Jeremy Corbyn MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  By any measurement of humanity, the people of Gaza have suffered as grievously as anyone has ever suffered in any conflict in the world. More than 60,000 are already dead, with the rest living among rubble, starving and unable to get the basic needs of medical attention. That also affects children, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out. We are looking at an utterly devastating situation, which the British Government have been told about many times. They resisted the calls for a ceasefire at the very beginning; we even had the now Prime Minister saying that it was a legitimate act of self-defence by Israel to deny food and water to people in Gaza. Both the Conservative and Labour Governments have a pretty bad record on this, and I would have thought that the very least we could do now is say that there can be absolutely no arms sales of any sort or any military co-operation with Israel. The so-called ceasefire in the Trump plan basically ensures Israel’s continued occupation of substantial parts of Gaza. It does not say very much about the abominable behaviour of Israeli armed settlers on the west bank, who are destroying villages and killing people as we speak. Surely this House needs to send the strong message that we recognise the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace, as well as recognising the importance and primacy of international law—the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made that point very strongly. The hon. Member and I have visited the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and I sat through the entire hearing when South Africa made its application—a moving and fascinating experience. The case was made brilliantly by South Africa, which was condemned by Members on both sides of the House for even bringing the case of genocide against Israel. While it put its case, I was looking at the wonderful ceiling in the Peace Palace and thinking back to when all South Africa’s current leaders were called terrorists and denounced for undermining and upsetting the apartheid regime. They finished apartheid, and then they gave their support to the people of Palestine—well done, South Africa, for having the bravery to do that. We need to understand the importance of international law. If we believe in international law, as this Parliament and Britain always claim—we helped to write the European convention on human rights and the United Nations universal declaration of human rights—we must stand by it and ensure that the Israeli Government are taken to task for their breaches of human rights around the world.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief, Ms McVey. I simply say this: anyone who has observed what has happened in Gaza over the past 18 months must be disgusted and appalled at what they have seen—the deaths of children, the deaths of adults and the continued bombardment—and at the role that Britain has played in supplying arms to Israel that have contributed to all that. It is an utterly disgusting situation. History will be very harsh on European and north American politicians who stood by and allowed those weapons to be supplied, knowing full well what was happening to them, while we were watching genocide on live television. Whole families have been destroyed. I have friends who send me stuff from the west bank and Gaza, and this weekend I was reading about one man who has been left looking after 26 grandchildren because all his children, his partner and his immediate family have been killed. He is an elderly man looking after 26 children, but that is not an unusual situation. He has no money or home, so he is trying to build a tent to house them all. That is the reality of what has happened because of this bombardment.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  May I ask the Foreign Secretary not to link two statements together in one in future, so that we can seriously examine one subject? Is she satisfied that the British arms and equipment sales that go to the United Arab Emirates do not end up in the hands of the RSF or as part of the ghastly conflict in Sudan, which is fundamentally about people trying to grab the mineral resources of that country? Will she assure us that no more British arms are being sold to Israel and that there is no security sharing with Israel while it continues the illegal activities, killings and destruction—even since the so-called ceasefire—of 1,500 buildings in Gaza, until such time as there is a real ceasefire and real peace?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Nowhere in the Home Secretary’s statement does she put this into any kind of global context. Millions of people have become refugees or homeless all around the world, and more than two thirds of them are housed by the southern countries—the poorest countries in the world—with the least resources to do it. She is putting in draconian measures against refugees trying to come to this country, failing to recognise that more than 6,000 of those who have crossed the channel this year come from Afghanistan, a war-torn country that we helped to make into a war-torn country. She is instead trying to appease the most ghastly right-wing, racist forces all across Europe in undermining and walking away from the European convention on human rights—a convention created by the post-war Labour Government. Does she not recognise that history is going to be a harsh judge of this Government for undermining the global humanitarian principles behind the ECHR and the universal declaration of human rights?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). Every time she describes her ocean journeys, I think of that wonderful poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Coleridge, which she must have repeated to herself dozens of times while pulling on those oars. I repeat, very briefly, my welcome for this good Bill, which will hopefully lead to much greater protection for the oceans. However, I want to ask the Minister to respond to one question. Over the years, we have been through all kinds of arguments about Antarctica, from the original Thatcherite concept of mineral extraction to, much later, the protection of the whole continent and the seas around it. On the whaling industry that was, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient protections, including for the whales that have survived, and for the growth in their numbers? There are still endless reports of illegal whaling on the continent, particularly by Japan but also by other countries. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds rightly raised the issue of plastic pollution. There are many wonderful schemes to try to clean up the plastic island in the Pacific ocean and ensure that the plastic is recycled in a proper manner. That is good, and we hope that it will be clean by 2040. The problem, as I understand it, is that two thirds of the plastic is actually under the ocean and not on the surface. Therefore, something else has to be done, but crucially, it is up to us to decide how much plastic flows into the oceans through our rivers, through dumping and through illegal activities. It is the responsibility of our water industry and sewage disposal system to ensure that plastic does not flow into the ocean.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome and support the Bill, which is an important step forward. It is a shame that it was not passed before the election so that it could have been dealt with in the wash-up of the previous Parliament. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will provide the necessary resources, and that the UN agencies are sufficiently funded, to ensure that this law becomes an effective protection for the natural world and the oceans that we all rely on?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. That is a very good intervention, and I completely agree with the hon. Member on that point. We have to bring into the enforcement regime those countries that are the worst polluters, the ones that are most guilty of overfishing and those that are most guilty of turning a blind eye to fishing companies that do that. It is not an easy gig, but it is very important to do it. If we do not do it, fish stocks will reduce, biodiversity will reduce and pollution will get worse. Ultimately, those who eat fish will be eating plastic fish.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Antarctic treaty, which was long and hard fought for in this House and other places, has been important and, generally speaking, very successful. But there are issues about the increasing access to the Antarctic, the pollution that this causes and the need to clean up after the substantial number of visitors that go there at present. Is the Minister confident that the resources will be available to ensure that the Antarctic treaty is fully adhered to?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member and support everything he has said about chalk streams and nature corridors. Does he think it would be helpful if the Bill went a bit further in trying to reinvigorate the natural world in densely populated urban areas? Since he has an enormous knowledge of London, does he not think that London would be so much improved if some of the unfortunately now underground rivers could be opened up, so as to give people a sense of what their natural world is really like?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  Understanding history has a massive impact on social attitudes and people’s relationships with communities. Will the Secretary of State therefore look carefully at the primary school history curriculum to make sure that it includes a good understanding of global history and the concepts behind it, as well as a big emphasis on local history and local achievement, to improve cohesion in our communities? That way, young people growing up will have that greater sense of involvement with the rest of the world, as well as with their local community.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Conflict in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The 25 million people who are starving at the moment in Sudan are obviously victims of the most ghastly proxy war. What engagement do the Government have with the UAE on all this, and on its wider war objectives, given the vast mineral deposits that exist across Sudan, including in Darfur, which clearly a lot of people have their greedy eyes on? The poorest people in the poorest place, as ever, are victims of this war.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Huntingdon Train Attack · Hansard source

  More

  In the review, will the Home Secretary undertake to look at the very serious problems of some trains operating without any staff on them at all, some very busy trains having insufficient staff, and hundreds of stations all over the country having no staff at all, particularly in the evenings, when the travelling public are obviously vulnerable and at risk? Can we pause driver-only operated trains and look at the issue of safety for the public as a whole?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  Every day since the ceasefire took place, at least 20 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by the IDF. There have been numerous other breaches of the ceasefire and continued military activity in the west bank. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain no longer flies RAF aeroplanes over Gaza, no longer co-operates with Israel on its security arrangements, and no longer supplies any weapons to Israel, because of its frequent breaches of the ceasefire and its continued abuse of the people of Gaza and the west bank?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief, because this is a time-limited debate. I welcome the Bill, although it has deficiencies, because it does not regulate the amount of rent that is charged. In my constituency, a two-bedroom flat in the private rented sector goes for about £2,000 a month, which is way above what most people can afford. There is a desperate need, in inner-city areas in particular, for rent regulation. I am pleased that we are ending no-fault eviction, but I absolutely agree with the points made by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) about the extraordinary way in which the Bill has been delayed. Thousands of tenants all over the country have lost a home that the Bill, had it become law, would have prevented them from losing. It is outrageous, the number of people who have become homeless or been forced to move to an even more expensive place. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the no-fault eviction protection will come in immediately when the Bill receives Royal Assent, and that there will be no delay. Some of us are concerned that there has been too long a delay. There are two quick points that I want to put to the Minister. The Bill requires local authorities to play a much greater role in the private rented sector, but they lack the resources to do that. Is there a guarantee that they will get the resources to ensure proper monitoring of the Bill, and proper support for tenants? In the same vein, the provision of housing advice has disappeared in many parts of the country, so the demand grows on local authorities and organisations such as Citizens Advice for advice for tenants. Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If they are unaware of their rights, they can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords—and sadly often are.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, welcome the Bill becoming law. Personally, I wish that it also regulated rent levels, but my question is: how quickly will it become law to protect people? While this Bill has been winding its way through Parliament over the last year, many have faced the appalling situation of no-fault eviction. Many have lost their properties as a result, whereas they would have been protected had the Bill become law more quickly. Can the Minister give me some idea—so that I can give some comfort to my constituents who are facing no-fault eviction—of how quickly they will get protection, and will there be any retrospective element to it?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I invite you to examine column 652 from yesterday’s Hansard , during the exchange about Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters travelling to Aston Villa. In reply to my question, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said she agreed with me about the safety of everyone walking the streets, but she went on to say: “Perhaps he might make that point to the people he now associates with on his left and right, because that is not what we have heard from them in the last few weeks.” —[ Official Report , 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 652.] There is a suggestion in that that my colleagues have done something other than say that everyone should be able to walk the streets safely in our society. They were concerned about the danger from football supporters acting in a hooliganistic way at the Aston Villa game. I think the Secretary of State should correct what she said—

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in coming to the decision, the authorities in Birmingham took account of the behaviour of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans on many other occasions in many other places and decided it was unsafe for the match to be played in Birmingham? It is absolutely not about banning Jewish people, or any other people, from going to the match or going to Birmingham. Can we separate the issue about the behaviour of a group of fans from the wider question of how everybody—whether Jewish, Muslim or anything else—must be safe to walk the streets of this country?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the lack of morality in how the Chagossian people were treated—he is correct on that. Would he accept that there was something fundamentally wrong in 1965 in separating Diego Garcia and the archipelago from Mauritius when the whole area had always been administered from Mauritius as part of Mauritius, and that under decolonisation statutes they should have been included in the independence of Mauritius at that time?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The marine protection zone was agreed by all parties. It is a sustainable protection zone. There has never been any debate or dispute about it; Mauritius has fully supported it all along and guaranteed its continuation. I do not understand why the shadow Minister is raising these matters. Does she believe that Mauritius will not look after the area properly? It seems to me that there is an attitude that is disrespectful of Mauritius and its determination to preserve the pristine nature of the ocean around the islands.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief, but I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands, which last week had its 103rd meeting. It has been ably supported by David Snoxell, the former British high commissioner to Mauritius, who has done incredible work with his knowledge of and empathy for the Chagossian people. There are two former chairs of the group in the Committee at the moment—the hon. Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—and the former Member for Crawley was also chair of the group at one time. We founded that group a long time ago to listen to, and take action in support of, the Chagos islanders, who were angry that they had been forcibly removed from their homes, angry at the way they had been treated by successive British Governments, and very angry at the initial decision that was taken and the sheer brutality that went with it. To give Members a brief example, in 1973 a 20-year-old Chagossian woman, Liseby Elysé, while carrying her unborn child, was forcibly removed from the Chagos island of Peros Banhos. She lost her unborn child soon after her traumatic upheaval and the journey, and she and her husband survived with considerable uncertainty and in very precarious living conditions, like all other Chagossians. However, 45 years later, in 2018, she represented her community at The Hague when she spoke about her life and her losses. Her story was compelling and memorable, like those of so many other Chagos islanders, because of the personal horror, trauma and abuse that they suffered. They have always demanded and fought for their right of return, and that is the central core of what the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands has done. I realise there are now different opinions in the group about the sovereignty or otherwise of the islands, but there has always been a fundamental agreement on the right of return. That led to massive legal actions, which were bravely fought by the Chagos islanders with very little support. There were a few people such as Richard Gifford, their solicitor, who were fantastic in their support. Eventually, we gathered wider support, and we got favourable decisions at all levels of justice around the world, including at the United Nations General Assembly. It is worth recalling, as many Members have done, the 1965 decision made by Harold Wilson, then Prime Minister. In offering Mauritius its independence, he came to this extraordinarily complicated deal, which essentially involved the United States getting a base on Diego Garcia and, in return, Mauritius getting its independence. Somewhere along the line, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) pointed out, there would either be a discount on the next generation of nuclear weapons, or free delivery of weapons at some point in the future. A lot of this was shrouded in mystery, in the private conversations between Wilson and Prime Minister Ramgoolam at the time, so there is a lot of confusion surrounding that. Somewhere at that time the idea was to set up the British Indian Ocean Territory, and somewhere at that time the decision was made that the archipelago—including Peros Banhos, which is a considerable distance from Diego Garcia—would be separated from Mauritius as well and that it would have to be depopulated, hence the utter brutality of the removal of the entire population from the islands. So the question that many Members have brought up is this: should the Chagos islands be separate from Mauritius or part of Mauritius? Interestingly, during the 1965 discussions Mauritius never accepted the separation. It never accepted that the Chagos islands should be separated either constitutionally or in any other way from Mauritius. As we know, the decision was basically forced on the Mauritians in return for their independence. We now have a situation in which we have finally got a treaty. It has its imperfections—of that everyone is agreed. Personally, I am less than happy about the idea of a massive military base on Diego Garcia, and even less happy that it might be there in 100 years’ time. However, a treaty has been agreed that will ensure the right of Chagos islanders to return to the Chagos islands, but unfortunately only a limited right of return to Diego Garcia itself. I am looking forward to the Minister’s speech, and I would be grateful if was able to say a bit more about the rights of access to Diego Garcia for Chagos islanders, their right to visit the church and the graves of their ancestors, and whether there is some possibility of a degree of residence on Diego Garcia. There is no other place in the world where a military base is surrounded by an entirely depopulated area, in this case an island, and I would be grateful if the Minister was able to say something about that.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it slightly odd that sufficient due diligence was not done prior to the appointment of Lord Mandelson? On the day before Lord Mandelson was dismissed, apparently there were a lot of emails available to the Prime Minister that he either was not given or did not read. We find ourselves in this odd situation where the British ambassador to the USA has to be dismissed in the full glare of international publicity because of his past behaviour, which was apparently well known to a very large number of people who should not have supported his appointment in the first place.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 16 Sept 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to raise a point of order, of which I have sent given you notice. Have you had an indication from the Foreign Secretary that the Government will either come to this House today, or that they will make a statement concerning the UN independent international commission of inquiry report on the Occupied Palestinian Territories? That report has confirmed in horrifying detail the acts of genocide now being committed by Israeli forces against the Palestinian people—against children: destroying hospitals, destroying schools and destroying life itself. This is a serious matter. If we are to continue normal relations with Israel, I think the Foreign Office needs to explain why we are having those relations with a country that is committing acts of genocide against the Palestinian people.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House yesterday, during the debate on the Chagos islands Bill. In column 816 of Hansard , I discussed the role of Olivier Bancoult in the relationship with David Snoxell, a previous high commissioner to Mauritius. I said: “The latter’s pressure on David Snoxell was enormous; he once went to the extent of locking him in his office until they had a proper meeting.” —[ Official Report , 9 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 816.] I have now checked that with Mr Snoxell and I made a mistake. The background facts are that in early November 2000, David Snoxell asked Olivier Bancoult and his committee to come and see him so that he could discuss with them the High Court judgment allowing them to return to the outer islands. That was a perfectly friendly meeting. Mr Snoxell goes on to say: “I had several meetings over the next 4 years with him and his committee members. Although Olivier regarded me as not on his side and occasionally denounced me in the press, he never locked me in my office.” I wanted to correct the record so that all can be satisfied that the truth has been told.