Richard Burgon MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I start by thanking the more than 200,000 petitioners across the country, as well as the hundreds of my Leeds East constituents, who have signed the petition. When discussing the arguments for public ownership, we need to start by staring the facts in the face. England and Wales are the only countries in the world to have fully privatised their water and sewerage systems. We are the odd ones out, and something needs to be done about it. The privatisation of our water system has been a catastrophic failure—not for shareholders, or for the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, but for the public, the environment and, as we have heard, even children. With climate change leading to further droughts and water shortages, the iniquitous role of the leaderships of private water companies, and the system they represent, will only get worse. We hear a lot about Thames Water, but we also need to talk about Yorkshire Water. Under Yorkshire Water, bills have gone up by over a third in two years, and every year it dumps hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage into our rivers and seas. It is performing so badly that it has been downgraded to a one-star rating by the Environment Agency. Yorkshire Water was recently hit by an £89 million performance penalty for under-delivering, yet its chief executive’s total salary is running at over £1 million a year, so privatisation has worked for some. That is rewarding failure—as long as the profits keep flowing. Enough of all this: full public ownership is what is needed. Let us get into step with the rest of the world, focusing on cleaner water, lower bills and a system that actually works and is fit for the climate challenges of the future. People out there in the country know this is a disgrace, and they know it needs sorting out now. We need public ownership of our water system now.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What we are considering today is not the general principle, “Do we or do we not agree with assisted dying?”; it is this Bill. We are not a debating society; we are a Parliament. I therefore ask my hon. Friend why it is the case that virtually no disabled people’s organisation in this country supports the Bill. Disabled people often feel voiceless, and I think it is important that their voices are heard today. They are outside Parliament, so I would like her to address that point in her speech.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  These sanctions on Israel for its illegal occupation are incredibly welcome as a step towards meeting our moral and legal obligations. Will the Foreign Secretary continue to resist pressure from those who say that he should not make international law apply to Israel? May I urge him to push forward and demand the full implementation of the ICJ ruling so that the Palestinian people can have justice?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the earlier request from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), may I push the Government for a debate on the progress of their measures to tackle the ongoing failure of Capita to effectively administer civil service pensions? May I also urge the Government to publish the advice of Grant Thornton on a secondary recovery plan now that Capita’s own internal deadline for sorting it out has also passed? The matter has been raised by my constituents, by people across the country and by the Public and Commercial Services Union, and it would be great to see some progress.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to my new clause 22, to stop oil and gas companies donating to political parties. The context is the extreme heat; there were tens of thousands of heat-related deaths in Europe alone this summer, as well as dangerous wildfires and the droughts. All these things give us a terrifying glimpse of what climate breakdown means, and they underline just how dangerous it is to deny climate breakdown or delay the action needed to tackle it. The reality is that climate breakdown will shape our country for decades. It will affect food prices, whether people can live and work safely, and the functioning of key public services, as well as our economic and national security. We must do all we can to tackle climate change and protect people from its increasingly severe impacts. However, if we are to have a fighting chance of preventing the worst of climate change, we need to rapidly cut fossil fuel use. That will mean breaking the vast power that oil and gas companies have over our politics. That is where my new clause 22 comes in. Fossil fuel giants have not only driven us towards climate disaster, but have done so knowing the consequences. They did their best to cover up the science, and used their vast wealth and power to distract, and to delay action, so that they could keep raking in obscene levels of profits—profits that have soared even higher in recent years, while people have been hit with horrendously high bills. The principle of my new clause is clear: those profiting from and helping to drive this crisis should not be using their wealth to pollute our politics, spread misinformation and delay the action needed. It would put a stop to any donations from oil and gas companies to political parties and candidates at elections. Of course, the problem goes way beyond direct donations, but my new clause can be part of the action needed to break the link between fossil fuel wealth and the influence it seeks to exert on our politics. For example, research by the environmental investigations group DeSmog and The Guardian found that when the previous Conservative Government were considering new North sea fossil fuel licences, the Conservative party received more than £400,000 in one year alone in donations from individuals and companies linked to the oil and gas industries. That was part of what DeSmog estimated was the over £2 million donated to the Conservative party by fossil fuel interests between the 2019 and 2024 general elections. DeSmog research has also highlighted what it describes as Reform links to oil and gas interests. Beyond party donations, there is a complex web of fossil fuel interests, climate deniers, donors, so-called think-tanks and other organisations seeking to shape our politics, and no doubt they were delighted with the Conservative party’s shift against climate action in recent years. Those interests, as we have seen, have had huge success in shaping US politics. We need to avoid there ever being that scale of influence here. For decades, across the globe, oil and gas money has sought to buy influence to help delay the action that we desperately need. My new clause 22 is one step towards ending that, and I thank the cross-party group of MPs who have backed it. I hope that we can continue to work together to stop fossil fuel money polluting our politics. The decisions we take on climate action should be driven by the public interest, not fossil fuel interests.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Arms Export Licensing: Israel · Hansard source

  More

  In September 2024, the Government suspended some arms sales to Israel over its war on Gaza. Given the escalating Israeli violence in the west bank, will the Government review their export licences to ensure no British military equipment is supplied to Israel that could be used there?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Minister and the team on their approach. Tackling climate change needs to be a national and international effort. We should all be pulling together on this goal. Is it not time to call out some of the Opposition parties and their friends in the right-wing media for engaging in a propaganda wave of climate change denial? That poses a real risk to our future jobs, economy, fuel security and way of life.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Human Rights in Kashmir · Hansard source

  More

  I have been inundated with representations from my constituents who have friends, family and loved ones in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. They are deeply concerned that the blackout has been going on for a month. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way forward is peaceful resolution and for the Government of Pakistan to return to the table for peace talks, and that our Government can play an important role in making those representations to the Pakistani Government?

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has come forward with a very good idea. Of course, a party could change its own rules and expectations in that regard, but to fully clean up politics, I think that this should be passed by Parliament. This issue is going through the Modernisation Committee at the moment, and the discussions taking place there are very important. Some will say that my restrictions are too tough. They are tough, but trust in politics has been damaged over many years, and rebuilding that trust requires bold action. That is what the public want. Parliament must show that it understands that the rot runs deep and cannot be tackled with half measures. There should be no more reviews or excuses; action is needed. I hope that the next Prime Minister will help to clean up politics and defend our democracy, starting by ending the ludicrous gravy train of MPs’ second jobs, which quite rightly turns the public’s stomachs.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  I must confess, when I have been out and about in my constituency and in others, I have never met anyone who says, “What we really need to do is pay MPs more.” We are already in the top 5% of earners, so I do not think that paying MPs more is the issue. Being an MP is an incredible privilege—an incredibly well-paid privilege. It is second jobs that we want to stop; we do not want to argue for further pay rises for already very well-paid MPs. We talk about second jobs, but for some MPs there are third jobs, fourth jobs, fifth jobs, sixth jobs and many more. For some, it seems, being an MP is the second job. I am opposed to MPs having second jobs, whether those MPs are Conservative, Reform, Labour or from any other party. I do not say this to make a party political point, but it is a fact that the top 10 includes eight Conservative and two Reform MPs, including Reform’s party leader. Beyond the top 10, looking at all MPs’ outside earnings, Conservative MPs account for around 66% of the total, Reform MPs around 20%, and Labour MPs around 7%. Can I just say—because it needs to be said—that I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), the leader of Reform, is not here? On Monday, I wrote to him publicly, inviting him to come and explain why MPs should be allowed to rake in vast sums from second jobs. Yesterday it came to light that he has been getting paid £22,500 per hour promoting a gold dealer, which takes his second job earnings to approaching £2 million in just two years since the general election. That is more than £22,000 per hour for a man who last year argued that a minimum wage of £10.85 per hour for young people in his constituency, my constituency and constituencies across the country may be too much. Some man of the people! It is all very Donald Trump. We hear a lot about why second jobs are acceptable, but the public know that when an MP can earn more for a couple of hours’ so-called work than a nurse earns in a year, there is something deeply broken in our politics and change is needed. There is no doubting the scale of the problem. In 2022, I presented the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of Second Jobs) (Motion) Bill, a private Member’s Bill for a total ban on MPs’ second jobs. I hope that can become law under the new Prime Minister. I welcome the steps taken by this Government to restrict second jobs, but so far they go nowhere near far enough. We need a proper ban. The key principle of my Bill is straightforward. Being an MP is a well-paid privilege. The nearly £100,000 a year salary places us in the highest 5% of earners in the country, so being an MP should be a full-time job. The public elect us to represent them, to fight their corner and to devote our time to their concerns. They do not elect MPs to spend their time lining their pockets. When MPs do that, they short-change the public who pay them and they undermine our democracy. We even have 18 MPs who have been paid more from their second jobs than from their MP’s salary. For them, it seems, that being a Member of Parliament is a second job. If someone wishes to pursue a highly paid private sector career, they are entitled to do so. But if that is the MP’s priority, they should resign. Our democracy would be better for it. We do not need MPs here chasing ever more cash. Another obvious reason to ban MPs’ second jobs is that they create real conflicts of interest. An MP should have one loyalty—loyalty to the people who sent them here. The moment other employers pay an MP tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or in some cases even well over a million, divided loyalties arise. People rightly ask, “Who comes first: the constituents who elected them or the company paying them?” No one can serve two masters. Even if people claim there is no conflict of interest, it is clear that second jobs fuel a growing sense that politics is becoming detached from everyday life. Politics should be about public service, not personal enrichment. So many families across the country are under massive financial pressure, struggling through no fault of their own. They work long hours, struggle with rising bills and worry themselves sick about making ends meet. Is it any surprise that people are angry when MPs get more from their second jobs than ordinary workers earn in a year? I have campaigned against second jobs for many years. When I do, one argument always gets raised. We are told that second jobs provide valuable real-world experience. Frankly, that argument is laughable. Highly paid second jobs do not bring MPs closer to the real world, because real people do not live like that. Huge second salaries are the experience of a tiny elite, not of the vast majority of constituents we are here to serve. It is funny that the MPs who claim to want real-world experience never seem to find it doing the jobs of ordinary workers, such as stacking shelves, driving buses or caring for the elderly in a care home. I did not find too many of those jobs in the list of MPs’ extra earnings. The reason is obvious: it is really about getting money, not real-world experience. If MPs genuinely wanted real-world experience, they would seek it where real people actually work, not in corporate board rooms. When people say that Parliament should benefit from a diverse range of life experience and professional expertise, I totally agree; but that should be from the experiences they gained before being elected, not from corporate contracts secured because they are MPs. The other argument we always hear is that a ban would be too difficult, but it would not. My Bill shows exactly how it can be done. It would prohibit MPs from holding paid second jobs, while allowing sensible exceptions. The Bill is not about stopping a genuine public service. A doctor or nurse treating patients is serving the public; sitting on a corporate board for large pay cheques is not. My Bill would not stop someone doing the limited hours of work needed to maintain professional qualifications, nor would it stop someone working out a short notice period when unexpectedly elected to Parliament.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a prohibition of second jobs for hon. Members. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I am delighted to have secured this debate, but let us be totally honest from the start: confidence in our politics has collapsed. People look at Westminster and see a political system increasingly disconnected from their lives. They see stories about freebies, dodgy donations and so-called gifts, and they see politicians collecting six-figure sums from second jobs. They know that the system is not working for them, and it chips away at the public’s trust in Parliament; it damages their confidence in democracy. If we want politics to serve the people, not elite interests, we are going to have to take bold action. That is why I have called this debate today. Banning MPs’ second jobs is one of the key steps to restore trust in politics. I hope that the incoming Prime Minister, when giving their speech on the steps of Downing Street in the coming weeks, commits to real action to clean up our politics, because there are very dangerous forces out there that want to take advantage of public distrust to roll back basic democratic norms, as we have seen in the United States. Before I turn to why we must ban MPs’ second jobs, I want to look at the scale of the problem. All the figures I will reference today are from Sky News’s Westminster Accounts, a database compiled from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I commend those journalists on the work they have done, but I also want to put on record how unacceptable it is that the public cannot easily access clear information about MPs’ second jobs on Parliament’s own website. The Westminster Accounts has had to navigate the fiendishly complex way Parliament reports this, so there may well be discrepancies in the data, but if so, that is not the fault of the journalists; it is a failure of parliamentary transparency. Parliament needs to address that and start providing this information in a much more accessible way. In total, MPs have taken an eye-watering £11 million in outside earnings since the general election. The top 10 MPs account for over £7 million in total, so just 10 MPs have pocketed nearly two thirds of all second job money declared.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her important point. The details of the Bill could be debated and amended in the House and at Committee stage, if it were taken forward, as I invite the next Prime Minister to do. I was trying to make the point that, if someone needs to do a handful of hours per year to remain on a professional register, I would have no objection. Perhaps the Bill can be enhanced and improved, including by my hon. Friend, if it progresses further. Beyond the limited exceptions that I have outlined, the practice of second jobs should end.

• 1 Jul 2026 · MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition · Hansard source

  More

  I thank every single Member of Parliament who has contributed to the debate and the Minister for her constructive and encouraging response. The message from the debate to the public is clear. Many of us understand and believe that when Members of Parliament chase corporate cash, they are not only short-changing their constituents, but undermining our democracy. That is a very serious matter indeed. Trust and public confidence in politicians, Parliament and our democratic process has never been lower. We have a historic duty to turn that around. That means change. It means, among other things, banning the gravy train of MPs’ second jobs. I look forward to passing the Minister a copy of the Bill I drafted back in 2022. It is a full, comprehensive plan. I also hope to speak to the next Prime Minister about that plan, because it could be part of a new era. It could be part of a fresh start to show that we are not all the same, that we defend our democracy and that we believe in public service and a better kind of politics. I thank every single Member who has contributed to the debate and you for chairing it, Mr Western. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a prohibition of second jobs for hon. Members.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Bill. I recently had a productive meeting with the Rail Minister in the other place regarding my amendment to close loopholes that could allow private companies to creep back into operating GBR rail services. He kindly promised to take that on board, and I am pleased to see those issues addressed by Government amendments 92 and 106, as well as the commitment to bring in further changes regarding the Secretary of State having powers of designation to ensure that they cannot be used for back-door privatisation. May I invite the Minister to provide further commentary and reassurance to the House regarding the Government’s moves on that issue and the very welcome position they have taken?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments on the horrific events in Belfast. The co-founder of US tech giant Palantir once claimed that the NHS “makes people sick”. Now, Palantir is running the NHS’s new data platform. The Financial Times has reported that Palantir staff have had “unlimited access” to identifiable NHS patient data. There are also deep concerns about Palantir’s human rights record in relation to Trump and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Israel’s military action in Gaza. NHS patient data should not be left in the hands of a US tech giant. The Government have an opportunity to end this contract through a break clause next year. Will they take that opportunity and kick Palantir out of our NHS next year?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Energy Costs · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not totally outrageous that energy giants will make billions in extra profits from Trump’s war on Iran while ordinary people are hit with higher costs? Does the Minister agree that we should introduce an emergency war profits tax to ensure that they cannot make a single extra penny in super-profits from this crisis? We can use that money to fund urgent cost of living support.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Energy Costs · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Let us just imagine that, this weekend in our capital city, there was a “great Russian real estate event” selling off Ukrainian land. Quite rightly and without hesitation, the Government would move to ban such an illegal event. This weekend in London, there is the Great Israeli Real Estate Event, openly advertising the illegal sale of land in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories. Given that the Government rightly recognised the state of Palestine, surely we should now move to ban this event, which is selling off land illegally in Palestine.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Greedy privatised water companies have caused huge harm by treating our rivers and seas like an open sewer. They have been ripping off the public while doing that and, at the same time, they have handed nearly £90 billion over to shareholders since privatisation. Does the Minister agree that, as is being done with the railways, the water companies need to be taken into public ownership so that they can serve the public good and be run for the public good, not for private profit?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Cuba: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I recently went on a three-day humanitarian visit to Cuba where, among other things, we delivered aid to a cancer hospital. When we were in Cuba, not a single drop of fuel had got into the country for three months because of Trump’s fuel restrictions, and I saw with my own eyes that Trump’s fuel blockade was having a devastating humanitarian effect on millions of ordinary Cubans. I am very disturbed and concerned to see the threats emerging from the Trump Administration, but I welcome the fact that, as is our country’s long-standing position, the UK Government continue to vote against the blockade at the United Nations. Disputes between nations must be resolved through dialogue and with respect for international law, so will the Minister confirm that he will use his efforts and those of his office to ensure that diplomacy and dialogue are seen as the best way forward?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  Israel’s bombing of Lebanon has seen yet more war crimes. It is incredibly dangerous for the people there. It is also a direct threat to a peace process being achieved between the US and Iran, in a war that is killing people over there and driving up the cost of living for people here. How many more countries does Israel have to bomb before the Government impose widespread sanctions, as they rightly did on Russia?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Israel has been stepping up illegal land grabs in the occupied west bank, so this week’s threats by Minister Smotrich to forcibly evict the Palestinian community of Khan al-Ahmar is part of a wider pattern of illegal settlement expansion. There is a growing chorus calling for a ban on all settlement goods and on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements. That is what international law demands. What are the Government and the Minister waiting for?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I have asked the Minister, both in this House and through written questions on numerous occasions, to give the House reassurances that Morgan McSweeney only ever handled documents for which he had the appropriate level of security vetting when working in Downing Street. The vagueness of the Minister’s replies has been noted by Members of this House and journalists, so today I again give the Minister a chance to put this issue to bed by stating clearly on the record that, at all times while working in Downing Street, Morgan McSweeney had the appropriate level of security clearance for all the documents he handled.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the security vetting issue in relation to Peter Mandelson, last week in the Chamber I asked questions—including to the Minister and through a point of order to the Speaker —three times, but I have not had an answer, so I would really appreciate an answer. At the point at which the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney was involved in the appointment of Mandelson, did he himself have security vetting? On what date was Morgan McSweeney granted developed vetting clearance? Prior to that date, did Morgan McSweeney ever handle documents for which he would have required developed vetting clearance? I asked that three times in the Chamber but have not had an answer. I would be really grateful if the Minister could answer.