have been taught over many years to hate and fear? In the ’20s and ’30s, it was the Jews, the Gypsies, the gays and the disabled. It was the intellectuals and the trade unionists. It was anyone who challenged that narrative of hate. So who is it today? Fascism did not start with the camps, and the ideas underpinning fascism are not artefacts of history. I end with the plea that we do not treat fascism and tyranny as an historical artefact, and that we remember that they are a living possibility—even now, even here. The overthrow of fascism is not a bauble to admire once a year. Rather, it is a reminder that we should never let it get that far ever again, that we must be on our guard and that we should never let it flourish.

• 6 May 2025 · Middle East Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment directly on sanctions, but he knows that I have privately urged him to consider further sanctions and further measurable action. Given the ongoing horror and the statement from the Israeli Government, please will the Minister consider further concrete action?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, we are and will always be proud of our club, Morecambe FC. Just one week ago, Morecambe lost a match and, unfortunately, confirmed our relegation. I was gutted, but I know that we will come back fighting, because resilience runs through our town, our fans and our club. In Morecambe, we have the best fans in the country. When we went to Chelsea, we overwhelmed the home fans a little bit. I do not think they were expecting that level of noise, energy and passion from a club that went on to get beaten 5-0. The truth is that Morecambe FC and its fans have been badly let down by poor ownership, which has damaged our club. Throughout the difficulties, the Shrimps fans’ trust and the board have done an incredible job of holding the club together. They have shown what it really means to care about a club. Despite their efforts, they have been kept at arm’s length while ownership talks drag on, leaving the club stuck in limbo and going from transfer window to transfer window. That is why the Secretary of State and I directly promised Morecambe before the election that we would deliver an independent football regulator. This Bill, which delivers the regulator, will strengthen suitability tests for owners and directors. It will introduce a licensing system to make sure that clubs are run responsibly. It will give fans a proper voice in how their clubs are managed. These are crucial steps to fix English football. This Bill started in the last Parliament and was brought forward by a Conservative MP, Dame Tracey Crouch. It had cross-party support but, surprisingly, the Conservatives seemed to have spun on a dime. Their leader said that introducing a football regulator would be “a waste of money”, but one only has to look at the wider social, cultural and economic benefits of football to know that this is simply not true. Grassroots football gets people into the game. On matchdays, football brings people to pubs, cafés and shops in the area. Clubs often provide facilities for schools, youth teams and community groups. In my constituency, we have the Morecambe FC Community Foundation, which works with young people, elders, veterans and others. It is a really important local organisation. Clubs such as Morecambe are part of the fabric of our towns, and part of what gives us our identity. They bring pride, passion and unbeatable matchday traditions, and in Morecambe we bring the best pies to football. Let us back this Bill’s sensible, light-touch regulation, and back clubs and their fans, who mean so much to so many towns.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important debate. The question about machine learning tools—AI—and their use in intellectual property is a key test of our time. What we decide to do now will have ramifications culturally, socially and economically long into the future. Large language models, a form of machine learning such as ChatGPT, have already used pirated and copyrighted material without the consent of the people who created it to train their models. It should be self-evident that that is a problem. It is a well-established right that people retain ownership of their work, with limited exceptions for education or critique. We have clear copyright laws. We have collective licensing schemes, yet those have been ridden over roughshod by machine learning developers. I am not a luddite. I am very excited about the potential for machine learning to make our lives better, just as other technology has done before. The potential for large datasets to identify health concerns and make diagnostics more accurate—with a programme able to predict the folds of proteins, saving scientists time that they can spend on the next thorny issue—is exciting stuff. It is important to remember that technology is morally neutral. The technology itself is not good or bad. It is a tool—nothing more, nothing less—and we as humanity get to decide how we use that tool. To use that tool, we need to understand it, at least in terms of how we interact with it. For example, we need to know that AI can lie. It will invent things. One of the best examples I have heard was when a large language model tool was asked by a huge “Doctor Who” fan to tell him about “Doctor Who” episodes and it simply made some up—perfectly plausible episodes that did not exist and have never existed. If anyone here is ever tempted to ask ChatGPT, be warned: it might not tell you the truth. As well as understanding the potential and limitations of the technology itself, it is also important that we create frameworks that align with our values and do not roll over for mega-corporations that really do not care for our values. Meta, which owns Facebook, has argued that individual creative works have no value in themselves as they individually barely affect the performance of large language models. As a Vanity Fair article pointed out, it is a bit like an orchestra arguing that it should not pay an individual musician because the solo bassoon cannot play the whole piece by itself. If large language model tech as a whole relies on creative works, and it does, then some form of respect for the rights of creatives must be found. We have existing copyright laws. We could simply enforce them and ensure that the tools are there to do so. I urge the Government to treat machine learning for what it is: a tool to be used well or used badly. Let us choose well.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time today, Ms Butler. As I have two minutes, I will be very brief. The persecution of Christians was brought to my attention by one of my constituents, a member of the Heysham Free Methodist Church . I was appalled to learn of the threat of violence from so-called social media influencers and Hindu nationalist leaders; people have been displaced, with their homes and businesses destroyed, and that is absolutely abhorrent. I wish us to speak with one voice on this matter, and to speak against the state enforcement of religion and state tolerance of religious persecution; that is absolutely unacceptable. I want to call particular attention to the persecution of those who hold no faith, a reality that too often goes unrecognised. In 2022, the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, Mubarak Bala, was sentenced to 24 years in prison for a supposedly blasphemous Facebook post. As of January this year, we have blasphemy laws in 91 countries in the world, including in Northern Ireland. Blasphemy laws lead to the harassment and persecution that Mr Bala suffered, as well as that faced by people of all faiths and none. That must end. Mr Bala will be coming to the all-party parliamentary group Humanist Group on 14 May, and I invite hon. Members to join us and hear more of his story. This debate shows us that people of faith and no faith can have a powerful connection and can find common cause. No one should be persecuted for their faith or lack thereof. Religious freedom, freedom of thought and freedom of belief must be actively protected and are worth fighting for.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Transport Connectivity: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the benefits of HS2 have been masked by the name High Speed 2 and that one of the main benefits of HS2 is actually capacity, which we desperately need on the railways?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Transport Connectivity: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate. My constituency is semi-urban and semi-rural. Without good public transport, my constituents cannot get around, and the visitors we so enjoy having in our area cannot get in. A lot of people in my community struggle with access to services such as GPs and hospital appointments and with getting to work. That creates more pressure on services such as patient transport services and GP home visits. It also affects the nature of my constituency, in that we have an ageing population, with fewer young families able to move in. My rural businesses and organisations that represent them, such as the Sedbergh Economic Partnership, also tell me that transport connectivity in rural areas is a massive bar to growth, because businesses cannot get the staff they need to expand. Sedbergh itself is struggling at the minute. There has been a bus service change, so the service is now less accessible and frequent. At my suggestion, Sedbergh set up a bus users’ group—I am a big fan of buses and bus users’ groups. In Lancashire we have a fantastic bus users’ group, the Lancaster Bus Users’ Group, of which I am a proud member. I thank the Government for their investment in bus services—£27 million in Lancashire and £4.2 million in Westmorland and Furness. I hope to see my local authorities take on the new powers that the Government will give them, so that we ensure we have rural bus services that serve my constituents, work together, fit together and fit in with people’s lives. I am also a big fan of trains. My constituency has the highest main line train station in England, in Dent. It is beautiful, although it is not actually in Dent village, which causes some confusion. We have some other fantastic stations, such as Garsdale, which is also beautiful, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) will know, and Arnside. However, we have real problems with accessibility, so older people and people with disabilities cannot get the train—when the train turns up. Because these are not areas with huge populations, they struggle to access grant services, such as the Access for All fund. There is real inequity in how some of the funds for station improvements are allocated. Finally, I want to talk a little about active travel, which is important. Active travel means moving ourselves around, whether by wheeling in a wheelchair, cycling on a bike or walking. It is good for our health, and spending more time in London, with its fantastic public transport service, I have walked a lot more. I have actually lost weight since the election—I think that is unheard of—because I am walking so much. That shows the health benefits of an integrated public transport system and proper transport connectivity. I want to highlight a visionary project in my constituency, the Lune Valley Greenway, which is a path that people can walk, wheel or cycle on from the coast at Morecambe right into the Yorkshire Dales national park. It currently goes from Morecambe, via Lancaster, up to Bull Beck near Caton. The ambition is for it not only to go from the coast to the national park, but to link up with public transport systems, so that people visiting our area, as well as people living and working in my constituency, can access the countryside and good public transport. I would love to invite the Minister to visit.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  We know that helping people to stay well and manage long-term conditions or disabilities is almost always cheaper in the long term. Can the Secretary of State tell me how she will account for the potential wider system costs of changing the amount of money that is available to people with disabilities or long-term conditions?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the complexity of that case and that the absolutely unacceptable failings before Sara’s death were abject across many organisations. However, she was removed from school partly so that her parents could prevent the detection of the abuse. I have recognised, and will continue to recognise, that that obviously does not speak to the vast majority of people who home-educate their children. However, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect the most vulnerable, and sometimes that includes regulating the majority, who are decent, honest people. I want to reassure parents that the new regulations, such as registers for children not in school and the capacity to compel school attendance in certain cases, are not aimed at limiting home education as a whole or about policing how people choose to educate.