Andy Burnham faced Commonwealth leaders who want the legacy of slavery addressed (Image: Victoria Jones/Shutterstock)

The push for reparations for Britain’s role in the slave trade has been compared to a “cynical and mercenary shakedown” by the UK’s former ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Sir John Jenkins, who was also the Foreign Office’s director for the Middle East and North Africa, warns that Andy Burnham’s openness to giving an apology “will only encourage those who believe that Britain is now more likely to pay up”.

In a new report for the Policy Exchange think tank he condemns Britain’s “culture of capitulation” and warns that its readiness to back down has emboldened adversaries. Mr Burnham has said he is “open” to an apology for the slave trade but resisted calls for reparations. A major study suggested in 2023 that the UK should pay £18.8trillion for its involvement in slavery in 14 countries. The former top diplomat blasts calls for reparations in his report, stating: “Even the most casual observer might be forgiven for thinking all this simply represents a cynical and mercenary shakedown of a guilt-ridden West by professional grievance entrepreneurs.”

Andy Burnham has said he is open to the idea of an apology but critics are alarmed (Image: Chris Jackson/Press Association)

Sir John, who was also an ambassador to Iraq, said claims made in support of reparations “range from the ignorant to the bizarre”. He writes: “Equally bizarre to many observers is the claim that people alive today who have no personal connection to the slave trade should pay money to people who claim injury in the present as a result of descent from those enslaved several centuries ago.”

The former diplomat accuses the Prime Minister of “misplaced optimism” for thinking “an apology and a ‘structured dialogue’ will deter calls for slavery reparations”. Sir John warns that Britain risks doing modern equivalent of “paying the Danegeld” – the protection money paid to Vikings. He cites further examples of Britain caving-in to demands which go against its national interest, including the deal to hand control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and the agreement to release terrorists as part of the Northern Ireland peace process.

Professor John Bew, who advised four prime ministers on foreign policy, warns in the foreword to the report that Britain diplomacy is too often seen as the “soothing of tensions rather than than the art of getting your own way”.

Former Home Secretary and Reform UK Suella Braverman responded to the report, saying: “Britain played a leading role in abolishing slavery and spent huge sums of money stamping it out across the world… We will not apologise or make taxpayers pay for the actions of those before us centuries ago. Giving into these demands shows weakness, not leadership.”

ANDY BURNHAM WARNED OVER SLAVERY APOLOGY – ‘HE’LL BE ASKED FOR MONEY NEXT!’ AS REPARATIONS ROW ERUPTS

Andy Burnham has been warned that calls for Britain to apologise for its historical involvement in slavery could quickly turn into demands for financial compensation, triggering another major political controversy.

The debate over Britain’s historical responsibility for slavery has returned to the political spotlight, with critics questioning whether politicians should issue formal apologies for events that took place centuries ago.

The warning comes amid growing international pressure for countries and institutions connected to the transatlantic slave trade to acknowledge their historical involvement.

For opponents of reparations, the concern is that an apology could become the starting point for much larger financial demands.

And with British taxpayers already facing pressure from the cost of living, public debt and struggling public services, the question of who should pay has become increasingly controversial.

Why Is Andy Burnham Being Warned?

<AsyncImage query=”Andy Burnham British politician speaking at public event” aspectRatio=”16:9″ width=”100%”/>

The controversy centres on the wider debate about Britain’s historical role in slavery and whether modern governments should issue formal apologies.

Some campaigners argue that Britain must acknowledge the suffering caused by slavery and its lasting consequences.

Others believe that present-day governments should not accept financial responsibility for historical actions committed by previous generations.

Critics have warned that once an official apology is issued, campaigners could use it to strengthen demands for reparations.

Their concern is that political leaders could find themselves under pressure to move from expressions of regret towards financial commitments.

However, an apology does not automatically create a legal obligation to pay compensation.

The Reparations Question

The transatlantic slave trade remains one of the most painful chapters in British and international history.

Millions of Africans were forcibly transported across the Atlantic, while slavery generated enormous wealth for merchants, plantation owners and other commercial interests.

Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery across most of the British Empire in 1833, although the transition included substantial compensation payments to former slave owners rather than enslaved people.

The British government completed repayment of the loans used to finance those payments in 2015.

This historical reality continues to influence modern discussions about reparations.

Campaigners argue that the consequences of slavery did not simply disappear when abolition took place.

They want governments and institutions to consider financial compensation, investment programmes and other forms of restorative justice.

Opponents question how responsibility should be allocated between historical institutions and people living today.

‘He’ll Be Asked for Money Next’

<AsyncImage query=”British Parliament House of Commons Westminster exterior” aspectRatio=”16:9″ width=”100%”/>

The warning directed at Burnham reflects fears among critics that an apology could lead to demands for billions of pounds in compensation.

They argue that politicians must be extremely careful about making statements that could later be interpreted as accepting financial responsibility.

The issue is particularly sensitive because reparations campaigners have increasingly called for international negotiations involving countries affected by slavery.

However, there is an important distinction between acknowledging historical wrongdoing and agreeing to a specific compensation scheme.

Neither an apology nor participation in discussions automatically means that a government has accepted a legal obligation to pay.

Britain’s Taxpayers Could Face Difficult Questions

The financial implications are central to the controversy.

Britain faces significant demands on public finances, including:

• Funding the NHS and social care.
• Improving schools and public services.
• Supporting pensioners and vulnerable households.
• Investing in transport and infrastructure.
• Managing government debt and borrowing costs.

Critics argue that any proposal involving public money must be properly examined and debated in Parliament.

They want ministers to explain who would qualify for compensation, how payments would be calculated and where the money would come from.

Supporters of reparations, meanwhile, argue that financial justice should not be dismissed simply because it would involve difficult decisions.

International Pressure Is Growing

The debate is not confined to Britain.

Caribbean nations have continued to call for reparatory justice through the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

The organisation’s reparations programme includes demands for formal apologies, debt cancellation, investment in healthcare and education, technology transfers and other measures.

The African Union has also increased its focus on reparations and historical justice.

These discussions have placed additional pressure on European countries with historical connections to the slave trade.

Britain’s position is particularly important because of its historical role in the transatlantic slave trade and the size of its former empire.

Should Britain Apologise?

The question of whether Britain should issue a formal national apology remains deeply divisive.

Supporters argue that acknowledging historical wrongdoing is an important step towards reconciliation.

They say an apology would recognise the suffering of enslaved people and their descendants.

Opponents argue that modern generations should not be held personally responsible for actions committed by people who lived centuries ago.

Some also fear that an apology could create political expectations that are difficult to satisfy.

There are, however, different possible approaches.

A government could acknowledge historical wrongdoing, support educational initiatives and recognise the experiences of affected communities without automatically agreeing to direct financial compensation.

What Should Andy Burnham Do?

If Burnham is asked to address the issue, he will face a difficult balancing act.

He will need to recognise the historical suffering associated with slavery while explaining whether he supports any form of financial reparations.

The public will also expect clarity about whether any proposed payments would come from local authority budgets, national taxation or other sources.

Most importantly, politicians must distinguish between personal expressions of regret, formal government apologies and legally binding financial agreements.

These are not the same thing.

A Debate That Could Become a Major Political Battle

The slavery apology controversy has the potential to become another divisive issue in British politics.

For campaigners, the discussion is about historical recognition, justice and the continuing consequences of slavery.

For critics, the concern is that apologies could lead to enormous financial commitments being imposed on taxpayers who had no involvement in historical events.

Burnham and other political leaders will need to explain their positions clearly.

Britain cannot change its history, but it can have an honest discussion about how that history should be recognised and addressed today.

THE BIG QUESTIONS:

• Should Britain issue a formal apology for its historical involvement in slavery?
• Would an apology inevitably lead to demands for financial reparations?
• Should British taxpayers fund compensation for historical injustices?
• Can Britain acknowledge its past without accepting unlimited financial obligations?
• What should Andy Burnham say if campaigners demand compensation?

The biggest question is whether Britain can recognise the horrors of its past while making decisions about the present through a fair, transparent and democratic process.