Representation of the People Bill

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff]

As we have heard many times in today’s debate, there is a vast difference between trade unions—which are made up of millions of members making small contributions that are collectively donated to the Labour party, which they support—and corporations and rich individuals seeking influence and to further their own vested interests.

To continue where I left off, what confidence can the British people have that the houses that will be built in their area will meet the actual needs of local families and enhance the beauty of their communities, when the developers throwing up sprawling, characterless, rip-off estates across the country are able to buy seats for a quiet chat with Ministers, during which they can lobby them? It is time to ban developers from donating to political parties, to wash away the stain of undue influence, and to deliver a housing and planning system that puts people before profit.

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

The Representation of the People Bill makes much-needed changes that I am very pleased to support. The Bill, and the Government amendments we are discussing, show that this Government are taking protecting our democracy seriously.

Government new clause 72 would introduce a ban on donations using cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is unregulated and untraceable money, and we are right to take it out of our democracy. The amendment would place a moratorium on those donations—a non-permanent ban—until regulation can be put in place, but I have heard some very compelling arguments today for introducing a complete ban. Any hostile foreign actors wishing to disrupt our democracy are able to fund that disruption through cryptocurrency donations. There is no way to trace them, and any political party that takes crypto donations should take a long, hard look at itself. There is clearly a risk that they are taking money from those bent on harming our country.

Government new clause 116 would put a cap on donations from overseas electors, so that those who do not live in or contribute to this country cannot unduly sway our elections. Our democracy is not the business of individuals and organisations that are based abroad. British democracy should be in the hands of the people who live here and contribute, not those of rich individuals who choose to live elsewhere. That should be something that all parties can agree on, but sadly, it is not. I know that some parties have benefited from foreign donations a little more than others, and perhaps do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. I congratulate the newly elected hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in his place again—because he is never here, is he? He never engages properly with legislation—not only on winning the most pointless by-election in history, but on the fact that his party broke the UK record for the single largest individual political donation by a living person. Some £9 million was donated by one person, a Thailand-based businessman, in one donation. With foreign friends like that, no wonder the hon. Member for Clacton has no need to spend time in his constituency. The new clauses I have spoken to will strengthen our democracy.

Votes at 16 have also been discussed today. The Conservatives say that 16-year-olds are not mature or wise enough to vote. I disagree; I do not think there is a clear correlation between age and wisdom. All of us in this Chamber speak to people of all ages. Some of the best questions I have ever been asked and some of the best suggestions I have ever heard have come from the 16 and 17-year-olds at the local schools and colleges I have visited.

I think the most compelling argument for votes at 16 is that it gets people in the habit of voting. Most 16 and 17-year-olds will still be at school, at college or in some sort of training. Voting is a way to show people how elections work. I know adults who have never voted simply because they did not understand how it worked. I have had to talk them through it, saying, “You go with your ID. You will have a list, and you will mark a box with a cross. No, you do not tick it. That would make too much sense.” If we get people involved in democracy at a younger age, they are more likely to be lifelong voters, and that is really important.

However, this Bill does not address the most pressing issue for our democracy, which is the glaring problems with our current voting system. It is clear that first past the post simply does not work anymore. That is why I am calling for a national commission on electoral reform. I know that the new clause has been ruled out of scope today, so I will not speak any further on it, but if anyone would like to talk about the problems with first past the post and the potential for a new voting system, please do get in touch. It is one of my favourite subjects.

I want to speak briefly against new clause 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). I am puzzled by the idea that leaflets in other languages are somehow detrimental to our democracy. I used to live in Spain, and I was in a minority among Brits, because I actually spoke Spanish. Some Brits are eligible to vote in local elections in Spain, and yes, they absolutely should be able to speak Spanish, but I know from experience the difference between being able to understand a language and being able to understand the political nuances, the history, and the code used in political text, which can be different. We want to expand participation in our democracy, so I think it is perfectly fine to have leaflets in different languages. I note that only 0.3% of people in Britain do not speak English. It is a tiny minority of people. Unfortunately, this place is yet again being used to whip up culture wars that have no basis in reality.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Electoral Resilience

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing young people into this House; it is very important that young people get to see their democracy in action. I am sure that they, like all of us who are older, want to get dirty money out of British politics, and that is what this review is intended to achieve.

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

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?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Cryptocurrency is one route by which dirty money can covertly enter British politics in an attempt to influence the outcomes of elections. That is why crypto will be in scope for this review, and I look forward, as I know she does, to the findings of Philip Rycroft’s review.

Supporting High Streets

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The point is that we, as politicians, have a duty to explain facts and base our arguments on evidence, which was not done in this case. I put it to all politicians and would-be politicians to base their arguments on facts.

This motion is a Trojan horse. It dresses up deregulation as a gift to our constituents while gutting the very foundations of our high streets—fairness and community power. If we accept the premise of this Tory motion, we are no better than a modern-day Troy.

Labour is rebuilding what the Conservatives hollowed out of our communities: safety, fairness, opportunity and, dare I say it, pride. We are putting power back in the hands of local people, bobbies back on the beat and dignity back in the workplace. Our high streets do not need hollow gestures; they need real change. Only this Labour Government are delivering it.

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

What my hon. Friend is saying really resonates with me. Does he agree that the fact that pride in place is a 10-year fund allows us to be really strategic about the regeneration of our high streets? Instead of them receiving bits and bats of money for six months with really tight frameworks, local people will be empowered by the fund to regenerate their own area.

[Kevin Bonavia]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Pride of place is about actually getting our local communities involved. They know their high streets best, and we should work with them to use that money for long-term strategic decisions.

I oppose this motion. It is illiterate and has no answers for our future, it does not add up economically, and it ignores the good work that this Government are already doing for our high streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

This explains why I was never welcome in the Navy.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are many other high streets, such as those in Romsey and Southampton, that are doing well despite this Government’s policies. However, we are seeing a series of changes that are costing us all, and I think it is worth focusing on a few of them.

The first affects retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which are seeing their rate relief reduced to 40%, and only up to a cash limit of £110,000 per business. Why is that happening? Well, this is basically just another tax grab. It is just another attempt to ensure that those who are working hard to put food on their tables—and, by the way, to put food on the tables of everybody else in this country by generating that employment—

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will just finish the point, if I may.

While they are working hard to do that, this Government are trying to squeeze them. I understand why they are doing that, because they have got themselves into a level of debt that is genuinely extraordinary. They are piling it on even more quickly than anybody—

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

If I may, I will just finish my point.

They are piling on the debt even more quickly than any other Administration for a long time, with the exception of during covid, when, as Members will agree, Labour wanted to spend even more. That squeeze is hurting businesses more and more.

I know of independent retailers in Tonbridge and Edenbridge that have seen 300% increases in business rates as a result. It is simply not sustainable. We are talking about taking money off businesses before they are able to pay those who are working there 24/7—those who own the business. That charge, that squeeze and that pain are being put on individuals who are getting up early and trying their damnedest to keep their business going. It is completely absurd.

The £110,000 valuation is artificial, because business rates are set by the Valuation Office Agency, and local businesses have no input. There is no way for decisions to be challenged and no real accountability. We are seeing a Government agency setting a valuation that allows taxation to rise with no possibility of appeal. This is simply no way to run an economy. We are seeing ever-increasing centralisation.

The correct thing to do would be to allow businesses to keep some of the money that they are making in order to reinvest in themselves and in staff, and to actually allow councils to have some say. If we believe in democracy and in individuals having the ability to shape their future, surely we must extend them the right to control how towns, villages and communities across our country tax themselves. Sadly, that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing what we used to describe as a nation of shopkeepers—that nation that defeated tyranny in Europe not once but many times—becoming a nation of bookkeepers, all taxed by the state.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman got to his point, kind of. He mentioned hospitality workers. I was a hospitality worker for many years, so I know how hard work it is. I also know about the people who will benefit on the shop floor from the Government’s Employment Rights Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman say more about how regulation is supposedly harming workers, because as a former hospitality worker I see the benefits of the Employment Rights Bill for all my former colleagues.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I would be delighted to, because direct comparison can be drawn with other countries that have extended these same rules. They protect the workers who are in the job—that is absolutely true—but they dissuade anybody else from joining and starting as a new hire. Then those countries see exactly what we are seeing in the UK today: growing youth unemployment. When there is a burden on a business that makes it harder to change its employment structure, it simply delays employment. That is all that happens.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I thank the right hon. Member for his generosity in giving way, because I am finding this debate very interesting. In the rural areas of my constituency, businesses are struggling to hire workers not because of the cost but because local workers cannot afford to live in those areas because there is no affordable housing. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is very welcome that the Government are focusing on the practicalities that ordinary workers need in order to be employed, which will help rural businesses like those in my area that are struggling to recruit?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Forgive me, but I do not agree. I can see that transport connections and the £2 bus link—which has now gone up by 50% under this Government—was crucial to helping small businesses survive in rural areas, but businesses that were taking in younger people as new starters are not hiring them because of cost. The cost of any change that may be needed in the business, which may evolve or shape itself differently, means that effectively it is not worth the risk. We see this again and again.

The tragedy is that I am not telling this House anything new. This speech could have been given anytime in the past 50 years. The reality is that we have tried all these experiments, and we know how they work: they end up with rising unemployment, rising debt burdens and fewer public services. We know where this goes.

Pride in Place

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. We understand the pressures that the social care system and its failures—which, again, we have to lay at the door of the Conversative party—are having on local government finance. We are doing what we can to give local government the flexibility to respond and increase the funding envelope, but there is a fundamental question about social care reform that is difficult and complex and that has been kicked into the long grass. We are determined to take this forward, but we have to do it carefully and we have to do it well so that it delivers the impact that everyone across the House wants to see.

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

The £20 million pride in place funding going into the west end of Morecambe shows that this Labour Government are really trusting local people to spend money locally, without lots of bureaucratic hurdles—and I really welcome that. Whether it is smartening up Yorkshire Street or Regent Road, or getting under the bonnet and helping people with their health problems, in Morecambe we are ready to go. Will the Minister tell me if we can work together to get this going as quickly as possible and speed up the pride in place timescales?

Affordable Rural Housing

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Bailey]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Simply put, these costs price people out of the community. One constituent in Bradfield shared her story with me. Her daughter would love to be able to stay in the village that she grew up in, but there are no affordable houses that are the right size for her young family. Eventually, she is likely to have to move away—a story repeated across my constituency.

Without affordable housing, schools close because there are not enough children to fill a class; pubs shut their doors because there are not enough punters to buy pints; and services for the elderly stop operating because there is nobody to volunteer. We simply cannot have a community without people, and those people need affordable homes.

I am delighted that the Government are committed to building the housing we need and to boosting home ownership, providing over £5 billion total housing investment in 2025-26 and a £500 million top-up to the affordable homes programme, and building an ambitious 1.5 million homes with the infrastructure that they need. I am also pleased that the Government are paying particular attention to housing in rural communities, giving local authorities flexible but ambitious targets for affordable housing development, recognising the value of rural exception sites and community-led development, and committing to look at how national policy can promote affordable rural housing.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Twigg. In my constituency we have some villages, such as Dent, where 40% of the homes are second homes or Airbnb-type short-term lets. I also have concerns for Morecambe, with the Eden Project coming there. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at the licensing and regulation of short-term lets as part of the solution to the rural housing crisis?

Short-term Lets: Regulation

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, Mrs Harris, to serve under your chairship.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate. My constituency is very different from hers, but they are both worthy of consideration when discussing short-term lets. Morecambe and Lunesdale is a constituency with a thriving urban and rural tourism economy. From the stunning landscapes of the Lune valley to the beautiful coastlines of Morecambe Bay to the wild beauty of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, we are blessed with an array of attractions.

Visitors to our constituency contribute to the local economy, support small businesses, and help to maintain the vitality of our towns and villages. Short-term lets, such as holiday rentals, play an important role in enabling this tourism and provide much-needed accommodation options. They also support local businesses, such as shops, restaurants and activity providers.

However, although we recognise that contribution, we must also acknowledge that the rapid growth in this sector is causing unintended and harmful consequences. Residents in areas such as Silverdale, Arnside, Sedbergh and Dent are seeing the effects of too many properties being taken out of long-term residential use and converted into holiday lets. The balance between supporting tourism and ensuring housing availability for local people is becoming harder to maintain. In Morecambe, we will soon welcome Eden Project Morecambe. As a responsible constituency MP, I am trying to look forward to see what risks, as well as benefits, that project might bring. One of the key risks is the potential impact of short-term lets on the local housing market. Already, some of the worst casework in my inbox is due to a shortage of housing.

That is why I believe that a licensing system for short-term lets that is fair, takes a balanced approach and works for both tourists and residents is right. Regulations would ensure that properties met safety standards, were used responsibly and did not unduly harm the local housing market.

I stress that I do not want to limit residents’ ability to occasionally rent out a room, or exchange their home in a bid to get an affordable holiday. For Morecambe and Lunesdale, a balanced approach is crucial. Our local economy benefits greatly from tourism, and short-term lets are a key part of that success, but we must ensure that it does not come at the expense of local residents who are struggling to find a home or find stability in their community. Yesterday, I spoke about the number of young people leaving our rural areas, and short-term lets are contributing to the problem of depopulation.

We must look at the broader infrastructure challenges that come with an increase in short-term lets. I know some will say that regulating short-term lets would harm our rural economy, but I disagree: I believe that thoughtful, locally tailored regulation will strengthen it and help the existing businesses that pay business rates and meet safety standards.

Morecambe and Lunesdale is a place where tourism and community life go hand in hand. Short-term lets play a role in supporting that, but they must be properly regulated to ensure that local people are not harmed. Our policy must strike the right balance, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House, the local authority and tourism organisations to ensure that.