Which current MPs have links to pro-Israel lobby groups or advisory roles?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
An investigation by Declassified UK found that roughly 180 current Members of Parliament have received money or hospitality from pro‑Israel lobby groups or affiliated individuals, concentrated chiefly among Conservative MPs but including Labour, Lib Dem and smaller‑party figures [1] [2]. The groupings most implicated are long‑standing parliamentary friends’ organisations—Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI)—which have funded trips, hospitality and donations that critics say create influence, while those organisations and some MPs argue the contact is about bilateral engagement and a two‑state agenda [3] [4] [5].
1. Scope: how many MPs and where they sit in Parliament
Declassified’s reporting and related summaries place the total at about 180 out of 650 MPs who, during their political careers, accepted funding or hospitality from pro‑Israel lobby networks or donors—an estimated breakdown of approximately 130 Conservative MPs, 41 Labour MPs and a small number from the Liberal Democrats, DUP, Reform and independents [1] [2] [6]. Declassified published a full list and a supporting PDF of named MPs and cited amounts and trips, which underpins the aggregate figures [1] [7].
2. Named individuals and examples of links
Reporting identifies specific examples of linked donors and recipients: Trevor Chinn, a long‑standing pro‑Israel financier, is reported to have donated to members of Keir Starmer’s shadow team, including Angela Rayner, David Lammy and Rachel Reeves, and to have given to Starmer’s leadership campaign—details highlighted by Declassified and secondary outlets [2] [6]. Parliamentary figures who accepted funded visits or hospitality include Keir Starmer’s parliamentary private secretary Jon Pearce, former defence secretary Gavin Williamson, and senior Tory Robert Jenrick, among others named in Declassified’s trip reporting [8]. The Declassified list and its PDF remain the primary source for the roster of individual MPs [7] [1].
3. How the lobby operates: trips, donations and affiliated groups
The primary mechanisms identified are parliamentary “friends” groups and third‑party organisations that fund visits, events and sometimes donations: CFI has historically claimed high membership among Conservatives and is reported by Declassified to have funded scores of MPs’ trips and hundreds of thousands of pounds of hospitality; LFI has likewise funded trips for Labour MPs and maintained a network of parliamentary supporters, though it has removed a public list of supporters at points [3] [8] [2]. Other organisations such as ELNET and informal donor networks are also named as funding interlocution and visits for MPs [9] [8].
4. Transparency, critique and the groups’ stated defence
Critics say the pattern—more than 240 subsidised trips and over £500,000 spent on travel in some tallies—creates a structural bias toward Israel in UK policymaking and that funding arrangements are opaque; Declassified and allied outlets stress the democratic concern [2] [8] [10]. Defenders—including LFI and CFI statements and LFI’s public materials—frame activity as parliamentary diplomacy or advocacy for a two‑state outcome and deny clandestine control, while some commentators note that funding may simply reflect MPs’ existing pro‑Israel positions rather than change them [4] [5] [10].
5. What the reporting cannot resolve here
The available reporting provides a published list and aggregated totals but does not by itself prove specific causal effects on individual votes or policy positions; Declassified’s dataset names recipients and incidents, yet definitive lines from funding to particular parliamentary decisions require further evidence beyond the sources cited [1] [7]. The reporting also documents that many MPs accepted hospitality or joined friends’ groups, and it notes parties and parliamentary groups with no recorded funding (for example, several nationalist and smaller parties were not listed as recipients), but it does not provide a comprehensive account of every MP’s motives or the full provenance of all third‑party funding [10].