Israel and Gaza

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his powerful statement and also agree with him, We must think about the future, and in spite of this awful tragedy, we cannot lose sight of the better future that we all want to strive for. Indeed, in my conversations with leaders we have already been thinking about that, and it is something I raised with the Prime Minister of Israel as well. We all want that better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, and hopefully out of this tragedy we will find a way to move closer towards it.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The massacre of Israeli civilians was a heinous act of terrorism that we all utterly condemn and the hostages must be released immediately. In the words of the United Nations Secretary-General,

“the horrific acts by Hamas do not justify responding with collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”

But that is what we are seeing in Gaza, with civilian areas bombed and food, electricity, water and medicines all cut off. Such collective punishment is a war crime under the Geneva conventions, so will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make it clear to the Israeli Government that this collective punishment of Palestinian civilians must end immediately?

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help ensure value for money in public spending.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)]

10. What recent steps he has taken with Cabinet colleagues to help ensure value for money in public spending.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

The Government continue to deliver on our commitment to get maximum value for taxpayers’ money in public spending. The Cabinet Office is one of the engines of efficiency in government. In the most recent financial year for which we have the data, the Cabinet Office, working with colleagues across Whitehall and the cross-Government functions, saved the British taxpayer £3.4 billion, a record we are proud of.

[Richard Burgon]

It is not just the lies by the former Prime Minister that have damaged trust in our politics; the contracts handed out to Tory friends and donors through VIP lanes did great damage too, yet the Government last week voted down attempts to shut down VIP lanes for good. No doubt Tory donors are rubbing their hands with glee, but with polls showing three quarters of the public are worried about corruption in Government, does the Minister not agree that the refusal to shut down VIP lanes for good will simply add to these grave concerns?

[Alex Burghart]

Last week we debated the Procurement Bill. I was very sorry not to see the hon. Gentleman in his place at the time, but if he had been present on that day he would have heard us say that the Bill prevents VIP lanes.

MPs and Second Jobs

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have secured this debate to consider the urgent need to put an end to the ongoing scandal of MPs using their positions to enrich themselves through second jobs.

Being a Member of Parliament is a privilege. It is a well-paid job, and it is also a full-time job, so when MPs chase corporate cash, they are actually short-changing the public who pay them. That is why I introduced the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of Second Jobs) (Motion) Bill, which would ban MPs from having second jobs. I introduced that Bill soon after the issue of MPs’ second jobs shot to prominence through the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal. That case became a lightning rod for public anger not just about corporate lobbying, but about the wider dodgy deals and crony contracts that the Government were mired in.

That scandal should have been the moment when the Government cleaned the stables and took real action to prevent the corrosive influence of MPs’ second jobs. Has the problem gone away more than a year since that scandal came to light? No. In fact, it has only got worse. There has been the illusion of action so that the Government could draw a line under the issue, but an investigation by The Observer found that, one year after the Owen Paterson scandal, MPs were earning more than ever from second jobs. When scandals happen and real action is promised, what message does it send to the public if the problem is instead allowed to get worse?

The latest figures, from January, show that MPs have earned more than £17 million on top of their salaries since the last general election, and that Conservative MPs have taken nearly 90% of it. Around two thirds of that money went to just 20 MPs, of whom 17 were Conservative Members. I invited the top 10 highest outside earners to intervene in the debate because I wanted to give them the chance to defend the right of MPs to continue raking it in from outside earnings. It appears none of them has taken me up on my offer, which is a shame.

I am disappointed that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), is not here today. Under his Government, the Tories repeatedly blocked my Bill banning second jobs. Time after time, his Government blocked any meaningful action against second jobs, and no wonder—the former Prime Minister is now the highest earning MP, having made nearly £5 million in outside earnings since leaving Downing Street last September. It would take the average nurse around 150 years to make what the former Prime Minister has made in just six months, and it is 50 times more than his MP’s salary.

Those who earn more from their outside earnings than they do as MPs all too often seem to view being an MP as their second job. Over the last year, as I have pushed my Bill in this House, I have heard some truly laughable attempts to justify MPs chasing corporate cash. Government Members used to tell me that my Bill would deprive our Parliament of the real world experience provided by second jobs, which bring us closer to people out there. Isn’t it funny how the Government Members who justify the racket of second jobs never choose to work for low wages in supermarkets, as bus drivers or in care homes—jobs done by millions of people who we are here to represent?

Instead, we have examples such as the former Chancellor and Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who earned £1,500 an hour advising a US investment bank. These are not the jobs or experiences of most people. Big money second jobs like that do not make MPs more in touch with the real world. They do the exact opposite, adding to the sense of an out-of-touch political class that, I am afraid, is increasingly held in contempt by the public. We have even had Conservative MPs claiming:

“There’s no way I could be an MP without my outside interests. My wife works full time, I’ve got kids and need the money for childcare.”

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He has ascribed a quotation to a Conservative MP. Would he mind saying who it came from, so that we know it is not just a vague assertion or a hypothetical Conservative MP?

[Richard Burgon]

I believe that it was provided anonymously to the press when this Conservative MP was pleading poverty on £84,000 a year but did not want their constituents to know they were doing so. The Minister is mistaken if he thinks that that quote is somehow unrepresentative of an attitude.

How on earth do these people think that the rest of the population, who are earning way below £84,000 a year, cope? These are the same MPs, by the way, who are all too happy to vote through swingeing cuts to benefits and to suppress the wages of workers who earn far less than they do.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

The former PM earned £5 million while remaining an MP, and MPs have raked in £17 million from second jobs since the last election. Does my hon. Friend agree that their time would be better spent in their constituencies, looking after their constituents and dealing with the cost of living crisis that we are in?

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend is correct. It is even worse that this racket is taking place during a cost of living crisis, when we have seen a proliferation of food banks—we see Tory MPs raking it in while some Tory MPs even deny the need for food banks.

Many MPs seem to fail to understand that they already earn more than 95% of the public. If they do not get how well paid they are compared with the rest of the public, or if they are not happy with their salary, perhaps they are in the wrong job. Given that our job is to represent the people, perhaps our democracy would be better served by MPs who better reflect 95% of people in this country. Having MPs who are seen to be using their position not to serve the public, but to fill their own pockets is fuelling a lack of trust in our political system. People raise important questions about who MPs are there to serve: they rightly ask whether, if an MP is getting paid tens of thousands of pounds, that MP can really claim to be representing the public and not their other employer.

Despite what many may tell themselves, the truth is that MPs are being paid not for what they know, but for who they know. They would not get those vast sums from big corporations if they were not MPs with political connections, which creates obvious conflicts of interests. MPs’ second jobs are an especial danger to our democracy, given that trust in politicians is already at the lowest level on record. Two in three people now see politicians as merely out for themselves, while just one in 20 people think that politicians are in the job primarily to serve the public good. More than 60% of the public think that if an MP is being paid to do another job, that prevents them from being independent and able to make the right decisions as an MP. Banning second jobs is one way in which the Government can prove to the public that MPs are not just in it for themselves, and that they really are making decisions based only on what they believe is best for the people of this country. The majority of people in this country want a ban on MPs earning money from second jobs, and only a tiny minority—just 19%—support MPs’ second jobs. MPs need to wake up to the reality of that public feeling and public opinion.

So what is the way forward? My Bill to ban MPs’ second jobs could be an important first step in the long road towards a more transparent and healthy democracy. My Bill is clear and bold: no paid second jobs for MPs at all, except in very limited circumstances.

[Alex Burghart]

Could the hon. Gentleman set out what those exceptions would be? I am afraid that I cannot remember from his Bill.

[Richard Burgon]

I will set out the exceptions that my Bill outlines. I am disappointed that the Minister does not know the detail of my Bill, since his Government repeatedly blocked it. I thought they must have read it very carefully in order to repeatedly block its passage through Parliament.

My Bill adds a new punishment for breaking second jobs rules: a fine at least equal to the amount paid to the offending Member for their second job, removing any financial gain from breaking the rules. That is in addition to existing sanctions that the Standards Committee can recommend, which include suspension. Some will argue that my Bill is very tough—indeed it is, because it has to be. We need to cut the rot out of our politics. The very limited exemptions I have included are when a second job is about maintaining professional qualifications, such as in nursing, or when a Member is working on the frontline in our NHS—as a doctor, for example—or in another emergency service. Those roles are about genuine public service and public interest, and have nothing to do with the scandal that has been shaking Parliament and sowing such distrust in politicians.

Some MPs have asked me how my Bill would impact on ministerial or Select Committee roles. Of course, it would not do so, because those additional roles are a key part of our democratic functioning in which we are trying to rebuild trust. My Bill would also allow MPs to carry out certain paid work, such as media appearances or speeches, if that entire outside earning is donated to charity. That way, we can be sure that those activities are about public service, not private enrichment.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Hillingdon Council, within which the Uxbridge constituency is contained, is going through one of the most massive cutbacks of its voluntary sector at the moment, including the local autistic group, Samaritans and others. Would it not be really helpful if the £5 million that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) earned was donated to those charities?

[Richard Burgon]

My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic suggestion. Why does the former Prime Minister not donate that £5 million to these important causes in his constituency? Let us invite him to do so and see what he does.

To conclude, banning second jobs for MPs is an important step to restoring the integrity of our democracy. No one can serve two masters, and MPs’ priority must be their constituents. I am afraid that the time for half measures and empty promises on this issue has long passed. The Labour party has proposed a ban on second jobs for MPs, with exemptions for public services similar to those in my Bill. I will be proud to join my colleagues in voting through that ban if, as gladly appears likely, we are voted into power at the next general election. An election could be up to 18 months away, however, and there is no justification for allowing this scandal to carry on a moment longer. There is nothing stopping the Government from taking action to stop the rot now.

The people out there believe that MPs’ second jobs have to go, and no amount of clever wording, sophistry and non-representative examples can change that reality. The people—the public—rightly believe that MPs should be committed to public service, not personal gain. Each delay in action further damages trust and exposes the integrity of our democracy to yet more scandals in future. It is time to end the gravy train of MPs’ second jobs.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to be in an Adjournment debate with him again; I sometimes think that only he and I care about these issues—and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), of course. I enjoyed listening to his speech and I know that his views come from a well thought out and sincere position; I reassure him that the Government’s do too. We recently considered many of the issues that have been raised—he will have been present in those debates.

We firmly believe, as the hon. Gentleman does, that an MP’s primary job is to serve their constituents. It is at the will of our constituents that we all sit here and without their support, we are nothing. We on the Conservative Benches also appreciate that the issue of outside or additional earnings is complex, and it has been considered by the Standards Committee, as he will be aware. That is why we have continued to support the clarification and improvement of the rules in the code of conduct to ensure that Members’ interests are properly declared and that the ban on paid advocacy and lobbying is strengthened, as was decided by the House in December 2022.

At that time, the question was raised about whether work undertaken outside should be limited. We believe that the responsibility for considering what constitutes a reasonable limit is a matter for individual Members; or to put it another way, it is a matter for their constituents. As I have said, ultimately, it is our constituents to whom we must answer—not to the hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, the Government or even the House of Commons. That is why the Government came to the view that we would support the work that has been undertaken to introduce robust new measures to strengthen the standards system in Parliament and to ensure that the rules prohibit Members from using their parliamentary role to benefit private interests rather than their constituents’ interests.

We remain of the view that, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in 2018, Members should be banned from accepting any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment, which the House approved on 17 November 2021, to support the introduction of limits on Members undertaking outside work. These were that MPs should be prohibited from any paid work to provide services, as I have said, as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, and that outside work should be undertaken only within reasonable limits. The Government believe that an outright ban on second jobs is unnecessary as a consequence, as the rules in the code of conduct effectively address concerns about paid advocacy and emphasise the duty of MPs to properly serve their constituents and represent their interests in Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of good points, and he made a valid argument which, if he will forgive me, I will paraphrase. It was that it is a privilege to be here, and Members should not be spending their time on issues that are not associated with their constituents’ needs and should not be allowed to earn large sums of money by doing other things. One day, there might be a Labour Government—God help us—and when that happens, there is a chance that he might be sitting on this Front Bench, and at that point he will have a second job. Even though he would not ban that under his Bill, if his argument is about time, I point out that there is no second job or outside interest that could possibly compete with the amount of time that a Minister is expected to spend on their job, as he will see if ever he sits on the Treasury Bench. I confess that being a Minister reduces the amount of time Members have to spend on the needs of our constituents; it really does. We do it—it is an honour, a privilege and a pleasure—but it would be a lie to say that Members have as much time to spend on their constituency work when they are a Minister as they do when they are a Back Bencher. So the argument on time does not stand up on its own.

On the argument about money, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he finds the fact that some Members of this House earn a great deal of money unpalatable and unsavoury, and he is entitled to those views. However, it is not for him to decide whether that should rule out such a person from being an MP. The people who get to decide that are not him or even the Government; those who should have the final say on whether such a person is an MP are their voters. Deep down, he knows that too, because I know that he is a democrat at heart, and he believes that sovereignty rests with the people. I do too, and I do not want to see a Government passing legislation that starts to make decisions for voters. Voters should have the final say: let them make their decisions.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Minister for responding in such a serious and considered way on this issue. I get the impression that he will not be supporting my Bill to ban MPs’ second jobs. He refers to constituents and the public as sovereign, and I agree. What about this for an idea, then? If the Government are not prepared to ban second jobs, as I think they should, what about passing legislation to ensure that the outside earnings of every MP are listed under their name on the ballot paper at a general election? Constituents could then have a look and decide whether they want to vote for a person to carry on being their MP.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman might find, if he did that, that people would be asking for a lot of other information to be published about Members at the ballot box. The public are perfectly capable and willing to find out about people they vote for, as he will know from knocking on doors. In my experience, voters are often very well informed and do not vote blindly. Consequently, although he says that the public support the thrust of his Bill, I put it to him that the public have also voted repeatedly over many years for Members with outside interests, when they have often had a choice not to do so. We should all respect their decision, because it is their decision.

The hon. Gentleman says that changing the law in this way would make this House more representative of people in the country. Often when I voted before I was a Member of this House, I did not vote for people like me. I made a choice to vote for the best candidate regardless of their background. Again, there are some things that are right for us to debate, but that are not right for us to decide. We must leave these decisions in the hands of the voters. Of course, such a system can only work when we have transparency, and it is transparency that this Government have supported and will continue to support.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts, and I hope he will forgive me for not being able to recall the particular exemptions that he set out in his Bill. I thank him for his interest in this subject, but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree.

Ministerial Appointments: Vetting and Managing Conflicts of Interest

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

Indeed. I have absolutely no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will co-operate in every way with the independent adviser to make certain that all the facts are known. In due course, the independent adviser will come to his conclusions, and the summarised conclusions will be published.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street and promised the nation that he would act with integrity, yet here we are again. Is this whole affair not yet more proof that there are far more likely to be conflicts of interest when we have a Government of the super-rich, for the super-rich?

[Jeremy Quin]

I would never have guessed that I would get a question along those lines from the hon. Gentleman. The important thing, as the Prime Minister said, is integrity, accountability and professionalism. That is absolutely right; that absolutely underpins this Government. Part of that is about making certain that we have the facts—and that is what we are undertaking to do under the auspices of the independent adviser.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Richard Burgon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I am not familiar with the specifics of project bank accounts, to be perfectly frank. We have put measures in place to protect supply chains in the event of the collapse of a prime supplier, but I will take this up with my officials and write back to the hon. Lady.

In recognition of the specific needs of defence and security procurement, and to help deliver the defence and security industrial strategy, a number of provisions specifically apply to defence and security contracts. These provisions will provide flexibility for contracts to be upgraded to refresh technology and avoid gaps in military capability. There will continue to be special rules for certain social, health and education services, to be identified in secondary legislation, that may be procured as so-called light touch contracts, recognising the particular domestic and social aspects that should be captured in such procurements.

The interaction with regulations being prepared under the Health and Care Act 2022 was the subject of particular attention when the Bill was considered in the other place, and it may well be of interest to this House. The Bill will apply to most areas of NHS procurement of goods and services to help drive efficiency and value for money. However, the Health and Care Act regime is intended to address the specific requirements of the health and care system and to fulfil the Government’s intention to deliver greater collaboration and integration in the arrangement of clinical healthcare services.

Let me be clear that the Bill strengthens the NHS’s ability to deliver. The reforms to healthcare commissioning in the Health and Care Act will give commissioners more flexibility in how they arrange services so that both procurement systems can work effectively and deliver care for patients.

The Bill sets out the key principles and objectives of public procurement. These place value for money, public benefit, transparency and integrity at the heart of our procurement system. As well as competition and efficiency, there must be good management to prevent misconduct.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Public procurement is one key way in which the Government can set a framework whereby employers’ standards can be driven up and a good example can be given to other employers. So will the Minister accept an amendment that gives priority when awarding Government contracts to the many thousands of companies that pay their staff the real living wage?

[Jeremy Quin]

I do not think this is the process whereby we tell employers what they should be paying their employees; that would be a big reach too far. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that this Bill contains provisions that ensure that we can prevent companies that commit misconduct from taking part in procurements, and that can be in any range of areas. However, this is not the Bill by which we are going to be regulating employees’ pay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

We will do our utmost to ensure that public services continue and that the public do not suffer as a result of these strikes, although inconvenience is inevitable when strike action of this nature takes place. I regret that it is taking place. I hope that the workers involved will not go on strike and will continue to work in the public interest. We really value the work and the services they do, but there has to be a recognition that the scale of demands being made on us is not affordable for the taxpayer at this time. That is sad, but it is a fact.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

15. What progress the Government have made on enshrining in law the public good, value for money, transparency, integrity, fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination as principles of public procurement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

The Procurement Bill, which will be debated on Third Reading in the other place on 13 December, enacts the principles set out in the “Transforming public procurement” Green Paper. Through the combination of objectives set out in clause 12 and specific rules, we will provide clarity to contracting authorities and suppliers about how they should implement the principles.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Billions of pounds in covid contracts were handed to those with links to top Tories through the so-called VIP lanes, and much of it was for equipment that was simply unusable, yet the Government’s new Procurement Bill is so full of loopholes that all this could happen again. To help clamp down on this, will the Minister now back putting a new clawback clause in the Bill, so that in future we can get the money back from those who rip off the public?

[Alex Burghart]

I very much look forward to debating that Bill when it comes to this place, including with the hon. Gentleman. I remind the House that the Bill gives this country the opportunity to rewrite procurement in this country, which we could not have done while we were in the European Union, making it more advantageous to our public services and our businesses, and better for the public.

Enabling the Public to call a General Election

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have secured today’s debate to open the discussion on adopting new constitutional mechanisms that could allow the people to directly call a general election. That would apply in scenarios where the vast majority have lost faith in the Government, as they clearly have now, but our parliamentary system fails to respond to their wishes. It is a scar on our democracy that there is currently no mechanism at all for people to do that. The debate is the first stage in my push for such a mechanism. The next stage will be to seek to progress a new Bill through Parliament in the coming weeks in line with my proposal, which I will detail later in the speech.

Such a Bill will not get us the general election that we need right now.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. There is no doubt that Members have conflicting views about calling a general election. There are two key issues for my constituents: the cost of living and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which is currently going through Westminster. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, after a period of instability, it is time to give the Prime Minister and his Government a chance to deliver on their promises and maintain the legislative process on which they were elected?

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the hon. Member, who is ever assiduous in attending and contributing to these important debates, for his intervention. My opinion is that this Government have had more than enough chances to deliver, and while we disagree on the need for a general election now, I will make some wider points that he might be interested in considering.

I hope that this discussion will help to kick-start a conversation about why we need to modernise our democracy to empower ordinary people and prevent an unrepresentative Government or unrepresentative Governments from clinging on to power when people have had enough. Of course, such a mechanism should only be able to be used in extraordinary times, but the current crisis shows why it is needed.

Such a Bill is part of a series of measures that we need to restore trust in our democracy. For example, last year I introduced a Bill seeking to ban MPs from taking second jobs. My latest proposal is for a form of recall mechanism, and it is a response to the political crisis we face. We have had two new Prime Ministers since the public last had their say at the 2019 election. Just 80,000 Conservative party members put one of those Prime Ministers into Downing Street, and even fewer people had a say with her successor, who was chosen solely by Conservative MPs. Both these Prime Ministers have been intent on tearing up the promises that their party was elected on in 2019. For example, who voted in the 2019 election for the new wave of austerity that looks set to be announced later this week?

This Government have no mandate. They have also undermined political trust. Institute for Public Policy Research findings on levels of trust in our politics should concern every single Member of this House. It found that trust in politicians is at the lowest level on record, with two in three now seeing politicians as “merely out for themselves” and just 4% of British people believing that parliamentarians are doing their best for the country. No one side in this House can take satisfaction from this. Voters across the political spectrum are united in their distrust: 67% of remain voters, 68% of leave voters, 64% of Conservative voters and 69% of Labour voters believe that politicians are merely out for themselves.

Trust, I am afraid, is in free fall. The 9% fall we have witnessed over the last 18 months shows a rapid acceleration of growing distrust. In comparison, it took seven years for the previous drop of 9 percentage points, and 42 years before that. The IPPR warns that a decrease in trust in politicians is profoundly disturbing. It is linked to long-term damaging consequences such as lower voter turnout, especially among under-represented groups. The Office for National Statistics reports similar concerns with trust in our democratic institutions. Deep reform of our economy and politics will be needed to address this.

It is clear that our democracy is not fit for purpose, and there are two ways of dealing with this crisis of democracy. There is the method of this Government, which is to attack hard-won civil liberties and curtail democratic rights. This authoritarian drift combines anti-trade union legislation with draconian attacks on the right to peaceful protest and voter suppression through the introduction of voter ID, which will target black, Asian and minority ethnic and working-class voters. This authoritarian approach has even led to police arresting journalists covering protests. The alternative is to strengthen democratic rights and modernise our democratic processes.

That brings me on to my proposal, which is a form of recall procedure through a verified petition to call a general election. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance describes such recall processes as a form of “direct democracy” and a

“political instrument through which the electorate in a particular electoral jurisdiction can express their dissatisfaction.”

It adds that

“the procedure of the recall is associated with the idea that representatives must remain accountable to the people who elected them.”

So, voters should be able to terminate the mandate before the end of a term when their representatives fall short of expectations.

Welp and Whitehead explain in their 2020 book “The Politics of Recall” that

“The idea of ‘recall’ elections is not a last minute ‘add on’ to principles of representative government, but a logical strand of thought interwoven into its foundational reasoning.”

In the same book, Matt Qvortrup traces the development of the recall in the history of political philosophy from the Roman republic to the present day. While I do not have time today to recount the history of recalls in full, I would like to highlight that movements that did so much in the development of our own democracy envisaged mechanisms with echoes of what I am proposing today. During the English revolution, the leading Leveller, Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburne, championed recall as one of the democratic correctives to the risk of an oppressive, overbearing Parliament. The Chartists envisioned annual elections, with the arguments given then not so different from those offered by contemporary movements in favour of recall. There was even a provision for the recall of congressmen by their voters in the first draft of the American constitution written by James Madison.

Later in the United States, the Socialist Labour party and the Populist party pushed that idea as we approached the 20th century. Recall was then included in the new charter of the city of Los Angeles in 1903, and within a decade, it had been taken up by 200 cities and three states. Switzerland was the first modern liberal democracy to introduce recall at the end of the 19th century, although only at a sub-national level.

In the post-war era, recall was used as part of a series of direct democratic provisions in Japan from 1947 to empower citizens with the right to initiate petitions to dissolve local assemblies, recall individual assembly members and recall mayors or governors. More recently, the push for recall has been linked with the introduction of democracy. After the demise of Latin American dictatorships in the 1980s, recall increased its presence and integrated representative democracy with participatory democracy. Likewise, Germany and Poland introduced recall powers after the fall of the Berlin wall.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I allowed the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument, because I assumed that he was going to at least give a date by which time a recall would be permissible. Surely, if we are to have any form of stable Government, there must be a time limit between the election of a Government and a recall petition of at least—what?—two years?

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I will move on to. It may be a case of great minds think alike.

That brings us to today. A form of recall power exists in a diverse range of countries and political systems. Over the past century, the countries that have made the greatest use of recall are Peru, Japan, the United States and Poland. Academic researchers note that recall provisions also exist at one level of Government or another—local, regional or national—in Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Latvia and Switzerland.

Perhaps the most famous case of recall in recent decades is the 2003 recall in California of Governor Gray Davis, where growing dissatisfaction about energy provision and public services led to the election of Governor Schwarzenegger. Because of the high interest in the recall election, the new governor received 650,000 more votes in his election than Governor Davis had received. Recall is generally used to remove individual elected officials, including Presidents, but there are examples, including the German Land of Berlin, where recall, initiated and approved by citizens, can be applied to the entire Parliament. Latvia goes even further: the electorate have a constitutional right to initiate a national referendum to recall Parliament. It is worth noting that recall is now supported by the largest progressive party in France. Mexico held its first-ever national recall election on the President earlier this year. Although that was initiated by the President, perhaps Mexico will be the next country to hold a citizen-initiated recall in the future.

According to Welp and Whitehead, the recall is currently in a “boom phase”, with Welp noting that recall provisions

“have been introduced more frequently since the 1980s”,

while

“in the past were restricted to small municipalities, they have recently reached bigger units such as California, Warsaw, Lima and even presidents.”

Why is recall becoming more popular? Welp and Whitehead explain that

“citizen dissatisfaction with their elected representatives is sufficiently acute and widespread to generate persistent pressure for the introduction of more direct forms of accountability.”

They argue that although recall is not without risk,

“There is some serious empirical support for the proposition that recall mechanisms...can indeed provide genuine improvements to the quality and credibility of democratic institutions when introduced and integrated into the rest of the representative system in a careful and constructive manner.”

My proposal would, as a starting point, seek to amend the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 to allow people to directly call an election under the following circumstances: first, if we are more than halfway through the five-year maximum period for a Parliament; and secondly, if at least half the number of voters in the previous general election endorse the call for an early general election via an official petition process.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a very interesting speech. I was wondering how he settled on that threshold.

[Richard Burgon]

This is an opening gambit to try to start a discussion. I am pleased that the Minister seems to be interested in the idea. In his response, if time allows, perhaps he will say that in principle he agrees with this further means of improving and refining our democracy.

Whatever arguments are made against my plan, it cannot be said that in principle recall procedures are incompatible with our democracy. In 2015, this House enacted the Recall of MPs Act, a new law under which voters would be able to recall their constituency Member of Parliament in certain circumstances. This was in response to the MPs expenses scandal. Under this new Act, for a recall petition to be successful, 10% of eligible registered voters need to sign a petition that is open for six weeks. Electors may sign in person, by post or by proxy. The Recall of MPs Act was undoubtedly a step forward, but a major shortcoming is that, unlike provisions in other countries, it does not allow constituents to begin proceedings unless the MP is found guilty of wrongdoing. This shortcoming was widely recognised at the time. The then Conservative MP, now Lord Goldsmith, said at the time:

“Recall is supposed to be about empowering voters to hold their MPs to account, and the Government’s proposals fall scandalously short. They don’t empower voters in any meaningful sense at all”.

We are obviously from the two ends of the political spectrum, but I very much agree with those remarks. Since 2015 and the new recall Act, the rot has got ever deeper in our politics and much bolder measures are required.

Our democracy is in crisis. People out there have lost faith in this Government and are losing trust in our institutions. If we want to rebuild trust in our institutions, people need to see that they are working for them. Recall can be a key way of empowering people and restoring trust in our democratic institutions. Although recall is widely used across the world in a variety of contexts, I accept that it is not commonly used at the national level in Europe, but it was once uncommon for women to have the vote. When Finland became the first country in Europe to give women the vote in 1906, it was radical, it was a new idea, it was untested in Europe, and people said it would never work. Of course, it did, and it was right. Democracies therefore can be upgraded for the better. This place is often styled the mother of all Parliaments, so why should Britain not be a pioneer for a better democracy? We should acknowledge the deep deficiencies of our system and organise for something better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

In essence, the Cabinet Office is the Department of resilience; it is the cornerstone of my duty as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and indeed the duty of the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. It is absolutely top of our agenda and of course, at a time like this, as we deal with the consequences of the invasion of Ukraine, it is one of the many things we are grappling with and dealing with. So I can give the hon. Lady my complete assurance that that remains at the heart of the Government’s activity. I do not believe we need a specific Minister for resilience, as we are both Ministers for resilience.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

15. Whether the Government plans to make reductions to public services to meet its objective to reduce the number of civil servants by 91,000.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)]

In recent years the civil service has delivered in the face of unprecedented challenges. This Government are focused on improving efficiency and reducing the cost of public service delivery. The Government are totally committed to delivering high-quality public services and want to do so as effectively and efficiently as possible.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, such job losses risk even longer backlogs for services such as issuing passports and driving licences—systems that are already in chaos—and they will not even deliver savings to the taxpayer. A new study by economists employed in the Government Department shows that, in addition to the short-term bill for redundancy payments, these plans could drain £3 billion annually from the UK economy and result in the knock-on effect of the loss of 118,000 private sector jobs. With civil servants feeling increasingly overworked and underpaid, should not the Minister drop these reckless proposals?

[Jeremy Quin]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises that, given what is going on in the world at the moment and the pressures on household incomes, what every person in this country wants is high-quality public services but delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible. He is wrong to assume that just because we have x number of people we need to always keep x number of people. There are innovations we can do, which are common in the private sector, such as the use of digital networks and of AI to support strong delivery of public services. None of these should be ignored or forgotten about as a way of delivering high-quality public services on an efficient and effective basis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. I know this is a matter of great importance to him and his constituents. He is right to highlight the benefit that natural parks and AONBs can bring to our lives and wellbeing. I understand that Natural England is considering an extension of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, and I know my hon. Friend will be vigorously taking up his campaign with it.

[Richard Burgon2002 (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Q3.   I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. A nurse would have to work for over 20,000 years in order to match the vast wealth of the Prime Minister. He knows only too well that the super-rich could easily afford to pay more in taxes, so rather than announcing a new wave of cuts and austerity, would it not be fairer for the Prime Minister to introduce wealth taxes on the very richest in our society?

[The Prime Minister]

We will always support our hard-working nurses. That is why, when I was Chancellor, we reintroduced the nurses’ bursary, provided more training and introduced very strong pay increases. As I committed to previously, as we approach the difficult decisions that confront us, we will do so in a way that is fair and compassionate, because those are our values and that is what we will deliver.

UK Energy Costs

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The reality is that we cannot tax our way to growth. The policy that I am setting out today is all about helping people with their energy costs, as I promised, and making sure that we have the long-term energy supplies that we need for our country.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Just six months ago, households faced energy bills of £1,300. We are today being told that fixing prices at £2,500 is the best the Government can do. It is not, so why is the Prime Minister putting private energy profits ahead of people at this crucial time?

[The Prime Minister]

What we are doing is the important work to help people and businesses get through this winter and next winter while fixing Britain’s long-term energy supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Six months ago, households faced energy bills of £1,300. Today, we are told that doubling that and fixing prices at £2,500 is the best we can do to help. It is not. People were struggling with their energy bills last winter and many more will struggle this winter, too, with prices doubled. Private energy profits are being put before the needs of people all while energy firms are set to make £170 billion in excess profits. This is a huge transfer of wealth with big corporations hoovering up even more of the wealth in society, paid for by millions of ordinary people. The new Prime Minister, a former Shell employee, has been frank: energy firms, in her view, should be able to keep those undeserved excess profits.

A different principle should guide us. The companies should not be allowed to make a single penny from excess profits in this crisis. That will require a package of measures from public ownership to full windfall taxes and caps on the prices at which North sea oil and gas can be sold. That should all be guided by the principle that energy should be run for the public good. The public support these policies. There are growing movements for them. The debate is not going away; today has not solved this crisis.

Today’s announcement on energy prices, without a windfall tax, does not limit the profits of the North sea oil and gas companies, and it is at great social cost. The claim that we need to protect the profits of North sea oil and gas firms to guarantee their investment is completely bogus, because they were investing when they were making their normal profits just a few months ago. They were never expecting this windfall. Taxes on oil and gas companies overseas, including in Norway’s North sea fields, are much higher than they are here, even at current windfall tax rates.

Energy security cannot be achieved by making ourselves more dependent on the expensive fossil fuels that have driven this crisis. We do not need more North sea exploration. We do not need fracking. Let us be clear: that gas will not be cheaper. It will be sold at world prices and, anyway, gas is nine times more expensive than renewables. Retrofitting would save people money and reduce our gas use, so the greater reliance on fossil fuels is quite simply ideological. The Government are using the crisis to undermine their own inadequate climate responsibilities.

The profits of fossil fuel companies are being put before the people and before the planet. This approach is quite simply failing people who are today hit by higher bills, and I am afraid that it will also fail future generations hit by climate catastrophe.