Richard Burgon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2025 · UK Nuclear Deterrent · Hansard source

  More

  Far from the claims by successive British Governments that Britain has an independent nuclear deterrent, is the reality not that it is entirely dependent on the United States both technically and politically? Instead of spending billions more on nuclear weapons while public services face real budget constraints, should we not honour our commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by working towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons?

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I am sick and tired of coming back to this Chamber, asking the same questions and getting the same answers, when war crime after war crime is being committed and a genocide is taking place. It is a sick joke to believe that it is right—which it is—to impose sanctions on Russia for its unlawful invasion of Ukraine, but that tut-tutting at Benjamin Netanyahu and telling everyone “We think this is really bad” somehow cuts the mustard: it does not. Words are not enough to stop war crimes. We need more than words and more than actions. Can the Minister advise this House how many more Gazans need to be killed, injured and starved by Israel until the Government do the right thing and bring widespread sanctions in, like they did with Russia? People think that we are scared and that this is a double standard.

• 13 May 2025 · Ukraine: Diplomacy · Hansard source

  More

  We all hope the mooted peace talks between Russia and Ukraine on ending Russia’s illegal invasion take place as quickly as possible, to stop the killing and save lives. Accountability is important, so will the Foreign Secretary outline his position on Russian war crimes and on how justice can be done?

• 12 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  There has rightly been a lot of focus on the 250,000 people the Government’s own impact assessment says will be pushed into poverty by this cruel disability benefit cut, but the true impact on poverty will be even worse. New DWP figures, obtained from a freedom of information request, show that 700,000 families already in poverty will be hit even harder. It is wrong that that has had to come out through a freedom of information request, so will the Minister come clean today about the true scale of poverty that this disastrous policy will cause? Does it not fly in the face of what a Labour Government are meant to do—lift people out of poverty, not push them further into poverty?

• 12 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  6. What progress her Department has made on its review of the personal independence payment assessment system.

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  Harold Wilson once said: “The Labour party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing.” We need to be clear, as millions of people outside this place are clear, that to try to balance the books on the backs of the poor and disabled is fundamentally immoral and un-Labour. The Prime Minister and the Government need not to plough ahead apace with this immoral, appalling plan, but instead to drop it now. Let us be clear: someone who needs assistance to cut up their own food and wash and dress themselves would currently get a personal independence payment, but they could lose it thanks to the Government’s proposals. That is completely appalling. These cuts were cruel enough when the OBR estimated that 800,000 people would lose PIP, but a new freedom of information answer from the DWP estimates that 1.3 million people could lose it. The Government should come clean and say what the figure is. It is outrageous to have a vote without knowing the figures. I say quite clearly that if the Government do not drop this immoral plan, I will vote against these cuts to disability benefits. I know that many of my colleagues will do so as well.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit · Hansard source

  More

  In his meeting with MPs, the Palestinian Prime Minister was clear that Israel will change course only if there is real action from states. He stressed that, in line with the International Court of Justice ruling, states have a legal responsibility to impose sanctions—including ending all trade in settlement goods—and to cease any aid or assistance that sustains Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Those measures are backed by a significant number of MPs across this House. When will the Government finally impose meaningful sanctions in order to hold Israel accountable and apply the pressure needed to stop it trampling all over international law without any consequences? Rightly, the Government did that for Russia; wrongly, they will not do it for Israel.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on his eminently reasonable and common-sense approach to this debate and on amendment 11. Does it seem to him, as it seems to me, that this legislation takes place in a wider context? Along with the proposed tightening of eligibility for personal independence payment, it moves us towards a hostile environment for benefit claimants, particularly disabled benefit claimants. We will end up treating them as suspects automatically. Does he agree that it was right for us to oppose this measure when the Conservatives wanted to do it? I tabled an early-day motion, signed by nearly 50 MPs, to that effect. We have to oppose this measure now. The best way to resolve it is by the Government accepting his eminently reasonable—

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps he is taking to establish international leadership on climate change.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  It is welcome indeed to see the Government now playing a leading role internationally on climate action through the global clean power alliance, especially after a decade of failure that left us exposed to soaring gas prices. It is also great to see the Secretary of State standing up to climate deniers in this House, whose hostility to net zero would keep bills high and cost areas like mine the jobs and investment that they need. One area where we need strong leadership is on funding climate action fairly. In the coming days, I will be introducing a Bill to make the biggest polluters pay for the action we need both at home and abroad. I do not expect the Minister or the Secretary of State to comment on a Bill they have not seen, but will the Secretary of State commit to a meeting between his Department and a broad group of charities and non-governmental organisations working to ensure fair and just climate financing?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Birmingham: Waste Collection · Hansard source

  More

  I take that as congratulations from the Speaker of the House of Commons on the promotion of Leeds United, so thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That seems to be the most popular thing I have said in the House for some time. I am proud to be a Unite member and a trade union member. I remember the 2009 Leeds bin strike, when the Conservative and Lib Dem-run council tried to cut the bin workers’ pay by up to £6,000. A three-month strike followed that was ultimately successful. Having listened to the points made by Members from across the Chamber, I would say that it is always wrong to castigate trade unions as being the enemy within. They are an important part of our civil democracy. It is not union officials who called this strike—or any strike—but trade union members, so here Unite the Union means the bin workers. It is really important that we do not allow trade unions and trade unionism to be demonised in this dispute, or any other.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Statutory Sick Pay · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on running an important campaign to increase statutory sick pay so that it is a real sick pay on which people can rely. He talks in detail about the welcome advances on sick pay made in the Government’s recent Employment Rights Bill, but does he agree that a real concern about those proposals is that 300,000 of the poorest workers could lose out? Do the Government need to look at this again?

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  The Equality Act is a vital piece of legislation that is there to protect the essential rights of oppressed groups, including women and trans people, in a world that is still far too dominated by sexism and bigotry, including transphobia. I used the Equality Act plenty of times to represent people as a lawyer before I came to this place. The House will no doubt discuss the impact of the recent Court judgment again, but as we look online and at some of the media, can we try to ensure that the debate respects all groups, including trans people? Some of the stuff spilling out of the right-wing press and online in recent days has been truly awful. That has been raised with me by trans constituents who are just trying to get on with their lives.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  We are back here again—aid workers shot dead and dumped in a shallow grave; hunger used as a weapon of war; hospitals bombed. Now there are new plans to seize large areas of Gaza. All that has come in the past few days. Israel is carrying out war crime after war crime. On 29 December, the Foreign Office issued a press release rightly referring to Russian war crimes, so I do not see why there is reticence here. I am afraid that expressions of concern are not enough. When will the Government act, treat Israel as they have rightly treated Russia, and impose serious sanctions?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Making cuts instead of taxing wealth is a political choice, and taking away the personal independence payments from so many disabled people is an especially cruel choice. A disabled person who cannot cut up their own food without assistance, cannot go to the toilet without assistance and cannot wash themselves without assistance will lose their personal independence payment. Have not the Government taken the easy option of cutting support for disabled people rather than the braver option, which would be to tax the wealthiest through a wealth tax?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Last night I received a response from the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), to a written question that I had asked about the average payment for the daily living component of PIP. It revealed that the average payment was just £12 a day. The purpose of the daily living component is to cover the cost of extra help needed with everyday tasks such as washing, eating, using the toilet and getting dressed, but the Secretary of State’s proposal to tighten the eligibility criteria could mean that even those who are assessed as needing help on every criterion may not be entitled to PIP. Is it not wrong to balance the books on the backs of sick and disabled people in such a way?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Lady on opening this important debate. Some 74% of the public support fair compensation for WASPI women. What does it say about this place and our democracy if, when 74% of the public have that opinion, we as a Parliament do not act to give WASPI women fair compensation?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q6. Disabled people in my constituency are frightened because they are again hearing politicians use the language of “tough choices”. They know from bitter experience that when politicians talk about tough choices, it means the easy option of making the poor and vulnerable pay. Instead of cutting benefits for disabled people, would not the moral thing—the courageous thing—to do be to make a real tough choice, and introduce a wealth tax on the very wealthiest people in our society?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has played such an important role in the development of these policies. He is making a wide-ranging speech—in his remaining remarks, will he reflect on the importance of not just individual rights, but collective rights?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour from the other side of the House, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke). I really welcome the Bill, which needs to be put in its historical context. With the exception of those passed under the last Labour Government, virtually every time we have seen an employment rights Bill or a trade union Bill in recent decades, it has been an attack on trade union rights or workers’ rights, whereas this Bill makes a real difference in advancing the rights of working people in this country. They have been kicked around for too long, and it is right that we do not accept that it is fine for workers in this country to be some of the easiest to sack and mistreat in the continent. Workers in our country deserve better employment rights, and this Bill sets about putting them in place.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly do. The previous Government never got round to introducing such a Bill. When the Conservative party was in government, all we had about the P&O debacle were crocodile tears or statements of sorrow from the Dispatch Box, which just do not cut it. This Bill contains important advances, such as establishing bereavement leave and introducing menopause action plans. Over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy, and 9 million people who have been with an employer for less than two years will benefit from the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one. It seems to escape the understanding of many Conservative Members that this does not mean that employers cannot dismiss people; it means that they cannot dismiss people unfairly. The Conservatives are arguing for the right of employers to dismiss people unfairly. As it stands, before this legislation comes in, the only way that workers can claim unfair dismissal from day one is if it is a discriminatory dismissal. To be clear, an employer could, six months into someone’s contract of employment, say, “I’m sacking you because I don’t like people who wear green jumpers,” or, “I’m sacking you because I find your voice irritating.” That would be unfair dismissal. As it stands, people do not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed until they have accrued two years of service, and the Conservative party needs to come clean about that. Before I move on to my new clause 6, I want to say that I welcome many of the Government amendments and the amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers, including the many important amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did such a good job at developing employment policy in opposition; the important amendments on sick pay, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain); and the important amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen). My new clause 6 would right what I consider to be a historical wrong. The last Labour Government brought in the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010, which we can all be proud of. As part of that, they introduced statutory discrimination questionnaires. When I was an employment lawyer before becoming a Member of Parliament, I lost track of the number of times that we used statutory discrimination questionnaires to smoke out discrimination in the workplace in relation to age, disability, sex, race, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment, religion or belief, and marriage and civil partnership. I bumped into an old colleague who is a trade union lawyer on a train, and he made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires also— [ Interruption. ] I make no apologies for having a friend who is a trade union lawyer—I think the Conservatives need to get out a bit more. He made the point that statutory discrimination questionnaires showed when a claim did not have a good chance of succeeding at an employment tribunal, helped to manage potential claimants’ expectations, and thus led to an unmeritorious claim either not being pursued or being settled. Such questionnaires helped to smoke out discrimination in workplaces, helping not just the individual employee, but tackling discrimination against workers more widely in that workplace. The truth is that in 2025, given some of the rhetoric from politicians in this country and around the world, it is as important as ever to have mechanisms in place to tackle discrimination in workplaces across the country. That was part of the last Labour Government’s pioneering Equality Act. Shamefully, the Conservative Government abolished statutory Equality Act questionnaires in 2014 as part of their attack on workers’ rights. In their consultation, 83% of respondents said it was wrong to remove this important mechanism for workers to unmask and tackle discrimination—83%—yet the Conservative party when in government, aided and abetted by some of their erstwhile friends, ploughed ahead in any event. I tabled new clause 6 because this is an important opportunity for our new Labour Government to right the wrong done by that Conservative-led Government and reinstate a very important advance made in the last Labour Government’s Equality Act. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response. If he will not accept this amendment to the Bill, I invite him to come forward with a proposal to reintroduce statutory discrimination questionnaires as soon as possible. They made a real difference. They helped to stop some claims going to tribunal that should not have gone to tribunal, but, more importantly, they empowered workers to smoke out discrimination in their workplaces not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of their colleagues in that workplace and for the benefit of wider society. We need that now in 2025, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Palestinian Rights: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on securing this important debate. We are discussing the rights of Palestinians, but when our constituents watch on television or their smartphones what is happening in Gaza and the west bank, they would be forgiven for thinking that the Palestinian people have no rights at all. We need absolute clarity in this House that every single Palestinian man, woman and child has the right to life and the right to a decent existence, and that Palestinians have a right to a state. The Father of the House is correct: a two-state solution is often talked about, but we have to be careful that that does not just become a ritual—we want to see it happen in practice. What we see is an Israeli Government allowing the settlements so that a two-state solution becomes a practical and geographical impossibility. We cannot allow that to happen. Yesterday, the Prime Minister quite rightly said that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “vile”. We want that moral clarity in relation to the actions of Netanyahu’s Government. What that Government have done to the people of Gaza and the people of the west bank is vile. A war crime is a war crime, whoever commits it—whether it be Putin, Netanyahu or anyone else. Many of our constituents look at what goes on in this place, and look at what goes on in the world, and think that there are double standards. All lives are equal, and international law applies to all. Where does that leave us as a Parliament? Where does that leave us as a state? Quite often, the Government have called for the right things. I am pleased about that, but I am afraid that Netanyahu does not listen, so action is required. In relation to the unlawful invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s war crimes, the Government have shown that they know how to introduce widespread sanctions, and they have rightly done so. We need widespread sanctions to be brought against Israel until it complies with international law and stops the war crimes. We see the rulings of the international courts, including the International Court of Justice; there is no legal or moral reason not to. In fact, there are legal and moral imperatives for our Government to take action with specific sanctions, including imposing targeted sanctions against state actors, banning the import of illegal settlement products, a total and immediate arms ban, and the suspension of the trade agreement with Israel. All too often, it is easy to think that the voices in Parliament for peace, international law and a just outcome are minority voices on the world stage. In fact, that is not the case. The position of the United States and, historically, a number of UK Governments, has been out of step with the international community. We need to get in step with the international community. I will conclude by referring to a meeting that took place in Parliament just last week with the chair of The Hague Group. I was lucky enough to go, along with others, to the launch of the group—nine nations that have taken practical action to uphold the international court rulings and bring practical sanctions against Israel—at The Hague. If we do not do that, our words will not mean enough. Words, I am afraid, are not enough to relieve the suffering, death and horrendous experiences that are going on in the west bank and Gaza on a daily basis.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the growing push from numerous countries for a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. That must be a just peace. Too many lives have already been lost following Putin’s illegal and brutal invasion. But I am alarmed by the issue of deploying British troops on the ground in Ukraine and British military planes in the skies over Ukraine, because there is no getting away from the fact that that would risk our country coming into a direct military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia. The consequences for millions of people in our country and across Europe of such a war and nuclear conflict really do not bear thinking about. Given the enormity of such a decision, will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring a vote in the House of Commons before any such deployment, in keeping with the important principles of our parliamentary democracy?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Illegal Israeli Settler Violence · Hansard source

  More

  Israel has sent tanks to the west bank for the first time in 20 years, and some 40,000 Palestinians are being displaced from refugee camps there. The very least that should be done to stop these contraventions of international law is to impose a ban on Israeli goods coming from illegal Israeli settlements, so I ask the Minister: is it now the time to do that?