International Day of Democracy

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I also put on record my disappointment that there is only one Conservative, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), present, although I look forward to his views because I respect his opinions.

To keep our bodies healthy, we take care of ourselves. We eat the right food, we take exercise and we avoid unnecessary dangers. We maintain our homes and our roads, and our farmers nurture the soil and tend the crops. I will argue that this applies to democracy, too.

Democracy is a living process. Without nourishment it will decline in efficacy, and it will decay. The International Day of Democracy is an important reminder to us all, at home and abroad, that democracy is not a given. There is no inexorable, divinely ordained path towards it. It is a precious, fragile, vulnerable thing, and it needs nurturing and protecting by every one of us and by every organisation and institution of our country.

On the International Day of Democracy, and because I am an ardent internationalist, I heed the words of the UN Secretary-General, who said that he admires,

“the courage of people everywhere who are shaping their societies through dialogue, participation and trust. At a time when democracy and the rule of law are under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.

Democracy is about respecting the political process. It is about respecting the rules, and acknowledging that it is the rules that protect democracy from the forces that would undermine it from within.

At a fundamental level, democracy requires us all to accept that we both should and will resolve our differences through respectful debate, free and fair elections, and peaceful and law-abiding protest if necessary, and never, ever—under any circumstances—through violence. Violence has no place in a democratic system. Let us not kid ourselves, and let us not allow Orwellian doublethink to drag us into a post-truth reality peddled increasingly by the powerful on social media. Britain is not a crime-ridden dystopia teetering on the edge of anarchy, as some would have us believe. In fact, violent crime in London has dropped by 13%.

Britain is not a nation that suppresses free speech or free assembly, as Saturday’s march so obviously indicates. We are not a country whose elites prevent new parties from forming to represent the people—just ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Words are at their most potent when used in political debate, and those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than most in how they wield them.

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

I am interested by my hon. Friend’s reference to Orwellian thought. Did he notice that on Saturday, Elon Musk was wearing a T-shirt that said, “What would Orwell think?”, and does he agree that anyone with a passing knowledge of George Orwell’s work knows exactly what George Orwell would think of Elon Musk and his actions over the weekend?

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a matter of opinion, and Mr Musk is entirely entitled to express his opinion about Orwell in any way he sees fit, although my opinion is that Orwell would be turning in his grave about that speech and many other things in our society. Orwell also spoke about the dangers of unbridled nationalism versus patriotism, which is a very positive force in our world and belongs to all of us, not to one group.

As I was saying, those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than other people in how they wield words, because words inspire real action that is both constructive and destructive. That is why I immediately condemned the appalling assassination of Charlie Kirk and offered my condolences to his family. There can be no double standards when it comes to rejecting violence. How stark the contrast is with Elon Musk telling the crowd on Saturday:

“The left is the party of murder.”

I have challenged Mr Musk’s foreign interference in our sovereign democracy, and his shameful framing of the debate through the lens of imminent violence. I have challenged this on my social media channels, and I am doing it today. I encourage all who value democracy to do so similarly.

Democracy implores us to regard our political opponents as just that: opponents, not enemies. We must not demonise, dehumanise or delegitimise our opponents. To do so is to build a road, whether wilfully or not, into the abyss. I have said publicly that 99.999% of politicians in this place and beyond are motivated by a desire to improve their community and, by extension, their country. If we imply otherwise and question their motivation, we are implying to our supporters that we do not regard our opponents or their views, or the views of their supporters, as legitimate.

It is unfortunate that GCSE and A-level politics 101 needs to be rehearsed here today, but frankly, at this moment in time, it does. Democracy requires the losing candidate and party, and their supporters, to accept the outcome of the election and, I would argue, to show respect to the winners by congratulating them and wishing them well, as we do in this country. Democracy also requires that the victorious candidate or candidates—the winners—show magnanimity towards those they defeated and those who supported them. That means that, in the immediate aftermath of an election, there can be a peaceful transfer of power that protects both winners and losers from retribution. 

Democracy is about respecting freedom of speech and a free media, but not weaponising and fetishising them to enable and amplify hatred through the incitement of violence and intimidation, and hon. Members across the House know all too much about that. A healthy democracy requires education so that citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, how the system works and the ways in which they can engage with it. It also means highlighting how the ordinary workings of democratic politics should, can and will improve people’s lives.

I end by returning to my argument about nourishment. Just as we take care of our bodies, a healthy democracy requires sustenance and care, a diet of trust and honesty, and regular exercise in civic participation and open debate. It must be protected from the cancer of political violence, and our population must be empowered to identify and challenge snake oil salesmen, wherever they lurk.

Failure to tend to our democracy will leave it malnourished and brittle, vulnerable to the corrosion of cynicism, apathy and all that flows from the unholy, abusive and manipulative dance between angry voters and powerful political actors who exploit grievance and stoke cynicism for their own gain, dressing it up as speaking for the people. That tactic is as old as the hills. It is as old as the Greek city states, and the history of nations is littered with disasters arising from the apathy of those who failed to protect democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing grieved me as much, and probably grieved others in this House and further afield, as those awful remarks that were almost rejoicing in Charlie Kirk’s murder. I find it almost inconceivable to comprehend that, especially when a wife and children, and many others, are grieving.

It cannot be overestimated how loved and well respected Charlie was, especially among the young people of this generation. I have some seven staff who work with me, and there are four young ones among them. Those four are in their 20s, and they were genuinely devastated by the news—they said they felt grief and loss. That tells me that the impact of the murder of Charlie Kirk went far beyond America and across this great nation as well. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has tabled an early-day motion on the murder, and I have tabled one as well.

Those in my constituency from older age groups have also outlined how they are equally as shocked and saddened. Charlie spread the word of God, the word of family, faith and freedom, and the importance of conservative politics today. I do not care what someone’s political aspirations or religious views are—they are not important. The fact is that no individual on this Earth deserves to have their life ripped away from them.

[Lizzi Collinge]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the murder of Charlie Kirk was an appalling act. No one should ever feel threatened by violence; no one should ever be killed for their beliefs or their actions. However much we disagree with the horrendous nature of his death, does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the statements made by Charlie Kirk in life meant that other people felt that their freedom was being threatened, and that they were not safe to speak out?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree that we have the right to freedom of speech, and it is very important to have that. Charlie Kirk took full value of his right to speak. Tommy Robinson, whom I disagree with very much, has a right to speak as well.

What we need to be careful about in life is this. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) about how when I am on recess I spend at least two half days on the doors, just to keep in touch with people and understand what they are thinking. The issue of immigration is massive. Now, I may not agree with all the things that are said about immigration—I have my own point of view—but I understand that many people worry about immigration. Those are not the people who are going out to wreck and smash; they are ordinary, middle-class, churchgoing people who have concerns. There are many concerns that people have. We should be careful with our words. I try to be careful with my words in this House, and I hope that others do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate.

We rightly talk about a lack of trust in politics, and there is one key element as to why that is: the first-past-the-post voting system. I found a beautiful quote the other day from Elie Wiesel:

“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”

We can see that indifference in the lack of participation in even general elections. Left unchanged, the first-past-the-post system will continue to erode public trust, produce unfair and unrepresentative outcomes, and undermine the stability of our democracy. A majority of the voting public support a change to the voting system. What I and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are calling for is a national commission on electoral reform, so that all options can be examined independently and impartially.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I have views on what a new electoral system should have. It needs to be more proportionate, but it needs to take into account other things as well. I believe in constituency MPs. I believe in each MP’s representing a defined geographical area. However, the guidelines at the last boundary review, which had very tight numbers, have left us with some slightly odd constituencies.

My constituency crosses the county boundaries of Lancashire and Westmorland, and it includes the Yorkshire Dales national park. I have three planning authorities, which is great fun. Although it is great for me to walk through the Yorkshire dales to see a red squirrel in Cowgill, I can see why people in Dentdale do not feel particularly connected to people in Morecambe, which is an hour’s drive away, so I think the Boundary Commission needs a bit more flexibility. I also think that any voting system should allow voters to rank their preferences, so they can say, “That person is my favourite. That person is also acceptable, as is that person.” They should also be able to not rank people if they definitely do not wish them to be elected. Some of my colleagues have spoken about the action that the Labour Government are taking on political donations, which I welcome.

We cannot talk about the deficits in our democracy without talking about young people. We have a lovely history of older people bemoaning the youth of today; I found a brilliant social media thread with examples that go back to Plato. We have to stop berating young people for not engaging and do the work ourselves. I know that some people are on TikTok—that is not really for me. I do not think disengagement comes from the lack of me lip-synching along to pop songs. It comes from young people not being listened to and their concerns not being addressed.

We are taking some steps. The Labour Government are giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, which is fantastic. If people start voting young, they keep voting. I know people who are older than me who have not voted just because they do not know how it works. They literally do not know how to physically go and vote, which is a real shame. More foundational changes also need to be made. If elections hinge on certain constituencies or certain voting blocs, then policies and campaigns will cater to them at the expense of other groups. Whenever I see young people, I tell them to vote. I say, “If you vote, you’ll get policies that work for you.”

This week, the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections published suggested terms of reference for a national commission on electoral reform. This is a clear proposal for the Government to set up a national commission that could independently ask the big questions about our democracy. How do we build an electoral system that represents all voices fairly? How do we inspire public trust? How can we ensure that every vote, every voice and every citizen counts? It is only by answering these questions that we can protect our democracy, strengthen our democratic institutions and show that every voter matters.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this important debate. Religious persecution is not confined to any one group, belief or country. It is a global issue that threatens the fundamental right to freedom—the right to believe or not to believe as we choose, free from violence and repression.

I am lucky to represent Morecambe and Lunesdale, which is home to over 40 churches that stretch across our towns and villages from the north-east in Sedbergh right down to Heysham. Although I do not have any faith, I often find myself in churches talking to my constituents. Through countless conversations, I know that my constituents want people across the world to hold the same freedom that they do: to practise religion or to follow no faith at all; to believe as they choose; and to live without fear because of it. In one of those conversations, my constituent, a member of the Heysham Free Methodist church, brought to my attention the persecution of Christians in India, a topic that I have discussed in this Chamber before.

I want to look at the bigger picture and what happens when the state holds up one religion over another or turns a blind eye to faith or belief-based persecution. As a humanist, I am only too aware of the horrors of persecution based on faith or lack of faith, a threat that is made worse when it is state-sanctioned or state-permitted. Persecution on the grounds of faith or belief is not isolated; it is systemic, systematic and global. Government restrictions on freedom of religion or belief are now at their highest level since 2007. From the Baha’i in Iran to the Uyghurs in China, people across the world are not free to express their closely held beliefs or to practise their faith or lack of faith freely.

Those systems of persecution exist on a scale. It is not the case that people are either totally free or not free at all—it is not binary. Blasphemy laws exist in 91 nations on this earth, including in Northern Ireland, and they affect 57% of the global population. In 12 countries, a person can still be given the death penalty for blasphemy, and in 60 others, they could end up in prison. State enforcement of religious beliefs, whether explicit or de facto, is an affront to human rights and our democratic ideals. If we are not free to believe or not believe, we are not equal in dignity and rights.

Human rights laws are there to protect people from discrimination, violence and harm, but they protect people, not ideas. Freedom of thought includes the right to question, to doubt and to disagree without the threat of punishment. State-enforced or state-backed religion suffocates freedom of expression or belief, and religious freedom is not just for the religious. Freedom of belief is the bedrock of any free society.

I want to call particular attention to the persecution of those who hold no faith, a reality that often, unfortunately, goes unrecognised. In 2022, the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, Mubarak Bala, was sentenced to 24 years in prison for a Facebook post that was deemed to be blasphemous. He was recently released after an extensive appeal and campaign, having served two years in detention, where he was denied legal counsel, medical care and contact with his family. I am very pleased to say that Mubarak is now safe in Germany, and I had the honour of meeting him earlier this year when he joined us remotely at the all-party parliamentary humanist group, which I chair.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady knows this—she probably does—but the deputation to Nigeria went through the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. We approached the Minister responsible and put forward a case for the release of Mubarak Bala, and I believe that we can take some credit for that intervention, along with many others, to ensure that his freedom was assured.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and all the other people involved; I believe that was part of Mubarak’s release and I am very grateful for it, as I am sure are Mubarak and his family. His story reminds us that non-religious belief can be just as dangerous as religious belief in the eyes of a repressive state.

I want to pay special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland for his work as the UK’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. The framework he introduced earlier this month sets out a really clear vision for the UK’s global leadership on this issue. It rightly focuses diplomatic efforts on 10 priority countries and on work through international bodies to build the long-term partnerships we need to drive change. As a Labour Government, we champion human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, not only because it is in our national interest to support an international rules-based order, but because it is simply the right thing to do. Those are not abstract ideals; they are the foundations of this Government’s mission and of any free society.

The evidence backs that approach. Countries that protect the rule of law and fundamental freedoms tend to be more stable, prosperous and resilient. When we share and support those values abroad, we help to build stronger international partners, and that contributes to the UK’s security, growth and development. We know that achieving that will be complex, and the plan recognises that we must work with other Governments, civil society and multilateral institutions to find common ground and deliver real change.

Producing real, on-the-ground change takes flexibility. In some cases, progress will come from bold commitments and public statements. In others, it will come through private discussions and quiet diplomacy. This is an approach guided by partnership and shared learning, working towards the shared goal of securing freedom of belief for everyone, everywhere.

West Bank: Forced Displacement

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this debate on an issue that we simply cannot ignore or put in the “too difficult” pile.

This is a tragedy on so many levels—morally, politically, strategically, but above all personally for the people of the west bank. I went to the west bank with Caabu and Medical Aid for Palestinians in February 2023. Unlike some colleagues, I did not have a background in the middle east, but I promised my constituents that I would visit the region, as I knew the plight of the Palestinian people was an issue of huge significance to many in my Batley and Spen constituency, as it was then. The trip had a deep and profound impact on me. I saw and heard things I will never forget.

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

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

[Kim Leadbeater]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and will tell some of those stories now.

I spent time with some of the kindest, most resilient people I have met. Even back then it was deemed too dangerous for us to go to Gaza, but in the west bank we spent time with many amazing people under the most difficult of circumstances. If things were bad then, and if the prospect of the desperately needed two-state solution seemed then like a distant hope, now—following the unforgivable, murderous attack by Hamas on 7 October and the ensuing catastrophic level of death and destruction that has rained down on Gaza—it feels further away than ever.

While much of the media coverage and conversation has rightly focused on the tens of thousands of people who have been killed and injured, along with the desperate need to see the release of all remaining hostages to give those heartbroken families some sort of closure, we cannot and must not ignore the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians in the west bank and the increase in settler violence.

I saw that for myself. The villagers I met in the hills surrounding Nablus told me they lived in constant fear because of the ever-present risk of violence from settlers, who appeared to act with impunity. On the outskirts of one hamlet, a 27-year-old father of three young children had been shot dead just a few days earlier, after a group of settlers had descended on the area. We stood on the exact spot where he was killed and heard that, while the police had attended the incident, there had been no attempt to identify or track down the killer. The devastated family took us into their home and gave us tea, desperate for the world to hear their story amid their shock and grief.

I visited Masafer Yatta, which the Israeli Government is determined to clear to make way for a military zone, and met families living in constant fear that their homes will be subject to the demolition orders that can be imposed on any structure. We saw abandoned homes with smashed windows where families had fled in desperation to escape settler violence.

I also saw hope for the future, however fragile. At the Shuafat refugee camp I met brilliant young schoolchildren who told me of their ambitions to be engineers, lawyers and teachers—even poets and boxing champions. One girl told me, “We want to live like other children all over the world. We fight the occupation by studying.” Those children were living in overcrowded conditions, with unreliable access to basic essentials such as electricity and clean water, but they still had dreams of better days to come. It seemed to me then that the situation could not get any worse. How wrong I was.

Many of those I spoke with accused the Israeli Government of complicity in the violence perpetrated by settlers. They denied it—but three years later, the mask has not just slipped; it has been ripped off, and forced displacement of Palestinians is Government policy, with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich calling for Palestinian towns to be wiped off the map. It was for comments such as those that the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway quite rightly imposed sanctions on Smotrich and his fellow Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir last month.

I hope those young children still have hope in their hearts. There are times when we may feel that there is nothing we can do to restrain the Israeli Government’s expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes with it; but if we can keep a flicker of that hope alive, that is not nothing, and by reasserting our commitment to a viable Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel, we can do that.

Gibraltar

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we strengthened the deal, and we did that by putting in a sovereignty clause to ensure that there was no question about the sovereignty of Gibraltar and its unique relationship as part of the family of the United Kingdom. We were able to reach a deal yesterday that the European Union and the UK had negotiated. We ensured that Fabian Picardo was in the room at every meeting and the European Union ensured that Spain was in the room at every meeting. The right hon. Gentleman will know that Gibraltar has been a block on our bilateral relationship with Spain. This is an opportunity for us to work with Spain and to deepen that relationship, as we have been able to do with so many other countries across Europe.

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

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?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because her question gives me the opportunity to remind people about the many Spanish families living across the border who make their way into Gibraltar for work and to see loved ones, and who were subjected to checks. Now, those families will not have those checks and it will be much more seamless to go between both sides. This is a win-win for them as much as it is for those in Gibraltar. I am grateful to her for bringing to mind the people, and not just the businesses, who will benefit.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend, who served for a long time in the RAF, as well as in the United Nations. These issues are desperate. As he knows, we have taken actions against Israeli settlers and extremists, and we have been clear that if the Israeli Government do not change course, there will be further measures, including targeted sanctions.

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

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.

[Mr Falconer]

I have heard the force of my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I recognise the feeling right across the House on the need to see the situation in Gaza change. It is an urgency that is felt by Government.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

It would be unprecedented to put a formal time limit on speeches. Please can Members listen to the stricture that we are very short on time? I call Lizzi Collinge.

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

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.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Just this week, the Health and Social Care Committee heard from vulnerable service-users who talked about white coat syndrome—that people are more likely to be pushed into options when given them by medical professionals. That is the concern behind the amendment. I do not know how I will vote on the Bill, but I am minded to support the amendment because of what I have heard from people from vulnerable communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions also need to be brief.

[Lizzi Collinge]

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.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

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.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

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.

Middle East Update

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has a deep focus on these issues and is committed to playing his full role here in them. He will understand why I decline the opportunity to comment on Israel’s internal politics. I will restate the British Government’s view, though, that the fastest route to safety for those hostages is a ceasefire. The points that he makes are made with some force.

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

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?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend guesses right about my likely response: I will not comment on sanctions from this Dispatch Box. She has raised these issues with real force with me, and I am sure that she will continue to do so. We will continue to keep sanctions under review.

Persecution of Christians

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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.