Anneliese Midgley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this debate and wish him a happy birthday. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Musicians’ Union. Long ago, I worked in the music industry, so I know musicians not as headlines or playlists, but as people. Most of all, I am a fan—a fan of what they make and of what their work means to our shared national life—but I am inundated with concerns from them. Their fears are immediate and tangible, because the truth is that the music industry has long enabled the legal and largely unchallenged exploitation of those who make music. Streaming has gutted the income of songwriters and performers. More than half of professional musicians now earn less than £15,000 a year, which is much less than the minimum wage. Their songs are played more than ever, but they are not seeing the money; someone else is. If copyright law is not handled correctly, musicians will once again lose out—used, imitated, unpaid. Any serious discussion about AI must include a clear demand for transparency from companies developing such tools. Creatives deserve to know when and how their work is being used. Without that, there can be no fairness. To me, it is very simple: no one should be allowed to use someone’s work without permission or payment. That is called theft. Sidelining the creative sector that already exists comes with a bill, and right now, working artists are being asked to foot it. We in the Labour party believe in making work pay. That has to include the work of musicians. Some of the proposals could favour faceless corporations that treat creativity as data and dress up appropriation as progress. Nothing is inevitable about that. We value culture, we value work and we must value those who create. I will end by repeating the plea of my friend from the other place, Lord Brennan of Canton: “I want to make a plea for human intelligence and EI—emotional intelligence—over AI, artificial intelligence. AI is a great servant, including to the creative industries, but it would be a terrible master if we allowed it to become that.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 848.]

• 28 Jan 2025 · Unionised Workers in the Housing Sector: Pay Discrimination · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the Union. I have spent my life in the trade union movement, so it is no surprise that my first Adjournment debate focuses on the principle of collective bargaining. A dispute in my constituency appears to expose a gap in the legislation, whereby an employer can offer pay increases exclusively to non-unionised workers—an unacceptable practice that can be exploited by employers not just in Knowsley, but across the country. Livv Housing, the largest housing association in my constituency, manages 13,000 homes across Liverpool and the north-west. In March 2024, Livv reported reserves of £110.6 million. Over the past five years, it has recorded annual surpluses ranging from £14 million to £25 million, yet the workers who keep Livv running have faced years of real-terms pay cuts. Pay has fallen by over 30% in real terms since 2011. It is no wonder that Unite and Unison members have been taking industrial action since October last year. Livv has refused to engage in meaningful discussions with the unions, but it has also declared the negotiations exhausted. The stonewalling has prolonged the dispute, and it is evident from my inbox that it is having an impact on my constituents who depend on Livv’s services. The casework load involving Livv is mounting up, and it is having a bad effect on people’s lives. Nothing is getting fixed, because its management will not sit down and settle the dispute. In December, Livv wrote to all staff to say that they could have a 5% pay rise if they replied in writing to confirm that they were not a member of a trade union. The email says: “If you are a non-union member and would like to accept the pay award offer of 5%, please can you send confirmation of your acceptance and confirm that you are a non-union member. A one-line email to confirm you wish to receive the pay award and that you are not a union member will be enough.” This practice is completely contrary to the spirit of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sought to protect workers’ collective voice and to stop inducement and similar practices. However, some employers keep trying to find a way around the protections, and we have to put a stop to it. I have personally written to the chief executive officer of Livv on multiple occasions, urging the housing association to engage constructively with the unions and to seek a fair resolution, but Léann Hearne has gone as far as to inform me that she will no longer engage with me in writing. I have written to Livv and asked it to bring an end to the dispute, as has Mayor Steve Rotheram, and Knowsley council has passed a motion that asks it to get around the table and solve the dispute with the unions. This is all that any of us wants, especially the workers currently in dispute. Instead of doing that, Livv has focused its efforts on undermining collective bargaining. We all know that workers get the best deal when they collectively bargain for pay and conditions. The strength of workers standing together is the only thing that can balance the power of an employer, which is why bad employers have done everything they can over the years to undermine the ability of workers to collectively bargain. Some Members of the House will remember the 2021 case of Kostal UK Ltd v. Dunkley, in which the employer tried to undermine the collective voice of Unite workers. Before talks had been exhausted, Kostal made a direct offer to the workforce and informed staff that they would not receive their Christmas bonus if they did not accept it by a deadline. Does that sound familiar? Like Livv, Kostal thought it had found a loophole in the law, but that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. In its ruling, Lord Leggatt said: “Such conduct denies the union its seat at the table and does not allow the union’s voice to be heard.” Today, Livv Housing is doing just that. What this behaviour does is create a two-tier workforce, pitting colleagues against each other. Imagine going into a workplace with a culture like that. If some employers can get away with this, you can bet that other employers will follow. It was Winston Churchill who said: “The trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life. We take our stand by these pillars of our British society as it has gradually developed and evolved itself, of the right of individual labouring men to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike.” I understand that the Minister cannot comment on individual disputes, but this is clearly something that can be exploited by employers across the country. The Employment Rights Bill provides a clear opportunity to close this loophole that we thought was closed so long ago, so I ask the Minister to commit to looking at amending the Bill to stop employers seeking to undermine collective bargaining by offering non-union members preferential treatment in pay awards, and to update me on those plans.

• 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?

• 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.