Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I want to start with a point of inquiry which I hope the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be able to answer in his response later, so he has time to look into it if he does not know the answer already. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister whether his former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney

“passed all his security vetting and whether he ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance?”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 43.]

I am not sure that the House thinks we got a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but even if at some point Morgan McSweeney did get clearance, I am sure the House would be horrified if that happened long after he started working in Downing Street and after he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. It would be good to get a date for when Morgan McSweeney got his security clearance and to confirm whether he handled any materials prior to that for which he did not have appropriate clearance. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister cannot find an answer to that question by the time he responds, perhaps he could answer in writing by the end of the week, given the urgency of this matter.

The situation we are in of course raises questions about process, and process is important, but let us not make the mistake of thinking that this is not fundamentally political. Politics drove this: what was unusual about the appointment of Mandelson was that it was a political appointment. It is not standard for the ambassador to the United States to be a political appointment. Whatever Peter Mandelson is and was—I have my own opinions on that—he was not a career civil servant. He had been up to other things, so the security vetting was clearly very important indeed. The fact that this was a fundamentally political decision by the Prime Minister, driven as well by Morgan McSweeney, is evidenced by the fact that everyone here knows that the Prime Minister would not have signed off someone with Peter Mandelson’s record to stand as a Labour candidate for a town council. Yet he was eased into the incredibly important position of ambassador to the United States of America.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

The hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the issue. This is about fairness in society. We tell everybody else outside of here, who we make the rules for, to play by the rules, but when you are in here yourself and you are the chief man, you can do what you want. That is what flies in the face of what the vast majority of the public think. Does he agree?

[Richard Burgon]

I totally agree with the hon. Member; she makes a powerful point. That is why the public are so outraged.

It was a political appointment. The reason the Prime Minister was so grateful to Mandelson was the role that he and Morgan McSweeney had played, through the organisation Labour Together, in getting him to be the leader of the Labour party. What was it that made them think Peter Mandelson was such a wise political appointment? It was because of what Peter Mandelson represented. Peter Mandelson epitomised the idea that the role of the Labour party is not what it was set up to do—to be a voice for working-class people and the trade union movement, speaking truth to power and changing society in the interests of the many not the few—but to be, as an organisation, closer and closer to the super-rich and powerful. It was because of Mandelson’s proximity to the super-rich and powerful that he was appointed to the role.

That is what has led to decisions that have made the Prime Minister and the Government unpopular. That is what has led to decisions such as the cut to the winter fuel payment and the cuts to disability benefits. The vision Mandelson put forward is polluting our party. That is why we need a full and independent investigation into Labour Together, the organisation favoured by Mandelson and McSweeney, which has dragged this party through the gutter. We see certain nefarious practices, tested in our party in opposition, now brought into Government. That needs to change, because otherwise we will end up with despair, leading to the election of a Trump-style Government in this country led by Reform—something that no decent person in this House should want to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

I start by thanking Members from across the House for speaking in today’s debate. We heard many powerful speeches, and I am particularly grateful to the many speakers from the Conservative Benches, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). I found myself nodding along to the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I think that is the first time that has ever happened. We heard very good speeches from the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Members from all parts of the House have made powerful statements—Members of all parties who know that this story does not add up. We have also heard some statements supporting the Prime Minister, which can only be described as brave.

As I said when I opened the debate, I do feel for the Minister sent here today on the Prime Minister’s behalf. He is the latest person to have to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s mistakes. He could never have given this House the answers it deserved to hear about what is, at its core, a failure of the Prime Minister’s judgment, a failure of the Prime Minister to follow process, and a shocking failure of the Prime Minister to take responsibility for his own mistakes—not just apologise, but take responsibility.

The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to our most important diplomatic role in full knowledge, based on the due diligence, that Mandelson was a security risk, despite many Members asking it. He could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the Cabinet Secretary and appoint Peter Mandelson before he received vetting. That was clearly not the process at the time, despite what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. He has said that the Government are changing the process, but the advice in November 2024 was to carry out the security vetting, so what process are they changing? Is it one that the Minister is just making up?

The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to approve the appointment. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 was “dismissive” of the entire vetting process. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle to be made an ambassador and hid this from the Foreign Secretary, and he could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister sacked Olly Robbins if he was following a process that, as he claims, was in place already—it does not make any sense. He could not answer, because only one man can, and that man is not here today. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thinks he is above answering these questions—we will try again tomorrow. I do not know whether he still somehow thinks that he did nothing wrong, but I will tell the House what I do know. The Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He is not fit for office, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.

[Richard Burgon]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I apologise for not having been able to give you advance notice of this point of order. I asked whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could answer a question that I have been trying repeatedly to get an answer to, and I would like your advice on how I can get that answer. The question is whether Morgan McSweeney had security clearance at the time that he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. Could we have an answer to that question, either now or in writing? I would be grateful if you could advise me.

[Mr Speaker]

What I will say is that we are not going to carry on the debate. I know that the Member has been here long enough that he will pursue this matter. I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard that he does not feel he has had an answer, but I know that this will not be the end of the matter.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 2 September 2025 (English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 24 November 2025 (English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Programme (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00pm at today’s sitting.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 2, 4, 13, 26, 36 and 37, 41, 85 to 87, 89 to 91, 94, 97 to 116, 120 and 121, 123, 155, 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35, 38 to 40, 42 to 84, 88, 92 and 93, 95 and 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154 and 156 to 170.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(5) Proceedings on any subsequent Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to.

Security Vetting

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out to the House the facts of what happened in this particular case. I am staggered and I find it unbelievable that I was not given the information I should have been given.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister made the political decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, but central to that decision, along with other decisions about policy and political position, would have been the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House whether Morgan McSweeney passed all his security vetting and whether he ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance?

[The Prime Minister]

All the appropriate and necessary developed vetting has taken place in No. 10. Everybody has passed that. [Interruption.] They have all passed it.

Middle East

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I remind myself that the hon. Gentleman’s party’s position was to fully support the war—to go in with both feet, whatever the consequences. Now he says that there are these consequences; well, his party should have thought about that before it adopted the policy of going straight in. On the question of energy and gas, yes, the price is subject to the international market because we are on the international market, and that is why the sooner we have energy independence, the better.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Trump’s illegal war on Iran and his genocidal threats to kill a whole civilisation are part and parcel of a dangerous new US security plan. The Trump doctrine is based upon yet more war and tearing up international law, making the whole world less safe. Given that, I say to the Prime Minister, is it not time for Britain to stop being a junior partner to the US and to pursue a truly independent foreign policy? Should the very first step not be to end all US access to British military bases for Trump’s war on Iran?

[The Prime Minister]

We have about 300,000 British civilians in the Gulf region, and they are at risk because of Iran’s actions. It is my duty to ensure that we protect them. That is why we have taken action in our own right, particularly with our pilots. It is also why I have allowed the bases to be used for defensive purposes to prevent attacks on our civilians, as much as anything else, who are in the region. We are never going to abandon them to their fate when missiles and drones are incoming into the areas where they live and work. It is my duty to protect them, and I will continue to do so.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I confirm that all other documents that are in scope of the Humble Address that are not being published today will be, subject to the Metropolitan police and clearance from the Intelligence and Security Committee, published in the next tranche.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I hold in my hand the advice that was given to the Prime Minister before he made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the USA. Reading that advice document, it is clear that the Prime Minister would not have given the go ahead for this individual to stand as a Labour candidate for town council. Instead, he was elevated, despite what is in the document and despite what was known, to this most important of positions.

There is a whole section entitled “Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein”. The question that has to be asked is: how did it even get to the stage of the Prime Minister interviewing Mandelson and considering him for the job? The simple answer is political. It is because it suited the interests of a tiny faction in the Labour party, funded by big business, which wanted Mandelson at the heart of things in order to shift a Labour Government away from the agenda that a real Labour Government should have. That is why Mandelson was popular with these people, that is why he was one of their favourite sons and that is why, despite his despicable character, despite his greed and his avarice, he was put in that position despite what was known. Is that not the case?

[Darren Jones]

It is not for me to speak on behalf of Peter Mandelson, but evidently he put himself forward for this role, which is how he ended up in the process in the first place. To the question of his appointment, as I have said to the House, the Prime Minister regrets his appointment and apologises for it, and had he known what the House now knows, he would never have appointed him in the first place.

Middle East

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is very important that we are clear on the principle that the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed, particularly but not only in recent months. We must consistently make that case, and we are doing so.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

This is an extremely dangerous moment, and Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show where it can end up: with death, destruction, terror and chaos impacting tens of millions of people. Given that, should the Government’s focus not be on pushing Trump, Israel and Iran towards diplomacy, de-escalation and a ceasefire? Instead, by siding with Trump, has the Prime Minister not risked dragging us into a wider conflict, which leaves us all less safe? Mission creep would erode the distinction that he is attempting to make between offensive and defensive actions and would lead us to become fully embroiled in an illegal US war in the middle east.

[The Prime Minister]

My focus has been on the protection of the 300,000 British nationals in the region, who are at risk. It is our duty to take steps to reduce that risk and bring them to safety and security.

Lord Mandelson

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Of course, the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the victims and survivors of Epstein’s appalling, horrific abuse, but the motion we are discussing focuses on something very particular: not just what is known now or what has been revealed in the past few days—conduct for which Peter Mandelson needs to face the toughest consequences—but what was known at the time of his appointment to the hugely important role of this country’s ambassador to the United States of America.

In 2023, the Financial Times reported that:

“in June 2009, when he was the UK business secretary, Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s lavish townhouse in Manhattan, while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor.”

That was 18 months before the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to the role. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister said that he knew before appointing Peter Mandelson that he had maintained a relationship with Epstein. People not just in this Chamber but outside it are asking how on earth, given what was known and what has been admitted was known, did Peter Mandelson end up being appointed by the Prime Minister as ambassador to the United States of America.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it appears that the Prime Minister turned a blind eye to what was already known about Peter Mandelson’s association with the appalling sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because, effectively, he wanted to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he not agree that it looks very much like the wording of the Government’s amendment—

“except papers prejudicial to…international relations”

—effectively says that the Government do not want to release anything that might affect the Prime Minister’s ability to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he therefore agree that the Government must withdraw their amendment to the motion? Furthermore, does he agree that we need to do more than just deal with this; we also need to address the lack of public trust in politics and in this House? To do so, we need to deal with things like political donations, the pollution of misinformation, and the urgent need for reform of the other place and, indeed, of electoral mechanisms in this Chamber?

[Richard Burgon]

I agree with the hon. Member. If the Government are foolish enough to push their amendment, which I do not think they will, I will of course vote against it because it would operate to stop us getting the full and complete truth about this matter. I will come on to some other points and make some progress, as I know that other colleagues want to speak.

The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ended up being appointed by the Prime Minister to the role of ambassador to the United States of America, given what was known and what was in the public domain, and given that the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box today that he did know.

Something that must come into this—and it is not a distraction—is political culture. By that, I mean the political culture that has developed within the Labour party. That might seem tangential, but how have we ended up in a situation where a nasty factionalism has operated to such an extent that the Prime Minister and his advisers have promoted and protected Peter Mandelson when so many honest, decent Labour people around the country have been unreasonably punished and prevented from standing for office? We have all heard of Labour councillors who were not allowed to stand for council, perhaps because they had liked a tweet from a member of the Green party or some such. We all saw how Andy Burnham was prevented from even standing for Parliament, and that was pushed by the Prime Minister. Yet at the same time, Peter Mandelson was promoted.

Ways were found round other people standing for fairly minor positions, but a way was found by the Prime Minister and his advisers to push Peter Mandelson over the line and into the office of ambassador to the USA. The reason for that, or one of the reasons, is quite simple: a nasty political factionalism. The reason that Peter Mandelson is looked upon so favourably by the Prime Minister and the people around him is that he made his name kicking the left of the Labour party, and boasting about it. I believe that, at the very least, that clouded their judgment, and it meant that they could find ways around what was in the public domain—find excuses to push him over the line.

When this matter was discussed some months ago in the Chamber, I asked how Lord Mandelson could retain the Labour Whip, given what was known, while hon. Friends were suspended for voting to add the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap to the Government’s programme in the King’s Speech.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are serious about their commitment to transparency, internal Labour party materials and communications of any shape or form that involve Peter Mandelson must be preserved, released and included in any upcoming or ongoing investigation?

[Richard Burgon]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point. I say for the record that she was treated terribly by the party, by people around the Prime Minister and by people in the party bureaucracy, while those same people found reasons to turn a blind eye to or make excuses for what was known about Peter Mandelson.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Does the hon. Member agree that, at a time when trust across the UK is at a low, what the public—and victims and survivors—out there will see is the wagons being circled, no matter which party is involved? Trust is the real casualty today. Does the hon. Member agree that that is what is at stake?

[Richard Burgon]

I totally agree with the hon. Member’s powerful point. It is no wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low. This affair shines a light on the role of the rich and powerful, and the relationship between some at the top of politics and some of the richest and most powerful men in the world. Peter Mandelson has always had, I would say, an unhealthy fascination with the super-rich and the powerful. After all, it was he who said that he was

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

In this serious debate, we need full honesty. As I alluded to earlier, one of the main reasons that Peter Mandelson was let off the hook and eased into one of the most important offices that he could be given by the Prime Minister was his role in internal Labour party factional affairs—that is just completely wrong. Let me quote Peter Mandelson:

“I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office.”

He was referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) while he was leader of the Labour party, at a time when Lord Mandelson was a Labour party member. That is the reason Mandelson was let off the hook. People were so grateful for the job that he did again and again to kick the left of the Labour party that they—

[Mike Martin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Burgon]

I will give way shortly. I think the Prime Minister would be delighted if I gave way now, because I am coming to an important point.

The reward for the factional role that Mandelson boasted about and revelled in was a blind eye being turned, even though the Prime Minister knew about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The reality is that Peter Mandelson would not have made it on to a panel of Labour party local election candidates, or as a Labour party parliamentary candidate at a general election, yet because of his factional role and his relationship with the super-rich—which stinks, quite frankly—he was eased into the position of ambassador to the United States of America. That is the truth, whether or not people choose to admit it.

[Mike Martin]

This important debate deals with corruption on an international scale, and with women and girls who have been victimised over years. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his eyes above factional Labour politics and to focus on the issues at hand?

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Gentleman may not have understood the point that I am making—perhaps that is the Liberal position on these things; I do not know. What I am talking about is the fact that victims of sexual abuse were put second to factional politics. The point I am making is that this dirty, grubby internal factional behaviour overrode those considerations—so, in fact, I do not disagree with him. That is the point that I am making: the lives of survivors should have been put first. The risk that Peter Mandelson posed to national security, and his deep inappropriateness for the role of ambassador to the US, should have been put first. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, but that is the very point that I am making.

The public deserve the truth—the full truth. They need to know who argued for Peter Mandelson despite what was known about his relationship with Epstein, who argued for him to be pushed over the line into the role of ambassador to the United States, who warned against it, and what role the advisers around the Prime Minister played. That is fundamentally important. We cannot have a situation that the public quite rightly view as totally unacceptable. We need to know exactly how this happened and nothing should prevent that, because the public are completely baffled and disgusted.

The point has been made that we need to clean up our politics. Of course, that means no jobs for the boys when they are deeply inappropriate and deeply unsuitable for them, and it means looking at the role of big money in politics. Mandelson was infatuated with the rich and powerful in the same way that he was infatuated with the factional politics within the Labour party. Those things resulted in his being appointed to the position of ambassador despite what was known.

A manuscript amendment may be tabled and it may satisfy Members on both sides of the House—I do not know—but no manuscript amendment will rub away this crisis. No manuscript amendment and nothing that can be said in this House will remove the fact that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America, despite what was known at the time, is literally indefensible. It is really telling that not a single Member on either side of the House has tried to defend that today, although some have defended it previously.

I come back to the point that we cannot have appointments in this country suborned as a result of people’s friendships or the role that they have played in internal party factions. That puts the national interest at risk and it can put national security at risk. The Prime Minister said “country first, party second”. What we cannot have is faction first, country second. I think that that is what happened with the indefensible decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to this important role, despite the fact that it was in the public domain that he had continued his relations with Epstein while that man was in prison for soliciting child prostitution.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Neither the Labour party nor the Government, or indeed this House or the right hon. Member, knew about the information that was made available by the US Department of Justice only a matter of days ago. As soon as that information became available, the Government have acted accordingly. In respect of the previous decision of the Prime Minister to sack Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, the Prime Minister was very clear with this House and, indeed, the public that he did so quickly, as soon as the extent and depth of the relationship became clear from the disclosure that took place. The Prime Minister relied on the information provided by Peter Mandelson at the time of his appointment. As soon as that information changed, the Prime Minister acted quickly and removed him from office.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ever got to be appointed ambassador to the United States, given what was known. One would presume he passed some sort of security check or vetting. As well as an inquiry into Peter Mandelson’s appointment, can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister reassure the House and the public on behalf of the Prime Minister that everyone in No. 10 who advocated for, or had influence in, securing Peter Mandelson’s appointment, in spite of what was known about his relationship with Epstein, had security clearance, which is a key protection to guard against improper influence and exposure for our country?

[Darren Jones]

All due process was followed. As the Prime Minister made clear, it was clear that additional measures for political appointments needed to be put into place, which have now been put into place. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the information that became available, both at the time the Prime Minister sacked the former ambassador to the United States and in the last few days, only became available to the Prime Minister and the Government at the same time as everybody else.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The Bill before us stands as a testament to the decades of campaigning by the Hillsborough families. I want to pay special tribute to them and to other families I have been humbled to work with, including Grenfell families and the family of Zane Gbangbola, who are still fighting for justice. They have backed this Bill because they do not want to see others endure what they had to.

I want to commend the tireless work of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who as Member of Parliament for Leigh helped drive a Hillsborough law from inside this House. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne)—my close friend—for all he has done over the years, before becoming an MP and now, to fight to get us to where we are today. Thanks are also due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and Steve Rotheram, Liverpool metro mayor.

As shadow Justice Secretary in 2017, I was proud to commit that a future Labour Government would deliver a Hillsborough law. In fact, it is almost eight years ago to the day since around 90 Labour MPs signed a letter co-ordinated by myself and the then shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member means to say the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney somewhere or other—apologies for not knowing.

[Richard Burgon]

She has been forgotten too many times in this place, but I will put that to one side.

The letter from the then shadow Home Secretary and I called on Theresa May to introduce a Hillsborough law in the aftermath of Grenfell. I commend this Labour Government for bringing forward this legislation. A duty of candour, new criminal offences for failing to uphold that duty, expanded legal aid and a parity of representation to end the David versus Goliath nature of inquiries—these are all big steps forward. There will be areas where the Bill can be strengthened, and I hope to play my part in ensuring that it is improved as it goes through this House, but fundamentally it is a good Bill and must remain so as it passes through the House.

On that point, I want to send a very clear message today to anyone hoping to water the Bill down as it passes through Parliament: do not try it. Far too often in this country politics has acted as a dam, holding justice back rather than helping it to flow. Class and power imbalances and, yes, racism have repeatedly denied people justice in the face of state abuses. We have seen the truth sacrificed to protect the powerful. Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, Bloody Sunday, Orgreave—these are all examples of times when the state used its immense power not to deliver truth and justice but to block it year after year. In all those cases, the state was accused of a cover-up by those affected. Distrust was sown, and justice delayed and denied.

We know that there are forces who did not want this Bill to get this far and who do not want it to go forward in this form—forces who do not want the scales of justice tilted in favour of working-class people. I welcome the Prime Minister saying that there will be no watering-down of this Bill, but if any civil servants, Members of this House, those in opposition and in the House of Lords, those in the media or others within the machinery of the state attempt to dilute or derail this Bill, they will have the fight of their lives on their hands. We will use every power at our disposal, including naming and shaming under parliamentary privilege, if we hear of any attempts to water down this fundamentally important Bill.

Let this be a rare moment when the House delivers legislation that we can all be proud of. Martin Luther King once spoke of how

“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”.

It has not felt like that for so many families. Let us make sure it does by supporting this Bill and making it law. It has been too long, and today is an important day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There is nothing progressive about people crossing the channel in small boats—nothing at all. We need to ensure that that stops.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the question of the Dublin agreement. We had a returns agreement with the whole of Europe, but it was ripped up when we left the EU by people who made promises that that would not be the case. We are rebuilding that relationship—we have reset it—and we now have a returns agreement with France. We would not need a single returns scheme with France if we had not ripped up the Dublin agreement.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Q15. We are at a very dangerous political moment, with opinion polls warning that for the first time in our country’s history, we risk the election of an extremist far-right Government. We all have a duty to prevent that. To do so, do we not need to rebuild support through a return to real Labour values, with real action to tackle poverty and inequality, a wealth tax on the super-rich, and ethical foreign policy that takes a strong, principled stand on war crimes, whoever commits them?

[The Prime Minister]

We do stand at an important moment: we can have the politics of renewal under this Government, or the politics of grievance under Reform. Reform does not want to fix the problems; it wants the grievance to continue. The last thing it wants is improvement in the lives of working people in this country, because it feeds off the problems and grievances being there. That is the difference.

Arms and Military Cargo Export Controls: Israel

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

One horrific example of why we must stop supplying the parts for the F-35 fighter jets is the al-Mawasi attack last July. F-35s dropped 2,000 lb bombs on a designated safe zone in Gaza, killing 90 civilians and injuring 300. The use of such powerful munitions in densely populated areas is clearly a violation of international humanitarian law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) said, key parts of the F-35s that carried out that attack may well have come from Britain; they clearly have done in other attacks. If we want to avoid any complicity in such Israeli war crimes, do we not need to stop these exports immediately?

[Steve Witherden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am very glad that the al-Mawasi attack has been mentioned and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments he expressed.

Freedom of information data reveals that the F-35 open general export licence was used 14 times to export to Israel in 2023—three times as much as in any other year. Israel is heavily reliant on F-35s for its attack on Gaza and is expanding its fleet. Without UK components, those jets could not fly.

The latest report from the Palestinian Youth Movement further details the F-35 supply chain. It shows that subassemblies and parts for F35s, including those used for repairs and maintenance, are all “logged and documented”, and that the global supply chain for the US-run F-35 maintenance programme has “robust traceability”. Therefore, the Government’s claim that it is impossible to halt supplies of F-35 components to Israel without undermining the global F-35 supply chain does not stand up to scrutiny. That raises serious questions around the UK’s legal duty to prevent genocide, yet the weapons continue to flow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

We make approximately 15% of the components that contribute to the F-35 programme; it is an international programme of which we are but one partner. We continue to supply the programme because our judgment as a Government is that not doing so would undermine the continuing functioning of the programme, which is in the Government’s view, as I say, of critical importance to European and global security.

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I have given way several times on that point, so I am keen to make some progress. The Government have made these judgments calmly and soberly, and will continue to do so with full awareness of our responsibility.

Let me now turn to the question of transparency. As the UK Government, we publish quarterly official statistics and an annual report about export licences granted and refused. We provide a searchable database allowing users to produce bespoke reports, drawing on this data, and we are committed to openness on strategic export licensing, which provides the means for Parliament and the public to hold us to account.

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little more progress before I take further interventions.

Because these are exceptional circumstances, the Government have heard requests from Members on both sides of the House for us to release further details, including information on licence applications in progress, and as full information as we can disclose on the types of equipment that are covered by each extant licence. Recognising the exceptional nature of this issue and the importance of providing transparent and robust information to ensure that Parliament and the public can hold the Government to account, in December we laid in the Library of the House an exceptional release of export licensing data focused specifically on Israel, setting out plainly how many licences remained extant at that time, how many had been granted since June 2024, and how many had been refused.

In summarising that release, let me assure Members that remaining licences relate to non-military items, military items for civilian use, or items not for use in military operations in Gaza. These licences also extend to components in items for re-export to other countries—that is, those that then leave Israel. Ongoing licensing applications are also decided on that basis. In fact, of the 352 licences extant for Israel, as of 6 December 191 were non-military. They included commercial aircraft components, equipment for private manufacturing firms, and parts for submersible vessels for use in scientific research. That left 161 licences relating to military equipment. However, less than half those related to the Government of Israel or the IDF. Most related either to UK components that private Israeli companies would incorporate before re-exporting an item to a third country, or to military-grade equipment for civilians such as body armour for journalists and NGOs.

I can advise the House that recent reporting on this topic does not provide distinctions between items for civilian and for military use, or between items remaining in Israel and those for re-export. The UK is not allowing the direct export of arms for use in Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

[Richard Burgon]

The Minister is giving a detailed response, but may I return him to the issue of the international pool of F-35 spares? Is it the Government’s contention that a conditional licence is impossible—that is, that we could provide F-35 spares, but on the basis that they are not then sent to Israel to be used in Gaza?

[Mr Alexander]

I am acutely conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The exclusion from the suspension decision for F-35 components should not, in principle, apply to licences for F-35 components that could be identified as going to Israel for use by Israel. Exports of F-35 components directly to Israel are therefore suspended unless they are for re-export.

Let me return to the specific point that I know has been the subject of much scrutiny in relation to recent reporting outside the House. The majority of military licences approved last year are for components of military items for re-export to third countries, including the UK’s NATO allies, of about £142 million-worth of military goods licensed for Israel and in 2024. The vast majority of that overall value was supporting the production of items for use outside Israel. That includes more than £120 million, or about 85% of the total licence value, for components to support exports of military items from Israeli companies to a single programme for a NATO ally.

These remaining licences have no utility in military operations in Gaza. The suspension of such licences was not required by our export licence criteria, and would have done nothing but harm UK companies and UK businesses engaged in authorised and legal trade. Since September, we have refused all licence applications for military goods that might be used by Israel in the current conflict in line with the suspension decision. More applications were refused in 2024 than in the preceding four years combined.

Question put and agreed to.