Oral Answers to Questions

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

A decade of stagnant growth and living standards will not be turned around in 18 months, but there are signs of progress. The Conservatives left one in eight young people out of education, employment and training, and we are working relentlessly to turn around that disgraceful figure. We recognise the challenges that businesses have to work through as a result of the actions undertaken by the previous Government. On youth unemployment, we have announced an £828 million funding package to give a generation of young people a brighter future. Over the next three years, 1 million young people on universal credit across the country will benefit from support designed to get them into employment and learning, and that includes what we are doing with small businesses on apprenticeships, which we are partly funding. That will be significant, especially for the hospitality sector, in encouraging more jobs. Those jobs are a key lifeline for people to get into the employment market. That is something I recognise, as the hon. Lady noted. We know the importance of this issue, and we want to work closely with the sector and with councils in the significant wider work we are doing on the strategy.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to help increase economic growth in Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

The Department is driving economic growth by delivering the long-term certainty that businesses need and by supporting the growth of businesses across the UK, including in Lancashire, where the Lancashire business growth hub is ensuring that businesses in Morecambe and Lunesdale have the advice to grow, to scale up and to succeed.

[Lizzi Collinge]

In my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, we have the Electech innovation cluster, which is a growing group of small and medium-sized firms, many of which supply specialist components into the clean energy sector, particularly nuclear, and into the vital defence sector. The Minister would be welcome to visit them. How is the Department supporting SMEs, such as those in the Electech innovation cluster, and how will they benefit from the Government’s investment in industry?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work in championing small businesses in her constituency, particularly the Electech cluster, where businesses such as Teleplan Forsberg, Like Technologies and Mazuma are working in the clean energy sector. Our clean energy industry sector plan focuses on capitalising on the strengths of these businesses and doubling investment levels across our frontier industries to more than £30 billion a year by 2035. That will directly support businesses in that cluster. I would of course be delighted to come and visit.

Sale of Fireworks

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for presenting this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

My constituents were fourth on the list for signatures to these petitions, which call for controls on the decibel levels of fireworks and on the sale of fireworks. Those constituents include Stephen, who told me that his previous guide dog, so frightened by fireworks, dragged him across a main road in a desperate attempt to get away from the noise; and Natalie, who works closely with veterans and spoke about the serious impact that fireworks can have on mental health.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Hundreds of people in Epsom and Ewell have signed the petition and emailed in their concerns. As an ex-service member, I absolutely understand how triggering loud noises can be problematic for individuals with PTSD and mental health problems. Indeed, after coming back from Op Telic 4 in Iraq, I found myself in a prone position on Lewisham High Street after fireworks were being set off and it felt like we were under attack. Many constituents have also emailed to say how concerned they are about the impact of loud bangs on animals. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must review the maximum noise limit for fireworks and give a clear timeline to do so?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree that the Government should look at limits on the decibel levels of fireworks and other measures. As the hon. Lady set out, the impact on veterans can be severe.

I was struck by the fact that even the people who are worst affected are not looking to ban fireworks. They understand that it is an enjoyable activity for many people; they just want some common sense around how they are used. One sensible place to start is with limits on decibels. It is entirely possible to have a lovely display, just slightly quieter.

I confess that I am more conflicted about the suggestion in the second petition to restrict fireworks to council-approved events. Of course, I understand the reasoning, but I also recognise that private celebrations bring a great deal of joy, so I am not convinced that removing them entirely is the right way forward. Instead, I would be more inclined to support a proposal that I have raised before and has been supported in comments from my constituents: limiting firework displays to a certain number of days a year, in line with key celebrations. At the moment, bonfire night feels like it stretches from mid-October all the way through to November, so in the same month as we celebrate remembrance, our veterans are being put under avoidable stress by constant unpredictable explosions.

[Warinder Juss]

I have spent many years celebrating with fireworks in my garden, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and I have had the pleasure of having firework displays with my children. However, does she agree that things have got a bit too far in that we are seeing fireworks throughout the year? Of course, we expect fireworks to go off during events such as bonfire night, Diwali and new year, but they are happening throughout the year and at all times of the day. Does she agree that it is time to limit the period during which fireworks can be used?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree. Time and again, people have told me that it is the unexpected nature of fireworks that causes the most harm. Just giving people the opportunity to plan and prepare for fireworks would be an enormous step forward, and we can achieve that by introducing set days for displays. For example, they could be on bonfire night and the nearest Saturday, and we could replicate that across the year for important events such as new year’s eve, Diwali and so on.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

I am so glad that we are having this important debate, because my constituents have contacted me to say how concerned they are about the decibels issue. The hon. Lady’s proposal to limit displays to a certain number of days a year, which everybody can plan around, is important, and we should consider whether silent fireworks or reduced decibels are the way to go. I am glad that she has raised those points.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I must confess that I love fireworks—I absolutely adore them—and I want people to be able to experience that joy, but not at the cost of other people’s safety and security.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I wonder if my hon. Friend prefers the whoosh as fireworks go up, rather than the bang; I think that is what most people are there for. My constituents get in touch with me to say that when they complain, they feel as if they are passed from pillar to post between the council and the police. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be easier and simpler for my constituents to know who to make a complaint to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree that for any issue, fireworks or otherwise, it needs to be clear to people who is responsible and who they can go to. Unfortunately, too many of our constituents, whatever their situation, get passed between different organisations, and that is unfair.

By placing some sensible regulations on noise levels and imposing a bit of predictability, it is entirely possible to allow people to enjoy fireworks as the spectacular displays that they are, while protecting people and pets from their worst effects.

I would also like to mention working animals; my constituency is partly agricultural, and we have a huge number of working and farm animals.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I am thankful to the more than 450 people from Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme who signed the petition. In the 100 emails I have received, there is a lot of talk about livestock in particular. This is not just about safety; it is about our farms losing animals and the impact on our trading organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Minister considers these petitions, she should consider the business case, in terms of the impact on small and medium enterprise, as well as the safety and welfare cases?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree that the impact on all groups, including businesses, must be considered.

As time moves on, I hope that more organised displays use moving drones, which are quiet and absolutely spectacular.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I call Gagan Mohindra, let me say that, while the screen on my left is not showing the time, the screens behind me and on my right are. Members should be conscious of others when speaking.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady is right that the community in Ynys Môn faced a number of false starts under the previous Government. This is an historic opportunity—a huge moment—as the project moves forward with tangible timelines in place and the £2.5 billion that she mentioned. Rolls-Royce is taking forward three SMRs initially, but there is the potential for more in the future. People will start to see jobs soon. We expect that there will be work on the site as early as next year, including 3,000 jobs when the construction phase is at its peak.

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all those who have worked on this project over a great many years. There have been a lot of false starts and disappointments, but last week was a huge moment not just for realising the potential of the site with the next generation of nuclear, but for the UK to see SMRs actually move forward after years of talking, and, with that, the huge investment coming into the social and economic fabric of communities like hers.

The Prime Minister spoke last week about the investment—in colleges, for example—to ensure that we have the skilled workforce in the local area. Nuclear prides itself on creating many well-paid and sustainable jobs. Of course, the hon. Lady’s community has benefited in that way from previous generations of nuclear. We are determined to ensure that those economic and social benefits are felt by her constituents and for those right across the UK.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

My constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations, and provides the cleanest energy of any UK constituency, so obviously I am keen that Heysham continues to be part of our golden nuclear future. Is the Minister, like me, eagerly awaiting the report of the regulatory review—particularly on the outdated semi-urban population density criteria—and will he work with me to ensure that the benefits of the Heysham site are known across the industry?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the huge economic advantage of nuclear. I grew up in Ayrshire, next to Hunterston, so I know how important nuclear power stations are for the communities that grow up around them. We are considering existing sites. This is not, of course, the end of our nuclear ambitions; we have been clear that we see nuclear as a hugely important part of our energy mix now and in future. Our work to consider the regulatory regime will report in due course to ensure that we have a robust process that rightly recognises the importance of nuclear safety but is also flexible enough to take advantage of the opportunities of nuclear.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on securing this important debate on Royal Mail and the USO, an issue that matters deeply to households and to businesses across the country. Royal Mail is an iconic part of the UK’s infrastructure. The postie remains a familiar part of every city, town and village, providing a vital service to communities around the country. As other hon. Members have done, I pay tribute to the dedication of posties. I know, from spending time out on delivery with posties from the Barrhead sorting office in my constituency, the care that they have for their customers, and particularly their vulnerable customers. The USO underpins the network, guaranteeing that letters and parcels can be sent anywhere in the UK at a uniform price, six days a week. That principle ensures that businesses can reach customers nationwide and that families can stay connected.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I represent a partly rural constituency, Morecambe and Lunesdale, so my constituents rely on the universal service obligation. They also rely on regular mail deliveries for vital information such as hospital appointments. But my constituents, particularly in villages like Endmoor, are suffering with irregular and delayed deliveries. Does the Minister agree that my rural constituents deserve a good postal service, and that Royal Mail should focus on delivering one? What steps is the Minister taking to secure that service?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes an essential point about the importance of the postal service in rural areas. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) made that point as well. I know from my relatives in highland areas how essential that connection is. My hon. Friend raises the issue of NHS appointment letters—that point was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater. The trials of barcodes on those letters have been very successful, and I am happy to continue discussions with the Health Secretary to make sure that those barcodes are rolled out as widely as possible.

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

Perhaps I should switch the question back: for how many years have we already been importing oil and gas? That gets us to the fundamental point. The Conservatives want to pretend that in July last year, we switched to being a net importer of oil and gas. That is not what happened. The right hon. Gentleman’s party oversaw that transition over many, many years. I recognise that, to some degree, given the geology of the basin, there would not have been different decisions taken if we had been in government, but what we could have done differently was ensure that the transition was happening, and delivered the economic opportunities that come along with what comes next, and that is what we will do.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share my concerns about Reform and the Conservatives denying the reality of climate change, and denying that the best way to protect people’s jobs, including energy jobs, is to follow the green jobs plan? Does he agree that nuclear, including as Heysham 1 and 2 in my constituency—and, if I get my way, new nuclear at Heysham—is vital to the clean energy jobs plan?

[Michael Shanks]

I was going to say that that might be a note of consensus across the House, but I remembered that the SNP has an ideological objection to nuclear in Scotland, so it will not benefit from the economic opportunities that come from thousands of well-paid, skilled and trade-unionised jobs in nuclear. We believe that there is a long-term future for nuclear, which is why we announced funding for Sizewell C, concluded the small modular reactor programme, and have been working with the US Government to bring forward private funding partnerships to build the latest technology in the UK. That comes with thousands of jobs, will help us to deliver on energy security long into the future, and helps to tackle the climate crisis. This party believes that the climate crisis is an existential threat, and we should do everything that we can to tackle it.

Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for securing this important debate on the employment rights of people with a terminal illness. I pay tribute to his tireless advocacy on behalf of workers facing unimaginable challenges.

Receiving a terminal diagnosis is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person. In that moment, the focus should be on spending precious time with loved ones, seeking medical care and living the life you have left. As a humanist, I believe we have only one life, so a good life and a good death are very important to me.

Unfortunately, for too many people a terminal diagnosis is compounded by the fear of losing their livelihood and the security that employment provides. As things stand, it is still legal in this country to dismiss someone with a terminal illness on grounds of capability. That is not only deeply unjust, but fundamentally inhumane. The last thing that anyone with a terminal illness should have to worry about is how they will keep a roof over their head or provide for their family. People’s lives do not end at the moment they get a terminal diagnosis. They are still mums, dads, colleagues and breadwinners.

Many people with a terminal illness live longer than six months. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). I also acknowledge the Dying to Work campaign, which has already secured protections for more than 1.5 million workers through its voluntary charter. The charter, developed in partnership with the TUC, encourages employers to commit to supporting workers with a terminal illness, ensuring that they have the choice to remain in work for as long as they wish, without the fear of dismissal. The campaign’s success demonstrates that compassion and practicality can go hand in hand in the workplace.

The voluntary charter is laudable, but it is not enough. It is not right that the ability to work at the end of life depends on the good will of individual employers. Workers should not have to rely on luck to ensure that their rights are protected at the most vulnerable time of their life. The current patchwork approach creates inequality. Perhaps larger employers with more resources are more likely to sign up to the Dying to Work charter; perhaps smaller employers do not have the capacity or simply do not know about it. This disparity underscores the need for consistent, nationwide standards to ensure that no worker with a terminal illness is left behind.

Some may argue that mandatory protections could place an undue burden on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. I think we can find a balance. Being offered reasonable adjustments, flexible working and the ability to work from home can enable terminally ill employees to continue contributing in ways that are meaningful for them and for their employer. Many employers already see the value of retaining experienced workers who want to stay engaged.

Let me share some statistics from my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale. According to recent figures, over 25% of the workforce in my area are employed in industries such as retail and hospitality, where job security is often already precarious. Those sectors also report higher levels of sickness, making the need for robust protections even more pressing. Additionally, local advocacy groups have highlighted that the financial strain of a terminal diagnosis can have a disproportionate impact on low-income families, with many struggling to take on the extra costs of a terminal diagnosis, particularly in the light of the recent cost of living crisis. The lived experience behind those numbers is a stark reminder of the urgency of the issue.

Ensuring that terminally ill workers in Morecambe and Lunesdale and across the country are protected from unfair dismissal is not just about individual dignity; it is about strengthening the social fabric of our communities. There is also a compelling economic case for action. Retaining employees with terminal illnesses can reduce turnover costs, maintain productivity and strengthen workplace morale by fostering a culture of compassion and respect. Even beyond those practical considerations, the moral imperative is clear. A just society does not abandon its citizens in their greatest time of need.

As policymakers, we must lead the way in ensuring that every worker facing a terminal diagnosis has the legal protection that they deserve. That includes the right to remain in employment, if they want, for as long as they wish; access to reasonable adjustments; and the reassurance that their job and their dignity are secure. I urge the Government to take inspiration from the Dying to Work charter and enshrine its principles in law. Let us send a clear message that terminal illness is not a reason to strip someone of their livelihood. Let us ensure that no worker faces the additional burden of financial insecurity or social isolation as they navigate the most challenging period of their life.

In closing, I want to reflect on the experience of those who have lived this reality. Work is not just a means of earning a living; it is often a source of identity, purpose and community. For those facing a terminal illness, having the choice to continue working or to leave should not be a luxury. It should be a right.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve here in Westminster Hall today under your chairship, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this important debate.

I will speak about the impact of fireworks on my constituents in Morecambe and Lunesdale. I have to declare an interest, as I absolutely love fireworks; I cannot get enough of them. I am also a heavy metal fan, so maybe I just like loud bangs in the dark. [Laughter.]

However, hearing from constituents who are deeply affected by the weeks and weeks of fireworks that we get at certain times of the year has persuaded me that we need to have this debate. Constituents tell me of terrified animals and terrified humans, and they also tell me about the weeks of fireworks surrounding bonfire night and new year’s eve. Because that lasts for weeks and weeks, it gives them no opportunity to plan and to feel safe. My joy in fireworks is their terror.

What specific action needs to be taken is up for debate. The petitioners have asked for a ban on sales of fireworks to the public and there are excellent arguments for that, which have been made here today and through the petitions. Initially, I was instinctively reluctant even to consider a ban on all public sales as a first step, because although fireworks can be deeply harmful, they also bring families and communities together in celebration.

I thought, “Is there an alternative?” Maybe it could be limiting the number of days per year that fireworks are allowed, for example on bonfire night and the nearest Saturday, replicating that across the year for important events such as new year or Diwali. Would enforcing such a system ruthlessly and alongside age verification allow people the freedom to enjoy fireworks but also minimise harm, which is the desired impact? My constituents tell me that if they can plan for the fireworks, it minimises the harm they experience, so the situation would not be so bad.

However, as I wrote this speech, I really thought the issue through. On balance, and having heard the stories of fireworks being used as weapons and the harrowing story of the Smiths, I believe that it is right to examine all options to regulate the sale of fireworks. A change in regulation may also create market incentives to develop more options and cheaper options, such as silent fireworks, drones or laser shows. Those options would allow families to come together to enjoy a show, but they would also protect people and pets from some of the devastating impacts of the misuse of fireworks.