Richard Burgon
MP for Leeds East · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. These regulations are important in their potential and, of course, in their application. I very much welcome the Government’s recognition that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, in line with the International Court of Justice’s historic 2024 opinion.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister confirm that these regulations can apply to officials, politicians and private entities, including UK charities responsible not only for physical blockades, but administrative obstruction of aid, including decisions on permits, crossings and those financing aid obstruction?”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have four key points for the Minister, and I would welcome a response. First, what counts as a serious violation of international humanitarian law? Will the Minister confirm that, as a minimum, the definition will follow that of the International Committee of the Red Cross?”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will these powers cover international humanitarian law violations across all Israeli settlements, not just new ones, and be applicable to those financing such violations? Secondly, on aid, here—as with E1—urgent designations against those meeting the legal tests can make a real difference.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister make it clear today that banks, charities, financiers, contractors, insurers and technology companies supporting these international humanitarian law violations risk sanctions?”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate; he is right. People in Leeds and across the country know there is a council house crisis and they support, I believe, Shelter’s campaign for the Government to make national council house building a mission, because building council houses not only provides homes; it is a bit lik…”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,864 lines on record for Richard Burgon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 10 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important that the Government have announced a strategy: it is part and parcel of the ongoing work that is so necessary when we consider the prevalence of suicide as the leading cause of death among young men and women. It is a scourge across society. People should not make the mistake of thinking that the internet merely showcases awful things. The internet has been used as a tool by exploitative and sometimes disturbed individuals to create more misery and more instances of awful things happening, and to lead others down a dangerous path that sometimes ends, sadly, in them taking their own lives. I thank the Minister for his engagement with my constituents, and the shadow Minister for what she has done. I also thank Baroness Kidron, Baroness Morgan and hon.”
House of Commons12 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In Leeds, our school repair backlog is over £66 million, and the council is given £6 million a year by the Government to tackle that. The lead councillor for education, Councillor Jonathan Pryor, has written to every single Secretary of State for Education since 2018. Eight letters have been sent to raise school condition funding, but all pleas have been ignored. Does the Secretary of State really think that is acceptable?”
House of Commons6 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have all listened carefully to what Ministers have been saying. The Prime Minister said it was “completely and utterly wrong” to blame him for failing to fully fund a programme to rebuild England’s schools when he was Chancellor. But is it not in fact the case that what was truly completely and utterly wrong, and what is completely and truly wrong, is for this Prime Minister and this Government to pursue an ideological fixation with austerity, which has caused the lives of children in this country to be put at critical risk?”
House of Commons4 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Back in 2016, I was part of a parliamentary delegation that visited the Sub Laban family in their home of 70 years in the occupied old city of Jerusalem. Last week, Israel forcibly evicted them to make way for illegal settlers, as has been replicated time after time across occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the west bank. How many such violations of international law by Israel will have to take place before the Government act, including by banning UK trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as organisations such as Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have called for?”
House of Commons18 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is the job of a trade union to persuade trade union members to honour a strike vote, not to break a strike. We see the hand of this authoritarian Government attempting to extend into our trade unions, trying to try to use them as a tool of the state to do the bidding of a Conservative Government, or the bidding of employers. The Bill is rotten and it is no wonder that the Government do not want to consult on it. Any fair-minded person, whatever their politics, would realise that that is not the function of trade unions in our society. We have heard Ministers boasting about how this will result in people being sacked if they do not comply with the requirement to go to work.”
House of Commons17 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not allowing people to vote by electronic means reveals the contempt the Government have for the biggest voluntary organisations in our society—the trade union movement. They will not even give workers in our country the modern dignity of being allowed to vote online or in the workplace. The Government object to Lords amendment 2D and do not want to consult on it. Is that any wonder? The greater the consultation that takes place in relation to this abhorrent Bill, the more it becomes clear that the Bill is a complete offence. Let us be clear: the Bill, which the Government do not want to have a proper consultation on, requires trade unions to take reasonable steps to get their own members to break trade union picket lines. This Bill requires trade unions to completely change their function in our democratic society.”
House of Commons17 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill, which the Government do not want to consult on properly, comes shortly after over 100,000 nurses in this country voted to take strike action—the result in that recent ballot was that 84% of nurses who cast a vote did so to take strike action. However, because of the Government’s dreadful Trade Union Act 2016, an 84% vote in favour of strike action does not count, is worthless and does not result in strike action, because the turnout was 43%. The Government helped drive down the turnout by not allowing people to vote by electronic ballot. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who made such a mess of this country in her short tenure, was elected by electronic ballot of Conservative party members.”
House of Commons17 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister has let the cat out of the bag in relation to the Government’s attitude to this dreadful Bill and to amendment 2D from the other place. The Minister objected to Lords amendment 2D because it would delay the implementation of the Bill. Let us be clear: the Bill makes history for all the wrong reasons. It is the biggest attack on the role of our trade unions in our democracy for many a long year. Why are the Government so desperate to rush the Bill through? One almost thinks they cannot stomach the idea of even a small delay because they want it to be presented at the Conservative party conference as a bit of red meat to the party faithful—classic anti-trade union politics and trade union bashing. Let us think about where we are in terms of industrial relations.”
House of Commons17 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is an anti-trade union piece of legislation that shames the Government. People can see through it. The Government cannot even pretend to be up for proper consultation by accepting Lords amendment 2D. They know what the ILO thinks of it, they know what our colleagues in the other place think of it, and they know what the British people think of it. That is why the next Labour Government will repeal this rotten piece of legislation, if indeed it passes, and bring in an important suite of workers’ rights, because workers and trade unions in this country have had enough of being treated like dirt for the past 13 years. Let us stop this race to the bottom in workers’ rights, and instead build a democratic system—a democratic system where we can be proud of the workers’ rights in our country.”
House of Commons17 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister shakes his head. If what I am saying is not true, why does he not take that measure out of the Bill, so that workers cannot be sacked for not complying with work notices? That is in the legislation. I shall be charitable to the Minister. Having listened to him in a number of debates, I sometimes thought that he did not realise quite how pernicious the Bill was, but I think that others in the Conservative party do; they know exactly what they are doing. This anti-trade union Bill, which the Government do not wish to consult on properly, comes hot on the heels of the criminalisation of peaceful protest, which is a democratic right in our society, and hot on the heels of voter ID, when what we should be doing is making it easier for people to vote in our society, not harder.”
House of Commons17 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is making a wonderful speech. One of my constituents, Helen Lucy, came to see me and presented me with a very informative booklet about this campaign. Does he agree that there is no reason why action cannot be taken? I have written to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ask for swift bricks to be made a national planning requirement. They are a win-win: they do not cost house builders much, and they would help to save the swift. As the hon. Gentleman said, the swift population in this country has declined by 57%. Swift bricks are an example of a simple action that the Government and those in power can take to make a real difference to wildlife in our country.”
House of Commons10 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My constituents who use Cross Gates station and people across the country will be worried about this proposal, because closing ticket offices is yet another example of private profit being put before the public good in our railways. This move is really about gutting railways of station staff, who have a big impact on passenger accessibility and safety, especially for older and disabled people. Does the Minister really believe that this will make the railways more welcoming for people—or does that not matter?”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Secretary of State has said, it is now six years since the Grenfell fire, but new data gathered by Inside Housing shows that only a fraction of high-rise social housing blocks—fewer than one in five—have been retrofitted with sprinklers or fire alarms. A lack of funding is a key reason for that, so can the Government really claim that they are doing everything possible to prevent another Grenfell when people are still living in high rises without those protections?”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the shadow Minister for his thoughtful and detailed remarks. Taking him back to a point he made about ACM cladding, survivors of the Grenfell fire and the bereaved are keen to see ACM cladding banned globally. As he mentioned, it is on 40 blocks in the UK as it stands. Would he like to see it effectively banned globally and removed from those 40 blocks in this country?”
House of Commons6 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have listened carefully to the Minister, but since 2015 the Government have sold £500 million-worth of arms to Israel, and UK arms have been implicated in previous atrocities against Palestine. Can the Minister say categorically whether any of that military equipment has been used in Israel’s assaults on the Jenin refugee camp? Does not this attack again show why the Government should suspend all arms sales to Israel until it abides by international law?”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To conclude, the Bill has faced widespread civil society opposition, including from the Quakers and the Methodists, the Muslim Association of Britain, Friends of the Earth, the Union of Jewish Students, the TUC, Unite the union, Unison and the directors of 14 Israeli civil society and human rights organisations, as well as Human Rights Watch, Liberty and Amnesty, whose own legal ruling suggests that the Bill would be illegal. Not all those groups support boycotts, but they do support the right for people to boycott. That is what we are voting on today. We cannot allow the Government to scrap this cherished democratic right.”
House of Commons3 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The very fact that something is illegal is often the rationale for a boycott and divestments campaign in the first place. Many people in the discussion today and around this Bill have mentioned boycotts—not just those relating to illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where we have seen terrible scenes today in Jenin, but arms boycotts against Saudi Arabia over its war crimes in Yemen, boycotts in Colombia over its past treatment of trade unionists, and commercial boycotts of goods relating to the treatment of the Uyghurs in China or the Rohingya in Myanmar. It is not for us to decide which countries people are allowed to boycott—that is a huge curtailment of basic freedom. We need to maintain the democratic rights of people to challenge Government policy through boycotts and divestment, if that is their wish.”
House of Commons3 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The aim is clear: to put so much fear into public bodies of ending up in court that they do not just act within the law, but go beyond it in an effort to reduce that risk. As legal advice provided to the Labour party makes clear, this Bill would be likely to place the UK “in breach of international law obligations” and “effectively equates the Occupied Palestinian Territories with Israel itself and is very difficult to reconcile with the long-standing position of the United Kingdom which supports a ‘two-state solution’ based on ‘1967 lines’ in which the security and right to self-determination of both Israelis and Palestinians are protected.” I am afraid that I do not have any faith in the exemptions listed in the Bill at schedule 3. Just as apartheid was legal in South Africa, much environmental destruction takes place entirely legally.”
House of Commons3 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Almost all cases of companies engaging in human, labour or environmental abuses have a territorial element. If we are talking about divesting in companies that cut down the rainforest, for example, that activity will obviously take place in areas with rainforests, and certain countries would be targeted by campaigns. This Bill even bans public bodies from saying they would support such boycotts were it legal to do so. It is a gagging Bill that breaches freedom of speech and would prevent a local councillor in hustings debates or other public forums from giving their political view. This Bill also has chilling elements in how it will be enforced, including potentially huge fines and far-reaching information compliance notices.”
House of Commons3 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is just another example of this Government’s anti-democratic crackdown, with restrictions on the right to vote, the right to protest and the right to strike. Labour’s reasoned amendment, which declines to give the Bill a Second Reading and which I will be supporting, makes the case clearly about the many deep flaws in the Bill, as did the shadow Secretary of State in her response. In summary, the Bill is a huge attack on the concept of ethical investment and procurement by preventing public bodies from being influenced by “political or moral disapproval” of the actions of any foreign state. The Government claim that boycott and divestment will still be possible, but just not where it “relates specifically or mainly to a particular foreign territory”. That simply does not wash.”
House of Commons3 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Three decades ago, Margaret Thatcher said that the ANC was a “typical terrorist organisation”, adding “Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land”. History proved her wrong on that, but that history was shaped by the determined efforts of people worldwide, including millions in this country and many local governments, to boycott South Africa. The lesson is clear: Governments are not always right; Governments do not always make moral decisions; Governments do not always act in line with the wishes of the population, but through the democratic process, millions of people can effect change. This Bill ignores that lesson. It shuts down the freedom of people to exercise a key democratic right.”
House of Commons3 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Of course Rosebank oilfield should not go ahead, and of course it is an act of climate vandalism for it do so in the context of a climate emergency. Given the bogus arguments we hear from Government Ministers who justify the unjustifiable, is it not the case that oil and gas giants have far too much influence in our politics, and that we cannot solve the climate crisis if our political system and Government are in thrall to the corporate oil and gas interests?”
House of Commons28 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many of the banks that the Chancellor has been talking about are raking in bumper profits by refusing to pass on higher interest rates to their savers. Surely, a windfall tax on those additional profits would allow the Government to provide mortgage holders with the kind of support they really need at this time. Before the Chancellor dismisses that idea, may I gently remind him that even Margaret Thatcher imposed such a windfall tax on banks’ excess profits?”
House of Commons26 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is not just the lies by the former Prime Minister that have damaged trust in our politics; the contracts handed out to Tory friends and donors through VIP lanes did great damage too, yet the Government last week voted down attempts to shut down VIP lanes for good. No doubt Tory donors are rubbing their hands with glee, but with polls showing three quarters of the public are worried about corruption in Government, does the Minister not agree that the refusal to shut down VIP lanes for good will simply add to these grave concerns?”
House of Commons22 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The legislation needs to be resisted if we in this place have any respect whatsoever for our democracy and the democratic role of our independent trade unions, which are there to support the workers, not to support the Government or bosses against their will.”
House of Commons21 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us be clear: the Bill allows the Secretary of State or an employer to set minimum service levels and to issue work notices requiring workers to break a picket line and go into work, and unless we back Lords amendment 5B, the Bill will require trade unions to help the Government and the bosses to achieve that aim. It is draconian and anti-democratic. It should be opposed by everybody in the House, whether or not they are a socialist, a trade unionist, a Conservative Member, a Labour Member or a Member of whatever party. It should be opposed by anybody who believes that trade unions in our democracy are there to represent the will of the workers and their members, not that of the Conservative Government or the boss of a company. It is basic democratic stuff that takes us back hundreds of years.”
House of Commons21 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are not meant to be agents of an employer. They are not there to ensure that the bidding of a Conservative Government or a big corporation is done. Unless Lords amendment 5B is backed, unions will be required to take steps to persuade their members to cross picket lines and go to work during lawful disputes, or they will face gargantuan fines. That is truly chilling. It changes the role of trade unions in our society. That is no small matter; it goes to the very core of what the trade union movement in this country has been about for hundreds of years. Failure to support Lords amendment 5B is a failure to stand up for a basic democratic principle. Conservative Members can snigger about it, but there was a time when even Conservative MPs understood the independence of trade unions.”
House of Commons21 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How can anybody in this place believe that it is in any way acceptable for workers to be sacked if they fail to cross a picket line in a strike that has been lawfully called and conducted, even under the restrictive and onerous requirements we have in this country? How can that be viewed as acceptable in any way? I will conclude on the protection for unions. I do not want to detain the House for long, because a few people want to speak and there is limited time. Lords amendment 5B is fundamentally necessary because the Bill is an unprecedented attack on the role of trade unions in our society and our democracy. The Minister should not need to have it explained to him that trade unions in our society are independent bodies representing workers. Trade unions in our democracy are not meant to be agents of a Government.”
House of Commons21 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will briefly touch on the reasons why I think it is important that this elected Chamber does the right thing and rejects the Government’s opposition to the message from the other place. I will focus on two amendments—Lords amendments 4B and 5B—that go to the heart of this matter and the heart of this pernicious Bill. They relate to the protection of employees and protections for unions. The context for this Bill, as have said before, is that we have a Government who are increasingly desperate, draconian and authoritarian. We have seen that in the restrictions on the right to peaceful protest and on people’s ability to cast a vote at elections, and now we see it with this draconian attack on trade unions.”
House of Commons21 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The rich and powerful have repeatedly sought to blame workers for high inflation, even though workers’ real wages have been falling as inflation soars. Many leading economists now say that profiteering by certain corporations, not wages, is driving price rises. The French Government have taken action to limit food prices, and Spain has introduced rent controls. When will this Government start targeting the profiteering that is helping to drive inflation?”
House of Commons20 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to put on record my deep disappointment that there is no commitment to a debate on Grenfell. I wrote to the Leader of the House on 10 May asking for the Government to ensure there is a debate to mark the anniversary of Grenfell, in line with what the Government said during last year’s Backbench Business debate on the Grenfell anniversary, which I led. After chasing the letter, I received a reply only this week, just before the Grenfell anniversary, stating simply that I will soon get a full response. It is simply not good enough that no debate has been agreed and organised this year, so will the Leader of the House commit today to preventing this from happening again next year and, in line with what was said last year, commit to a debate in Government time in the week of the Grenfell anniversary to mark the Grenfell Tower fire?”
House of Commons15 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Home Secretary come clean and admit that this authoritarian clampdown on our society’s hard-won democratic freedoms is being intensified by this Government because their policies are becoming ever more unpopular? Their heavy-handed, antidemocratic response shames us all.”
House of Commons12 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill is about perverting the role of trade unions in our democratic society. It is about trying to turn the trade unions into not the servants of workers, but the servants of bosses, or even the servants of a Conservative Government.”
House of Commons22 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak in support of all the Lords amendments, but I especially want to focus on Lords amendment 4 and Lords amendments 5 to 7, because they are about protecting two key democratic principles: the rights of the worker to withdraw their labour; and the role of trade unions to represent workers—and not bosses and not the Government—when workers decide to withdraw their labour. Lords amendment 4 would mean that a failure to comply with a work notice would not be deemed to be a breach of an employment contract, so the person could not be dismissed as a result. Lords amendments 5 to 7 would ensure that trade unions do not have any responsibility to ensure that their members comply with the work notice. We need to be clear about what the Bill is about and why the Lords amendments are necessary.”
House of Commons22 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed, it is shameful that we have had to protest outside Parliament today and to argue for those freedoms in this Chamber tonight.”
House of Commons22 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The truth, as the European Trade Union Confederation has said, is that “The UK already has among the most draconian restrictions on the right to strike in Europe, and the UK government’s plans would push it even further away from normal, democratic practice across Europe.” Members do not need to be trade unionists to understand the common sense and democratic decency of these Lords amendments, and they certainly do not need to be socialists. Any Member of this House who values the hard-won freedoms of individual workers and trade unions in our society should back these Lords amendments. Not to do so would be completely shameful and go against the hard-won democratic freedoms that we have secured in this country through struggle.”
House of Commons22 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I previously tabled an amendment, backed by 30 Members on a cross-party basis, to prevent this legislation from being enacted until a judge had certified that the UK was meeting its International Labour Organisation obligations. The Government refused to accept that amendment; I wonder why. Perhaps it is because they know that their claim that the Bill brings us into line with other countries and International Labour Organisation standards is hollow rhetoric.”
House of Commons22 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It follows restrictions on the right to protest through the disgraceful Public Order Act 2023. This anti-strikes Bill, like the Public Order Act and voter ID, should be thrown into the dustbin of history. It is deeply concerning that, in 2023, we are having to rely on members in the other place to send these Lords amendments back when we are facing such draconian attacks on democratic rights, including the democratic right to strike, the democratic freedom to withdraw labour and the democratic role of trade unions to represent their members—workers, not bosses and not the Conservative Government. I end by refuting the Government’s empty claim that this legislation is really about bringing the UK into line with International Labour Organisation norms. That is absolutely not the case.”
House of Commons22 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would. My hon. Friend is always light on his feet in the Chamber, as he has shown, but I would be happy to give way to the Minister if he has anything of merit to say as this pernicious piece of legislation passes through with no acceptance by the Government of the common-sense and democratic decency of the amendments from the other place. Their anti-strikes Bill is no one-off—this is why the Lords amendments are so necessary. It is part of an authoritarian drift by a Government who, as we have heard, are desperate to close off any challenges to their reactionary agenda, be that at the ballot box, on the picket line or on protests. The Bill, this attack on the right to strike, follows restrictions on the right to vote through the disgraceful voter suppression strategy.”
House of Commons22 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have heard about the issue of second homes and holiday homes, which could be looked at. I encourage the Minister to look at the Fairness Foundation’s research when it comes out later this week; it is about what can be done to move to a more progressive taxation system in which the super-wealthy pay their fair share.”
House of Commons17 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some 68% of people think that the Government should be doing more to tax high net worth individuals—those with £10 million or more—and 79% of people worry that the wealthy do not contribute their fair share. It will be no surprise to hon. Members that I encourage the Government and the Minister to consider real wealth taxes on the very richest. I also draw hon. Members’ attention to a campaign that is being run by the community union ACORN, which argues that when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill becomes law, councils should implement a 100% council tax premium on second homes and empty homes to help to fund important expenditure on council housing. I have lent my support to the campaign, and I will support that proposal if and when the Bill becomes law.”
House of Commons17 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on securing this important debate on alternatives to council tax and stamp duty. The Government need to look at more progressive alternatives to council tax, which is very regressive, as has been said. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the work of the Fairness Foundation. Its important research on this very issue, which is out later this week, makes the point that low-income households spent two to four times more on council tax, as a percentage of their income, than richer households. The research also makes it clear that people want the Government to do more to tax the richest in society. Council tax is deeply regressive, so the Government must lay out alternatives.”
House of Commons17 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Meanwhile, an Investors Chronicle headline said: “‘Greedflation’ is only making things worse”, adding: “Business using inflation as cover for unjustifiable price hikes are on borrowed time”. Likewise, economists and investment strategists are openly saying that corporate profits are driving price hikes.”
House of Commons16 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us look at some of the recent headlines in the financial press. One Financial Times headline said: “‘Greedflation’: profit-boosting mark-ups attract an inevitable backlash.” A Wall Street Journal headline said: “Why Is Inflation So Sticky? It Could Be Corporate Profits.” That article went on to explain: “Businesses are using a rare opportunity to boost their profit margins.” Money W eek , the UK’s best-selling financial magazine, had a piece entitled: “What should we do about greedflation?”, which noted: “Companies’ price hikes have been driving inflation.” Fortune said: “‘Greedflation’ is the European Central Bank’s latest headache amid fears it’s the key culprit for price hikes”.”
House of Commons16 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As its general secretary, Sharon Graham, correctly states: “Make no mistake, profiteering has resulted in the high prices we’ve all had to pay”. I pay tribute to those organisations for bringing attention to this issue. For example, Unite the union has secured press coverage for its recent study. However, I fear that the Government, in their reply, will simply dismiss these studies as coming from left-of-centre organisations and will plough on regardless. Therefore, I want to use the next part of my speech to focus on how this issue goes well beyond the centre-left and is now a mainstream debate. The financial press, investor bodies and central bank officials are openly discussing how corporate profits are, in fact, driving inflation. It seems that it is just the Government who are ignoring this issue.”
House of Commons16 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Institute for Public Policy Research and Common Wealth think-tanks have shown that profits were up 34% at the end of 2021 compared with pre-pandemic levels and that nearly all of that increase in profits was due to just 25 companies. As the IPPR has recently said: “It’s time for policymakers to look at ‘greedflation’ and prioritise reining in corporate profits, instead of blaming workers’ wages for driving up inflation.” Using the latest available figures for the largest 350 companies on the London stock exchange, Unite the union has shown how profit margins for the first half of 2022 were nearly double—89% higher—than for the same period in 2019, before the pandemic. Unite’s report finds that in the last six months company profits are responsible for almost 60% of inflation.”
House of Commons16 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been called many things: price gouging, profiteering and, most commonly, greedflation. The US Senate Committee on the Budget has held a special hearing on this subject, but there has been very little focus on it in Parliament so far. Today, that situation changes. I believe that this is the first specific debate on greedflation in this House. It should not be the last one. Indeed, I hope that this debate kicks off a serious discussion in this House about how we tackle greedflation. Of course, higher inflation since late 2021 has been affected by big problems in supply chains, as a result of post-covid trade disruption and the war in Ukraine. However, two excellent studies have highlighted how soaring profits are now having a big impact.”
House of Commons16 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House has considered levels of corporate profit and inflation. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I secured this debate because the discourse on inflation in Parliament, in Government and in the Bank of England has been dominated by the need to curb workers’ wages. Government policy has focused on driving down workers’ real wages. In the words of the Bank of England’s chief economist, people should just “accept that they’re worse off”. That approach has ignored the elephant in the room—the role that corporations are now playing in driving up inflation through price hikes designed to boost their profits. There is mounting evidence that such corporate profiteering is playing a very significant role in the latest wave of inflation.”
House of Commons16 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In more technical language, but saying the same thing, Goldman Sachs economists said of the eurozone: “Unit profit growth now accounts for more than half of GDP deflator growth, with compensation per employee growth explaining a little over a third.” Central bankers are also raising concerns. In fact, the European Central Bank’s Fabio Panetta said that “there could be an increase in inflation due to increasing profits.” He has also said that “unit profits contributed to more than half of domestic price pressures in the last quarter of 2022”. Meanwhile, Lael Brainard, formerly of the Federal Reserve and now a White House official, said: “Reductions in markups could also make an important contribution to reduced pricing pressures.””
House of Commons16 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As ever, my hon. Friend makes the point about what is really happening out there. She gives a powerful example about baby food. I will come on to food and a policy suggestion for price caps later. The chief economist of UBS global wealth management, Paul Donovan, has stated that “much of the current inflation is driven by profit expansion. Typically one would expect about 15% of inflation to come from margin expansion, but the number today is probably around 50%.” Albert Edwards, the global strategist at Société Générale, one of the largest financial services groups in Europe, tweeted: “More Greedflation? When are government going to force a halt to this price gouging?” Elsewhere, he explained how companies have “under the cover of recent crises, pushed margins higher”.”
House of Commons16 May 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗