Richard Burgon
MP for Leeds East · Labour · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Richard Burgon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“Friends were suspended for voting to add the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap to the Government’s programme in the King’s Speech.”
“Ways were found round other people standing for fairly minor positions, but a way was found by the Prime Minister and his advisers to push Peter Mandelson over the line and into the office of ambassador to the USA. The reason for that, or one of the reasons, is quite simple: a nasty political factionalism. The reason that Peter Mandelson is looked upon so favourably by the Prime Minister and the people around him is that he made his name kicking the left of the Labour party, and boasting about it. I believe that, at the very least, that clouded their judgment, and it meant that they could find ways around what was in the public domain—find excuses to push him over the line. When this matter was discussed some months ago in the Chamber, I asked how Lord Mandelson could retain the Labour Whip, given what was known, while hon.”
“That might seem tangential, but how have we ended up in a situation where a nasty factionalism has operated to such an extent that the Prime Minister and his advisers have promoted and protected Peter Mandelson when so many honest, decent Labour people around the country have been unreasonably punished and prevented from standing for office? We have all heard of Labour councillors who were not allowed to stand for council, perhaps because they had liked a tweet from a member of the Green party or some such. We all saw how Andy Burnham was prevented from even standing for Parliament, and that was pushed by the Prime Minister. Yet at the same time, Peter Mandelson was promoted.”
“I agree with the hon. Member. If the Government are foolish enough to push their amendment, which I do not think they will, I will of course vote against it because it would operate to stop us getting the full and complete truth about this matter. I will come on to some other points and make some progress, as I know that other colleagues want to speak. The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ended up being appointed by the Prime Minister to the role of ambassador to the United States of America, given what was known and what was in the public domain, and given that the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box today that he did know. Something that must come into this—and it is not a distraction—is political culture. By that, I mean the political culture that has developed within the Labour party.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point. I say for the record that she was treated terribly by the party, by people around the Prime Minister and by people in the party bureaucracy, while those same people found reasons to turn a blind eye to or make excuses for what was known about Peter Mandelson.”
“Let me quote Peter Mandelson: “I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office.” He was referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) while he was leader of the Labour party, at a time when Lord Mandelson was a Labour party member. That is the reason Mandelson was let off the hook. People were so grateful for the job that he did again and again to kick the left of the Labour party that they—”
“I totally agree with the hon. Member’s powerful point. It is no wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low. This affair shines a light on the role of the rich and powerful, and the relationship between some at the top of politics and some of the richest and most powerful men in the world. Peter Mandelson has always had, I would say, an unhealthy fascination with the super-rich and the powerful. After all, it was he who said that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”. In this serious debate, we need full honesty. As I alluded to earlier, one of the main reasons that Peter Mandelson was let off the hook and eased into one of the most important offices that he could be given by the Prime Minister was his role in internal Labour party factional affairs—that is just completely wrong.”
“I will give way shortly. I think the Prime Minister would be delighted if I gave way now, because I am coming to an important point. The reward for the factional role that Mandelson boasted about and revelled in was a blind eye being turned, even though the Prime Minister knew about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The reality is that Peter Mandelson would not have made it on to a panel of Labour party local election candidates, or as a Labour party parliamentary candidate at a general election, yet because of his factional role and his relationship with the super-rich—which stinks, quite frankly—he was eased into the position of ambassador to the United States of America. That is the truth, whether or not people choose to admit it.”
“I come back to the point that we cannot have appointments in this country suborned as a result of people’s friendships or the role that they have played in internal party factions. That puts the national interest at risk and it can put national security at risk. The Prime Minister said “country first, party second”. What we cannot have is faction first, country second. I think that that is what happened with the indefensible decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to this important role, despite the fact that it was in the public domain that he had continued his relations with Epstein while that man was in prison for soliciting child prostitution.”
“Mandelson was infatuated with the rich and powerful in the same way that he was infatuated with the factional politics within the Labour party. Those things resulted in his being appointed to the position of ambassador despite what was known. A manuscript amendment may be tabled and it may satisfy Members on both sides of the House—I do not know—but no manuscript amendment will rub away this crisis. No manuscript amendment and nothing that can be said in this House will remove the fact that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America, despite what was known at the time, is literally indefensible. It is really telling that not a single Member on either side of the House has tried to defend that today, although some have defended it previously.”
“They need to know who argued for Peter Mandelson despite what was known about his relationship with Epstein, who argued for him to be pushed over the line into the role of ambassador to the United States, who warned against it, and what role the advisers around the Prime Minister played. That is fundamentally important. We cannot have a situation that the public quite rightly view as totally unacceptable. We need to know exactly how this happened and nothing should prevent that, because the public are completely baffled and disgusted. The point has been made that we need to clean up our politics. Of course, that means no jobs for the boys when they are deeply inappropriate and deeply unsuitable for them, and it means looking at the role of big money in politics.”
“The hon. Gentleman may not have understood the point that I am making—perhaps that is the Liberal position on these things; I do not know. What I am talking about is the fact that victims of sexual abuse were put second to factional politics. The point I am making is that this dirty, grubby internal factional behaviour overrode those considerations—so, in fact, I do not disagree with him. That is the point that I am making: the lives of survivors should have been put first. The risk that Peter Mandelson posed to national security, and his deep inappropriateness for the role of ambassador to the US, should have been put first. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, but that is the very point that I am making. The public deserve the truth—the full truth.”
“The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ever got to be appointed ambassador to the United States, given what was known. One would presume he passed some sort of security check or vetting. As well as an inquiry into Peter Mandelson’s appointment, can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister reassure the House and the public on behalf of the Prime Minister that everyone in No. 10 who advocated for, or had influence in, securing Peter Mandelson’s appointment, in spite of what was known about his relationship with Epstein, had security clearance, which is a key protection to guard against improper influence and exposure for our country?”
“However, if Labour colleagues and trade unionists stepped back from that background, more and more colleagues would be speaking out against it. One of the mottoes of the trade union movement is “an injury to one is an injury to all”, and that applies whichever party’s leadership is running the council. I pay tribute not only to the striking workers, because it is not easy to go on strike and people do not do it unless it is a last resort—whatever the newspapers and right-wing politicians might say—but also to the agency refuse workers who are now on strike.”
“What we have here is a dispute that has lasted for 10 months, and from the outside people are wondering why on earth it has not settled. But we know why. A ballpark figured was agreed, but the leadership of the council, and, crucially, the commissioners—unelected, of course—stepped in to block that deal, so the strike continues, with all that means for the workers and the residents of the fine city of Birmingham. We need to put it very clearly on the record that to expect refuse workers, drivers and loaders doing an important job to accept a pay cut of up to £8,000—which can be up to a quarter of their wages—is simply unacceptable. I know, of course, the history of Birmingham city council as a Labour council.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am a trade unionist and a Unite member. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a trade union lawyer, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), in my many years as a member of the trade union movement I never came across anything like this. Back in 2009, the then Conservative-Lib Dem-Green-run Leeds city council tried to take up to a third of the pay away from Leeds refuse workers. What flowed from that was a strike by GMB and Unison members against that swingeing, unfair pay cut that lasted for three months—the longest continuous dispute in Yorkshire since the miners’ strike. That dispute ended successfully for the workers.”
“They cannot afford it, especially in this cost of living crisis. They are right to step up to the plate to defend their working terms and conditions and pay, not just for themselves but for others. This is not a dispute to try to get a pay rise; it is about defending pay at a time when people need it more than they have done for decades because of the cost of living crisis. I pay tribute to those people and to trade unionists from other trade unions who have shown real solidarity with these workers, in the best traditions of the labour and trade union movement. I hope the Minister, when she responds, can give us some hope that the Government will intervene and bring a fair end to this dispute.”
“What can see things return to how they should be, and what can result in a fair resolution for workers and residents? Only intervention from the Government can do that. If the commissioners are blocking the deal, the Government should get involved, unblock that process and help to fairly end this dispute. That, I think, is what the public want and what trade unionists want. I want to finish by paying tribute to members of Unite the union who have been on strike since March. They will not like the inconvenience that is inevitably caused by strikes to local residents, because they live there too. Too often, when people talk about trade unionists and workers, they talk about them as if they are not local residents themselves—and they are. Those Birmingham residents should not be asked to take pay cuts of up to £8,000.”
“My hon. Friend, himself a diligent and passionate Birmingham MP, makes a very important point. I agree with him that, if the council leadership or the commissioners have that legal advice, they should indeed publish it, because the advice of Unite’s King’s counsel, Oliver Segal, is very clear and runs contrary to the representations made by the other side. We know what the block is. We know the awful position faced by workers in Birmingham—a pay cut of up to £8,000. We know the awful situation faced by Birmingham residents. It seems to me that this is a matter for all trade unionists across the country, who want to see a fair resolution to the dispute. It is so frustrating to see that it was so close, but was scuppered, it seems, by the leadership of the council and by the commissioners. What can unblock that blockage?”
“Donald Trump’s appalling threats to seize Greenland, along with his disgusting bombing of Venezuela, are a new form of gangster politics that are set out in his new national security strategy, which also speaks of boosting support for the far right across Europe. We have to deal with that reality, and Trump’s threats of tariffs this weekend show how little we can rely on the so-called special relationship. Instead of blindly following US policy, as we have done all too often in the past, with disastrous consequences, is it not now time to stand up to Trump and forge a new independent foreign policy based on international law, peace and co-operation? Those important values are the antithesis of what Donald Trump stands for.”
“The security services sometimes let people down, and they sometimes do not effectively protect the lives of people in our country, so a duty of candour should apply to them, too. Will the Minister confirm that the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) is not off the table and will now be fully and properly considered before the Bill comes back to this House?”
“The campaign for the Hillsborough law—not “a” Hillsborough law—has been this country’s greatest and most defining campaign for justice led by ordinary people in the modern era. I am very pleased that the Government pulled back at the weekend from what would have been—regardless of any good intentions—a betrayal of that campaign. The choice that the Prime Minister now makes will come to define his domestic legacy when all is done and dusted. Will the Minister put on the record the understanding that those of us with closer proximity to power than the people who have campaigned courageously for this law have a tendency to be too trusting of others in powerful institutions?”
“It was the Prime Minister who decided to disregard the United Nations charter when it came to Trump’s bombing and killing, and his kidnapping the Head of State. It speaks volumes that the Prime Minister has chosen not to come to this House to explain his decision. The reality is that if it were Putin doing this, the Prime Minister would not be saying, “It’s up to the Russians to decide whether or not this is legal,” but that is exactly what the Prime Minister has said in relation to Trump’s disgusting attack on Venezuela. Is not the reality that the Prime Minister is willing to ditch international law and side-step the United Nations charter in order to appease Donald Trump, and does not that cowardly, craven approach drag this country’s reputation through the dirt?”
“Our ability do so, as a country and as a Government, will be severely weakened if we accidentally or otherwise start treading down that path ourselves.”
“Regardless of people’s views on animal welfare and rights, a lot of members of the public will be concerned about what the legislation means for civil liberties, what the intended consequences are, and what the unintended effects may be. As this Committee sits, a number of prisoners are on hunger strike in jails in our country. It feels as though there is an authoritarian drift. We have also seen the proscription of an organisation, which myself and others voted against, because we were concerned about where it would lead in practice, and its implications for civil liberties. We quite rightly speak out against infringements of civil liberties and freedom of speech in other countries, and we speak out against draconian laws.”
“I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats will divide the Committee, but even if there is a Division and the legislation passes, I would welcome—as would the public and hon. Members both on the Committee and outside it—the regulations being put before the House in the new year. There should be a full opportunity to debate and discuss the intended and unintended consequences, and an opportunity for every Member of the House of Commons to vote on the regulations. I share the concerns that have been raised. Members have been involved in the campaign for Herbie’s law, and plenty of us, myself included, are concerned about animal rights.”
“I echo much of what my hon. Friend said in relation to animal rights and the importance of the democratic right to protest. I am worried by this legislation; I am worried about where it ends. Hon. Members understand the current definition of key national infrastructure, but I think that many outside the Committee would be very surprised were the definition to be extended to pharmaceutical or testing facilities, and when the public find out about this, many will ask, “What next? Where does this stop?” People are concerned about the authoritarian drift seen under both my own Government and the last. My hon. Friend made an important point: there are existing criminal laws that can deal with criminal behaviour. This move, which could result in peaceful protesters serving prison sentences of 12 months, worries me greatly.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. People often say that delegated legislation Committees are ones that Members loyally troop into between other meetings. They discuss uncontroversial things, and some hon. Members might even check their emails during the sitting—although that is probably not very courteous. There is no Division, and then Members leave. When I was asked to serve on this Committee, I said yes thinking that it would be another uncontroversial matter, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, and having been contacted an hour or so ago by various campaign organisations and received their briefings, I am very concerned about the change this instrument makes. The oft-used phrase, “The House at its best,” is illustrated today by hon. Members fully engaging on this serious matter.”
“At the heart of this strategy, laid out in black and white, is Trump’s explicit revival of the reactionary idea that Latin America is a United States backyard. We have already seen the consequences of that mindset in the US’s escalations against oil-rich Venezuela. Trump is adopting a similar approach to European countries, including our own, making it clear that he will be stirring up far-right forces here to serve US objectives. Is it not more urgent than ever that, instead of blindly following US foreign policies, as we have done so often, to disastrous effect, we forge an independent foreign policy of our own, based on peace, co-operation, mutual development, and respect for sovereignty and international law, as envisaged in the United Nations charter?”
“Will the Leader of the House send an urgent message to the Justice Secretary asking him to respond to our request, and can he help ensure an urgent debate next week? Time really is of the essence.”
“Forty-one MPs, including myself, have signed early-day motion 2386 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) regarding the Palestine Action hunger strike, which calls on the Justice Secretary “to intervene urgently to ensure” that the treatment of the prisoners concerned “is humane and their human rights are upheld.” [That this House expresses its extreme concern that six prisoners associated with Palestine Action have felt that they had no other recourse to protest against their prison conditions but to launch a hunger strike; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Justice to intervene urgently to ensure their treatment is humane and their human rights are upheld.] Ten MPs have also co-signed a letter to the Justice Secretary, but no response has been received.”
“My hon. Friend speaks with great passion. He says that the world has failed the people of Kashmir, and I agree. Does he agree that no longer should politicians in this place view the matter of Kashmir as some kind of bilateral issue between Pakistan and India? In fact, it is a matter for international law, and our Government and our country have a special historic duty not to wash their hands of the matter of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, which is their birthright.”
“This is an enormous military build-up under Trump, one of the largest in decades. Retired US generals, along with US politicians including Republicans, are warning that Trump’s strikes off the coast of Venezuela are already violating international law. Yesterday, the Government told me that no British troops are aboard the US warships near oil-rich Venezuela, despite reports to the contrary. What are the Government doing to try to stop Trump from taking this dangerous, escalatory path, which he now says could include land strikes?”
“On Donald Trump’s threats of military action against oil-rich Venezuela, reports suggest that British military personnel are aboard the US warships heading towards Venezuela. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore make it clear that Britain will have no involvement at all, including through troops on US warships, in any Trump-led military intervention there?”
“I need to be honest: the prospect of citizens in our country being put away in jail for up to three years without the benefits of a trial by jury sends a chill through my heart. I gently say that no Government should ever govern as if they will be in power for ever. Those on the Front Bench denounce members of Reform as Putin’s pals—I think that is a fair description. Does the Justice Secretary want to think again? Imagine if Putin’s pals, as they are described, were in government in this country and people could get put away for three years without trial by jury. How would they use that? Is that not a frightening prospect? If we make these changes under pressure and hand them on to forces that would take things even further, would that not concern the Justice Secretary?”
“I congratulate everyone in this House and outside it who fought to scrap the two-child benefit cap and to make the wealthiest pay more. The positive steps in the Budget in that direction, such as the mansion tax, are a real credit to that campaigning. On the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, I voted to add that to the Government’s programme last year, and I did so because all the experts said, correctly, that it would be the best way to immediately lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I am delighted that the Government have got the message and done that. I am proud and delighted that thousands of children in my Leeds East constituency will benefit from this, in Gipton and Harehills, in Garforth and Swillington, in Killingbeck and Seacroft, in Cross Gates and Whinmoor, and in Whitkirk and Colton.”
“We all know that much of the economic weakness driving the crisis in living standards is the result of 14 years of terrible decisions by the Tories, but people expect this Government not only to sort that out but to protect them in the here and now. Not doing so will pave the way for the first far-right Government in our history. It is in this context of the cost of living crisis that the siren voices of Reform and the far right get an easier hearing. We must all avoid that. We do not want to end up with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) —the UK’s own version of Donald Trump—as Prime Minister, so let us work together to lift living standards and stop that.”
“The good news is that the extension will not kick in for another two years, so there is still time for the Government to think again and do the right thing by ditching it. Just as I did with the two-child cap, winter fuel and disability benefit cuts, I will do everything I can to ensure that that regressive policy is overturned. There are much better alternatives. In 2010 the combined wealth of UK billionaires was £250 billion. Now it is more than £600 billion. Their combined wealth has more than doubled since 2010. How many of our constituents can say that their wages, standards of living or wealth have doubled in that time? We need to push for fairness in the taxation system. We should tax extreme wealth, not load stealth taxes on to working people in the middle of a cost of living emergency.”
“All that can be funded by raising tens of billions of pounds in taxation from the very wealthiest and those who are making super-profits by ripping people off, as the banks are doing. Tens of thousands of people backed my call—such calls will continue to grow as this crisis persists—but I am afraid to say that, instead of going down the road of wealth taxes, the Government have chosen a stealth tax on ordinary people. Millions will face an income tax hike from the extension of the income tax threshold freeze, including 780,000 people who will have to pay income tax for the first time. Putting aside any debates on manifesto promises, that move will squeeze ordinary people even further at a time when they simply cannot afford it.”
“There are more welcome moves in the Budget to address that—the £150 off energy bills, the freeze on rail fares and the boost to the national minimum wage, to name just a few—but the scale of the cost of living crisis demands far bolder action. As it stands, this Parliament is on track to be the second bleakest for living standards since world war two—the worst being the previous Parliament. People are being asked to take more and more pain. That is why, before the Budget, I called for a package of emergency cost of living measures to give people the urgent relief they need. From cost of living grants to universal free school meals, there are so many ways in which we can take pressure off people who have been really struggling through no fault of their own.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. It is important that we all see our time in Parliament as being part of a crusade against child poverty and to make child poverty history, because no child is responsible for their own poverty. It sickens me to hear some of the talk from the Opposition on this. Budgets are always followed by days of detailed coverage, but the simple truth is that the Budget and the Government’s whole record will be judged on whether living standards rise. Living standards have been stagnant for well over a decade, since the bankers brought the economy to its knees. Pay has been flat while the price of every essential has increased, and millions struggle with skyrocketing rent, energy and food costs. No wonder the cost of living crisis remains the No. 1 concern for people in the polls.”
“The right hon. Gentleman is vividly explaining the reality of what is happening in Gaza and the west bank. Does he agree that the Government of Israel are treating the international community with contempt, as well as the public the world over who are concerned about the genocide? Rather than treating the Government of Israel with kid gloves, this Government have a moral and legal obligation to introduce sanctions on Israel on the scale of those that have been rightly brought on Russia. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a failure to do so will go down as a real abdication of moral and legal responsibility at this crucial time?”
“I remember when the Prime Minister pledged an “immigration system based on compassion and dignity”, yet now we have an immigration Minister tweeting “Deport, Deport, Deport” and this policy announcement, which I am afraid scrapes the bottom of the barrel. If we are being frank, is this not just a desperate attempt to triangulate with Reform? Like some of the other terrible policy errors that have been made in recent months, it is not only morally wrong but another policy that is set to push away Labour voters. Why not recognise that now, rather than recognising it in a few months’ time and making a U-turn?”
“Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and Steve Rotheram, Liverpool metro mayor. As shadow Justice Secretary in 2017, I was proud to commit that a future Labour Government would deliver a Hillsborough law. In fact, it is almost eight years ago to the day since around 90 Labour MPs signed a letter co-ordinated by myself and the then shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott—”
“The Bill before us stands as a testament to the decades of campaigning by the Hillsborough families. I want to pay special tribute to them and to other families I have been humbled to work with, including Grenfell families and the family of Zane Gbangbola, who are still fighting for justice. They have backed this Bill because they do not want to see others endure what they had to. I want to commend the tireless work of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who as Member of Parliament for Leigh helped drive a Hillsborough law from inside this House. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne)—my close friend—for all he has done over the years, before becoming an MP and now, to fight to get us to where we are today. Thanks are also due to my right hon.”
“Martin Luther King once spoke of how “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”. It has not felt like that for so many families. Let us make sure it does by supporting this Bill and making it law. It has been too long, and today is an important day.”
“We know that there are forces who did not want this Bill to get this far and who do not want it to go forward in this form—forces who do not want the scales of justice tilted in favour of working-class people. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that there will be no watering-down of this Bill, but if any civil servants, Members of this House, those in opposition and in the House of Lords, those in the media or others within the machinery of the state attempt to dilute or derail this Bill, they will have the fight of their lives on their hands. We will use every power at our disposal, including naming and shaming under parliamentary privilege, if we hear of any attempts to water down this fundamentally important Bill. Let this be a rare moment when the House delivers legislation that we can all be proud of.”
“On that point, I want to send a very clear message today to anyone hoping to water the Bill down as it passes through Parliament: do not try it. Far too often in this country politics has acted as a dam, holding justice back rather than helping it to flow. Class and power imbalances and, yes, racism have repeatedly denied people justice in the face of state abuses. We have seen the truth sacrificed to protect the powerful. Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, Bloody Sunday, Orgreave—these are all examples of times when the state used its immense power not to deliver truth and justice but to block it year after year. In all those cases, the state was accused of a cover-up by those affected. Distrust was sown, and justice delayed and denied.”
“She has been forgotten too many times in this place, but I will put that to one side. The letter from the then shadow Home Secretary and I called on Theresa May to introduce a Hillsborough law in the aftermath of Grenfell. I commend this Labour Government for bringing forward this legislation. A duty of candour, new criminal offences for failing to uphold that duty, expanded legal aid and a parity of representation to end the David versus Goliath nature of inquiries—these are all big steps forward. There will be areas where the Bill can be strengthened, and I hope to play my part in ensuring that it is improved as it goes through this House, but fundamentally it is a good Bill and must remain so as it passes through the House.”
“The war crimes carried out by Israel last night, including the killing of 35 children, are a continuation of the horrors that we have seen over the last two years visited on the people of Palestine by a state led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is currently wanted for war crimes. The Government rightly brought wide-ranging sanctions on Russia for its unlawful invasion of Ukraine and its war crimes, but is it the truth that unless there are real consequences for Netanyahu and Israel for these war crimes, they will carry on? A lack of action and sanctions is giving the green light and treating them with kid gloves, so is now the time for extensive widespread sanctions on Israel? Why is Israel treated differently from Russia, and why is Netanyahu treated differently from Putin?”