Anneliese Midgley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you very much, Pete, for coming to give evidence. Going back to the stuff that has been raised about the intelligence services, will you state plainly whether you think clause 6 strikes the right balance between candour and national security, and what is the problem that the Hillsborough Law Now briefing raises with regard to schedule 1? Pete Weatherby: We have had very detailed discussions with the Government about this over the last year, and clause 6 was the culmination of those. The clause baldly states that the provisions apply to the intelligence services, but with a caveat. That caveat in clause 6 is fine. The Government came up with a slight issue, which was that intelligence officers might inadvertently, without realising it, notify things that affect national security. The caveat in clause 6 deals with that, and that is fine. What it does not deal with is the clause 2(4) duty to provide the evidence subject to the notification. I am sorry if this is a bit legalistic, but there is a clear difference there. What would happen is that the intelligence service would notify the inquiry or investigation of the fact that it had relevant information or evidence to give, but then the individuals within the intelligence service would be required to provide the material. Because the intelligence service is sighted on that, the material from the individual intelligence officers goes through the intelligence services before it goes to the investigation, so the national security aspect is dealt with—no problem. We thought that was what the Government had agreed to, but when we look at a rather obscure part of schedule 1, clause 2(4) still applies, except that you cannot make it apply, because it stops the issuing of a compliance notice, which is what kick-starts the application of clause 2(4). So that device disapplies it, and that is the problem. If you just changed the schedule 1 thing, clause 6 would be fine. That is what we thought we had agreed to, to deal with the legitimate national security aspect. It is important that the individual responsibilities apply to intelligence officers as well, subject to the national security checks. We do not think that is a problem at all. We challenged the intelligence services to tell us how it is a problem, and they have not. If they do not apply, you end up in the Manchester Arena situation, where the evidence was corporate and was wrong. It was not until the chair, who was extremely good, called the intelligence officers themselves—on oath, in closed proceedings—that the false narrative that had been put forward corporately was unpicked. I am sorry if that is a bit complicated, but that is the problem. It is easily solved, and there would be no effect on national security. It would make our intelligence services better, in the same way as the rest of the Bill makes local authorities, police forces and everybody else better.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have two questions for the whole panel. To start with, thank you so much for everything that you have done. There is no doubt about it; we would not be here in this room today with the Bill where it is without your work. We heard in an earlier evidence session from Pete Weatherby KC, the director of Hillsborough Law Now, who talked about command responsibility. He said that without the amendment, a lot of the duties in the Bill are reduced to something that looks good, but is rather ineffective. He also talked about application to the intelligence services. Do you agree with what Pete Weatherby said to us today? Owing to the shortness of time, I will ask my second question as well: what do you think the Bill Committee needs to hear from you today? Charlotte Hennessy: We completely support what Pete said earlier and the amendments that he has suggested. We are in full agreement with all the information that has been included in the Bill. Going forward, we need to acknowledge that Hillsborough is our story, but there are many, many others. We also need to acknowledge that the Hillsborough Law Now campaign group is made up of so many other examples of miscarriages of justice. They will have submitted their own evidence to you, so I will not name them all today, but we need to ensure that there is change going forward. We cannot keep allowing the same situations to repeat. Not to be disrespectful, but ultimately we also need to acknowledge that the current laws that are in place failed to secure prosecutions against those that were responsible. David Duckenfield told that one lie while he stood over people who were scrambling for their lives. He got away with that because the Crown Prosecution failed to secure a criminal case against him. He was offered sympathy while family members had to sit and watch. He was allowed to place files so that he did not have to look at the family members that were sat in the public gallery. We could sit and talk about examples all day. Norman Bettison was in this building. He briefed people about what happened at Hillsborough. He was allowed to do that. He was then made chief constable of Merseyside and then he was knighted. He was complicit in the cover-up. We have to change it. It has to stop. Margaret Aspinall: I have to thank Maria Eagle—if you don’t mind, Maria. I always remember, a good few years ago, Maria having the power—the guts—to stand up in Parliament and say that it was “black propaganda” with Bettison. She was absolutely spot on. When I look back over the years and think about what Charlotte was saying earlier, Mr Duckenfield—I call him Mr Duckenfield out of respect to all of you; otherwise I would not—walked away scot-free. He went missing for a couple of hours and not one person knew where he was. He could not remember where he had been; he could not remember where he was. He must have been the bloody Invisible Man because, good God, there’s no way. I think the police were scared to say exactly where he was. They were all scared; they were all covering up for each other. To me, that is an absolute, utter, utter disgrace of a system in this country. I know we can’t bring judges up, but there is a few of them should be brought up. When we were at the private prosecution, where a judge could turn round and tell Mr Duckenfield, “Don’t worry, Mr Duckenfield, you won’t get a custodial sentence,” we knew then we had no chance—no chance. He directed the jury twice, because they came in and asked a question. For him to turn round and say, “What message are you sending out to the emergency services if you come back with guilty?”, what does that tell all of you? It tells you we had no chance whatsoever. We were up against a system that was corrupt from the very top to the bottom. I feel sometimes we are on trial yet again for what happened at Hillsborough, because we are sitting here like this. I feel I am trying to ask all of you to do the right thing. I have asked the Prime Minister. He made that promise; he made a phone call to me that he would do the right thing. As Charlotte said, we thank him for that. He has made that promise; he will have to fulfil that promise. He has also promised it would not be watered down. For Hillsborough families—and for the likes of Ian as well, who was at that game and who knows what we have all gone through and what the survivors went through—we are here to change a system that should have been changed decades ago. When you look at all the cover-ups that have gone on—I can name them all, but I won’t, because I am sure you all know—it is a disgrace that we are sitting here now, 36 years on, trying to change the system. I am asking all of you, please don’t let anybody else go through what we have gone through. Please, I ask you all: do the right thing.

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  Robbie Gibb—faithful or traitor?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my membership of and financial support from the trade union movement. I stand here as a proud trade unionist, with a couple of decades of work behind me standing up for the working class. I pay the truest of tributes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders).

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I absolutely agree with him about the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East has done on this for over a decade. This Bill brings changes that tip the scale in favour of working people and, taken together with the rest of the new deal for working people, it amounts to the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in our generation. That is down to the friends that I have just mentioned here today. It is their legacy and it is one that will change the lives of millions of working-class people for the better. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), will do a great job of completing the process. This is personal for me, because it was my dad’s secure, well-paid, unionised job on the production line in Ford’s Halewood plant that gave me a better life than my mum and dad had. It lifted us out of poverty and provided us with enough money and stability for a decent home, and enough to live a life of dignity on. Everyone should have that, and that is why I will fight for work where people can flourish and thrive and for jobs to take pride in that can provide a good life. No way would I be here in this place, representing the place where I was born and raised, if it was not for my dad’s job. The Tories, backed by the Lib Dems in the other place, are trying to water down the Bill. They are aided and abetted by Reform, who are never in this place to debate this and have consistently voted against the Bill. Some of the Lords amendments would rip out the heart of the Bill. I am going to speak briefly to amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would delay protections from unfair dismissal until a worker had been in their job for six months. This would mean that a worker could be dismissed at whim, for no reason. How is this okay? How is it defensible? A day one right not to be unfairly dismissed is good for workers and good for businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke about the research from the IPPR and the TUC, which found that 73% of employers supported giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the TUC’s research from the Dispatch Box, but it represents 5 million workers and everyone else at work. Are they not stakeholders who should be listened to as well? We know that good employers up and down the country already live up to the standards that we are setting out in this Bill. Today, we need to stop these attempts to water down the Employment Rights Bill, deliver the protections from unfair dismissal that our constituents voted for and make sure we deliver the new deal for working people in full.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Charlotte Hennessy, whose father Jimmy Hennessy was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, has had conversations with the Prime Minister in which he has assured her that the law does not need to be watered down and will be delivered in its entirety. She is in the Chamber today. Will he make that promise in this House today?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That day in April 1989 will never leave us. Fans went to the match and never came home. They were not lost; they were unlawfully killed. Authorities protecting themselves; decades of denial, distortion, and lies; a press slandering the dead and the grieving; a cover-up and systematic failure of the state that cut deeper and lasted longer than anyone could have imagined—and still not one successful prosecution. That is why we are here today. That is why the families and survivors continue to fight. We have all seen their courage and determination, and I cannot express what it means to be in this place with so many members of the Hillsborough families with us in the Chamber today. One of them is Margaret Aspinall, from Huyton. She has asked me to say some words on her behalf. She has repeated many times to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General that the group wants the Hillsborough law to be delivered in its entirety, with no changes or watering down. That will create a system that is so much fairer for families who have lost a loved one in a state-related death. Today, it is the perpetrators who get the help, while the victims get a massive cover-up. It must never again be a one-way system. Delivering on that promise means delivering the Hillsborough law in full. That means imposing duties on chief officers, rather than corporate bodies. This matters, because the duty should have been on the chief constable, Peter Wright, rather than on South Yorkshire police. Requiring proof of harm makes the “misleading the public” offence impractical and ineffective. Delivering the Hillsborough law in full also means bringing forward an amendment to deal with combined and local authority inquiries. Without such an amendment, the result could be the intelligence services failing to properly provide the full facts to inquiries. We must avoid what the King’s Counsel to the families of those who tragically lost their lives in the Manchester Arena attack called “institutional defensiveness” and a lack of candour from MI5. As this Bill progresses, the families and Members of this House will continue to watch, in order to make sure that the Hillsborough law is exactly what this Government deliver. Margaret’s son, James Aspinall, died at Hillsborough aged just 18. She was forced to accept 1,200 quid, which was supposed to represent compensation for James’s life—1,200 quid for the life of her son. She was forced to cash it against her will because she could not find the money to pay her share of the families’ legal costs. As she has said, “Making a mother, like myself, accept a pittance to fight a cause. The guilt of this has lived with me for years.” Such practices have not stopped; since the Hillsborough verdict, other families have been made to beg for legal aid. Charlotte Hennessy is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Sir Mark Tami), who as a Government Whip does not have the opportunity to speak today and tell her story. Charlotte was just six when her dad, Jimmy Hennessy, went to the match and never came home. Jimmy was 29. He was a plasterer, a man of morals, a mod—he looked good—and a respected family man. For 23 years, Charlotte was told that he died of traumatic asphyxiation. It was not until 2012 that she learned the truth. Her dad was found alive on that pitch. A police officer testified that he felt life and gave him CPR. Jimmy was carried to the gym, where he was supposed to receive medical support. He was declared dead, but he was not dead; he was still alive when he was zipped into a body bag, and he vomited inside it. The pathology report was false: Jimmy did not die in the crush, but from inhalation of his own gastric contents. Can you imagine dying like that? Can you imagine knowing that your dad died like that? Charlotte has told me about the agony of living with an official lie, but she has fought to piece together her dad’s truth. She told me: “A Hillsborough Law, with a duty of candour, is imperative. It must stop corruption and prevent any other family from going through” the pain that her family went through. It is right that the Government have attempted to match the courage of the families and to be bold, but Hillsborough is not a one-off. Again and again, the state fails those who need the most protection. There must be justice for the 97, but also for every family who have faced the same nightmare, or might face it one day. We cannot let them down. This Bill must be delivered in full, with no watering down. I look forward to the Minister promising, as the Prime Minister has from the Dispatch Box today, that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law—that it will be strong enough to protect every victim of state failure and finally deliver justice for the 97.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. Reform says that it stands up for the working class, but the truth is that it never has—its Members voted to block the Employment Rights Bill again and again. Does the Prime Minister agree that only this Government are on the side of working people? It is Labour that is creating tens of thousands of jobs, like in our deal with Turkey; it is Labour that is getting rid of zero-hours contracts; and it is Labour that is protecting workers from unfair dismissal from day one.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her bravery and for the remarkable work she has done in her short time in this place, including on this Bill with new clause 14. I am so proud to be on these Benches with her. I am going to speak to a measure at the heart of the Bill today. Attendance at sentencing hearings will compel convicted criminals to attend those hearings and provide the strongest of consequences when they refuse. This law is for Olivia Pratt-Korbel and other victims. In August 2024, two of the most remarkable women I have ever met walked into my first MP surgery. They were my constituents Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who are with us in the Gallery today. Cheryl is Olivia’s mum, and Antonia is Cheryl’s cousin. On 22 August 2022, Olivia, a little girl—just nine years old—was murdered by a stranger in her own home. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home, which passed through the wrist of her mum, Cheryl, before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. Cheryl fought with her heart and soul to save her baby. No mother should have to go through such unimaginable pain. While nothing in this world can bring Olivia back and nothing can hold back a grief so great, looking the person responsible in the eye and telling them to their face the cost of their crime, and the effect it has had on the lives of their loved ones, can give victims just a small semblance of justice and closure. But Cheryl never had that chance. Under our current justice system, the ball is in the criminal’s court—criminals can choose to opt out of attending their sentencing, which is exactly what Olivia’s murderer did. Cashman chose to remain in his cell, refusing to face the court to hear Cheryl’s words or look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward. However, instead of collapsing under this weight, Cheryl fought back. She and her family have campaigned with their all so that no other family will suffer what they have suffered. That is why I read out Cheryl’s victim impact statement in full on Second Reading. They were the words that the murderer and coward Thomas Cashman refused to hear. I wanted the words of Cheryl Korbel committed to this House so that they would be on the record in this place forever. I wanted her words to ring out in this Chamber for all the world to hear, as they should have done in Cashman’s ears that day.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Trade Union Workplace Access · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate; I refer Members to my entry in the register of interests. Does he agree that trade union access will increase collective bargaining, which drives up pay and conditions for our constituents?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Nearly 6% of Knowsley’s 16 to 17-year-olds are not in employment, education or training—one of the highest rates in the country—so I very much welcome today’s statement. By the way, A-levels left not just my constituency but the whole borough of Knowsley under the last Tory Government, so we will take no lessons in aspiration for young working-class people from them. Can the Secretary of State tell me how the measures outlined in the White Paper will ensure that Knowsley’s young people get the opportunity their potential deserves?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Higher-level Learning Target · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that it meets its target of two thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Higher-level Learning Target · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her response. In Knowsley, while we are making progress with work from the council and organisations such as the Brilliant Club, we still fall below average for young people going into higher learning. Barriers remain to continuing education, and to developing skills for good jobs and good lives. Will she meet me to discuss how we can improve that?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his announcement on the Hillsborough law. For decades, the families have carried the weight of injustice, and Governments have failed to act. Today, the Hillsborough law will be laid before this House, but it must not be another false start. Will the Deputy Prime Minister promise me that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law, and that it will emerge stronger and not weaker from Parliament and, finally, deliver justice for the 97?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to introduce a duty of candour.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour · Hansard source

  More

  The families have been campaigning for a Hillsborough law for 36 years, and their demand has always been clear: a law with a duty of candour at its heart. There have been too many broken promises and missed deadlines. Can the Solicitor General tell me when the Government will bring forward the Hillsborough law? Will it honour the promises made to victims of state cover-ups and finally deliver justice for the 97?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A book by investigative journalist Nick Davies is out today. It reveals the true scale of the deletion of millions of emails and evidence essential to Parliament, the police and the courts in uncovering the truth about phone hacking by Rupert Murdoch employees. Might we have a debate on the reality of two-tier justice—cover-up, corruption and contempt of law—in which oligarchs place themselves above scrutiny?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate. The day of 15 April 1989 will never leave us. On that day, fans went to the match and never came home. They were not “lost”. They were unlawfully killed: authorities protecting themselves; decades of denial, distortion and lies; that Sun front page ; a cover-up; the systematic failure of the state; and still not one successful prosecution. Charlotte Hennessy is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Sir Mark Tami), who, as Government Deputy Chief Whip, cannot tell her story. Charlotte was six when her dad, Jimmy Hennessy, died. Jimmy was a plasterer, a man of morals, and a mod—he looked good. She was told that he died of traumatic asphyxiation, but in 2012 she learnt the truth: her dad was found alive on that pitch. Jimmy was carried to the gym, where he was meant to receive medical help, but he was declared dead. He was not; he was still alive when he was zipped into a body bag—he vomited inside it. Jimmy did not die in the crush; he died of his own vomit while zipped inside a body bag. Charlotte told me that a Hillsborough law with a duty of candour is imperative. The Government must now match the courage of the families and campaigners who have fought for this. Will they be bold enough to lay the Hillsborough law? Hillsborough was not a one-off. Again and again, the state has failed those who need its protection most. Last year, the Prime Minister promised to deliver a Hillsborough law, but the Government’s own target to introduce the Bill by 15 April this year has been missed. Families have waited too long and there have been too many broken promises. I ask the Minister: when will the Hillsborough law come before Parliament? When it does, will it give justice to the 97? Will it be worthy of their memory? Will it be strong enough to protect every victim of state failure?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. What ambitions does the Department have for sectors and technologies that GB Energy will prioritise, since the chief operating officer has said that he wants to evolve it into a major energy company, and what might that mean for job creation, including in constituencies like mine?

• 11 Jul 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), and congratulate him on bringing this crucial Bill before the House. I pay tribute to him and to every Member who has spoken so powerfully today. When this Bill becomes law, it will ease pain, save lives, and ensure justice and fairness in relation to a disease that is indiscriminate. A number of constituents have contacted me, urging me to support the Bill today. They all have their own stories—their own first-hand experience—each one so moving and powerful. Today, though, I want to relay the story of one of them: Chelsea. Chelsea is a 31-year-old mother to a 10-year-old boy. She was diagnosed with a rare, aggressive form of sarcoma in April 2024. For more than a year before her diagnosis, Chelsea did everything right—she made repeated visits to the GP and to A&E, clearly presenting with symptoms that should have been checked out, but time and again, her concerns were dismissed. She was not listened to; she was ignored, and that failure led to a devastating delay in diagnosis. By the time she was taken seriously, her cancer had progressed to stage 4. She has endured two major surgeries and has now been on oral chemotherapy for over a year, and will remain on it for three more. Her risk of recurrence is extremely high. Chelsea’s story is heartbreaking, but it is not unique. I am just thankful that she is still here for her son and loved ones, and I will do everything I can to ensure she gets the best treatment available as quickly as possible. Too many people with rare cancers are forced to fight not just the disease, but the system—a system that fails to recognise the symptoms early, under-invests in research, and leaves patients feeling unheard and alone. I am so proud to support this Bill, and I am so thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for bringing it before the House today.