Richard Burgon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  It was the Prime Minister who decided to disregard the United Nations charter when it came to Trump’s bombing and killing, and his kidnapping the Head of State. It speaks volumes that the Prime Minister has chosen not to come to this House to explain his decision. The reality is that if it were Putin doing this, the Prime Minister would not be saying, “It’s up to the Russians to decide whether or not this is legal,” but that is exactly what the Prime Minister has said in relation to Trump’s disgusting attack on Venezuela. Is not the reality that the Prime Minister is willing to ditch international law and side-step the United Nations charter in order to appease Donald Trump, and does not that cowardly, craven approach drag this country’s reputation through the dirt?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. People often say that delegated legislation Committees are ones that Members loyally troop into between other meetings. They discuss uncontroversial things, and some hon. Members might even check their emails during the sitting—although that is probably not very courteous. There is no Division, and then Members leave. When I was asked to serve on this Committee, I said yes thinking that it would be another uncontroversial matter, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, and having been contacted an hour or so ago by various campaign organisations and received their briefings, I am very concerned about the change this instrument makes. The oft-used phrase, “The House at its best,” is illustrated today by hon. Members fully engaging on this serious matter. I echo much of what my hon. Friend said in relation to animal rights and the importance of the democratic right to protest. I am worried by this legislation; I am worried about where it ends. Hon. Members understand the current definition of key national infrastructure, but I think that many outside the Committee would be very surprised were the definition to be extended to pharmaceutical or testing facilities, and when the public find out about this, many will ask, “What next? Where does this stop?” People are concerned about the authoritarian drift seen under both my own Government and the last. My hon. Friend made an important point: there are existing criminal laws that can deal with criminal behaviour. This move, which could result in peaceful protesters serving prison sentences of 12 months, worries me greatly. I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats will divide the Committee, but even if there is a Division and the legislation passes, I would welcome—as would the public and hon. Members both on the Committee and outside it—the regulations being put before the House in the new year. There should be a full opportunity to debate and discuss the intended and unintended consequences, and an opportunity for every Member of the House of Commons to vote on the regulations. I share the concerns that have been raised. Members have been involved in the campaign for Herbie’s law, and plenty of us, myself included, are concerned about animal rights. Regardless of people’s views on animal welfare and rights, a lot of members of the public will be concerned about what the legislation means for civil liberties, what the intended consequences are, and what the unintended effects may be. As this Committee sits, a number of prisoners are on hunger strike in jails in our country. It feels as though there is an authoritarian drift. We have also seen the proscription of an organisation, which myself and others voted against, because we were concerned about where it would lead in practice, and its implications for civil liberties. We quite rightly speak out against infringements of civil liberties and freedom of speech in other countries, and we speak out against draconian laws. Our ability do so, as a country and as a Government, will be severely weakened if we accidentally or otherwise start treading down that path ourselves.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Forty-one MPs, including myself, have signed early-day motion 2386 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) regarding the Palestine Action hunger strike, which calls on the Justice Secretary “to intervene urgently to ensure” that the treatment of the prisoners concerned “is humane and their human rights are upheld.” [That this House expresses its extreme concern that six prisoners associated with Palestine Action have felt that they had no other recourse to protest against their prison conditions but to launch a hunger strike; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Justice to intervene urgently to ensure their treatment is humane and their human rights are upheld.] Ten MPs have also co-signed a letter to the Justice Secretary, but no response has been received. Will the Leader of the House send an urgent message to the Justice Secretary asking him to respond to our request, and can he help ensure an urgent debate next week? Time really is of the essence.

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  At the heart of this strategy, laid out in black and white, is Trump’s explicit revival of the reactionary idea that Latin America is a United States backyard. We have already seen the consequences of that mindset in the US’s escalations against oil-rich Venezuela. Trump is adopting a similar approach to European countries, including our own, making it clear that he will be stirring up far-right forces here to serve US objectives. Is it not more urgent than ever that, instead of blindly following US foreign policies, as we have done so often, to disastrous effect, we forge an independent foreign policy of our own, based on peace, co-operation, mutual development, and respect for sovereignty and international law, as envisaged in the United Nations charter?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Kashmir: Self-determination · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend speaks with great passion. He says that the world has failed the people of Kashmir, and I agree. Does he agree that no longer should politicians in this place view the matter of Kashmir as some kind of bilateral issue between Pakistan and India? In fact, it is a matter for international law, and our Government and our country have a special historic duty not to wash their hands of the matter of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, which is their birthright.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Venezuela: US Military · Hansard source

  More

  This is an enormous military build-up under Trump, one of the largest in decades. Retired US generals, along with US politicians including Republicans, are warning that Trump’s strikes off the coast of Venezuela are already violating international law. Yesterday, the Government told me that no British troops are aboard the US warships near oil-rich Venezuela, despite reports to the contrary. What are the Government doing to try to stop Trump from taking this dangerous, escalatory path, which he now says could include land strikes?