Anneliese Midgley MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for his speech and for advocating for new clause 156. He is a powerful advocate for his constituent who suffered such horrific things, and I thank him for that. I rise to speak in support of new clause 48, which stands in my name. It would create a new, stand-alone offence of assaulting a delivery worker. Before I begin, though, let me refer Members to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB Union. Delivery workers are vital to our local economies. They link shops with homes, cafés with customers and communities with each other. They help keep our high streets alive and our homes supplied. But too often, they are abused, assaulted, and attacked just for doing their job. Rolston, who rides for Deliveroo, has been verbally abused and threatened with violence on people’s doorsteps for asking for ID when delivering alcohol, as the law requires him to do. Emiliana has been riding in Kent since 2018. She has had two motorbikes stolen and has been pelted. Sometimes it is far worse. Claudiu Carol Kondor was an Amazon delivery driver. He was killed in Leeds last year. A thief jumped into his van while he was delivering parcels. Claudiu tried to stop him, clinging to his vehicle for half a mile, pleading with the thief to stop. He was deliberately knocked off and killed. He had bought that van just three weeks earlier and was trying to protect his livelihood. Instead, he lost his life. No one should leave home to go to work and not come back. Those are just a few stories, but they are not isolated incidents. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has found that 77% of delivery workers for major retailers such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Ocado, Morrisons and Iceland have been a victim of abuse in the past year. A quarter have turned down deliveries because they feared for their safety, and 13% have been physically assaulted. And this is happening during an epidemic of retail crime. Shoplifting has nearly doubled since the pandemic, and rose by 23% last year alone. In-store retail staff also face absolutely shocking abuse. I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to protecting retail workers with a stand-alone offence, which USDAW, through its freedom from fear campaign, has campaigned on for years. It is the right move, because no one should feel unsafe, or face abuse—verbal or physical—just for doing their job. Delivery workers are on the frontline, too. They work alone, often at night. They are public-facing and can be vulnerable. When something goes wrong—a delay, a missing item, or the wrong order—they are the ones who face the backlash. Too often frustration turns into abuse, violence, or worse. Delivery workers deserve the same protection that this Government are rightly offering to staff in stores. When Parliament places extra responsibilities on delivery riders to police much-needed laws on age verification, it should legislate to provide additional protections for them. New clause 48 is backed by the GMB Union, USDAW, Deliveroo, the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality. Trade bodies and trade unions are campaigning together, because they know the reality. They see what delivery workers face every day. Since the covid pandemic, delivery riders have become a part of how we shop and we rely on them.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Letter Boxes (Positioning) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend building regulations to require letter boxes in new buildings and new front doors to be positioned in accordance with British Standard EN 13724:2013. The Government say that they want to raise standards and focus on delivery, so I have got a perfect Bill for them—the Letter Boxes (Positioning) Bill. Last Christmas I visited the Royal Mail delivery office in Huyton in my constituency. I watched our posties working flat out, and it really hit home how hard they work, whatever the weather and whatever the conditions. I asked what I could do to help. They said, “Sort out those low-level letter boxes.” They are worried that one of these days, one of them could get a life-changing injury just from doing their job. For example, Lancaster postie Anthony Quinn lost the top of his finger after a dog lunged through a letter box and bit him. He was just doing his job, delivering the post. South London postie Andrew Berge was attacked through a letter box by a dog that locked on to his hand and would not let go. He suffered serious damage to his ring finger, and he was just doing his job, delivering the post. And Wakefield postie Elaine White lost the top of her finger in a similar attack. The damage was so bad that doctors could not reattach it. That is permanent, life altering, but she was just doing her job, delivering the post. During my visit to the delivery office, posties showed me scars and injuries from dog attacks through letter boxes. Members across the House will have heard countless stories and first-hand experiences from our campaigners about getting dog bites while delivering leaflets to low-level letter boxes. Around 1,000 of our posties have had their fingers partly or fully bitten off through a letter box in the past five years. It is clear to me that letter boxes have reached a new low, and it is time we in this House raised them. When a letterbox is down by someone’s ankles, any dog can bite, draw blood, or sever a finger or two. And it is not just about dog attacks; low-level letter boxes force our posties to stoop repeatedly, day in, day out. We have all been there on our leaflet delivery, and as we walk down the path and see a low-level letter box, the heart sinks—indeed, the only thing lower than the letter box is the mood of anyone who has to use one. Our posties have to do that every single day, dozens of times, and many of them get serious back problems and suffer back pain for years as a result of their job. Royal Mail recorded more than 18,000 back-related injuries in just one year. Some of those posties are with us in the Gallery today—I thank them for joining us, and for all that they do. Their union, the Communication Workers Union, has campaigned for this change since 1958. Why has it not happened yet? A recent survey of CWU reps found that 93% reported issues with low-level letter boxes in new buildings, and 99% said that following the standard proposed in this Bill—letter boxes being 70 cm from the ground—would make a real difference. This is not just about protecting workers, though that is reason enough; it is also about the cost of inaction. In 2022, back pain alone led to 154,000 lost working days at Royal Mail, costing it £16 million, and dog attacks lead to NHS treatment, police investigations and court cases. I thank the Members who have co-sponsored the Bill. It is a change that is supported by posties up and down the country and by Royal Mail. I also believe it is supported across this House, because in the last Parliament the former Conservative Member for Chelmsford, Vicky Ford, brought forward a similar Bill, which had widespread support, and I pay tribute to her and to the work she did on the issue. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who is sitting next to me. He is a former postie and CWU regional secretary. I know that this issue can unite us all, because when I asked a question on it some months ago in this Chamber, there was cries of “Hear, hear” from across the House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is rare. This should be a simple fix. The current British standard is that letter box height should be at least 70 cm off the ground. Right now, that is advisory; this Bill would make it mandatory. This is not about asking people to change their existing doors or letter boxes. This Bill is just about low-level letter boxes in new buildings, both residential and commercial. This Labour Government will build 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, and I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement today at the spending review of £39 billion to help build new social and affordable housing. However, let us ensure that those homes are built right so that posties do not go to work in fear of injury, and let us build them without burdening our public services with the costs of those injuries. As a Labour Government, we take our duty to look after working people seriously. The Bill will do just that. Loads of other countries, such as Ireland, Portugal and Belgium, have already banned low-level letter boxes. Why are we behind them? Let us catch up with our neighbours on this. Let us raise the bar—or height, literally—on letter boxes. It will save pain, prevent injury and cut costs. It is the right thing to do for the people who deliver our post, are part of our community and look after us day in, day out—and we will never forget the role they played during the covid pandemic. Our consideration for our posties’ health and safety at work should be first class. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill its stamp of approval and get it signed, sealed and delivered.

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The other week, an Observer article reported that a source close to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said that “proposals to introduce an opt-out system of copyright rules was no longer his preferred option but one of several being given consideration.” That is a very welcome change of heart, potentially, but it does not mean anything unless Ministers are prepared to repeat it in Parliament. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that is an accurate representation of the Government’s position?

• 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.]

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Everyone is talking about “Adolescence”, the series by Knowsley’s own Stephen Graham and Christine Tremarco, which highlights online male radicalisation and violence against girls. The creators of the show are calling for screenings in Parliament and schools to spark change. Will the Prime Minister back the campaign to counter toxic misogyny early and give young men the role models that they deserve?

• 3 Feb 2025 · School Accountability and Intervention · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement, but in my constituency GCSE results are among the lowest in the country and a quarter of pupils are classed as persistently absent. What message does the Minister have for children, parents and teachers about plans to drive high and rising standards to provide more and better opportunities in my constituency?

• 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.

• 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.”

• 5 Sept 2024 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  A Labour Government brought secure, well-paid working-class jobs to Knowsley with Ford Halewood. My dad getting a job there changed my family’s life and lifted us out of poverty. It did the same for thousands of families like ours. Does the Secretary of State agree that any successful industrial strategy must provide good-quality, unionised jobs to lift living standards in areas such as mine?

• 18 Jul 2024 · Clean Energy Superpower Mission · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend to his role, and I welcome his ambition. During the general election campaign, so many residents in Knowsley told me that they were struggling with the cost of living crisis and rising energy bills. Can the Secretary of State confirm that Great British Energy will allow us to take back control of our system, give us energy security, and crucially lower bills for families?