Jeremy Corbyn MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the Opposition spokesperson that new clause 1, which I tabled, would prevent the Secretary of State authorising the entry of members of visiting forces from states whose commanders are subject to International Criminal Court arrest warrants or proceedings of the International Court of Justice. I do not see how that is a problem for anyone who respects and understands the importance of international law in bringing an end to conflict, or preventing conflict. Surely the Secretary of State should not allow people to come and operate here when they have an ICC arrest warrant against them.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The amendments I have tabled concern the right of British nationals to engage in foreign wars. What brought them about is reports that British nationals have been involved in Israel Defence Forces activities in Gaza and other places. To prevent this from happening in future, my amendments would amend the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to give the Secretary of State power to undertake some form of legal action against those individuals. To me, it seems very obvious and very important that if, as a general principle, we say that British nationals should not be allowed to fight for a foreign force, or to engage in a war in another country under a different command, we should do something about it legally. My amendments are quite widely supported and very carefully drafted, and I hope that the Minister will understand why I tabled them and their importance. I never thought that in my lifetime, we would be able to watch genocide taking place live on television, as is happening in Gaza. My amendments clearly state that if cases are taken to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, that would be enough to trigger action by the Secretary of State in this country. That is why I tabled them, and I hope that the House will take them seriously and support them.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years “(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows. (2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert— “(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years. (3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.”— (Ben Obese-Jecty.) This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  There are massive death tolls in the wars in Ukraine, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran. Last year, global arms expenditure reached $2.7 trillion, a third of which came from the United States of America, and this year it will be well over $3 trillion. What consideration did the G7 give to the direction in which the world is going, with greater global poverty, greater inequality, greater climate injustice and greater danger for the whole world? Did the G7 have any thoughts about greater diplomacy, ending the wars and bringing about peace around the world, or was it all solely about spending more and more money on weapons?

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill gives considerably more powers to the Home Secretary and the Government, so it results in greater Executive power. Further to earlier interventions, is she not concerned that the Executive, and this branch of the Executive, are to have much greater power, but there is no commensurate increase in bodies’ accountability to Parliament for deciding what organisations and which individuals are to be sanctioned, and what the system will be for making those decisions? We have been through this process many times, going right back to the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in the 1970s. Does she not feel that there is a danger of our moving too far away from parliamentary and public accountability for the very important decision to deny liberty to various individuals, who will have difficulty challenging that legally?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not clear that 30 years of the regulatory system has absolutely failed in the face of the greed, incompetence and profit taking of Thames Water? Surely to goodness it is time that Thames Water stopped being allowed to continue with this disastrous policy. The company was brought into public ownership, but it is public ownership with a difference, because it includes local authorities, local communities and the workforce—rather than the directors—who know something about water delivery. We need an efficient supply, an end to the flooding that happens in my constituency and others, and an end to the abominable polluting of the Thames and the seas around this country, which is caused by the greed of the directors of Thames Water.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  This year, global arms expenditure will be about $3 trillion. Every country that is raising expenditure is doing so through taxation, cuts or debt. In drawing up this defence spending strategy, what consideration did the Minister’s Department or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office give to a strategy of multilateral negotiations, détente and peace in the future, as a way for everybody to benefit from a peace dividend of less being spent on arms, rather than more?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Belfast: Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  The House owes a big debt of thanks to the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for raising this question today. Last night the scenes of racist violence on the streets of Belfast, with gangs going from door to door looking for “foreigners”, and the racist abuse being thrown at any minority ethnic person on the streets of Belfast, were utterly disgusting, as were last night’s attempts by people in Glasgow and Liverpool to emulate that and do exactly the same. What message does the Minister have for the far-right racists who are encouraged by parties represented in this House to make it clear that they will not be allowed to assemble in the next few days and over the weekend to promote the same kind of racist language and violence against minorities within our society? None of this racist stuff builds a house, feeds a child, or educates anybody. Surely what we need to do is unite people against racism in any form in our society.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  At the moment, the Palestinian people are allowed to occupy only 40% of the Gaza strip, and that figure will go down to 30% next month if Netanyahu has his way. Israel is bombarding—through settlers and its own violence—the people of the west bank, and it is also now occupying a large part of southern Lebanon. The House needs to know exactly what the nature of the security relationship is between Britain and Israel. What information is shared, what weapons are supplied, and why are we still supplying parts for F-35 jets knowing full well that those planes are used in acts of genocide against the Palestinian people?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Cuba: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer, and I thank him for confirmation of Britain’s consistent opposition to the blockade of Cuba. My entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will indicate my own interest in respect of my recent visit to Cuba with the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). During that visit we were able to deliver some medical aid, for instance during a visit to a cancer hospital. Forever seared in my memory is the sadness in the eyes of the hospital director as he tried to deal with the catastrophic loss of power and loss of medicines while dealing with people whose conditions meant that they were potentially terminally ill. Owing to the fuel blockade, any fuel bought on the open market in the streets of Havana would cost at least £10 per litre, which means that for most people it is impossible to obtain. As a result, traffic simply does not flow. Bus services do not run, very few taxis run, and refuse collection—and so much else—is impossible. Moreover, because a fair amount of the electricity is generated by means of oil, there are power cut-offs lasting up to 20 hours a day. The health risks are enormous, the education risks are enormous, and Cuba is really up against it. We had a fascinating meeting with the Government and others about converting the economy to a much greater extent through sustainable energy sources, and about the way in which they wish to take things forward. However, the US sanctions and blockade, the order from Donald Trump in January this year and the long-term effects of the Helms-Burton Act mean that the economy of the island is strangled. The loss of financial services, and of the use of international credit card facilities, means that the tourism industry has halted. There is no tourism industry at the moment, and there are no visitors to Cuba. At best, there are one or two flights a day at an airport that used to be quite busy. None of this is necessary, and we should recognise and thank the Governments of Mexico, China, Canada, Japan and EU member states for the support they have given. Britain has recognised Cuba for 124 years. Can we please have some aid for Cuba, including oil?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Cuba: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Cuba, following the US naval and financial blockade of the island.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  Is not the issue that Israel’s occupation and destruction of so much life in Lebanon at present is a continuation of its genocide in Gaza, of its continued occupation of the west bank, and of its arming of settlers to commit violent acts against Palestinian villages and steal their land and crops? Is not the real issue that Israel is allowed to get away with it because the rest of the world provides Israel with the wherewithal to do it? Will the Minister be very clear about this: what is the British Government’s military relationship with Israel at the moment? Are we supplying weapons? Are supplying parts for the F-35? Are we sharing intelligence information? Are we assisting Israel’s military occupation of the three areas that I have just mentioned?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I originally thought that a large number of Members would want to attend this debate, because it goes to the heart of so much about the political system of this country, and the power and influence of very wealthy people around the world. I am sure that this is not the only time we will debate the issue, and I hope there will be a more thorough public inquiry into it later down the line. We should also thank the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for what she said in her speech, the way she put it, and the way she placed centre stage the victims—some of whom are nameless—of the depravity of Jeffrey Epstein and the whole golden circle surrounding him, as well as the fact that one of those victims took her own life as a result. The victims were young women who were trafficked and exploited by very wealthy men who felt that they could get away with it. Even after Epstein’s initial conviction, those men carried on gravitating towards his golden light, the money and influence he exuded, and the way he made his money, which was all about helping the super-rich in the United States avoid paying tax by relocating their resources to the US Virgin Islands. The millions that Epstein made, and the millions that were not paid in tax by those very rich people, are millions not spent on health, housing, education and all the other things that working-class communities need. Somewhere along the line, Epstein was apparently almost forgiven for his crimes, and then they came back much later on. We can now begin to see the whole, horrible story unravelling. Surely there is an object lesson here about unaccountable power, unbelievable levels of arrogance, supreme levels of wealth, and the way in which politicians—probably less wealthy than Epstein and some of his mates—were seduced by the super-yacht, the private island, the private jet, the big dinner, and so on. All of that is a corruption of our political system. Unless we do something about the influence of big business, super-wealth and money in politics, then everything that Bernie Sanders says about the USA having the best democracy that money can buy will soon apply to this country as well. We have got to be much stronger about needing a purer form of democracy and accountability within our society. This is a debate on Peter Mandelson. I remember, when Mandelson first appeared in this building as the media director of the Labour party, discussing him with Tony Benn in the Tea Room. Tony had met him at the meeting of the national executive, where he was introduced to the Labour party. I saw Tony that evening and asked him, “What was it like?”, and he said, “Well, this guy Mandelson is going to give us all a lot of trouble.” He then wrote in his diaries that evening: “I find Mandelson a threatening figure for the future of the Party.” Tony recognised that Mandelson’s whole objective was a political one: to take the Labour party away from its roots—away from its trade union connections and the working-class communities—and to turn it into a party of business. As the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and others pointed out earlier, that eventually ended up with Labour Together and the huge amounts of money it spent trying again to subvert the whole principle behind the Labour party. The results of all that are being paid for day in, day out—in hospitals spending 15% of their expenditure on private finance initiatives, in schools having to pay debts related to Building Schools for the Future and so on. The whole idea was that the state should become an arm of business rather than providing services that are necessary for the people of our society. Mandelson was successful in many ways in turning things away from their original purpose. All the contracts that are now being agreed upon are a consequence of that sort of philosophy and those sorts of political dealings that went on. In an earlier debate on this subject, I said that there has to be a serious and open public inquiry into the influence of business, money and corruption on our political system. I understand the limitations of the Intelligence and Security Committee and its work, which is why I intervened on the deputy Chair, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), earlier on. I am sure—he may well agree with me—that this will not be done and dusted by his Committee and that it will actually go on for a very long time, because it goes to the heart of democracy within our society. I hope that at the end of this, we do have an open public debate about money and politics, and a serious open inquiry that will get to the heart of everything that is going on, because if we do not, we will all be the weaker for it. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd pointed out, the victims here are known to be those young women who had such a terrible experience and terrible time at the hands of the rich and powerful. If we do not have such an inquiry and debate, there will be other victims of the rich and powerful further down the line. I know that time is of the essence, so I will just talk briefly about Palantir. On 22 July 2025—less than a year ago—Peter Mandelson sent an email to Morgan McSweeney. The subject was a name: Peter Thiel. Mandelson wrote: “This celebrated techie is in London til Aug 9. I don’t know whether you have been approached already,” saying it would be good for the PM to meet him—so the ambassador to Washington starts trying to set up meetings with a tech entrepreneur who happens to be a friend and supporter of Donald Trump. Contained in the second tranche of the so-called Mandelson files laid before Parliament, the email is one of a series in which Mandelson personally connected the UK Government to Palantir, the data analytics and surveillance firm co-founded by Thiel, and to the wider network of investors around it, at a time when his own consultancy firm, Global Counsel, still counted Palantir among its clients. Is that corrupt or what? The ambassador to Washington owned a company whose client he was trying to introduce to the head of the British Government via a series of private emails using connections that he had obviously obtained through the Labour party over a very long time. Mandelson did not divest himself of his significant financial stake in 2024 despite official advice that he should do so before taking up his appointment. That advice stated: “the retained role and interest in Global Counsel would have to cease”, if Mandelson were appointed His Majesty’s ambassador. But it did not. Mandelson carried on with that, as we well know. We also know that the Prime Minister met representatives of the firm with Peter Mandelson in Washington. That was the mysterious meeting that apparently nobody was at, although it did happen; of which there is no record, and yet everybody was there; and during which no discussion went on because nothing was reported, and yet we all know that it took place because they were filmed going into it. That took place only a fortnight after Mandelson had started the job. Days later, on 5 March 2025, a partner in the silicon valley venture firm 137 Ventures—an investor in both Palantir and the defence company Anduril—emailed an invitation for Mandelson to attend the Hill and Valley Forum, a Washington gathering that brings together defence technology executives and Congress. The sender’s name was redacted, but the file notes that Mandelson was attending “with Louis”, who we understand to be Louis Mosley, the head of Palantir’s UK business. And so, this very tight connection of people goes on. According to Ethan Shone of openDemocracy, Mandelson’s security “mitigations” forbade such one-to-one meetings with former clients like Palantir—a restriction which, like divestment from Global Counsel, the former ambassador assiduously ignored. He did not fulfil the requirements to divest himself and not to follow up those connections, and, as others in the debate have pointed out, he was very generous and free with his email advice to just about everybody, trying to set things up all the time.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  For clarity, is the redaction done in Downing Street—in Government—and then sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s Committee, or is it done by the Committee on grounds of national security and international relations?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  There are many ironies surrounding Peter Mandelson. The most useful thing he ever said was that he hated me, wanted nothing to do with me and woke up every morning trying to get rid of me when I was leader of the Labour party. I take that as a badge of honour, actually, because I wanted absolutely nothing to do with him and the politics that went with him. Mandelson managed to land a deal for Palantir. That was his achievement, and in his farewell letter to embassy staff, he singled out that one achievement. He wrote that the UK leaves the relationship with the United States “in a really good condition, with a magnificent state visit and the new US-UK technology partnership—my personal pride and joy that will help write the next chapter of the special relationship—set for next week.” Obviously the visit went ahead without him. Palantir confirmed that it would invest £1.5 billion in the UK and expand its Ministry of Defence contract to £750 million over five years, replacing a £75 million, three-year arrangement. The deal was folded into the technology prosperity deal that Trump and the Prime Minister signed at Chequers the next day. In only a short time as ambassador, he embroiled us in all this stuff with Palantir and set up this technology agreement with the USA. As we all know, because we hear it from our constituents, people who use the NHS are alarmed that Palantir will get hold of their medical records. They are concerned that the company will get hold of the entirety of the NHS and social security records—in other words, crucial personal information on every single person that has lived or died in this country since 1948. Are we seriously saying that we, as a society and country, are incapable of setting up our own technology arrangement? I do want data sharing within the NHS. I want it to be the case that when someone goes to the doctor, they can access that person’s records quickly and sort out what is wrong with them. I want that technology in place for A&E departments, but I do not want those records to be shared with a company that is busy advising Israel on how it will go about its bombardment of Gaza and trying to get hold of other contracts all around the world Do we have to mortgage ourselves to an American multinational that will have control of and access to vast amounts of data? Surely to goodness, we have enough ambition and ability to develop our own systems within the NHS. We are all proud of the NHS, but let us not destroy it by handing it over to the private sector. Let us not destroy the whole philosophy behind it by giving it over to those who will make money out of it rather than deal with the obvious health issues that so many people face. I hope that the lesson from all this is that when the political system becomes corrupted by lack of principle and the amounts of money made available to people—the private donations that are still made by private health interests and others to Members and the parties represented in this House—we are all the losers; democracy is the loser, and ultimately the price is paid by the poorest and most vulnerable people within our society.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. Is he able to confirm whether Peter Mandelson had divested himself of all his financial interests in companies, including peripheries or actuality of Palantir, while he was ambassador in Washington?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  May I take the Minister back to the answer given to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) earlier? Palantir is a very big and very dangerous outfit. The Government are developing a close relationship with Palantir—platforming and so on. Could the Minister assure the House that everything to do with Palantir will now be paused until we can get to the heart of the matter of how it first became embroiled in Government contracts, how it gained them and what its influence over this Government is, particularly via Peter Mandelson?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday I raised a point of order on the attack on Khan al-Ahmar and the brutality of the settler forces who are destroying lives there. That is now continuing all across the west bank, where settler violence is destroying Palestinian villages. The genocide in Gaza is continuing; the occupation of the west bank in its totality is continuing. The Minister talks about sanctions against Israel, but where are the sanctions that mean anything? Why are we still supplying arms and weapons? Why are we still supplying security information to Israel? Why are we still occasioning its military attacks against the Palestinian people? If sanctions are to mean anything, they have to do something to prevent Israel’s brutality against the entirety of the Palestinian people, be they in Gaza, in the west bank, or in refugee camps in Lebanon.

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  Youth unemployment is now at 5%. On current form, it will rise to 5.8% by next year, which will mean a very large number of young people without work. What actions can the Chancellor take to ensure that young people get access to jobs and careers, and do not have the deeply depressing experience of being unemployed when they leave school, college or university? A disproportionate number of young people rent in the private rental sector, so will she also do something about bringing in much needed rent regulation in the private rental sector?

• 20 May 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The west bank village of Khan al-Ahmar is under threat at the moment and is being forcibly evacuated by Israeli forces and illegal settlers. Will you advise me on whether there is some way that we can persuade a Minister from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to come to this House and make a statement about the Foreign Office’s attitude to those illegal forcible evacuations, and of course the continued military support for Israel that is enabling Israel to take those actions?

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Lady’s call to take water back into public ownership. Does she agree that in setting the share price at which we buy it back, we should take account of the cost of pollution, of the money that is being paid to distant shareholders with no investment or interest in this country, and of the inconvenience caused to so many of our residents by constant leaks and the waste of water? Shareholders should pay the price of it, not our constituents.