Sentencing Bill

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I want to speak today about how the Sentencing Bill will bring some common sense to sentencing and bring in an evidence-based approach to stopping reoffending and protecting victims of crime. That is the primary duty of government: to protect citizens from harm. I will particularly highlight changes that mean that victims and survivors will be at the heart of sentencing and that punishments will fit the crime, protect survivors and focus on true rehabilitation, not just warehousing.

One example is the move from the existing system of exclusion zones, which prevent domestic abuse or sexual assault offenders from entering specific areas where the victim might be, to restriction zones that will limit the offender’s movement to an agreed-upon area. For too long, the burden has been on the victim, with survivors moving house, switching jobs and changing bus routes to avoid the person who hurt them. Restriction zones mean it is the offender whose life is reshaped, not the victim’s. Technology will track compliance, breaches will mean prison and survivors will help design the zones alongside probation officers, so that their freedom, not the attacker’s, is the priority.

For years, magistrates and judges have been calling for more constructive and flexible sentencing options—more than fines that can be dodged or custody that does not fix the underlying criminal behaviour. The Bill introduces that, whether through driving bans, travel restrictions, football banning orders or sexual harm prevention orders. It moves past a one-size-fits-all approach and allows judges to deliver personalised punishment, hitting criminals where it hurts.

Short prison sentences do not cut crime and they do not stop reoffending. Hon. Members need not just take my word for it, or decades of evidence; maybe the Conservatives will accept the word of a former screw. My constituent James, who worked in the Prison Service for decades, said to me:

“Short sentences do nothing.”

He welcomes many of the measures in the Bill:

“In short, the Bill is the law we’ve all been advocating for, for a long time.”

All the money that we currently spend on short prison sentences is not spent on Best Start centres, hospitals, schools, healthcare and drug treatment, where the root causes of crime can actually be addressed.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am trying to go along with the thrust of the hon. Lady’s argument, but I just wonder whether it is as absolute as she suggests. Admittedly, people who undergo short sentences may be repeat offenders, and that is particularly true of shoplifters, for example, as we have heard. However, if a store is a victim of the same shoplifter over and over again, to be relieved of that shoplifter raiding the premises even for a period of eight or 10 months must be some sort of salvation, must it not?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I agree that retail premises need relief from that shoplifting, but I would like that relief to be permanent. I would like to see the causes of shoplifting stopped, and quite often that is drug use and organised criminal behaviour. I do not want just to chuck people in prison for a bit and then let them out to reoffend again.

We need sentences that give offenders proper access to drug and alcohol rehab and mental health care—the kind of support that tackles the root causes of crime. We need sentences that ensure the offender pays back their debt to society. Public safety is the bottom line here. Judges will have discretion to hand out prison sentences of less than 12 months, say, for domestic abusers or violent offenders. They will be able to make sure that survivors have the confidence to rebuild their lives knowing that the perpetrator is behind bars. Rapists and criminals who commit other serious sexual offences will spend their custodial term in prison.

[Dr Mullan]

Rapists and sexual offenders will spend less time in prison as a result of this Bill. Does she know that?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the Bill is correct. I understand that perhaps he has some personal experience here and I appreciate that he has very strong feelings on the matter. Perhaps he will listen again to my former prison officer, who welcomed the changes.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I will not give way—[Interruption.] I think the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not showing the House the respect it deserves—[Interruption.] I would appreciate it if he would allow me to continue without this continuous chuntering.

At their core, these reforms do two things at once. They keep the most dangerous offenders where they belong, in prison, protecting the public, and they end the waste of locking up low-risk offenders. The evidence is really clear. I know that the Conservatives really struggle when the evidence contradicts their instincts and their prejudices, but it is simply true. The hon. Gentleman disagreeing does not make it any less true.

The victims of crime in my constituency deserve better than this current crumbling justice system. They deserve better than our overstuffed prisons that just churn out more and more criminals. They deserve this Sentencing Bill.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I want to speak about transparency and accountability in healthcare, and about my constituents Ryan and Sarah, and their daughter Ida. Ida died in 2019 at seven days old. She died from brain damage caused by failings in her care. Those failings could have been avoided. There were eight missed opportunities to save Ida, and in the wake of her death, Ryan and Sarah have had to fight every step of the way to get the truth. After the hospital trust’s completely inadequate internal investigation declared that there were no issues with Ida’s care, her death was graded as “moderate harm”. Ryan and Sarah had to contact a senior coroner to request a full inquest, and only during that inquest this year—six years later—did the trust finally accept its failings. That is five and a half years in which Ryan and Sarah have had to fight for the truth; five and a half years in which the trust not only denied its failings, but covered them up.

For truly safe healthcare we must strengthen the ability of staff to speak up and speak out safely. People need to be thanked for raising concerns. But when problems are covered up, there needs to be accountability. For Ryan and Sarah, the grief of Ida’s death was made even harder by the denial and cover-up that followed.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

This is a harrowing story about Ida and Sarah. Does the hon. Member agree that not every person who is impacted by failings of state, and who has lost family and loved ones, has the resources, time and energy to fight for five and a half years?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree. People should not have to have this fight. They should not have to have resources to take on hospital trusts or the state. They should not have to do that; his point is well made.

When mistakes are hidden or dismissed, families lose faith not only in an individual hospital or organisation, but in the very systems that are meant to protect them. It is our responsibility to ensure that no other family has to endure what Ryan and Sarah went through, and that no other baby dies in that way. Accountability cannot be optional, and honesty cannot be negotiable.

Humanist Marriage

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank Members on both sides of the House for the care and consideration that they have given to this debate. If the Bill is given a Second Reading today, there will be further lengthy scrutiny, but I want to address what I think is a bit of a misconception about it, namely the ideas that patients taking the decision to die and doctors assessing capacity, coercion and consent are somehow new. We have heard the word “Rubicon”. There seems to be an idea that this is a completely new sort of decision, and that this is something unusual and outlying in medical practice. I want to challenge that, because, actually, patients, doctors and indeed High Court judges are already making life-and-death decisions every day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) said, in this case we are actually talking about death-or-death decisions.

Let us take the example of withdrawal of treatment. One of my close family members who would not be covered by the Bill’s eligibility criteria starved herself to death through withdrawal of treatment. She had been unwell for many decades with a condition that would have eventually killed her. At one point she became unable to swallow. For many years she had relied on artificial nutrition, and when the type of artificial nutrition she needed changed to a more invasive process, she said, “Enough’s enough.” As a mentally competent adult under the current law, she was able to take that decision. People are already legally able to die early through withdrawal of treatment. I emphasise that she would not have been eligible under the criteria of the Bill, and I have no idea what she would have chosen if she had had a choice, but the fact remains that her capacity was assessed by a doctor and she was allowed under the current law to die early.

The BMA has told us that it regularly assesses for capacity, coercion and consent in, for example, abortion care and—as in the example of my relative—dying through withdrawal of treatment. The Bill and the safeguards it would put in place would give a stronger framework of protection than the existing law.

Under the Bill, two doctors would have to test for capacity, coercion and consent. That would have to be reviewed by a High Court judge and pauses for reflection are built into the process. If it does get to the point of an assisted death, the patient themselves must administer the approved substance.

Let us be clear about who the Bill is for. The eligibility criteria are extremely narrow—some have argued that they are too narrow. The Bill is for mentally competent adults who are nearing the end of their lives. They are dying, and they are dying soon.

Many people with a terminal illness will have a perfectly ordinary death managed perfectly well by palliative care. But we have heard in recent weeks—over many years, in fact—about the people who do need the Bill: the people for whom even the best palliative care simply does not work; those for whom merely the option of an assisted death gives them peace and comfort and a chance to enjoy the rest of their lives without fearing the manner of their death. With the safeguards contained in the Bill, who are we to deny them that peace? Who are we to decide what they must bear as they die?

We have the power through a robust legislative process to prevent human suffering. Good palliative care and assisted dying are not at odds. They are not in conflict. They both aim for the same thing: a good death, surrounded by people you love, with minimal pain and without fear. Today, we can vote for that in the sure knowledge that if the Bill passes its Second Reading, it will undergo further intense scrutiny to ensure that it is a good law that works as it is intended to do. This is the start of a legislative process, not the end. I urge colleagues across the House to vote yes.