Richard Burgon MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister aware of the deep alarm, both on the Back Benches and outside Parliament, at what amounts to a further draconian attack by the Government on the right to peaceful protest, which is a civil liberty, and about the fact that the Government are trying to push the measure through without a proper vote for MPs, as they did when they made the huge error of proscribing Palestine Action?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  I send my commiserations to the hon. Member’s constituents for not receiving his newsletter. On a wider point, I have visited the hard-working postal workers at the Garforth and Seacroft delivery offices in in my constituency and, as he says, they work hard and take pride in their work. Does he agree that the fault does not lie with them? There is a toxic culture at the top of Royal Mail. It needs to work with the Communication Workers Union and the Government to sort things out and protect the universal service obligation.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to make this point of order and apologies for not making you aware of it in advance. I have just seen an email response from the private investigation organisation APCO in response to my subject access request, which says that “this has produced a large volume of data” and that they “therefore require additional time in which to supply our response to you”. It adds: “This has made the response to your DSAR complex in accordance with the statutory framework.” Labour Together responded: “we will need some further time to complete this work”, saying that they may need up to 18 May. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you provide guidance on how the democratic and political rights of elected Members can be protected when a private investigation firm states that it has gathered a large volume of data in relation to us? By arguing that it is some way complex, it clearly holds a large volume of data. What guidance can you give as to how our democratic duties and political freedoms can be protected when a private investigation firm is operating in this way?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making it clear that biodiversity and our natural environment are in complete crisis. Given that, would he agree that the slogan “Back the builders, not the blockers” is one of the worst slogans that the Labour party has ever come up with? People do care about local democracy, biodiversity and nature, so that slogan should be put in the bin, where it belongs—the recycling bin, of course.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Graduates are making massive repayments—9% of their earnings. As he says, they will be paying this debt off for decades, and having to do that is breaking a whole generation. As a society, it is time we had a serious discussion about cancelling student debt, which would provide immediate relief to young people. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should instead fund higher education through progressive taxation?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am a trade unionist and a Unite member. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a trade union lawyer, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), in my many years as a member of the trade union movement I never came across anything like this. Back in 2009, the then Conservative-Lib Dem-Green-run Leeds city council tried to take up to a third of the pay away from Leeds refuse workers. What flowed from that was a strike by GMB and Unison members against that swingeing, unfair pay cut that lasted for three months—the longest continuous dispute in Yorkshire since the miners’ strike. That dispute ended successfully for the workers. What we have here is a dispute that has lasted for 10 months, and from the outside people are wondering why on earth it has not settled. But we know why. A ballpark figured was agreed, but the leadership of the council, and, crucially, the commissioners—unelected, of course—stepped in to block that deal, so the strike continues, with all that means for the workers and the residents of the fine city of Birmingham. We need to put it very clearly on the record that to expect refuse workers, drivers and loaders doing an important job to accept a pay cut of up to £8,000—which can be up to a quarter of their wages—is simply unacceptable. I know, of course, the history of Birmingham city council as a Labour council. However, if Labour colleagues and trade unionists stepped back from that background, more and more colleagues would be speaking out against it. One of the mottoes of the trade union movement is “an injury to one is an injury to all”, and that applies whichever party’s leadership is running the council. I pay tribute not only to the striking workers, because it is not easy to go on strike and people do not do it unless it is a last resort—whatever the newspapers and right-wing politicians might say—but also to the agency refuse workers who are now on strike.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend, himself a diligent and passionate Birmingham MP, makes a very important point. I agree with him that, if the council leadership or the commissioners have that legal advice, they should indeed publish it, because the advice of Unite’s King’s counsel, Oliver Segal, is very clear and runs contrary to the representations made by the other side. We know what the block is. We know the awful position faced by workers in Birmingham—a pay cut of up to £8,000. We know the awful situation faced by Birmingham residents. It seems to me that this is a matter for all trade unionists across the country, who want to see a fair resolution to the dispute. It is so frustrating to see that it was so close, but was scuppered, it seems, by the leadership of the council and by the commissioners. What can unblock that blockage? What can see things return to how they should be, and what can result in a fair resolution for workers and residents? Only intervention from the Government can do that. If the commissioners are blocking the deal, the Government should get involved, unblock that process and help to fairly end this dispute. That, I think, is what the public want and what trade unionists want. I want to finish by paying tribute to members of Unite the union who have been on strike since March. They will not like the inconvenience that is inevitably caused by strikes to local residents, because they live there too. Too often, when people talk about trade unionists and workers, they talk about them as if they are not local residents themselves—and they are. Those Birmingham residents should not be asked to take pay cuts of up to £8,000. They cannot afford it, especially in this cost of living crisis. They are right to step up to the plate to defend their working terms and conditions and pay, not just for themselves but for others. This is not a dispute to try to get a pay rise; it is about defending pay at a time when people need it more than they have done for decades because of the cost of living crisis. I pay tribute to those people and to trade unionists from other trade unions who have shown real solidarity with these workers, in the best traditions of the labour and trade union movement. I hope the Minister, when she responds, can give us some hope that the Government will intervene and bring a fair end to this dispute.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The campaign for the Hillsborough law—not “a” Hillsborough law—has been this country’s greatest and most defining campaign for justice led by ordinary people in the modern era. I am very pleased that the Government pulled back at the weekend from what would have been—regardless of any good intentions—a betrayal of that campaign. The choice that the Prime Minister now makes will come to define his domestic legacy when all is done and dusted. Will the Minister put on the record the understanding that those of us with closer proximity to power than the people who have campaigned courageously for this law have a tendency to be too trusting of others in powerful institutions? The security services sometimes let people down, and they sometimes do not effectively protect the lives of people in our country, so a duty of candour should apply to them, too. Will the Minister confirm that the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) is not off the table and will now be fully and properly considered before the Bill comes back to this House?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  Donald Trump’s appalling threats to seize Greenland, along with his disgusting bombing of Venezuela, are a new form of gangster politics that are set out in his new national security strategy, which also speaks of boosting support for the far right across Europe. We have to deal with that reality, and Trump’s threats of tariffs this weekend show how little we can rely on the so-called special relationship. Instead of blindly following US policy, as we have done all too often in the past, with disastrous consequences, is it not now time to stand up to Trump and forge a new independent foreign policy based on international law, peace and co-operation? Those important values are the antithesis of what Donald Trump stands for.