Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately about this. I know from talking to Jewish friends that some of the statements and actions that accompany these marches cause them to feel a profound sense of fear. That has been well recorded not just by the Government’s Commission for Countering Extremism, but by Members of this House, so I share his concern for the Jewish community.

I should say that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner takes his responsibilities very seriously. There have been a number of arrests alongside these marches, and individuals have been prosecuted for incitement and for hateful actions. In addition, my colleagues in the Home Office have commissioned a report from Baron Walney, John Woodcock as was, looking at how we give the police all the powers that they need. We will come forward in due course with a response to that report.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the statement has not assuaged the fears that so many have about what the Government are really up to here. Given recent events, on which the Secretary of State was remarkably silent in his statement, may I ask whether we should count as an extremist someone saying that an MP should be shot? Or are those who have donated £10 million to the Conservative party exempt from such definitions? Would the Tory party not be better off getting its own house in order, rather than making this clearly political intervention, which has more to do with the upcoming general election, and trying to silence the huge numbers of peaceful opponents of the Government’s Gaza policy, than it has with public safety?

[Michael Gove]

As I mentioned earlier, speaking as someone who was the victim of a determined effort to kill me, and because the individual who was trying to kill me went on to kill a friend and colleague from this House, I take incredibly seriously threats of violence. I have long admired the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and I have no hesitation in stating that those comments were disgusting, but the intention in bringing forward this definition today is to make sure that the Government—we are talking about only the Government—work with organisations that are committed to peace and greater social cohesion. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member will recognise that we can work together to deal with these hateful extremists, whose actions we both, I am sure, deprecate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of section 21 evictions on levels of homelessness.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

14. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of section 21 evictions on levels of homelessness.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

23. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of section 21 evictions on levels of homelessness.

Financial Distress in Local Authorities

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I completely agree that it should be made fairer. The only caveat I would add is that one authority’s system of fair funding is another authority’s unfair funding, which is always a challenge. Everyone accepts that the funding system must be brought up to date. The current funding system has data in it that goes back to the last century, which is not a reasonable way to allocate money in the current age, so yes, it needs to be revised.

On the funding cuts and the council tax increases, the biggest funding cuts have tended to be made to those councils that used to receive the most grant, which tend to be the poorer councils. The council tax increases have disadvantaged councils with a low council tax base, which tend to be those councils who received the biggest cuts. We have not gone into that in detail in this report, but I know we have had evidence to that effect in the past.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for this important report, which makes sobering reading for Members across the House. Does he agree that the reason his measures are so necessary in Leeds is that Government funding to Leeds City Council has been cut by the Conservative Government by £2.5 billion since 2010? That has left Leeds City Council, an excellent Labour-run council, with a shortfall of £65 million for the 2024-25 financial year. The £2.5 billion of cuts to Government funding since 2010 equate to about £75 million per ward, leaving the council struggling to deliver essential services for some of the most vulnerable people in our city. Is that not why everyone here, regardless of their political party, needs to support the measures set out in this report?

[Mr Betts]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We clearly set out that the problem is due to a cut in funding. That is the result of a reduction in the central Government grant, with council tax increases only partly, but not wholly, replacing the funds. That issue needs addressing if we want councils to continue not only performing social care functions, but doing everything else that our communities rely on. We need fundamental reform; that is what we are calling for in the longer term. That is a challenge for any Government—I look at both Front Benches here—because if we reform local finance, some people will have to pay more and some will have to pay less. I always say that those people who pay more never forget about it and continue to blame the Government for years to come. Those who pay less will thank the Government and then forget about it next year. There is always a challenge when it comes to spreading the tax take around differently. But we will have to do it differently, because these council services—not just social care, but the parks, the buses, the libraries, the roads, the environmental services, the planning, and the economic development, which has almost fallen off the scale in some councils—are really important.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

It is specifically the case that public bodies, including the local government pension scheme and local authorities, should not be taking decisions that conflict with UK Government foreign policy, and we are absolutely clear that it would conflict with UK Government foreign policy if they were to engage in freelance activity of that kind. However, it is perfectly open to any representative, including any elected representative, to express their personal disapproval of the activities of the Israeli Government or any organisation that operates within the settlements.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have been listening carefully to what the Secretary of State is saying on that point, but last year, the Government stated:

“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: they are illegal under international law”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 412.]

To speak plainly, is not the Secretary of State ashamed that, through this clampdown on the democratic right to boycott, his Government are restricting the rights of those who want to take peaceful action against violations of international law, and are in effect siding with those breaking international law?

[Michael Gove]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a close personal interest in the conflict—I appreciate the sincerity with which he raises that point—absolutely not. There is a clear intention in the Bill, which is to deal specifically with the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign and its attempts to use the legitimacy of local government and other intermediate institutions to undermine the UK Government’s foreign policy. The UK Government, of whichever colour, must speak with one voice on behalf of the whole United Kingdom when it comes to foreign policy matters. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and the Foreign Secretary have, from this Dispatch Box and in the other place, been clear with the Israeli Government when they think that it is appropriate to criticise their actions and indeed those of individuals operating within the settlements, but there is an important distinction to be drawn between criticism of the Israeli Government, criticism of the acts of particular individuals and the nature of the BDS campaign itself.

I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers—although we have our disagreements—and to Labour Friends of Israel for making it clear that the BDS movement itself is explicitly and regrettably antisemitic. It deliberately sets out to argue that the state of Israel as a home for the Jewish people should not exist.

Voter Identification Scheme

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

For the hon. Lady’s benefit, I will repeat the specific answers I have already given. We know that the vast majority of people were able to vote successfully, so I have nothing to do other than remind her that the Liberal Democrats, of which she is a member, supported the introduction of photographic identification in Northern Ireland. It is quite astonishing to me that the Liberal Democrats continue to oppose introducing sensible measures in England that they supported and voted for in Northern Ireland, which is part of our United Kingdom.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

On the day of the local elections, I remember knocking on the door of a constituent who told me that she usually votes, but was not going to because she realised that she did not have the necessary voter ID. That broke my heart: her democratic rights, which she has exercised time and time again, were taken away, and of course she will not appear in that figure of 14,000 people who were turned away.

The Electoral Commission says that ethnic minorities and unemployed voters were more likely to be turned away at the polling station. When we show our constituents around this House, we talk about the struggle for the universal franchise. Let us remember that the establishment that the Conservative party represents did not want women or the working class to have the vote. Will the Minister reflect on our journey towards increasing participation in democracy, and on how this rotten arrangement is robbing people of their hard-won democratic rights?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will respond to that by asking the hon. Gentleman to reflect on his comments. Is he seriously suggesting that the introduction of photographic identification is not suitable? Does he seriously think that it should be harder to take out a library book than to vote in his constituency today? If he is seriously suggesting that, that—more than anything else—gives us evidence that the Labour party is in no way ready for government. It is not a serious party: it does not take seriously the threat to our democracy from international actors, and would do nothing to tackle the very real issues experienced by ethnic minorities in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham, who are being systematically disenfranchised by the corrupt practices of certain people in their local areas.

New Housing: Swift Bricks

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is disappointing how few local authorities have adopted this approach. I am currently harassing my local authority about this, and I am sure many of our parliamentary colleagues will be doing the same. Today we are calling for a central approach from central Government to drive that.

Many of us watch out for swifts, believing they herald the beginning of British summer. Their status as an established British icon is clear from the support the petition rallied, capturing the imaginations and support of 109,894 members of the public from a wide cross-section of society and from across the entire United Kingdom. The number of signatures alone clearly demonstrates the public’s concern about losing these iconic birds completely, which would be a huge loss to our country’s biodiversity and culture. A loss of nesting sites has been cited as one of the biggest factors in the decline of bird populations. Embarrassingly, the UK has been rated as the worst in the G7 for the amount of wildlife and wild spaces lost to human activity, as measured in the biodiversity intactness index.

The issue stems from a lack of swift nesting sites, which are commonly found in the eaves of our houses or in gaps in brickwork. Swifts nest inside draughty spaces, which we target with mortar and expanding foam when we go about remodelling, renovating and insulating. Since 2013, the Government’s energy company obligation scheme has insulated 2.4 million homes, including by providing external wall insulation. Millions of birds have lost their homes due to us improving our homes’ energy efficiency and the issue’s rising status in the Government’s agenda. As we demolish 50,000 buildings each year, so that figure grows. The loss of nesting sites is particularly hard for swifts and house martins, which are site-loyal birds: they and their life mates return to the exact same site every year to nest.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

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.

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point: swift bricks cost little and have a huge impact. That is our ask to the Government, but regardless of whether we manage to pull it off today, I hope we will all go back to our constituencies and local authorities and drive for a bit more change.

When swifts return from their perilous nine-month flight and find that their nesting site has been blocked off or destroyed, they try to break entry. They are, unsurprisingly, not strong enough to break through several layers of insulation, and many injure themselves in their attempt to get back into their old nesting spots. If they are unable to fly, they will likely die. If they do not succeed but survive, they face a tough task of finding a new spot to nest in time to breed. That leads to many missing the mark, with the consequence that the population fails to grow again.

Old nesting spots are being lost, and new developments do not provide an alternative. Modern developments have no purpose-built nesting habitat for these birds and lack natural alcoves for birds to shelter. The swift brick is an answer to that problem. It is an intended nesting spot, providing permanence. It is a bespoke option that can host a wide range of nature. It has been designed to fit the dimensions of a standard UK brick, and is highly suitable for developments, since the overwhelming majority of modern houses are built from bricks or blocks. The bricks sit inside the wall and do not compromise its strength or insulation. They are fully enclosed, with a small, outward-facing hole for the swifts to enter. They are not offensive to look at and can be adapted to comply with the strict aesthetic requirements that developers need to meet.

Building Safety and Social Housing

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered building safety and social housing.

Six years on from the night of 14 June 2017, we remember all those affected by the fire at Grenfell Tower. Six years on, 72 months on, 72 lives lost, and thousands more—bereaved families and residents in the north Kensington community—whose grief endures. I know that I speak for not just me, but right hon. and hon. Members across this House, when I say that those most affected by the fire are never far from our thoughts and prayers. It is a particular honour to welcome survivors and bereaved family members to the Gallery for today’s debate, including representatives from Grenfell United and Grenfell Next of Kin.

It takes determination and courage to come and be counted, and to remain so resolute. Like so many in this House, I have been humbled to meet Grenfell community members and know the power of their testimony. Each has their own compelling and moving story to tell, and their own harrowing and unforgettable perspective on events that night. They have been united in their fight to uncover the truth and bring about change, and I hope that we in Government and across this House have been able to listen and to learn from them. I want to take this opportunity, as I do at every opportunity, to apologise again for the role of the Government and others in failings that allowed the horrifying events of 14 June 2017 to unfold. As you will hear today, Madam Deputy Speaker, I share their determination to see the truth uncovered, make change happen, and have all those responsible held to account so that justice is delivered.

The need for all of us in Government to learn from—and never repeat—the scandalous mistakes of Grenfell could not be more profound. I was clear, I hope, when I first became Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, that discharging my responsibilities to those most affected by this tragedy by honouring their loved ones with a worthy legacy was my absolute priority. That meant putting right some of the many wrongs that the bereaved survivors and immediate community have had to face and endure. I am pleased to be joined in that mission by my ministerial colleagues: the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and my noble Friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook, who was first appointed by my predecessor to the independent Grenfell recovery taskforce in the immediate aftermath of the fire. Her long experience of representing the needs of all residents as a former council leader has been invaluable, and I am deeply grateful to Jane for her work.

I am also pleased that today, the House has the opportunity to both honour the Grenfell community and continue to hold the Government to account. As I said last year, I want this debate to take place annually, so that there is no let-up in the opportunities for scrutiny of this Government’s actions and those of future Governments. It is vital that everyone across this House can satisfy themselves that the Government are meeting their commitments and lasting change is being made. Like all Governments, we should be judged on our actions, not just our words, and all actors—including this Government—must take on board some quite tough lessons to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

It is clear that the past actions of many fell well short of the standards that the Grenfell community—the bereaved survivors and local residents—deserved. That is why, with my Department, I remain wholly committed to supporting the independent Grenfell Tower inquiry, through which we may understand the truth about the circumstances leading to the tragedy and see justice delivered for the Grenfell community. That community was unforgivably and inexcusably let down. Evidence given before the inquiry and reporting by distinguished journalists such as Peter Apps point out that in the months and years before the fire, people’s concerns went unheard and ignored, and in the days and weeks after the fire, the institutions that were supposed to help victims were found wanting. I hope that uncovering the circumstances that led to the fire will bring at least some relief and comfort. With the inquiry having concluded its oral hearings last year, Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his inquiry team are now preparing their final report and recommendations. Also importantly, the independent Metropolitan police investigation into potential criminality continues in parallel. It is of the utmost importance to community members that that investigation is able to operate as they seek the justice that they deserve.

The Government have accepted in principle all the recommendations in the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report. So far, we have implemented 10 of the 15 recommendations focused on central Government; a significant amount has been done, but there is more to do. The remaining five recommendations are in progress, and I continue to work closely with the Home Secretary to make sure that we deliver on all of them, particularly the recommendation to mandate personal emergency evacuation plans—PEEPs—for disabled residents. One feature of the Grenfell tragedy was the way in which those living with disabilities were particularly vulnerable.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

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?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I know he has a lifelong interest in social housing and cares very deeply about the fates of tenants in those conditions. I would never say that we have done everything that we should. I do believe that significant progress has been made, not least in remediating high-rise buildings and making sure that everyone who should plays their part. I will say a little bit more about it in a moment, but he is right to focus on how, when it comes to fire safety, it is not just the external cladding, which was of course the principal cause of the fire at Grenfell, but internal safety measures that we need to look at. Has progress been fast enough? No. Does resource need to be allocated? Yes. So I do agree with him that more requires to be done.

I was reflecting, just before that very helpful intervention, on the particular fate that disabled residents faced at Grenfell, and the vital importance of making sure that we have personal emergency evacuation plans in place. I hope to be able to update the House with the Home Secretary in due course.

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, a broad range of issues affect building safety overall. Of course, one finding of the Grenfell Tower inquiry will inevitably be a recognition of systemic failures in the way in which we dealt with building safety, because the public, residents and indeed the Government put their faith in the building and approving of high-rise blocks and in the construction products being supplied for those high-rise blocks. We believed that the law was being followed and that the right thing was being done, but this trust was misplaced and abused. Industry profits, as we now know, were prioritised over safety and the safeguards that should have been observed were flouted.

We are now, with the help of all parties in this House, fixing the broken building safety system and we are seeking redress. I have been clear that those responsible—those at the apex of the building industry—must take responsibility. As of today, a total of 49 developers, including the 10 largest house builders, have signed our developer remediation contract, and I am grateful to them for showing such leadership. All developers that have signed the contract now have a legal duty to get on with remediation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the Father of the House will accept that we have argued consistently since the start of this crisis that the Government should step in and fund and then use their power to recover as we go forward, because too many leaseholders are trapped. That is not just in the context of this problem, but due to the wider inequities of the leasehold system, and we need to tackle that problem in due course.

[Richard Burgon]

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?

[Matthew Pennycook]

ACM should not be on any building in England six years after the fire, and it is shameful that it is, but my hon. Friend is right. The Government should use their authority and the experience they have gleaned over the past six years to make the case worldwide, because this material should not be on any building. It is dangerous, and it should never have been put up in the first place.

While all trapped leaseholders are feeling the strain, in relative terms some are better off than others, because the Government made the political choice to provide some with legal protection from the costs of historic non-cladding defects, while leaving others exposed to bills that will not only lead to financial ruin in many instances, but will have a material impact on the progress of remediation in buildings where such non-qualifying leaseholders are large in number. Even at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the arbitrary division of blameless leaseholders into those who qualify for protection under the law and those who do not, as well as beseeching him to ensure that the Government finally grip and drive from the centre an accelerated programme of remediation across the country.

To conclude, six years on from the horror of Grenfell, things have changed, but they have not changed anywhere near enough. If we are to ensure that everyone has a secure, decent, affordable and safe home in which to live, far more still needs to be done, and done quickly. If it is not, we will be back here again next year, marking the seventh anniversary of the fire, still bemoaning the fact that too many social tenants are being let down and too many buildings are not being made safe, with the lives of too many blameless leaseholders destroyed. We owe it to the survivors, the bereaved, the wider Grenfell community and the legacy they want to see established to ensure that that is not the case.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Last Wednesday, as the Chancellor stood up to deliver his Budget, millions of people around the country will have been hoping for real action on the biggest cost of living crisis in living memory. They were disappointed. In the theatre of Parliament, with the jokes, the backslapping and the irrelevant asides, it seemed that we had very rarely been as far removed from what was going on outside. We would never have guessed from listening to the Chancellor that there is a cost of living crisis out there and that people are using food banks, are having to choose between heating and eating and are struggling to pay the bills. One would never think that it was about to get worse, with the worst fall in incomes since the 1950s. It seemed from the Budget that the Conservatives just did not think that that was a big deal. The Budget did not say enough. The Budget did not really do anything for the millions of people out there who are struggling to make ends meet.

We hear a great deal about the cost of living crisis, but it is not true across the board. Some people are doing very well indeed at the moment. British billionaires are increasing their wealth by £220 million a day, profits at the biggest UK companies are up by 34%, bankers’ bonuses are up by 28%, top bosses’ pay is up by 23%, and we even have a Prime Minister on the rich list—the richest Prime Minister in history.

The Government had a choice, and the Government failed to do what was right for the people out there. When the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) was explaining why public sector workers should not get the pay rise that they deserve, she said, “The money has to come from somewhere.” Of course the money has to come from somewhere, but the money is there; the Government just choose not to take it. Let me explain that by identifying just two policies that the Government could have adopted—two taxes on wealth that would have raised £30 billion. When I mention that sum, Members should reflect on the fact that free school meals for every child would cost £1 billion, as would an inflation-matching pay rise for all nurses, and an inflation-matching pay rise for all public sector workers would cost about £12 billion.

The first of those two policies is a 1.5% annual tax on any wealth amounting to more than £10 million, which would raise up to £15 billion a year and would affect only 0.04% of the population: the richest 20,000 individuals. The Government do not have the guts to do that, because they would be doing it to their wealthy friends. The second policy is very simple: equalise capital gains tax rates with income tax to raise up to £17 billion a year. Why should bus drivers, for example, pay a higher rate of tax on their incomes than those living on income from their wealth? It is about time taxation on wealth was equal with taxation on income, because any other system is unjust and unfair.

The results of a new poll show that the vast majority of people back those policies, but instead of making the choices that they should have made, the Government have completely failed to tackle the emergency, now. That is what they should have done, but they chose not to do it.

Voter Identification

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

The research indicates that 98% of people across the United Kingdom have ID. Where there is a gap, I encourage those who are concerned to make sure that their electorate are aware of the coming change and to highlight the point of that change, which is to ensure the integrity of the ballot box for the long term.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

A total of 505 people over 75 years of age have applied for the Government’s voter ID document in the past month—that is fewer than the number of MPs in this House. Young people, too, are disproportionately disadvantaged. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that what he is taking part in is an erosion of a fundamental British freedom, a fundamental British civil liberty: the right to vote freely? We are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be impersonated at the ballot box.

[Lee Rowley]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has managed to get in material for his usual social media clip. The reality is that we are trying to ensure the integrity of the ballot box for the long term. Ninety eight per cent. of people have access to ID. We will continue to work right up until May to ensure that those who do not have ID, but who want it, have it for the May elections.