Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs Badenoch]

Oh, we have a second one. I am going to take the intervention from the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and then I will come to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth).

[Mrs Badenoch]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I completely agree with him, and in fact, I will make that case in due course.

[Sam Rushworth]

A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition talked about selective quoting. I am sure that she would not want to selectively quote Sir Olly Robbins herself, so could she tell us what the rest of that quote was? When he talked about pressure, was he talking about pressure to deliver a decision in time for President Trump’s inauguration, or was he saying that he felt pressure to materially change what the decision would be? That is quite an important distinction, is it not?

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is quite important, and if that was the distinction, why did the Prime Minister not say so last week? Why did he say, “No pressure existed whatsoever”? The hon. Gentleman should go and read Hansard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

Perhaps the hon. Lady should have just taken the Whips’ questions instead of messing that one up. She raises an interesting point about the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is looking only at Mandelson and not into the issue of the Prime Minister misleading the House. Let us stop pretending that the Committee is carrying out a massive inquiry. It really is not.

[Sam Rushworth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Are you sure it is a point of order?

[Sam Rushworth]

I believe so, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s hear it.

[Sam Rushworth]

A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition described the statement read out by the Prime Minister as “doctored”. That is akin to saying that it was dishonest and that he was lying. Is that not unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As others have said, it is important that when we speak in this place we reflect the feelings of those we represent, and I think that if they see anything at all in all of this, they will be thinking about Epstein’s victims. As someone who knows more about sexual abuse than I would like to, I want to be absolutely clear, before I make any other remarks, that I think that it was wrong to appoint Peter Mandelson, even knowing what the Prime Minister knew at the time. But I will also say this: the Prime Minister has acknowledged as much. He has acknowledged it at the Dispatch Box, he has acknowledged it to the parliamentary Labour party and he has acknowledged it to Epstein’s victims, who he has apologised to on multiple occasions. I speak with ordinary people, like my auntie who voted for Brexit and did not vote Labour at the last election. She told me that she thinks the public are sick and tired of hearing about this, because we are not addressing the bread-and-butter issues of their lives. None the less, this is the motion before the House today.

I also want to say a word about pressure. Many people have alluded to this being a whipped vote. In many ways, I wish it was not, because it would not change the way that I will vote. I intend to vote against the motion before us, and I would do so based on my conscience and how I read this situation. I am a Back Bencher with nothing to lose and nothing greatly to gain from loyalty to the Government. I have looked at the merits of the case, and I think it is really important that we have a robust system of standards in this place, and that we do not make a mockery of it. When we have politically motivated charges such as those that have been brought today, it risks making a mockery of the Privileges Committee and the process.

[Graham Stuart]

What does the hon. Gentleman say to his colleagues, the hon. Members for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)? They do not see this as some politically motivated thing. This is a serious issue. It is a House issue. He has already said that he regrets that the vote is whipped. Surely he needs to see beyond whatever the Whips have told him.

[Sam Rushworth]

The Whips have not told me very much, but I will address the right hon. Gentleman’s question as I make progress in my speech and he will see why I have drawn my conclusions.

The question is this: has the Prime Minister deliberately or recklessly misled the House, sufficient to make a referral to the Privileges Committee? As I said a moment ago, it is important that we treat that question properly, because we should not treat the Committee lightly; we should not mock it. If we made political referrals every time a Member said anything where someone could twist or misconstrue their words, we would always be making referrals.

It seems to me, from listening to the Leader of the Opposition, that there are two principal claims. One is regarding whether due process was followed; the other is regarding pressure. I have been watching the evidence sessions in the Foreign Affairs Committee, as we all have, and I have been listening carefully. We are still awaiting many of the documents, including more than 300 that have been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are waiting to see what those documents say, but nothing that has come out so far has done anything other than corroborate what the Prime Minister has told us.

[Peter Fortune]

I just want to make sure that I can follow the hon. Gentleman’s logical structure. When he said that the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure whatever, he meant that there was no pressure whatever apart from the various types of pressure—is that right?

[Sam Rushworth]

I will address that point in just a moment.

First, let us address the point about process. Sir Chris Wormald’s letter to the Prime Minister said:

“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington.”

Sir Olly Robbins confirmed that he did not tell the Prime Minister that Mandelson had failed the vetting process, and said:

“You are not supposed to share the findings and reports of UKSV, other than in the exceptional circumstances where doing so allows for the specific mitigation of risk.”

Cat Little, who also appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee, said:

“My view is that due process was followed...because the process as I’ve outlined to the Committee, is that UKSV make a recommendation, and the Foreign Office make a decision as to whether to grant DV.”

All the evidence so far is certainly corroborating that view.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sam Rushworth]

I will in a moment. I want to address my colleague’s question about pressure.

Clearly there are different types of pressure that can be exerted, and Sir Olly Robbins was clearly talking about the pressure to reach a decision quickly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members all know what was going on in the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. We had had a change in Government in the United States. We had no trade deal with the United States, thanks to the legacy that the Conservatives left us. We had a difficult situation that meant that we needed a capable ambassador in post before President Trump’s inauguration.

[Harriet Cross]

Is the hon. Member therefore suggesting that the previous ambassador was not capable?

[Sam Rushworth]

I am happy to answer that point—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members stop chuntering, they will hear the answer, which is no, not at all. It is my personal view, although I am not an expert in these things, that I probably would have appointed an ambassador. I have said I thought the appointment of Peter Mandelson was wrong. I would have probably appointed an ambassador to the United States or left her in post, but that is immaterial to the point I am making. The point I am making is that No. 10 clearly felt time pressure to get somebody in post. There is a difference between feeling a pressure to conclude a process quickly and pressure being exerted on someone to change the decision. If we listen to what Sir Olly Robbins actually said, we will see that.

[Peter Fortune]

I am genuinely listening to the hon. Member’s logical process as he ratiocinates through it. I humbly say that we could set this evidence out in the Privileges Committee. In terms of no pressure whatsoever being exerted—and he is talking about the kinds of pressure exerted that that did not include—could he give examples of the kind of pressures that were not exerted?

[Sam Rushworth]

We have seen no evidence and, indeed, Sir Olly Robbins made it quite clear that he did not feel pressure to change his mind, that pressure was exerted on him with regard to the decision that he made. There was pressure exerted to make a decision. That is just part and parcel of the normal running of government, particularly when working to a timeline. Let me quote him:

“I walked into a situation”

where there was a

“strong expectation—you will have seen the papers, released…under the Humble Address—coming from No. 10, that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible, the very first formal communication…to my predecessor from the No. 10 private office being that they wanted all this done at pace and Mandelson in post before inauguration.”

That does not imply that there was some pressure to appoint him against the evidence that came forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Message received—I call Sam Rushworth.

[Sam Rushworth]

I simply disagree. Pressure to get things done is part and parcel of what we do in government all the time. I am always under pressure and under deadlines. On the central allegation that the Prime Minister somehow pressured them with regard to the decision, I am sorry but the evidence has not pointed to that in any shape or form.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Chowns]

rose—

[Sam Rushworth]

I will not take any more interventions, because Madam Deputy Speaker is looking at her watch. The allegation simply has not been substantiated. There is pressure going on at the moment: documents are being released under the Humble Address and evidence is being given before the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have to wonder why the Opposition have not waited until that process has been concluded before writing to the Speaker requesting this motion.

I want to address a couple more points quickly, and I will not take any more interventions. I acknowledge that there are Members on the Government Benches, and indeed some Opposition Members, who have suggested that they are so confident that the Prime Minister has no case to answer that he should just refer himself to the Committee to prove it. I do not think that that is the way we should be using the Committee’s time. The onus is on this place to decide whether any evidence has yet come forward that suggests that there is a case to answer, and I do not think that anybody so far has shown any.

People have also referenced the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. I remind the House that at the point he was referred to the Privileges Committee, it was not a case of what happened in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office beyond the Prime Minister’s knowledge. This was a case of him saying, “There were no parties in Downing Street,” of him then appearing photographed at parties, and there being a Metropolitan police investigation and a criminal conviction. I am simply not going to indulge the Opposition in their games. We all know what this is about. We all know that somewhere in Conservative headquarters right now, graphs are being prepared with our faces on them to try to play some narrative to our voters that we are all part of some big cover-up. When we behave like this, it does a disservice to all of us and to this place, and I am simply not going to play their games today.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The motion does not attribute wrongdoing. It represents a simple choice and a decision: do we as a House support transparency, and do we think that truth in this place still matters? Peter Mandelson’s CV reads like an indictment—we all know that—and I do not need to rehearse the litany of appalling and heinous decisions and acts. For me, that leaves no question but that the Prime Minister’s judgment was absolutely found wanting in this situation. Given the seriousness of Mandelson’s actions and of this appointment, surely every Member of this House wants to know why he was appointed, how he was appointed and whether we and the British people have been given the full story of what happened.

I worked at the Foreign Office as a civil servant. If I, listening and reading every single detail, feel that something does not sit quite right; if I have former colleagues ringing me and saying, “That is not how the process works. It just doesn’t make sense—that is not right”; if we then have the Prime Minister saying that he had seen the vetting, “Oh no, I meant I’d seen something else. Sorry, I had not seen the security vetting; I had seen the due diligence. Oh, there was not any pressure put on” when others most clearly think there was pressure put on; and if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) is genuinely suggesting that there is no such thing as abuse from those who have more power against those who have less, that politicians do not sometimes behave appallingly to civil servants and that, “Oh, we are all busy. It’s the same pressure”, then I say no. That is why we have specific laws.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

Let me finish this point and then I will happily take an intervention.

We have specific laws that when someone senior to you puts you under undue pressure or treats you in a certain way, they have to take far more responsibility, because they have the ability to exercise that responsibility and authority over you which you cannot challenge. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come back and argue that he does not believe that in hierarchies, particularly No. 10 political appointments versus civil servants, there is such an imbalance in power, I will happily have him make that case.

[Sam Rushworth]

I think the hon. Member knows that I have great affection for her, so I am disappointed in the way she has just made that point. In Sir Olly Robbins’s testimony, he said that No. 10 was repeatedly asking, “Has the vetting been completed?” That is inconsistent with the idea that No. 10 regarded the vetting as immaterial to its decision—quite the opposite. It demonstrates to me a No. 10 that felt that this was an important process that had to be followed. There was of course pressure to complete it quickly, but that does not mean that there was pressure to change the outcome. I am sorry but until somebody shows otherwise through evidence, there is no reason we should believe that.

[Alicia Kearns]

I am sorry but the idea that somebody just chasing an update—“Can I just check where we are with that? We really would like to get it done”—and that there is no concept of any bullying because someone is just asking for something to be done a bit quicker, is a foolhardy suggestion by the hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister has come to the House many times, as hon. Members have said, but he has not answered the questions. The Prime Minister himself set the terms. Either he misled the House or he was reckless with the truth, and those are the terms that he set. Multiple people have lost their jobs over this Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson: two civil servants and two political appointments. For a man who said he would never sack his staff because of his own appointments, that is quite something. The Prime Minister’s judgment has also shown that he was happy to appoint people to Cabinet who had lied to the police, where he knew full well that they had done that, so there is a pattern.

Olly Robbins lost his job for implementing the wishes of the Prime Minister by the book. Either he followed due process and was sacked for doing so, or there was no due process and he was sacked because there was not. The Prime Minister’s position so far is that the former is true; it cannot be both, in which case Olly Robbins should never have been sacked. He did his job under immense pressure and was stripped of the agency to say no. As Mr Speaker set out at the start of the debate, this motion does not attribute guilt to anyone and the vote today is for an investigation by the Privileges Committee. That Committee is chaired by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and I want to place on the record my total faith in his probity and professionalism.

Unfortunately, as we have seen in previous approaches and investigations, some people may seek to undermine individuals.

I appreciate that there are a range of views among Labour Members. Some of them seem genuinely to believe the Prime Minister’s version of events, while others share the concerns of Conservative Members, even if they are reticent to say so. I point out that at no point in this debate has there been more than nine Labour MPs sat on the Back Benches who were elected before 2024.

I was once a new MP, and I too went through this process. As I have said before, on the Owen Paterson vote, I voted in a way that I deeply regret. I had planned to vote against him, because, in watching the debate from the Government Benches, I was horrified by what I saw. Despite the enormous pressure from people around me, I thought, “Okay, I must do what is right,” and I decided to vote with those 13 brave Conservatives who did the right thing. I then went downstairs to breastfeed my daughter, who was very young at the time—she was just turning six months old—but when I came back upstairs there was only one minute remaining following the Division Bells. When I looked at the two voting Lobbies, I could not see those 13 friends who had gone the right way on the vote, so I stood there on my own, absolutely terrified about what to do, and saw everyone else going through the other Lobby. I will never, ever accept feeling that way ever again.

I say to the new intake that there is a reason why no other MPs from previous intakes are on the Labour Benches, and why MPs from previous intakes have said, “If your gut is telling you there’s a problem, there’s a problem.” They have given you their advice. They often tell us how dismissive you are of them, but—[Interruption.] Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would never be dismissive of anyone.

There is a reason, and you should take that time—

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Having listened to this debate, I fear that the Labour Back Benchers who do not support the motion are being too pessimistic. They see a referral to the Privileges Committee as a threat or something to fear, which is the wrong approach. A referral to the Privileges Committee should be seen by Labour MPs as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to prove, as he says he believes, that he has done nothing wrong and has not misled the House; and an opportunity for the Government, who have summoned all their Back Benchers here today, demanding and expecting that they will give the Prime Minister their confidence, to show that the loyalty the Prime Minister expects of them is justified.

Labour Back Benchers should be in no doubt that, as we have heard multiple times today, the manner in which this vote is being managed by the Labour Whips is not usual for a privilege motion. In whipping them to vote to save him from appearing before the Privileges Committee, and from having to explain himself, the Prime Minister is once again not following normal process.

We have heard many speeches from Opposition Members about the allegations, our belief that the Prime Minister has misled the House, and our belief that normal due process has not been followed, although the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that it has. Labour Members must not forget that at the heart of this saga is the catastrophic lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister in hiring the twice-fired known friend of a convicted paedophile, who, as the Prime Minister knew, retained, even after the annexation of Crimea, an exec role at Sistema, a company with Russian defence interests. That is the level of judgment and the calibre of decision making that the Prime Minister has been trying to justify, and that is what has led to the claim that he has been misleading the House, which we are discussing today.

The decision that Labour MPs face today is whether to support the Prime Minister’s version of events. We have seen too many times throughout this saga that it has been the Prime Minister’s version of events versus that of others. By asserting that he has not misled the House, the Prime Minister is effectively saying that Sir Olly Robbins and Sir Philip Barton have misled the Foreign Affairs Committee. Is that really what Labour MPs are comfortable supporting?

Sir Olly Robbins said that No. 10 put pressure on the Foreign Office to expedite Mandelson’s vetting, and the Prime Minister insists that this did not happen. Sir Philip Barton said today at the Foreign Affairs Committee that the usual process for appointing an ambassador would be vetting first and then the announcement, not the announcement and then the vetting, as happened in the case of Mandelson’s appointment.

[Sam Rushworth]

I think the hon. Lady may be inadvertently misquoting the Prime Minister, but if I am wrong, I invite her to quote exactly what the Prime Minister said about pressure to expedite the process. My recollection is that the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure to change the decision, not expedite the process.

[Harriet Cross]

That is a very welcome intervention. My recollection, and that of most Opposition Members, is that the Prime Minister said there was no pressure whatsoever. That is not what was said at the Foreign Affairs Committee. Both those things cannot be right. Are Labour MPs saying that the Prime Minister is right, or are they saying that Sir Olly Robbins misled the Foreign Affairs Committee? Both those things cannot be right. They need to choose who they agree with and which of those is correct. They cannot both be correct.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will aim to be brief and to the point. I pay tribute to the moving, powerful and thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) at the beginning of the debate. I do not underestimate the bravery that it takes to stand up and speak out, and I really welcome and value all Labour colleagues who resist the Whip with courage today. What is at stake today is trust, honesty and integrity—those issues go to the core of what our politics should be about—and the behaviour of a Prime Minister who promised to restore honesty and integrity to government. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who said powerfully that our constituents do care about honesty, truth, trust and integrity.

It is well known that I have many criticisms of the Prime Minister and this Government, as do constituents across the country. Yes, he has repeatedly shown poor judgment. Yes, he has betrayed the hopes of those who voted for real change in 2024. Yes, I am deeply frustrated that we are having to spend so much time debating these issues, when our constituents face pressing daily concerns and a cost of living crisis to which we should be giving more attention. Yes, I think the Prime Minister should resign. However, that is not what we are here to discuss today. Our decision is not even on whether the Prime Minister misled the House, still less to judge whether it was an intentional or reckless misleading—our decision today is whether the Prime Minister has a case to answer on whether he may have misled the House, and it is absolutely clear that he does.

Looking at the detail of the motion, it cites three quotes from the Prime Minister’s own words. The first is his assurance about “full due process” being followed in the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Just this morning, we heard yet more evidence from Sir Philip Barton, the primary civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time. He was categorical that the normal process is that vetting comes first and appointment comes later, but it was the opposite way round in this case. The Prime Minister, as the motion says, made it clear that his position was that Mandelson’s position was “subject to developed vetting”, and that,

“No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]

That is clearly not a tenable position.

Some colleagues on the Government Benches are asking us to believe, although it is perfectly clear that considerable pressure was put on the timescale—within the context of the already announced appointment of Peter Mandelson, within the context of there being no contingency plan if the vetting process failed him, and within the context that it would have been a complete foreign affairs crisis for that vetting process to have failed him—that there was still no pressure whatsoever on the process.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the hon. Member give way?

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because, like many here, I have extensive experience in this field.

I feel somewhat in an invidious position, if I am honest, because I completely support the defence spending on which these aid cuts will be used. I also completely support and constantly ask the Government for more investment in my constituency of Bishop Auckland. I also accept some of the arguments that we have heard in this debate about doing more with less. I am talking about the importance of trade, British international investments, diplomacy, debt relief and encouraging other states that do not do enough to step up.

I am also aware that DFID started in 1997 with a budget of just £2.1 billion, which represented only 0.26% of our GDP at the time. That rose to 0.36% after 10 years of a Labour Government. That was a decade of unprecedented progress in which Britain led the world on aid. I also accept that the Government have popular support for diverting aid money towards defence at this time. I acknowledge as well that two of the Opposition parties would implement even deeper cuts to aid and that the others have not presented a credible plan for how to fund an increase. All of that said, like many who have spoken in this debate, I feel deeply uncomfortable. We have heard some fantastic contributions, including from the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), who predictably spoke about the importance of water, sanitation and hygiene and why it should get special treatment.

[Fleur Anderson]

Hear, hear!

[Sam Rushworth]

I knew that my hon. Friend could be relied on to talk about WASH. I also knew that I could rely on her to speak passionately about women and girls. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) even spoke, I knew that she, too, would speak passionately about that topic. I knew that I could rely on both the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) to speak about global health, and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) to talk about British International Investment.

My background is in children and youth in conflict zones, so I shall address my remarks to that. We all think that these areas are important. Everyone is bringing things to the table and saying, “But what about this? Surely this is too important to lose.” My ask of Government is for them to draw up a proper, evidence-based impact assessment of what the cuts will mean and to publish it widely, so that the British public can understand what political choices are being made and what those choices will mean. There is far too much myth in a lot of the debate around international aid. What will the impact be, for example, of the laying off in large numbers of people involved in de-mining operations? What is the impact on communities that cannot return to their homes? What is the impact of leaving unexploded ordnance lying around? When conflict prevention education is being cut, what will be the impact in civil war and civil conflict? How will that impact refugee flows into our country? What will be the impact on the prevention of killer diseases of investing less in public health? My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East has talked passionately about the 90% cuts in South Sudan to programmes that have seen an unprecedented increase in girls going to school. What will be the impact of that?

The International Development Committee recently visited Nigeria and we saw a UK aid-funded maternal health centre. I was shocked at how poor that was, and that was the upgrade. I just could not imagine the scene of six or seven women all in labour at once, occupying a very small space in a hot environment without any air conditioning. What is the impact on all the things that we are doing? Has the FCDO made any analysis of this? If not, why not? If it has, will it publish it and make it more widely known?

I raise this matter for two reasons. First, as a social democrat and a Christian, I am unashamed of saying that I do believe in a global brotherhood of man. I care about a child in Ethiopia as much as I care about a child in my own community. As others have alluded to, this is super important for our national interest. People have spoken really well in this debate about the British Council and the BBC World Service. I wish to talk about staffing. We are led to understand that the quite severe cuts in staffing at the FCDO is because it is considered to be top heavy—it is considered to have too many people in head office. But does that mean that we can expect to see an increase in field staff? In many countries in Africa, I have found that whenever we visit a Ministry, we come across British people who are embedded there, sharing their expertise. That is really important for our soft power, as well as for leveraging our aid spending to do more.

That expertise at DFID and the FCDO is known around the world. It includes expertise in value for money, sustainability, anti-corruption, and gender mainstreaming. What will we lose in those areas, and what will be the impact of that?

I have one final and crucial point that I want to make about the UK national interest. We must not be blind to what is happening right now across the global south with regards to China and Russia. We seem to make different decisions about China from one election cycle to the other. China, on the other hand, has a 100-year plan for global dominance. It is enslaving the developing world in debt. It is using Chinese companies to build the infrastructure, and it is also building a polity of loyal people. That is why the BBC World Service, our education work and technical assistance are all so important—[Interruption.] I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to come to an end.

International Day of Education

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for his excellent speech and for the excellent event he hosted this week with Send My Friend to School. It was very moving to see so many young people and children coming to Parliament to tell us to speak up for their values and their belief in global education.

Prior to entering this place, I had the privilege of spending a few years as a teacher at a school in Rwanda, where I was doing my PhD research. It was a world away from what we know as a school. I had a chalkboard at the front and a few pieces of chalk, and the children had notebooks and pens—those were about the only resources we had to deliver learning. To this day, it always warms my heart when they reach out to me on social media to let me know how they are doing. Most of them are in their mid-20s, successful and thriving in the world.

I want to talk briefly about one of the young men who attended that school. He was a genocide orphan who, after the genocide, found himself living at the rubbish dump in Kigali in the shell of a burned-out car. He would go out each day with other children and pick through the dump for food to survive. After a few years of that, an American woman who was in the area got out of her car one day to give these street children—they are called mayibobo, which means children of the street—some bread rolls. This young man went up to her and said, “Please, I would like to go to school.” She felt moved, so she put him in the back of her taxi, took him to a local family she trusted, and paid them to put him through school.

A few years later, another child at the young man’s school was being bullied because he was poor—he was scruffy and did not have the school supplies. Remembering his experience as a street child, the young man formed a little charitable group in the school. They clubbed together to secretly put school supplies on the student’s bed to help him through school. From that act, they set up a charity at their school, which now has chapters across the entire country, and also in North America and Europe. It is a youth-led charity and it inspires young people to do good. The young man went on to get a scholarship to Harvard University. He did not mention his background because he wanted to have it on merit. Today, he continues to do incredible work. That story illustrates to me not only the incredible success, but how many children like him remain at the rubbish dump and are not given those opportunities.

Global education is facing cuts of £3.2 billion by the end of 2026. That is severe, and the impact will be felt by an entire generation of children around the world. That amount sadly includes cuts to UK aid, although I should say that the UK cannot and should not be expected to go it alone on global education. There are many other things that we need to do. For example, 34 countries in Africa spend more on debt interest every year than they spend on education and health. That is a disgrace. This Parliament could do something by legislating to change that reality, and I hope that we do. We need to do more to encourage other countries that, frankly, could give more and do not to step up.

It is in our national interest to build strong partnerships. I have worked in international development and met many Ministers in other countries, and I noticed how often they were educated in the UK, and how often they previously worked at a university. Unlike in this place, where we tend to appoint Ministers who are not necessarily specialists in their field, it is generally the case in the global south that Ministers come through the academic ranks and are a specialist in their area. They often have views that were shaped by their time studying at a UK university, or by their relationship to one, which is incredibly important. Other institutions that we should be greatly proud of include the Voluntary Service Overseas, which does important work in education around the world, and the British Council. They are really important parts of UK soft power.

As the world is changing and becoming more volatile, and as Britain’s place in it is shrinking, there are some big players in the world today who do not share our democratic values or our belief in human rights, and who are positioning themselves to sweep up influence across the global south. In that context, we really need to think, as they often do, of a 100-year plan, and what it would look like to shape the world in our image, have people learning our language and have more people feeling a great affinity with this country. That is another important role we can play by investing in education.

I am aware that other Members wish to speak, so I will conclude by appealing for education to be a bigger part of UK thinking about development. The higher education partnerships are so crucial, but so are the school-to-school partnerships and the idea of making development education a part of our national curriculum. It was heartwarming, at my hon. Friend’s event this week, to see children who were globally aware citizens who wanted to connect with children in other parts of the world and to work together to shape a better world. They had some strong messages for us, and we need to listen to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Member to stick to the motion.

[Sam Rushworth]

While the hon. Member is on that point, we are all aware of a letter that he wrote in 2020, in which he urged President Elect Joe Biden to do exactly what the Government are doing. Will the hon. Member say why his opinion has changed on the matter?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am so pleased that the hon. Member has raised that point. With your permission, Ms Vaz, I will answer it.

Budget Resolutions

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. I would go slightly further and say that it is not about paying off the debt; it is purely about servicing additional borrowing. That has real consequences for working families.

Perhaps the most concerning part of the OBR’s report is in paragraph 1.9, which says:

“Growth in real household disposable income per person is projected to fall from 3 per cent”

last year. It is falling not to 2%, or even to 1%, but to one quarter of one per cent on average for the next five years.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I will make a little progress; I can see the time.

The difference between 3% per year and 0.25% per year in growth in disposable income adds up to £2,700 less per family in disposable income because of the Chancellor’s choices.

We needed a Budget for jobs, but instead this was a Budget about saving the Prime Minister’s job by giving his mutinous Back Benchers the welfare rises that he forced them to vote against just last year. If the Government really wanted to support jobs, they would have undone some of the damage that the Chancellor did last year, particularly on hospitality.

A number of Members have raised the issue of hospitality and business rate reform. Before the election, the Chancellor was clear that business rates would be reformed, which meant that pubs, restaurants and cafés would have lower bills. Instead, the owners of cafés, pub landlords and restaurant owners saw their business rate bills more than double in April. We have heard today from the Chancellor that—because of the effects of revaluation and the fact that she has decided to go with a reduction of only 10p on the multiplier, instead of the 20p signalled when the Government introduced the legislation last year—when the new regime comes in, we will again see the bills for those pubs and cafés increasing, even though business rate bills have only just doubled.

This is a bad deal for hospitality. It will have a devastating impact on our high streets, and it is made only worse by the decision of the Chancellor to increase alcohol duties. That will hit pubs again, and make it more difficult for our pubs, our bars and our responsibly licensed venues to compete with supermarkets piling them high and selling them cheap.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate. I was with him the day that his appointment was announced. It was after many weeks of us all wondering whether Downing Street would appoint an envoy. He kept it quiet until it was announced, but I was so pleased that it was my friend who was given that responsibility, because I cannot think of anybody better to take on that role.

I thank everyone who has spoken today. Every speech has moved me in some way. It is a testament to the way that freedom of religion or belief goes to the heart of our British values that we sit in cross-party consensus on this. And it is a testament to our nation that we can have this level of civility in our debate. I can look across to Opposition Members and see people I hold in high regard, notwithstanding our different views on various aspects of policy.

I join the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) in his tribute to Fiona Bruce in the role that she played. I had the privilege of working with Fiona when she organised the FORB ministerial conference in 2022. The fact that I was a Labour candidate at the time and she a Conservative MP never came into it, because we were both absolutely unified in a sense of purpose.

I had the blessing of being able to work briefly for about a year and a half on freedom of religion or belief. My background is in conflict prevention and human rights. Despite a decade in that space, when a friend asked me whether I would be willing to come and support Government relations around FORB, I thought I was being asked to work for a US business magazine because I had not actually heard that phrase before, which shows that we have some work to do. But I soon came to grips with the brief and came to develop a deep appreciation of the importance of freedom of religion or belief within human rights work and the work that we do around the world to prevent identity-based violence.

As I entered this new world, however, I did so with a critical eye. I will just mention a few things that I have noted as a call to all of us who care about FORB. One is that we need to look outwards and not inwards. We need to avoid a competition over which group is the most persecuted, and instead recognise that establishing the universal principles of FORB is the best way to secure freedoms and rights for everybody. Secondly, FORB does not give a right to impose one’s religion or beliefs on others. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke so well about the importance of combating anti-blasphemy laws and the crucial right to be able to not believe in a deity.

Thirdly, those of us who do come from a background of faith need also to recognise that the price of the freedom to practise our religion is to do no harm and to take responsibility. I think we need to do more sometimes to reach out to the LGBT community and others who have been historically marginalised and excluded, and that includes internationally. In Uganda, near where I used to work, a community is suffering intense persecution. It is in the name, sadly, of the God I worship that that persecution is being meted out. People from Afghanistan regularly reach out to me and tell me that they are living in a state of hiding akin to Anne Frank and her family, for fear of being exposed.

We need to emphasise the belief aspect of freedom of religion or belief, which includes humanism—the right not to believe. The right to share one’s faith must also entail the right to criticise that faith. I am a Latter-day Saint. I see that “The Book of Mormon” musical is on in the west end all the time. I am comfortable with that. I absolutely defend the right for people to criticise me or my faith, but there is a difference between criticising theological beliefs and stereotyping, or ascribing negative traits without evidence to the holders of those beliefs. Likewise, there is a difference between mocking a religion in its abstract or organised form and discriminating against an individual who identifies with it.

I want to speak to the strategy for a moment. This is a small point, but I think it is a really consequential one. We tend to think about our commitment to freedom of religion or belief in terms of negative rights—of protecting people against interference and infringements of their freedoms of conscience, speech or assembly—but I would suggest that for the UK truly to lead the world with our values, we need to assume our positive duty to enable those who are marginalised and persecuted to live in accordance with their faith and belief. We recognise that in our humanitarian response to war and disaster. We recognise the need for food, water, medicine and shelter, but could we also recognise the need for dignity, and the emotional and psychological need to live one’s faith? Could we not only allow people to live their religions, but actively assist them to do so?

I have seen great examples of that around the world, from the Muslim and Christian youth in the Central African Republic who work together to rebuild each other’s mosques and churches, to the AMAR Foundation in Iraq helping Yazidi refugees, particularly women and girls, find healing and empowerment through traditional religious clothing that they had to leave behind in their flight from ISIS.

[John Slinger]

rose—

[Sam Rushworth]

Apologies—I have almost finished. Members of my own church, the Latter-day Saints here in London, give out copies of the Quran to refugees. As we do this, let Britain continue to be a beacon for religious freedom around the world in an active sense.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

On aid provision within Gaza, as I know my hon. Friend will be aware, there has been much discussion on the importance of there being multiple distribution sites far in excess of those currently available. That helps manage the pressures and provides more humane conditions for aid delivery, and that is what we want to see in the strip.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his diligence and his patient answers and for an excellent statement. I agreed with every word of it, and I appreciate the actions that the Government have taken to sanction two Ministers, both of whom have expressed genocidal intent. The Minister is also correct in saying that the two-state solution is in peril. It seems from today that there is an overwhelming majority in this place that support the immediate recognition of Palestine, and I sense from his answers that the Government are moving in that direction. What can he also do around the ICJ judgment that the west bank has been annexed, and what more can we do to ensure that others are punished for their crimes in the west bank?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and his important question. I am sure that, with the permission of the Speaker, I will be back in this House next week to discuss recognition and events at the conference in greater detail. On the question of the advisory opinion, which I know he knows is a far-reaching and complex advisory opinion, we will return to this House when we are in a position to give a full response to what is a complex and novel legal opinion.

Gavi and the Global Fund

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this debate. I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents who have asked me to call on the Government to continue Britain’s global leadership in fighting and eradicating killer diseases. That requires a commitment not only to ongoing investment in the Global Fund, Gavi and Unitaid, but to leading other nations to do likewise.

There is often far too much doom and gloom about international aid and what it has achieved. Let us remember that in 1991, one in five children born in sub-Saharan Africa died before they reached their fifth birthday. Today that is one in 16, which is still too many. As many know, I spent a portion of my life living in sub-Saharan Africa, including as a schoolteacher. My own eyes have wet my pillow at night because one of my students died from a preventable illness, because they were not able to access the treatment that they needed. When I multiply that by the millions of children who have had that fate, I think what a tragic loss that is for the world.

Let us be clear: a child born in a Gavi-supported country is 70% less likely to die from a vaccine-preventable disease before their fifth birthday. The Global Fund has saved 65 million lives. As impressive as that is, there is also the investment that this brings to Britain by supporting British science. I say to the Minister: let us not roll back the progress of a quarter of a century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that Gavi has the ability to pull in many different donors, but perhaps the specific questions following the ODA cut should be directed to the Minister. Gavi is a good example of how partnership can deliver for the benefit of the most vulnerable.

Conservative Governments made significant interventions that contributed to the UK’s reputation as a global health leader. In 2015, we pledged £1.44 billion to Gavi over five years, and in 2020, when we hosted the global vaccine summit, we committed a further £1.65 billion. During the last two Global Fund replenishments, we pledged £1 billion in 2022 and £1.46 billion in 2020. Those pledges to Gavi and the Global Fund were just one part of our leadership and efforts to strengthen global health, and an incredibly important one at that.

I note from responses to my written questions that Ministers are often quite keen to highlight our record on global health, but I would like to take this opportunity to ask some questions about the Government’s record to date. Following the reduction in ODA to 0.3% of GNI, I ask the Minister: what does global health now look like from the strategic level of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office? It would be helpful to know where the priorities are and whether the Government plan to continue the emphasis on multilateral NGOs such as Gavi and the Global Fund, or whether other models are to be considered.

Although the approach to global health may be changing under this Labour Government, the replenishment periods for Gavi and the Global Fund are rapidly approaching—in fact, Gavi’s is literally weeks away. I would therefore welcome some clarity from the Minister on the discussions he has had with representatives of both funds and other donor nations. I want to press him a little about the absence of any UK pledges to date. I have previously had no luck getting an answer on that through my written questions, so I will have another go today. Has he considered the impact of the UK’s apparent delay in pledging on our international reputation and our standing as a leader in global health?

[Sam Rushworth]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the UK’s track record on this has been quite impressive, given that other countries frankly punch below their economic weight, so this is not just about the UK’s contribution but about the role we play in ensuring other countries shoulder the burden?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I recall that during the last replenishment, there were many conversations going on to encourage other countries and partners to step up to the plate. The UK’s leadership had a real impact at that time. In a similar vein, what is the potential impact on other countries’ pledges? Is the Minister thinking about making a reduced commitment or no pledge at all? Rather than ongoing uncertainty, it would help other donors and NGOs to know what the UK is doing, so that they can plan.

The Minister will be aware that there is a range of financial instruments available to him. One is the international finance facility for immunisation, through which £590 million of our £1.65 billion pledge in 2020 was distributed. IFFIm accelerates the delivery of vaccines by making the money from long-term Government donor pledges available immediately, allowing Gavi to vaccinate more individuals, faster. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on any discussions he has had with Gavi and with IFFIm about its potential use to front-load any UK commitments.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have said on a number of occasions, we welcome the US endorsement of the deal and of its strength, and we are grateful for the close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States. The full details will be provided when the treaty is presented to the House.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for their questions. Can the Minister confirm that this agreement will close potentially dangerous routes for irregular migration? Is that possibly one of the reasons the Conservatives opened and presided over 10 rounds of negotiations on it?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can absolutely confirm that. That is also why we agreed an important arrangement as an interim with St Helena, which I have spoken to the House about. That has absolutely been at the heart of it, but our primary objective has been to protect the national security of the United Kingdom, our ally the United States and our partners.

Palestinian Rights: Government Support

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for securing this debate; I got to know him well recently on our visit to the region. I also thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I am rapidly rewriting my speech, because many things that I would have said have already been covered.

I start by paying my respects to the more than 1,200 people who were killed on 7 October 2023 in those horrific and barbaric attacks by Hamas, whose intent was genocidal, in the sense that they saw anybody who was in that space as a legitimate target. Hamas are completely against the existence of the state of Israel. I have always been a believer in Israel; I believe in a homeland for the Jewish people. However, what I discovered while I was in the region is that Hamas are not the only organisation within that space who are opposed to a two-state solution; extremist elements in the Israeli Government are seemingly opposed to a two-state solution as well. When we met Mohammad Mustafa, the Prime Minister of Palestine, it became clear to me that he was the only political actor I met who is committed to that two-state solution.

Other Members have already spoken well on the settler violence that we witnessed, which was horrific. It is horrific to see people living under decades of occupation. One thing that struck me is the challenge that the Palestinian Authority face to give hope to people, and persuade them not to use armed resistance but to be peaceful after decades living under occupation in a situation where they do not have the same political rights as others, and where Palestinian families are driven away from their villages. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) described well a school that we saw had been smashed to pieces; the remains of children’s workbooks were still strewn across the floor.

I was grateful this week to see our Prime Minister literally put an arm around President Zelensky. I feel that the time has also come that we need to put an arm around the Palestinian people—indeed, not just the Palestinian people but all people in that region who are moderates but whose voices are being drowned out.

I will briefly suggest three or four things that we need to look at. One is the ICJ ruling. We know that last summer the ICJ gave an advisory opinion that there is an unlawful occupation, and that the prolonged presence of Israel is unlawful and breaches principles of international law, including the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring civilian population into the territory that it occupies. That ICJ ruling also put obligations on states to recognise the illegal situation. It is disappointing that the United Kingdom Government abstained in the UN General Assembly on this issue. Can we please revisit that, because as Israel’s position shifts our position needs to shift as well?

I used to be of the opinion that recognition of the state of Palestine should come as part of a negotiated settlement, but it is now clear to me that a Palestinian Authority who are committed to a two-state solution needs that recognition sooner rather than later. Could the Minister set out a road map for that?

It is also deeply concerning that the access of the International Committee of the Red Cross to Israeli prisons is being blocked, because we know that human rights abuses and torture are occurring in those prisons. Can we please do something about that?

The economy of Palestine is in a terrible state. When we visited the Bank of Palestine, a specific ask was to include Palestine within the mandate of British international investment, to strengthen the Palestinian economy. Finally, can we do more on sanctions to address settler violence? Can we please put an arm around those people and say, “enough is enough”?

Northern Gaza

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We have been incredibly clear about the position in northern Gaza and about our deep concerns in relation to healthcare provision, aid going into the area, the targeting of healthcare professionals, the detentions, the importance of transparency where people have been taken, ensuring that they have adequate rights to see their lawyers, and that the ICRC can see people. The situation in northern Gaza is close to our minds. We have commented extensively throughout the winter period, and we will continue to do so.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Having listened to evidence on Gaza as a member of the International Development Committee, it is clear to me that there have been egregious breaches of international law. While I do not doubt the integrity and sincerity of my hon. Friend, it is clear that the actions taken so far by the Government have either not shifted the dial an inch or make me question how much worse it would be. Besides rhetorically supporting an international court, what will the Government do to help gather evidence to protect witnesses and ensure that there is justice and accountability?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, although I take issue with it. This Government have done more than rhetoric, whether it is the £13 million of funding we announced in December; the £112 million of funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories; the quite different position we have taken on questions of international justice, compared with our predecessors; or the extensive funding we provide to the ICC each year to ensure that it can do its work. I want to be clear that we do not specify that the funding is in relation to Gaza; we give it so that the ICC can pursue its work without fear or favour globally, and we will continue to do so.