Business Rates

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

That is a very good question, and it allows us to reflect on the fact that back in 2009, Nick Clegg, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, said that we did not need to invest in nuclear power, because it would not come online until the mid-2020s. We are in the mid-2020s now, and we would have benefited from long-term investments in clean and green power, driving down energy bills for consumers and for businesses across the country. We are now taking the long-term steps needed to invest in our energy security and bring bills down. That is incredibly important, and I hope that the steps we have taken on business rates and tax can be welcomed and that businesses in the hon. Member’s constituency and across the country can engage through the various sector bodies with the high street strategy that I have announced.

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

I am sure that pubs and venues, such as the Alhambra in Morecambe, will welcome today’s announcement. The Minister might be aware of my letter to the Chancellor on the wider hospitality sector. On the high street, we know that consumer demand has changed, so businesses must change, too. Will the Minister tell me how the strategy will work with businesses and their representatives, such as the Morecambe business improvement district or Sedbergh economic partnership, to pivot businesses to meet the new market reality?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We are keen to hear from businesses, large and small, about what more the Government can do to support high streets. We want to engage on lots of issues affecting high streets, including planning, licensing and crime, and the direct investment that we can make in our communities. There is a lot to do, because we had 14 years under the Conservatives where our high streets were in decay and shops were shutting. We had 7,000 pubs closing and businesses struggling across the country. We know that there is work to do, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members on it.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

We are debating the measures in this Bill, which was introduced by this Government. I was not involved in the changes that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I certainly would not have supported hitting the horseracing sector in the way that was proposed. I do not remember that being in a previous Finance Bill introduced by a previous Government; it is this Government who sought to bring forward those measures, but they were roundly rejected, because horseracing supports around 85,000 jobs and contributes £300 million in tax revenue every year.

Despite the Government’s climbdown in exempting horseracing from the higher rates, the industry could still feel the consequences of this Government’s approach to gambling duties. When the online betting sector is squeezed, sponsorship is likely to be reduced, and because racing’s funding depends heavily on those partnerships and that sponsorship, we could see an impact on racing. In my area of Norfolk, we are very fortunate to have Fakenham races—I went there to support the British Horseracing Authority’s campaign against the Government’s plans. That venue is synonymous with the area and its identity, and is a source of local employment, not just at the track itself but for the farriers, the pubs, the hotels and the whole ecosystem that supports racing. That is why these clauses in the Bill continue to pose a risk to the sector and other sports, and that risk needs to be accounted for.

I now turn to the black market, an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). The Government have acknowledged the risks associated with taking this approach, which is why they quietly set aside £26 million for the Gambling Commission to combat expansion of the black market, but the same EY analysis suggests that over £6 billion in stakes could migrate to the black market, doubling its current size and undermining the progress that has been made through the existing regulatory framework. The Office for Budget Responsibility has identified potential leakage of around £500 million in lost revenue as activity shifts away from properly regulated markets. Those projections—which again could be wrong, but could also be right—raise legitimate questions about the overall effectiveness of the Government’s approach.

When taxes rise too far, behaviour can change and the yield can go down, which is what we will see with a number of the tax rises that the Government have included in their Finance Bill. Rather than reducing demand, activity will move to unregulated markets where consumer protections are weaker, fraud risks are higher, and tax revenue is not collected. I am not sure we have heard a convincing response from the Minister about how that will be addressed and whether those risks have been taken properly into account.

Let us look at what happened in the Netherlands, where the Dutch Government raised their remote slots tax rate to 34% last January. Within months, gross gaming revenue fell by a quarter and gambling tax receipts dropped to just 83% of the previous year’s figure, leaving a €200 million shortfall from the projections. Somewhat predictably, the Dutch regulator then reported a huge growth in the number of people accessing unlicensed domains, rising from 200,000 to a million. That should serve as an example of why we should be cautious about the Chancellor’s plans. Experience suggests that changes have unintended consequences, and those risks must be carefully assessed. In winding up, will the Minister provide a bit more clarity about how that will be monitored and what steps the Government will take if there are unintended consequences and those projections prove to be accurate?

There is some debate and confusion in the sector and some of the professional bodies about the treatment of free bets and free plays. The sector and those bodies have raised concerns about that. The Budget costings document calculates gambling duty using the gross gambling yield, which is the revenue retained by operators after paying out winnings to customers. However, current law uses a wider measure, which also counts the value of free bets and free plays. That means there is a potential mismatch. Will the Minister clarify that? I am sure she has had representations on it directly.

We need to strike a balance with the levels of taxation. The industry is warning that these increases will impact on sports and lead to job losses and more black market activity. New clause 25 seeks transparency and an answer to those concerns. It asks the Chancellor to assess the impact of these rises on horseracing, the black market, jobs and the public finances. That is the minimum that Parliament should expect, and I hope Members will support our new clause.

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

I rise to speak to clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13, which respectively outline: an increase in tax on online gaming, such as online slots or casino games; a new rate of general betting duty specifically for online betting, such as placing a bet on a football match; and, removing bingo duty.

Online gambling has evolved quickly, and legislation has simply not kept up. Before, someone might have popped down to their local high-street betting shop or organised a trip with their friends to the casino. It was confined to a specific place that people had to go to and then at some point leave. That does not mean that there were no problem gamblers—of course there were—but it did impose necessary social and physical limits on gambling. Online gambling has changed that beyond all recognition. Now, that casino fits into someone’s pocket. Online platforms know people’s habits, when they use their phone most and when they have not gambled in a while, and the platforms can tailor notifications to pull people back in. The technology is designed to prey on human instinct, using algorithms that make betting time-sensitive, compulsive and constantly available. In case the opportunity to gamble ever slips someone’s mind, gambling companies will be sure to remind them in a commercial break for sports matches, on the side of buses and emblazoned on the microphone at premier league post-match interviews.

People might see some of the seemingly generous offers they are given. For their first £5, the betting companies might give them £100 or even £200 credit to gamble with. That feels like a lot of money to most people, but it is pennies compared with what the companies are making from their current customers and what they might make from you, once you are hooked.

As someone who, to be frank, does not like gambling—I do not gamble, and I do not understand why people enjoy handing their money over to betting companies—I detest the tactics used by gambling companies to pull people in. As online gambling has evolved exponentially, the online platforms have been able to get away with dodging responsibility for problem gambling or for paying their fair share into the Treasury. As my dad always says, “You never meet a poor bookie.” That is why I support clause 84, which will introduce a new higher rate of tax on remote betting, so that online bets are more expensive compared with in-person betting. Those taxes will be paid by the platform, so that we can catch up, finally, with the reality of the gambling world, which has moved far beyond the traditional model of shops and casinos that the tax system was designed around.

Clause 83 raises the rate of remote gaming duty, the tax on online slots and casinos. That reduces the incentives for operators to push the most harmful forms of online gambling, making the system fairer and safer for everyone. I represent Morecambe, a seaside town with a host of gaming businesses on the front and a bingo hall. The evidence shows that it is not the penny slots or the weekly bingo games that drive the majority of problem gambling, and I am pleased that the new remote gaming and betting duties recognise that.

Clause 1

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart]

Much clarity is needed, and I trust we will get that clarity in today’s debate. A farm worth £5 million owned by a single farmer could face a tax bill of around £500,000, while a farm of the same value owned jointly would face no tax bill at all. That is not fair; it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Farmers are asset rich but cash poor. Many family farms exceed £2.5 million in value, and not because they are wealthy enterprises, but because land values have risen dramatically while margins remain tight and incomes volatile. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has outlined, an estimated 25% of farms in Northern Ireland fall above that threshold. Those farms are the backbone of our economy. The move from 100% relief to 50% relief above the cap is not a minor adjustment; it is a fundamental weakening of agricultural property relief. It risks forcing families to sell land, reduce the scale of their business or take on unsustainable debt—not because their farms have failed, but because their tax system has failed them.

I will quickly address new clause 1, which would require the Chancellor to publish a Northern Ireland-specific impact assessment. That should not need an amendment; it should be done as a matter of course. But this sudden interest in farming by the Alliance party is not lost on the folks at home. Not only are farmers at home battling the Labour Government’s anti-farming policies, but they have an Alliance Farming Minister who is tone deaf to the needs of farmers—a Minister who supports climate change extremism, who is further regulating the industry, and who is blaming farmers for the algae bloom on Lough Neagh while ignoring the 200 million tonnes of waste from Northern Ireland Water. Farmers in Northern Ireland are getting it from all quarters, and I, for one, make no apology for standing up tonight against this tax grab, but also against the policies in Northern Ireland that are damaging our farms.

A clear principle is at stake. People are taxed throughout their lives on their income, on their profits and on what they produce. To then tax those same assets again, simply because someone has died, is a double whammy. It is double taxation in all but name, and it penalises families at the very moment of loss. That is a principle I cannot support. It is immoral. A death tax is immoral. This policy will drive despair—not prosperity—into farming communities if it is allowed to stand. The Government still have the opportunity to do the right thing. Politics is about doing the right thing, and the Minister knows that the right and honourable thing to do is to consign this policy to the farmyard manure heap. If the Government choose not to, they must accept the lasting damage that this policy will inflict on family farms, rural communities and our national security. The outcomes are on this Government’s shoulders.

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

As someone who represents a large semi-rural constituency, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about the changes to agricultural and business property relief and why they matter for farming families and for fairness in our tax system. I welcome these changes, which recognise the reality of the asset-rich, but cash-poor nature of farming, where land might be worth a lot of money by most people’s standards, but that value cannot be realised in cash terms unless it is sold, particularly for non-farming use.

The aim of this inheritance tax policy is simple: fairness for hard-working family farms, but no open-ended tax breaks for the wealthiest. The Government are reforming outdated tax relief rules to ensure that the very largest estates make a fair contribution. Under these changes, small and medium-sized agricultural estates will remain unaffected by inheritance tax, with full relief still applying up to £2.5 million for an individual, rising to £5 million for a married couple, who will be able to transfer their allowances to each other, as is the case for personal inheritance tax. I am slightly surprised that those on the Conservative Benches are only now discovering that concept, given that it has been standard for many years.

What will change is the ability for the ultra-wealthy and the very largest estates to use agricultural land as a tax planning tool, driving up land prices and shutting out genuine farmers, while making little or no contribution in return. The farmers I have spent time with—over many meetings in village halls, at farmhouses and at the Westmorland county show, which I highly recommend—were clear that they understood the need to prevent the ultra-wealthy avoiding tax, but they were rightly concerned that the threshold of £1 million, as originally proposed, would inadvertently catch ordinary family farms. Local farmers and solicitors were extremely generous in sharing their financial information with me, which was sent directly to the Treasury. It showed the reality of the finances of farming.

I must make special mention of a local Labour party member, Karenna Caun, who organised for that information to be gathered and who helped me to reach out to farmers and related businesses, particularly in the Lune valley. The NFU and others have already recognised that these changes materially improved the position for farming families. These changes have taken on board concerns raised by rural Labour MPs, but with these reforms targeted at the biggest estates, the Government expect to raise £300 million a year by the end of the decade. That is money we can put into local GP services, rural bus services and village schools, giving our children the best start in life. Yes, some of the largest estates will pay more after these changes.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Lady has mentioned, I think two or three times, that it will be possible for the ultra-wealthy to be exposed to the inheritance tax liability. However, having a huge asset base that may be worth a great deal of money does not mean having a good income. A business could have a cash flow that is not generating any revenue to keep that business going. Is she classifying businesses and farming families in her constituency who might have an asset base of over £1 million as very wealthy people?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman missed the third paragraph of my speech, in which I talked about the asset-rich but cash-poor nature of farming. Land may be worth a lot of money according to most people’s standards, but it may not be possible to realise the value in cash terms unless the land is sold, especially for non-farming uses. As he knows, I am talking about the threshold that has now been set at £2.5 million for individuals and £5 million for couples, not the £1 million threshold that I and many of my colleagues have succeeded in changing.

I make no apology for supporting a progressive policy that closes tax loopholes for the wealthy. I am thinking of people such as James Dyson, who talked proudly about buying up agricultural land in order to avoid tax. How can anyone defend multimillion-pound estates paying zero inheritance tax, when we are digging ourselves out of the fiscal and social hole made by 14 years of Conservative government?

[Mike Wood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I will not.

Our farmers have been battered by Brexit, with their incomes and standards of living falling drastically since 2016. Crop yields have been impacted by flooding, and trade deals agreed by the Conservatives sold them down the river. Those 14 years of Conservative government were just as bad for my farmers as they were for the rest of us. I am afraid that I am not particularly inclined to take criticism from the Opposition Benches. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are against taxing the largest estates. They are saying that estates that are worth more than £2.5 million, or £5 million—[Interruption.] I have listened closely to the debate, and I am confident in my quoting of what has been said by Opposition Members. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his chuntering from a seated position.

I grew up in a tiny village in Cumbria. With the surrounding farms, it numbered about 300 people. We had no shop, and there was one bus to Carlisle a week. We did have two pubs—we knew how to have a good time. I will take no lectures from Opposition Members about what country life is really about, and I certainly will take no lectures from the wealthy Reform MPs—they are not in the Chamber now and have taken no part in the debate—who seem to enjoy cosplaying as country folk, in a display of what I think is patronising political opportunism. We need to ensure that there is fairness in our inheritance tax system, which is why I urge all Members to support clause 62 and schedule 12.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Clause 62 shows that this Labour Government simply do not understand farming communities. Persevering with an ill-thought-through family farm tax that treats business assets as personal wealth, even with the recent concession, will continue to harm investment in food security and rural growth. At the very least, it should be paused entirely until the publication of an independent impact assessment identifying the true extent of the changes to farming livelihoods. I therefore support amendments 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47, the combination of which would ensure that the full inheritance tax relief remained in place for family farms.

It is time that the farming sector moved away from survival mode to become a thriving industry once more, but, against a background of huge cost pressures, farmers are being asked to do more with less. They face input costs that are 30% higher this year than they were in 2020, while the £2.4 billion farming budget has barely changed since 2007. That alone has presented difficult business conditions, but in addition, during 2025 farmers were forced into making plans towards a gloomy future surrounded by all the family farm tax uncertainties. As a result, many have delayed making any investment in their businesses. Farmers such as those in Glastonbury and Somerton are the catalysts of growth in rural areas, but they now need confidence to make the investments that they have put off after 14 months of angst and frustration.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

The figures that the Government have published on this change and at previous Budgets are drawn from actual claims and from engagement with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on both APR and BPR. That analysis shows that before this change, up to 275 estates a year would have been affected, and that that number is now forecast to halve to around 185. That means that around 85% of all estates claiming APR, some with BPR, will now not pay any additional tax. I stand by those figures. We published them when we made the decision and they are included in the letter that I and the Secretary of State have sent to all Members.

On the right hon. Member’s point about £2.5 million or £5 million, I think he was referring to the fact that a couple can pass on up to £5 million and for a single person it is £2.5 million. That is a long-standing position. It means that the inheritance tax nil rate band and the residence nil rate band are transferable only between spouses and civil partners. Making any unused allowance transferable in the same way is consistent with that long-standing approach.

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

My constituents very much welcome the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, which, as the Minister knows, I have raised repeatedly. The changes to the reliefs mean that family farms will be protected while large landowners who bought agricultural land simply to avoid paying tax will no longer have that loophole. Does the Minister agree that these changes show that the Labour Government are listening to rural areas and to rural Labour MPs, and that, unlike the Opposition, they are serious about proper policy development and not just headline chasing?

[Dan Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we on this side of the House are the true and better representatives of the rural community. There are over 150 MPs on this side of the House who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies—I believe that there are as many Labour MPs representing rural constituencies as there are MPs on the blue Opposition Benches.

Banking Services: Rural Northumberland

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for securing this important debate, which I think is his first Adjournment debate. I also congratulate him on being the first Labour MP for Hexham. His Wikipedia entry famously boasts that he broke a 100-year streak of Conservative MPs to be in this place. If that is not an accolade, I do not know what is. Just before I came to this debate, I was having dinner with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). I mentioned to him that I was answering a debate called by our hon. Friend the Member for Hexham; our hon. Friend will be pleased to know that he said that Hexham is the most beautiful place he has ever been to in his life—I would say other than Hampstead and Highgate, obviously.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. The fact that they have stayed behind at a quarter past 10 on a Monday, on their first day back to Parliament on a one-line Whip, demonstrates their commitment. I know that this issue affects many of our constituents, and hon. Members are absolutely right to champion it.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for securing the debate. Does the Minister agree that the conditions in rural areas make it particularly difficult for people to take up the alternatives given by banks, such as digital access? Despite the fantastic work of Broadband for the Rural North in my constituency, many of my constituents do not have access to broadband, and access to digital banking is simply out of reach for many.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that she is a doughty champion for her constituents. I hear what she says about her rural constituency. Mine is not a rural constituency, but I speak to people across the country who are really struggling with digital connectivity, as she outlines. It is something that the Government are taking very seriously, and we are aware of the obstacles in the way of people trying to access services online.

I am pleased that this is my first parliamentary debate as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, because this is an issue that is close to my heart, and one that I am determined to try to address. It is a privilege to be able to use this office to tackle some of the country’s most important issues, as my hon. Friend just said. Ensuring access to banking and supporting financial inclusion featured very highly in our manifesto, which all Labour Members were elected on. We want to ensure that our constituents manage to access the services that they deserve.

Before I get on to the meat of the topic, I will briefly provide the context. Although many people have benefited from changes to the UK’s banking landscape, such as the ease and convenience for some people of remote banking, it is clear to me that others have found it a lot more challenging. According to the consumer organisation Which? over 600 branches in the UK have closed since 2015. Bank branch closures have significantly impacted those in communities who need access to in-person banking services. I am really sorry to hear about some of the specific cases that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham talked about his 74-year-old constituent who has to travel so far. That example particularly stood out to me, because that should not be the case.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government understand the importance of face-to-face banking, and banking access, to our communities. Not only is it is key to the health and vibrancy of those communities, but as he pointed out, it helps them to drive forward and benefit from our country’s economic growth, and the rural economy. To anyone listening to the debate, please be in no doubt that the Government share the objective of enhancing access to banking services, and we will be prioritising the delivery of that accordingly.

Work has already started. Obviously, we have not been in Government for very long, but even before the election we committed to working closely with banks to roll out at least 350 banking hubs, which will provide individuals and businesses up and down the country with critical cash and banking services.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been preceded by many wonderful first speeches, particularly from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and my fellow Cumbrian representative, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), to whom I say, “Areet, marra?”

I would like to start my first speech by paying tribute to my predecessor, David Morris. I know he knocked on a lot of Ministers’ doors to get funding for Eden Project Morecambe, and I thank him for it. I made a solemn promise to him that I would deliver Eden Project Morecambe and make it work for local people.

Thanks to boundary changes, I have two other predecessors. Morecambe and Lunesdale has gained a tract of beautiful Westmorland that was formerly represented by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I know from speaking to his former constituents that the hon. Member is highly regarded and leaves some big boots to fill.

I also gained Lower Lune Valley ward from my good friend and mentor, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith). When I joined the Labour party in 2014 after the birth of my first child, my hon. Friend invited me for a brew. I thought this was a very kind gesture. Little did I know what she had in store for me. I hope she now feels that the aching arms she got from my particularly enormous newborn were well worth it. I would also like to pay tribute to the Labour Women’s Network and the 50:50 Parliament campaign for their tireless work and collective efforts to see more women Members elected.

I would be remiss if I did not mention my predecessor, Geraldine Smith, who is extremely well regarded in the constituency. And what a constituency it is. Morecambe and Lunesdale is definitely the most beautiful constituency in the country. From the golden sands of Middleton, through the beautiful art deco buildings and stunning sunsets of Morecambe, up the lush Lune Valley, across the Arnside and Silverdale national landscape, and into the wild beauty of Westmorland, you would be hard pushed to find a better place to live or work. My constituency has a diverse set of towns and villages, all with their own needs and fantastically strong communities. Their differences should be respected and celebrated. Where their needs overlap, often the solutions need to be tailored to their specific circumstances. In constituencies such as Morecambe and Lunesdale, one size does not fit all, so as our new Government deliver their ambitious programme of national renewal, I will ensure that the voices of all my communities are heard.

My aim is to be a good constituency MP. For me, there is no more honourable ambition, and I am extremely grateful to all the people who supported me and enabled me to have that honour. In His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, we heard about the Government’s plan to reform our bus system, and as a proud member of the Lancaster District Bus Users Group, I welcome that warmly. I also warmly welcome the new Government’s dedication to farming and rural communities. In his contribution in this place last week, the Secretary of State set out a new deal for farmers, action on water pollution and plans to tackle the nature emergency. Speaking of nature, in Morecambe the shrimps are not only part of the local fauna, and a local delicacy that comes highly recommended, but the local football team, and I look forward to delivering on my promise to them of a new independent football regulator.

Before joining this Chamber, I served as a Lancashire county councillor for eight years, and in that time I have specialised in health and social care and served on our health scrutiny committee. I am sure that Members across the Chamber will agree that we expect the highest standards of care for our constituents, so I pay tribute to the many patients and health campaigners who have worked so hard to ensure safe, equitable care for all. Many a health and care leader in Lancashire and South Cumbria has met me across a committee table. I hope that they found me a fair, if sometimes firm, scrutineer.

I am a humanist. Humanists are people who shape our lives in the here and now, because we believe it is the only life we have, and what is politics if not shaping lives in the here and now? Humanists try to treat everyone we come across with warmth, understanding and respect. We believe that we humans have everything we need: logic, reason, evidence, and empathy to make good, ethical decisions. It is these values that I hope to bring to my role in decision making in this place, so I welcome our Government’s focus on service, integrity and honesty. If we are to rebuild trust in politics, we must adhere to those principles rigorously, and I am sure that Members across the Chamber will do so.

Finally, I dedicate this speech to my family: my mum and dad, who brought me and my sister Hannah up with good morals and lots of love; my husband Miles for always having my back and taking on an unfair share of the family duties, alongside a full-time role with the NHS; my kids for putting up with mummy being away so often; and my grandma and grandad, who we lost in 2022. Grandma, remembering her parents’ hard upbringing—they experienced sometimes abject poverty—always voted Labour, much to the annoyance of my working-class Tory grandad. When I was first elected to the county council, grandad told me, “Ey Liz, I’m reyt proud of you. It’s a pity you’re on the wrong side!” My grandad might not have been a Labour supporter, but he did believe in service, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to serve our country and my people in Morecambe and Lunesdale.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

A maiden speech: I call Alex Easton.