Anneliese Midgley MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. About a year ago, one of my constituents in Knowsley was told that she needed IVF. She went to her employer to let them know that she was going to start treatment, and a few days later she was sacked. She was a few weeks short of having worked two years for her employer. She had previously passed probation and had no previous complaints or warnings on her work. Hon. Members will be happy to know that she did get pregnant and she had that baby a month ago, but while trying to get pregnant and in the early stages of her pregnancy she could not find another steady job. No employer wanted to take her on and being unemployed obviously caused immense stress. My constituent did not qualify for maternity pay. She has worked hard all her life; she has studied and has a doctorate. She is now with a small baby on a statutory maternity allowance of £184 and is still not in a job. One in nine women are forced out of the labour market every year due to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The two-year period in which someone can be dismissed was used unfairly against my constituent. The Bill will protect women across the UK, allowing them the right to a secure job and a family. I am sure we can all agree that the current situation for workers is unacceptable.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite. I want to bring this debate into reality—after all, the Bill seeks to affect real people’s lives and make their life at work better—and talk about my personal experience as a young woman. I was working a couple of jobs to get by, one of them as a silver service waitress on a zero-hours contract and minimum wage. The employer hired only young women, and we worked mostly at high-profile sporting events. To be sexually harassed was seen as normal. We were told to expect it, and we were told that we were expected to accept it—it was part of the job. The employer would also over-hire, so too many of us would turn up and many of us would be sent away, because it was decided that our face or figure did not fit the event that day. Those of us who got to the service were groped, propositioned, reprimanded if we talked back, and threatened with the sack. Travelling home from work together, we would feel completely humiliated and degraded, and we would exchange tales of what had happened to us that day. We took solace in the fact that we were not alone. That behaviour is not something we should accept, but we know it still happens. That is why this part of the Bill is so important. No one should go to work dreading being harassed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester pointed out, the Fawcett Society has said that “40% of women experience sexual harassment throughout their career.” The Bill is intended to prevent workers from being subject to that vile behaviour, and it will ensure that people can get on with their jobs without being filled with fear, dread or humiliation, or feeling unsafe and degraded.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Sixth-form Education: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency there is no A-level provision. Some students have told me that they have to travel for hours just to study, and others consider this a barrier to continuing at school at all. Will my hon. Friend work with me to bring A-levels back to Knowsley?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can I clarify whether the shadow Minister believes that workers should shoulder all the burden, and that businesses should bear no responsibility?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my declaration of interests. I am also a member of Unite and the GMB. It was said in an evidence session last week that in hospitality—a sector that we are very focused on improving in the Bill— “employers bring in too many workers for shifts and say: ‘Sorry, we do not need you any more. Go home.’ They then cancel a shift without any compensation for the workers for their travel time”. –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 76-77, Q71.] As many of my hon. Friends have said, while we are considering the burden on business, we must also consider the burden on workers. We are trying to level the playing field and make a more equal way, where workers are considered.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry for referring to the shadow Minister as “you” earlier, Mr Stringer; I was not suggesting that you needed to clarify whether you thought workers should shoulder all of the burden. I want to remind hon. Members of some evidence that we were given last week in support of the right to reasonable notice of a shift. Matthew Percival from the CBI said that “there are areas where the Bill can be a helpful step in the right direction. To give a few examples, we have previously supported the idea that it is wrong that you should turn up for work expecting an eight-hour shift, be sent home after two hours and only be paid for two hours. There should be a right for compensation there.” Jane Gratton from the British Chambers of Commerce said: “As Matthew said on the compensation of shifts, we certainly support that, and we would be very happy about the fair work agency to create a level playing field and measures around workplace equity.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 13, Q6.] Allen Simpson from UKHospitality said: “Again, reasonable notice is an important principle and there should be protections.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Before I ask this question, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also a member of the GMB. I want to ask about balloting. What are the practical implications for your unions of paper balloting? What sort of difference do you think electronic balloting will bring? Andy Prendergast: It has been a somewhat strange situation in that, as far as I am aware, the only legally required paper ballot relates to industrial action. That sometimes creates a major impediment for us taking industrial action when that is the clear view of the workforce. There was a certain irony, not lost on us, that when Liz Truss was elected, effectively as Prime Minister, that was done via an electronic ballot. We have been told consistently by people in this House that electronic ballots are not safe and secure, yet you can have one to elect a Prime Minister but you cannot have one to take industrial action. If I am absolutely honest, the state of the Post Office does not help. We often have to have a fast turnaround on a ballot. Where I live, I normally get the post about every eight days. We end up with an antiquated system that simply does not work for this purpose. If you look at electronic ballots, the important thing is that people have the opportunity to take part in a democratic process. It is a process that is allowed under the International Labour Organisation freedom of association rules and the European convention on human rights. It is vital that people are able to partake in democracy. We believe it is something of a strange situation that the one area that currently requires paper ballots is industrial action law. If I were cynical, I would argue that that is specifically to stop industrial action taking place. For us, industrial action is always an absolute last resort, but at times it is necessary. People do not always like industrial disputes, but when you look at what they have achieved over the years, from equal pay via Ford Dagenham to the eight-hour working day, having weekends off, and significantly improved health and safety, it is important that workers have the ability to hold their employers to account in that way. Ultimately, something that simply allows them to take part in that democratic process has to be a good thing. Mike Clancy: For too long, the arguments for inhibiting electronic balloting have, in my view, been entirely bogus. If you look at it from an employer’s perspective, they want the most representative turnout if they have a trade union in their midst, particularly in the context of difficult circumstances where industrial action may be in contemplation—and so does the trade union. We want a representative turnout, and we also want to be able to send a clear message if we get to a juncture where bargaining or something else in the process is proving to be difficult. Electronic balloting is going to enable exactly that. The idea—this is where I feel the argument has been very bogus—that it cannot be done securely is in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. The sooner this particular clause can be progressed and made real, the better. Clearly, it will improve not only engagement, but the validity of results, and I believe that is absolutely something that trade unions want. The sooner we can do it, the better.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to follow on from the last question. A previous witness today said, “I think, if you introduce lots of rights like paternity rights and flexible working rights from day one, you risk having more problems and that will be a cost.” I just want to go a bit deeper into your assessment of that and whether you think family leave and flexible working should be viewed as a net cost. Dr Stephenson: I am also an employer, and we have an incredibly flexible working policy. I think flexible work is largely beneficial for employers as well as workers, not least because it enables you to recruit and retain the best staff. At the moment, the labour market is relatively tight, particularly in some parts of the country and in some sectors. We have higher levels of, for example, economic inactivity among women than men and we know that this is something the Government want to do something about. One of the reasons for economic inactivity among women is caring responsibilities. There are large numbers of women who are not in the labour market who said that they would like to be in paid work if they could find a job that gave them the flexibility they needed. That can only be a benefit to wider society, and ultimately to employers, first, because they can attract the best people and, secondly, because we are more likely to have a strong and growing economy.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Minister, you spoke earlier about some of the engagement you have had on the Bill, and some of the witnesses earlier today spoke about tripartite meetings that they had been at between the Government, unions and businesses. Could you set out some of your planned future engagement on the Bill? Justin Madders: Engagement continues, and there will be more next week—we are meeting a group of small and medium-sized businesses—but to date 140 different stakeholders have attended official or ministerial meetings. You will have heard from many of the witnesses that they have been quite impressed, I think, with the level of engagement and how we have listened to concerns expressed about the Bill. We also undertook extensive engagement in opposition. We will continue to do that. We are moving through some live consultations at the moment. As we develop the Bill and some of the regulations and codes of practice that will follow it, there will continue to be engagement throughout. We are very clear that that is the best way to deliver excellent legislation, and we will continue it.

• 28 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In our evidence sessions earlier this week we heard concerns about changes to collective redundancy, and particularly the changes to the “one establishment” rules. What are your views on the provisions in the Bill? Liron Velleman: We rarely deal with collective redundancy on multiple establishments, other than for a few establishments, but it is important for the Committee to understand that collective redundancy is not always a huge battle between employers and unions. It gets into the news that this employer and that union are fighting to the death over something, but usually collective redundancy is an opportunity for employers and unions to sit around the table and try to minimise the impact on the workforce. Even with employers that unions might have a difficult relationship with, collective redundancy is usually an opportunity to do that. It is very well known that Tata Steel recently announced collective redundancies at its steelworks in Port Talbot in south Wales. The original stated redundancy figure was around 2,500, but after work between the unions and the employer, that number has been heavily reduced through cross-matching and through finding training opportunities. Unions are not there just to say, “We are going to keep our members’ jobs for the sake of it,” and scream from the rooftops. Collective redundancy is an opportunity to allow mitigations to protect workers. Any improvements to rules around collective redundancy—whether that is reducing the number of employees needed to start a collective redundancy scheme, increasing the timeframe for that to happen, or looking at the establishment rule—are hugely welcome. Joanne Cairns: On the establishment rule, we are very pleased that the loophole is now being removed. We took a significant legal case on behalf of our members who were employed in Woolworths, where 27,000 employees were made redundant in a single redundancy exercise when the company went into administration. In 200 stores with fewer than 20 employees each, there were 3,000 employees who were not entitled to any protective award even though collective consultation had not taken place. That was purely because they were employed in establishments with fewer than 20 people, even though the decisions were being made far above that level and affected 27,000 employees. It is just common sense that that is now being corrected. We are aware that the issue of scope has been raised in this Committee. We went back and looked at the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Clause 23 of the Bill would not alter what section 188 of the 1992 Act says about “the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals.” It would not mean that workers are being consulted over redundancies that do not affect them; it would just mean that workers who are affected by the redundancies, or their representatives, would be consulted regardless of the size of the establishment that they are working at. We do not see people being involved in consultation exercises that do not affect them; that will not be a result of the Bill.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate, and for her bravery. Domestic violence is a massive issue in Knowsley: more than 3,500 incidents are reported each year, and we know that many more are not reported. More than 85% of the victims are women, and the majority of perpetrators are men. Those women often turn to people and institutions they trust, such as doctors, teachers and others who work in frontline services. Does the Minister agree that we need to break down the silos between Government Departments so that public bodies and agencies can spot the signs of abuse and train their staff to offer help to victims at the point they are ready to receive it?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I refer once again to the most high-profile case that we have seen in recent times, when P&O unlawfully sacked 800 workers, many of whom were your members and were impacted by that. At this morning’s evidence session, Matthew Percival from the CBI said: “In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts”. Do you agree? Mick Lynch: No, I do not agree with that at all. Defending fire and rehire, or fire and replace as P&O were doing, is defending the immoral. Maybe the CBI knows a thing or two about immoral behaviour—I do not know why they would be standing up against that. We negotiate contract changes all the time, and the great problem with P&O is that they deceived us. They told us that they were going to negotiate change for new technology, new vessels and new ways of working. There probably would have been some job losses, and we would have dealt with that through normal processes. They decided to sabotage that because it was quicker, and they wanted to get imported foreign labour on those vessels at £4 and £5 an hour, rather than a collective agreement. I do not see good employers struggling with that. I do not see decent businesses struggling with negotiating contract changes, staffing level changes or new technology agreements, which we will all need right across business. We will talk to DFDS about that, hopefully in the near future, as well as Stena and all the other good shipping companies. We are talking about it on the railway. Every trade unionist who comes in front of any of you will say that we are constantly negotiating change. At the end of the second world war, my union had half a million members, while the railway employed 1.2 million people—that has obviously changed. We had sectoral collective bargaining all through that, and most employers had never heard of fire and rehire. You can retool an economy inside collective arrangements, and our European partners have shown us that. If you refit your economy based on consensus, change and looking after people who have to leave, you will have a more successful business. If you just guillotine the whole process, your reputation will be in ruins. I do not accept the CBI’s position. It was probably against the health and safety at work Act and the sex equality Act. All those Acts brought impacts on business, and there is no doubt that the Factories Act was a bit burdensome for the mill owners and mining companies of this country. Everything is difficult for a business, but you have to live inside the regulations in a democracy, and that is what it should be about. Martyn Gray: I suppose to some extent it is the difference between doing what is easy and what is right. It is disappointing that there is an attitude among some elements of business in this country to opt for what is easy, as opposed to doing what is right. Negotiating with trade unions is fairly straightforward. To use the example of P&O Ferries in 2020, at the height of the covid pandemic, we negotiated redundancies as it reduced its operations and went through that process. Mr Hebblethwaite did not want to get back around the table with us because we held P&O Ferries to account over its business proposals in 2020, and we ensured that the redundancies it made were absolutely necessary and were to rightsize the business. We fed back on all its proposals and we engaged very heavily in that process in 2020, when we went through two rounds of redundancies with that particular employer. P&O Ferries then said that we could not engage with what it was proposing, because it knew the proposals were wrong and morally reprehensible. It wiped out a long-standing, collectively bargained workforce that offered quality jobs, as well as employment and training opportunities, across many deprived coastal communities. The loss of those jobs is still being felt in Kingston upon Hull, Birkenhead, Liverpool and Dover. P&O Ferries was able to say, “Actually, because what we are suggesting is so wrong, we have just decided to push ahead and do it anyway, knowing that there will be limited repercussions,” and that is to some extent why we are here talking about it. That highlighted just how easy it was for businesses to make the wrong decisions. It is shocking and abysmal, but unfortunately not surprising, that the CBI did not recognise that those easy options are what are putting us in this position, where regulation needs to be developed. I disagree with what the CBI said, and I disagree that this Bill would make it the preferred option to go through a redundancy, or fire and rehire, rather than to engage with trade unions. When negotiating with trade unions, we understand the business operations and we can help, and we have helped. I have been engaged in countless redundancy conversations with employers in the maritime industry where we have been able to look at things differently. We have been able to support what those businesses are going through by talking about the number of redundancies that potentially need to be made, and we have supported them in building jobs back in, in their plans for growth and in their changes to terms and conditions. That has protected jobs, and we have negotiated our way through that for the betterment of the business and the people that it employs. For the CBI and some business elements to take the approach that it is easier to fire and rehire, instead of negotiating, is really short-sighted and problematic for the future.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unite and the GMB.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is for Mr Hale. Can you confirm if the FSB has an HR service that it sells to its members, and if so, does that provide an incentive for you to talk up the impact of the Bill to your members? David Hale: No, it is the opposite. FSB provides services to members, and one of the biggest services it provides is legal advice. One of the biggest things it provides legal advice for is employment relationships. Obviously, it is in the narrow interest of FSB as an organisation for employment law to be more complicated and less usable. However, we do not come here to argue for things that make FSB a more valuable product; we come here to argue for reasons why we do not have to exist—because the Government have made life easy enough for small businesses. We are owned and run by our members, and we are constitutionally required to act in the interests of small businesses. Obviously, the more complicated employment law is made, the more likely we are to have people join and call an employment line. It would be irresponsible of us to try and change the law to make it more complicated and to make a bigger use case for joining FSB. We would never do that and we do not do that. It would be in the narrow interests of FSB for employment law to be complicated, but that is not what we are here to do.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Cathryn, earlier you identified that the CMI said that a lot of good employers and good businesses have already adopted a lot of the measures in this Bill, and other panellists have identified that as well. Could you say a bit more about why you think good employers and businesses already practise a lot of the measures in this Bill? Cathryn Moses-Stone: I think it leads on from what Carly was saying. They see the direct benefits of creating happy, supported, trusting and inclusive workplaces. We have a lot of research that shows that really highly-trained managers and leaders create more inclusive workplaces, which has a really positive knock-on effect on both the business and people’s happiness. I think that everything I have said probably builds towards that same argument. It is better for the business as well as people.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I also refer to my declaration of interests. I am member of Unite and GMB.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Specialist domestic abuse services, such as The First Step in Knowsley, are facing an increase in demand but are having to turn people away due to a lack of funding. What more can Ministers do to support such services?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Tonight I am off to see China Crisis play at the Knowsley music festival in St Chad’s church. It is a great initiative by Knowsley council. My consistency has a rich musical heritage. As well as bringing people together, these festivals support local talent, our economy and businesses. Can we have a debate in Government time on ways to support and grow these local creative festivals and events?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Railway Ticketing · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps she is taking to simplify railway ticketing.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Railway Ticketing · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the tributes paid to John Prescott. Radio Merseyside has featured many stories about passengers who were fined because they bought train tickets in good faith, only to find out that they were the wrong ones. Some of my Knowsley constituents find themselves being fined or denied travel by Merseytravel for buying tickets legitimately online. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to work with our mayor, Steve Rotherham, and with Merseyrail and other operators, to ensure that passengers are not unfairly penalised, and to create a clear and fair ticketing system that is easy for everyone to use?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Secondary Ticketing Market · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for obtaining the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for all the work she has done on this matter. The issues I want to address are dynamic ticket or surge pricing and the queuing system for major, once-in-a-lifetime concerts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth referenced in her opening remark and which other Members have spoken about. I have a deep-rooted connection to the music industry. In my younger days, I worked as a promoter and DJ in Liverpool. I was a music journalist and did press for bands when Britpop was at its height, and I have been privileged to spend many years surrounded by some of our nation’s best musicians. If we are sharing stories about our first gigs, for mine I queued up—in simpler times—outside the Empire Theatre when I was eight with my dad to buy tickets for Cliff Richard. We were allowed to get six. When we got to the show and he came on stage, I burst into tears and asked my mum where the man with the leg and the lip was; I thought I was going to see Elvis, who had been dead seven years. Music is not just entertainment. It brings people together. It lifts the soul, and lifetimes of relationships are formed because of people’s shared love of music. Live performances are a huge part of that. The ticket prices surge and the queuing system recently made headline news with the Oasis reunion concerts. Tickets were sold by the primary ticketing company well beyond the price they were advertised at. A reunion that was greeted with such joy quickly turned into misery for many, as people realised when they got to the checkout that the price they had budgeted for—a price that they felt they could afford—was no longer the price. Instead, a price that was two, three or even four times more was quoted. After hours and hours of waiting, with their hearts racing and the timer ticking down, they had a few minutes to decide whether or not they wanted the tickets to see their favourite band—a band they would have only a once-in-a-lifetime chance of seeing. The writer and musician John Robb recently wrote: “The ticket buying systems and companies are…exploiting people’s excitement in the worst possible way.” When prices are inflated with little or no transparency, that becomes a barrier that shuts out fans who work hard, save up and simply want to see their favourite bands live. Based on recent testimonies of several musicians such as Paul Heaton, it is not just the fans who are kept in the dark but often the artists too. Many artists are disconnected from the commercial side of their business and do not always have the knowledge to protect their fans before it is too late. Greater transparency on surge pricing is essential both for artists and for fans. It is not fair for fans to queue up for hours expecting a face-value ticket price, only to be met with an over-inflated bill when it is time to pay. Exacerbating the situation with the Oasis reunion was the queuing system, about which we all heard countless stories. One of my constituents got up at the crack of dawn to get in the queue for Oasis tickets, and at 9 am she was number 7,000 in the queue on the website. She was made up, thinking she was definitely going to get the tickets. When she got to the purchase page, she spent half an hour trying to place available tickets into her basket. Finally, the system kicked her out when she tried to pay, and she was put at number 180,000 in the queue. She waited all day until the news came that no tickets were left. Similar stories were all over people’s WhatsApp groups and social media feeds that day, so it was not a one-off IT glitch or problem. It is just not fair. We cannot ignore the wider issue of the secondary market. Tickets are being sold at exorbitant prices, further driving up costs for consumers. The recommendations made by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2021, particularly around speculative selling, remain unaddressed. These issues deserve serious consideration, as they place further strain on fans who are already facing inflated prices at the primary level. In closing, I welcome the measures introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act to give the Competition and Markets Authority a few more powers to tackle the secondary market, but it needs more, as recommended in the private Member’s Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. We must also act on dynamic pricing and the queuing lottery. We need a system that works for fans, artists and venues alike. Transparency must be at the heart of dynamic pricing, and we must address the broader issues within the ticketing ecosystem. Live music should be a shared experience and affordable for all. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Government on this issue.

• 15 Oct 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) for such a passionate maiden speech. She will be an excellent representative for her constituency. It is a privilege to stand here to give my own as the first woman to represent Knowsley in Parliament. My predecessor, Sir George Howarth, served Knowsley with dedication for over three decades. In his maiden speech, he promised to “shout and make a fuss” —[ Official Report , 26 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 289.] for his constituents. He certainly kept that promise, serving not only as a loyal constituency MP but as a Northern Ireland Minister under a Labour Government. I have another illustrious predecessor: the MP for Huyton from 1950 to 1983, Harold Wilson, who served as a Labour Prime Minister. Harold transformed our economy and industry, founded the Open University, and started us on the long road to equality that we are still travelling. He left a more equal society than he inherited, one in which far fewer got by on too little. I am so honoured to follow in his footsteps. Knowsley made me who I am. I was born and raised in Cantril Farm, a so-called slum clearance estate. My nan lived in the flats there, and I went to Brookside school, where my auntie Jean was a cleaner. My dad worked at Ford, on the production line, and with his secure, well-paid, unionised job, my mum and dad could give me a better life than they had had. Then, as a teenager, I got jobs in Liverpool, in Brian’s diner on Stanley Street, and at the Beatles shop, where I met Paul McCartney a few times. I started club nights where I DJ’d, and one of them—Liquidation—is still going. However, I am here today as a proud trade unionist. It is the trade unions that built the Labour party. I am proud to be a member of Unite and the GMB, and I am proud to be a former political director of Unite and adviser to the general secretary of the TUC. The unions are my second family, and it is because of them that I have come from the council estate to the parliamentary estate. I know why I am here: to speak for my class, the working class. I will not forget who I am or where I came from. It is my duty to stand up for the people of Knowsley and to champion our strengths—our dignity, our resilience and our sense of community. I will never talk down my part of the world or its people. Our streets are soundtracked by the La’s and China Crisis. Our parks and estates have nurtured footballing legends such as Peter Reid and Steven Gerrard. We have produced the finest writers and actors of my class: Alan Bleasdale, Phil Redmond, Sue Johnston, and Stephen Graham. They all showcase Knowsley’s creative talent. Last Friday I met Lord Derby at Knowsley Hall, the place that gave my constituency its name. The so-called local toff and the former council estate kid spoke about how we can work together for the betterment of Knowsley. Knowsley Hall, where Shakespeare performed for Queen Elizabeth I, still represents our rich heritage, now revived by the Shakespeare North playhouse. Nowadays, alongside the people of Knowsley, I count as constituents two tigers, six lions, 11 rhinos, and a horde of cheeky monkeys who will take the wipers off your car at the safari park. In modern manufacturing, the Jaguar Land Rover car plant in Halewood not only provides jobs across my constituency, but is currently at the forefront of electrification. We have 100-year-old family firms with solid apprenticeships that lead to skilled jobs, such as JJ Smith and Hemsec, pioneers in net zero construction. I will fight for investment in firms like these and jobs to take pride in, which can provide a good life. I am proud of Knowsley, but I will always be honest about what stands in our way. Knowsley is the second most deprived constituency in the country. When Governments have walked away from us and left us to manage decline, we have picked ourselves up and helped one another through sheer force of will, determination, resilience and solidarity. We now have a Government who will not walk away, a Labour Government who are on our side. In Knowsley, we have great women who lead community institutions that take care of our people every day, such as Racheal Jones at One Knowsley, Marie Stuart at Southdene community centre, Jackie Croft at Centre 63, Pam Richards at the Safari Kids Club, Caroline Grant at The First Step, and Margaret Roche at SHARe. In 1986, when my predecessor took his place, only 6% of school leavers in Knowsley got a job. That kind of unemployment scars families for generations. We have never recovered from the devastation of deindustrialisation under Thatcher and 14 years of austerity. We still face lower wages, higher poverty and fewer opportunities, and we need secure, unionised jobs on decent wages so that people can get by and their kids can get on. It is not much to ask, but it is everything. That is why Labour’s plan—the new deal for working people—is so close to my heart. It will be the greatest transformation in rights at work in a generation. In Knowsley we dream big, but the opportunities are not always there. Teachers and school staff in Knowsley work incredibly hard, but the fact is that there is no A-level provision in my constituency. No child should grow up under a Labour Government thinking that they are not good enough to do an A-level, and I will do everything I can to change that, alongside delivering more and better apprenticeships. My politics is the politics of people and of the shop floor, the bus stop, the school gate and the supermarket. From Huyton and Kirkby to Prescot, from Stockbridge village to Knowsley village, and from the Johns estate to the Tower Hill estate, I say to my constituents: “You are my priority. I will not take you for granted. It is the honour of my life to serve you, and I will do my very best for you.”

• 7 Oct 2024 · Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of major investment in carbon capture in our industrial heartlands, including in Merseyside. Knowsley hosts significant industrial capacity and has huge potential to contribute to this. Can the Secretary of State provide details and meet me to discuss how Knowsley will benefit from investment in the thousands of good, secure jobs expected under this scheme?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for cases relating to violence against women and girls.

• 12 Sept 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Between 2022 and 2023, my constituency of Knowsley had the highest number of deaths per capita due to domestic abuse, but very few people are charged for domestic abuse, let alone prosecuted. Will the Law Officers meet me to discuss how we can join up the criminal justice system so that the police and prosecutors work together to take dangerous abusers off our streets?