Council Housing

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the delivery of council housing.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I must declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on council and social housing, for which Shelter expertly provides the secretariat. The APPG is currently undertaking an inquiry into barriers to council house building and the solutions required. Although I do not want to overly pre-empt our findings today, I do want to take the opportunity to invite the Minister to attend the launch of the report from that inquiry, and I invite hon. Members across the Chamber today to attend the evidence sessions we are currently holding, including that taking place shortly after this debate.

Given the imminent Budget, I will not ask the Minister for lots of spending commitments today. Instead, I would be grateful if he could answer just one specific question: will he put a number on what is meant by

“the biggest council house building programme”

since the end of the post-war period? I think we would all be interested to know what precise target the Government are setting.

I am keen to be optimistic and positive in my contribution today, so I will get the polemical bits out of the way first. There is, I am afraid, a nasty strain of ideology infecting political circles these days that seems to think of our fellow citizens as a lumpen mass of incorrigible misanthropes motivated only by mercenary selfishness and having no care for the good of their wider community when it comes to housing and development. That is certainly not my experience. It says more about the miserabilism of the so-called YIMBY—yes, in my backyard—movement than it does about those they accuse. There is no public support barrier to building high-quality homes in the towns and villages in my constituency. Indeed, people are crying out for it. When the public tell us they do not want this particular rubbish, the problem is the rubbish, not the public.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

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 like rent controls. An intervention in the private market can bring rents down because the private sector cannot solve the council house crisis and the housing crisis. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I completely agree. We have seen for many years that the market cannot solve this problem. In fact, it speaks to a rotten lack of ambition that the political response to children living in cramped, damp and overcrowded conditions has so often been to demand that we lower our expectations for the future, promising that the only way to get families out of temporary accommodation is to reduce insulation standards, concrete over the countryside and ignore risks such as flooding and the lack of infrastructure. Then, it might be more profitable for developers to cast their crumbs down to our communities. What a tragic irony that we are told that the only way to rescue families from low-quality emergency housing is by lowering the standards of the permanent homes we build instead. The problem was never that our standards were too high. It was the surrender to neoliberal capitalism and the lack of political will that accompanied its hollowing out of our state’s capacity to function that stopped the building of decent, affordable homes at scale.

Secondly, it is worth paraphrasing Keynes early on in this debate by reiterating that claiming it does not pay to house the people of this country in affordable, high-quality housing is one of the most dismal notions ever advanced by modern economics. We have the technology and the capacity to house everyone safely, comfortably and in beautiful surroundings. If private capital says it is not profitable enough to do so, the problem is with the economic model, not with the hope for our nation’s future.

Having dispensed with those points, before we get to the question of how, I want to dwell briefly on the possibilities of a future in which the Labour Government achieve their council housing goals. When we debate this subject, we often focus—and rightly so—on the immediate crisis and urgent need that council housing can alleviate, but the power of council housing to transform the future of our society does not end there.

Representation of the People Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to my new clause 22, to stop oil and gas companies donating to political parties. The context is the extreme heat; there were tens of thousands of heat-related deaths in Europe alone this summer, as well as dangerous wildfires and the droughts. All these things give us a terrifying glimpse of what climate breakdown means, and they underline just how dangerous it is to deny climate breakdown or delay the action needed to tackle it. The reality is that climate breakdown will shape our country for decades. It will affect food prices, whether people can live and work safely, and the functioning of key public services, as well as our economic and national security. We must do all we can to tackle climate change and protect people from its increasingly severe impacts.

However, if we are to have a fighting chance of preventing the worst of climate change, we need to rapidly cut fossil fuel use. That will mean breaking the vast power that oil and gas companies have over our politics. That is where my new clause 22 comes in. Fossil fuel giants have not only driven us towards climate disaster, but have done so knowing the consequences. They did their best to cover up the science, and used their vast wealth and power to distract, and to delay action, so that they could keep raking in obscene levels of profits—profits that have soared even higher in recent years, while people have been hit with horrendously high bills.

The principle of my new clause is clear: those profiting from and helping to drive this crisis should not be using their wealth to pollute our politics, spread misinformation and delay the action needed. It would put a stop to any donations from oil and gas companies to political parties and candidates at elections. Of course, the problem goes way beyond direct donations, but my new clause can be part of the action needed to break the link between fossil fuel wealth and the influence it seeks to exert on our politics.

For example, research by the environmental investigations group DeSmog and The Guardian found that when the previous Conservative Government were considering new North sea fossil fuel licences, the Conservative party received more than £400,000 in one year alone in donations from individuals and companies linked to the oil and gas industries. That was part of what DeSmog estimated was the over £2 million donated to the Conservative party by fossil fuel interests between the 2019 and 2024 general elections. DeSmog research has also highlighted what it describes as Reform links to oil and gas interests. Beyond party donations, there is a complex web of fossil fuel interests, climate deniers, donors, so-called think-tanks and other organisations seeking to shape our politics, and no doubt they were delighted with the Conservative party’s shift against climate action in recent years. Those interests, as we have seen, have had huge success in shaping US politics. We need to avoid there ever being that scale of influence here.

For decades, across the globe, oil and gas money has sought to buy influence to help delay the action that we desperately need. My new clause 22 is one step towards ending that, and I thank the cross-party group of MPs who have backed it. I hope that we can continue to work together to stop fossil fuel money polluting our politics. The decisions we take on climate action should be driven by the public interest, not fossil fuel interests.

Representation of the People Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support for these measures? They were in the Labour election manifesto on which we both stood, and it is a great pleasure now to start to implement them.

We committed to these measures because we understand that in a democracy, people must be in control of their lives and their own country. However, because we live in a time of growing instability, conflict and change, we can best protect our democracy by making it more robust and more accountable.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

There are some very welcome measures in the Bill. I intend to table an amendment to stop oil and gas giants making donations, given the pernicious role that they play in undermining the action that we need to take on climate change. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the amendment and the need to clean up our politics from abuse by fossil fuel giants?

Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

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. 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. 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.

[Tahir Ali]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the narrative played out by the leadership of the council is that the dispute will have a huge impact on equal pay? If that is the case, just as Unite has published the KC’s advice, should the council not show the public its own advice so that we can all see what it has received?

[Richard Burgon]

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? 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. 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I have received advice from the commissioners and others on the situation in Birmingham. I will happily set that out for the shadow Minister. He will know that the commissioners have the responsibility to produce reports and so on. The relationship between commissioners and the Government is well understood, but I will happily write to him with the detail.

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will not give way any more, because I feel that would test your patience, Ms McVey. I have set out a range of responses to Members’ points.

Members have also raised the equal pay challenges that Birmingham has faced over the past 15 years, which have cost the council and the residents of Birmingham more than £1 billion. Commissioners are now in place to deal with the situation. In October last year, the council signed an agreement with unions to settle historical pay claims, which was a significant step forward. Members will appreciate that the council cannot reopen this by incurring any new equal pay liabilities or perpetuate any further discrimination.

Birmingham’s overall waste service has not been good enough for a long time, despite the very hard-working staff. Collections have been inconsistent and recycling rates have been low since long before the dispute began. Members have talked through these issues. I understand that the council is trying to move forward and make sure that it delivers for Birmingham, as it must do and as it wants to do. I am sure that we all share that goal, despite the different perspectives that have been aired. As I say, I will meet commissioners and local leaders as necessary to progress towards that goal.

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing the debate, and all Members who have taken part. Birmingham deserves a waste service that works, it deserves a council that can support all its needs, and it deserves an end to the uncertainty that has overshadowed the city for too long. I am pleased that the new funding settlement will invest in Birmingham, because Birmingham people deserve much better. Working together, I am sure that we can see Birmingham move past this, be the proud city it deserves to be, and make sure that the people there come first.

Pride in Place

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call Richard Burgon.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Not only as the Member of Parliament, but as an east Leeds resident, I am delighted that £20 million has been secured for Seacroft North and Monkswood, which really needs it. Does the Minister agree that the ideas and answers on how this vital money should be spent lie with the local people in Seacroft North and Monkswood, who were sadly left behind and let down by the previous Tory Government?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right. The answers lie with our local communities. If we do the job of creating the space for them, empowering them and building their capacity, they have the ability to fundamentally transform lives in our communities. I am determined to support that, we are proud that, as a Labour Government, we are putting it at the heart of our approach, and we are determined to deliver it.

Provision of Council Housing

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff]

I agree with my hon. Friend and will come to right to buy later in my speech.

As Bevan described,

“the speculative builder, by his very nature, is not a plannable instrument.”—[Official Report, 6 March 1946; Vol. 420, c. 451.]

They build what makes them most money, while we need our councils empowered to assess the needs of their communities and directly deliver for them, because that is in the public interest.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend extensively quotes Aneurin Bevan, a man with whom he shares the honour of being unfairly suspended from the parliamentary Labour party. I am sure that, like Aneurin Bevan, he will return and go on to deliver greater things. Does he agree that a mass council house building programme could help to drive down rents in the private sector, because it is the lack of council house provision that has allowed private rents to rocket, pricing people out?

[Chris Hinchliff]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in his assessment of one of the many benefits of council housing.

The provision of council housing is uniquely important for meeting the Government’s objectives, because of the risk in designing housing policy around a target delivered by a market over which we have limited control. Once again, Bevan was right when he said that committing to general housing targets would be “crystal gazing” and “demagogic”. He also stated:

“The fact is that if at this moment we attempted to say that, by a certain date, we will be building a certain number of houses, that statement would rest upon no firm basis of veracity”.—[Official Report, 17 October 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1232.]

It is only with council housing supplied directly by public authorities that we can give real confidence to the electorate in our ability to deliver. The last time we were building 300,000 homes a year, nearly half the total was council housing, and if we want to secure an increase in construction to 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament, the lion’s share of the balance must come through council housing.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

On the promotion of Leeds United, I call Richard Burgon.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I take that as congratulations from the Speaker of the House of Commons on the promotion of Leeds United, so thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That seems to be the most popular thing I have said in the House for some time.

I am proud to be a Unite member and a trade union member. I remember the 2009 Leeds bin strike, when the Conservative and Lib Dem-run council tried to cut the bin workers’ pay by up to £6,000. A three-month strike followed that was ultimately successful. Having listened to the points made by Members from across the Chamber, I would say that it is always wrong to castigate trade unions as being the enemy within. They are an important part of our civil democracy. It is not union officials who called this strike—or any strike—but trade union members, so here Unite the Union means the bin workers. It is really important that we do not allow trade unions and trade unionism to be demonised in this dispute, or any other.

Employment Rights Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Leeds East.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

I have listened with interest to what the shadow Minister is saying about people being entitled to go all the way to an employment tribunal hearing from the moment they take up employment. Has he ever heard of pre-hearing reviews for employment tribunals?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The point I was making is that the case may go all the way to an employment tribunal, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but there would also be the cost of defending the case even if it does not. That small business will have to bring consultants in and will have to speak to lawyers. That itself costs money, and in many cases that will be thousands of pounds. That is what the hon. Member fails to understand: when you are accused, you lose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have to start with reflections on some of the speeches from Conservative Members, although their Benches are now deserted. Those speeches brought back memories from when I was younger of watching my favourite actor, Rik Mayall, in his role as Alan B’Stard MP. Many Conservative Members seemed to be trying to reprise that role today. It was incredible and left me wondering what planet they are living on. It also took me back to Conservative Members objecting to the last Labour Government introducing the national minimum wage. They said it would have a cataclysmic effect on jobs across the country, when in fact it helped to move people towards getting a decent wage. Conservative Members do not seem to understand that many good employers follow such standards already, and we are enabling those good employers to operate on a level playing field with bad, rogue bosses who seek to undercut good employers left, right and centre.

Before I was first elected back in 2015, I was a trade union lawyer for 10 years, and I saw day in, day out how working people are held back by weak protections and anti-trade union laws. I am really proud to be here today to welcome and vote for this significant step forward in employment rights by a Labour Government. There is so much in the Bill to improve workers’ rights in a range of areas—parental leave, paternity leave, unfair dismissal, statutory sick pay, collective redundancies, tips, the duty to prevent sexual harassment and the requirement for firms of more than 250 employees to make equality plans. The Conservatives think this is bad news for business, for workers and for our country, but that could not be further from the truth.

As this important Bill makes progress, I hope that the Government will find ways to clarify and strengthen a small number of points. Some loopholes on fire and rehire need to be closed, and it would be great if we could further strengthen the rights of union access to workplaces. I would also welcome improvements in a host of other areas. For example, it is 30 years since the Tories took away prison officers’ right to strike, and I would like to see that returned. If people succeed in proving unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal and get a reinstatement order, I would like to see it made much more likely that they will, in fact, be reinstated.

I welcome the Bill, I am proud to vote for it and I think it is shameful that the Tories will vote against it.

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.