Jeremy Corbyn MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is very clear that the issue has been referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee and that it will look at issues of national security and international relations. I intervened in the debate on this matter; it is possible that the Chief Secretary heard that intervention. I want him to be very clear that in the event of the committee discovering commercial links from Mandelson to any company, including Palantir but not excluding others, they will be pursued and will not be ignored because they do not necessarily impact immediately on the very narrow definition of national security and international relations.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  Can I take the Minister back to the strange answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who asked for a full inquiry into all the actions and activities of Labour Together, including the behaviour of Morgan McSweeney and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons)? I want the inquiry to extend to their undermining of the Labour party leadership between 2015 and 2020—the systemic briefing and attacks, and the general undermining of the interests of the Labour party while Labour Together claimed to support it. A single inquiry by a single person does not cut it. There needs to be an open, much more public investigation into not just Labour Together’s behaviour but the sources of its funding, expenditure and donations. Will the Minister confirm that political donations are not just cash payments but include the secondment of staff and the use of facilities, all of which ought to be publicly and openly declared, and clearly have not been?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister really understand the depth of anger and feeling across the country when people read and hear about Palantir—the way in which it has wormed its way into Government contracts and the national health service, and its behaviour on behalf of the Israeli Defence Forces in the destruction of Gaza and other places using artificial intelligence technology? Do we really want to be involved with a company like that? Can we not just distance ourselves from Palantir altogether and have an ethical procurement policy across Government—not just in the Ministry of Defence, but in other Departments as well?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Independent Water Commission: Final Report · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The state of the infrastructure does need to be examined. Like many Members, my constituents have endless complaints about that. Thames Water is one of the most frequent visitors to my constituency; it digs up the roads frequently. With the resulting road closures—which are absurd—Thames Water is much better at traffic management than Transport for London, actually. I would also ask that we look much more seriously at river basin management. I remember visiting York with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) during the flooding at that time. We had a long discussion with the Environment Agency about planning for flooding, which would involve restoring peatlands, upland planting, reintroducing beavers and others into rivers—that has an effect on a small scale, with lots of rivers and streams—and restoring floodplains. Those sorts of things are some of the most important things we can do. Water should be taken back into public ownership—not old-style public ownership, with a board of governors or directors appointed by the Government, but a popular form of public ownership that would involve the brilliant workforce in all those companies, and their knowledge. The directors would come from them, and from local communities, businesses, local authorities and unions, so we would have a locally and popular-based water industry in our society. We could do it. Why don’t we try that?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Independent Water Commission: Final Report · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this debate, which is timely and very important. The Cunliffe report is seriously flawed, in that it did not consider public ownership of the industry or agriculture, which is a major polluter, as other colleagues have already pointed out. Privatisation of water has been an absolute disaster from the very beginning, when many of us at the time warned against it. It has resulted in £72 billion being taken out of the industry in dividends and profits, and fantastic levels of executive pay. It has left behind pollution and flooding, with the cost of the pollution, flooding and foul water being borne by the public—our constituents—who are increasingly angry about it. By any standard, river quality is appalling right across the country and is one of the worst anywhere in Europe. That is caused by the mixing of rainwater with sewage waste, and by agricultural run-offs that have a devastating effect. The River Wye is just one example of how awful the rivers can become, because of agricultural waste run-offs—hon. Members who drew attention to that are absolutely right. The waste of water from leaks is a huge problem, and I think I am right that the totality of leaks across the whole country would fill the whole of Loch Ness every year. Therefore, instead of calling for new reservoirs to be built, should we not look at much better water management, rainwater retention and water distribution across the country? In England, the biggest water consumers are in London and the south-east, which is, broadly speaking, the driest part of the country. The wettest part of the country is the midlands and the north-west. Clearly, moving water from one part to the other makes a lot of sense. Can we not have some sense surrounding the organisation of water distribution?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for getting this debate and to all those who have spoken in it. We are having this debate against a background where 71,000 people are known to be dead in Gaza as a result of Israeli bombardment, with many thousands of bodies lying under rubble that will no doubt become the foundations of the casinos and hotels that the Trump plan is visiting on the people of Gaza. I had the privilege of attending the South African application under the genocide convention at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. It was a deeply moving experience hearing the South African application and the bravery with which they put it and thinking, “This is the country that threw off the yoke of apartheid and had the courage then to stand up for the Palestinian people, facing genocide as they are.” The conclusion by the eminent judges was that there was a credible case that genocide had been committed, and they are going through many details on it. Following that, last year I introduced a ten-minute Bill in the Chamber calling for this country to set up its own tribunal of investigation on its participation in arms sales to Israel and the bombardment of Gaza. Unsurprisingly, it was blocked. Through the Peace & Justice Project, I then established our own independent Gaza tribunal, which we held over two days in Church House Westminster. I was joined by Shahd Hammouri and Neve Gordon, who assessed a great deal of detailed evidence. In the one minute and 15 seconds left to me, I cannot go through that evidence, but I will simply say this. There was powerful evidence of doctors in tears because they did not have the equipment to deal with the horrendous injuries that they were asked to deal with in hospitals without electricity, anaesthetic, antiseptic or even clean water. The legal evidence given and the evidence given by former Foreign and Commonwealth Office official Mark Smith was very powerful, as was the evidence about the supply of weapons to Israel through RAF Akrotiri. The matter has now been taken up by a group of UN member states in the Hague convention, who will carry on with it. Let me conclude with this. As was pointed out earlier, this country was involved in supporting and establishing in the 1920s the International Court of Justice. We pride ourselves on being the custodians of international law and order. This country is making itself complicit in the genocide of the people of Palestine by its supply of weapons. It is time to stop.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making some excellent points. Does she agree that all the inquiry systems that have been discussed so far are influenced or participated in by people who have been within the golden circle of Peter Mandelson? Do we not need something novel and different, such as an independent, judge-led or judiciary-led inquiry that examines the whole thing in the round, similar perhaps to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I compliment the hon. Member on the content of his speech so far. This inquiry will have massive ramifications. It is an inquiry into the gilded circle surrounding Mandelson, which extends very broadly around this House and the civil service, the business community, the media and internationally. Is it not time that we had a novel form of inquiry which is not undertaken solely by Parliament or the civil service, but which is a much broader, more public inquiry that will look into the whole issue? This is a basic corruption of our political system that we are looking at in the behaviour of Peter Mandelson.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  This debate is crucial and seminal, but first and foremost it must be about the victims of the horrible web that Epstein created —the abuse, abduction, raping and secret imprisonment of women, who were apparently flown in and out of major cities around the world for the convenience of rich and powerful men. It is utterly disgusting, depraved and abominable behaviour on every single level, and every Member who has called it out is absolutely right to do so. Epstein was not revealed yesterday; he was not convicted last week; he was not convicted last year. He was first convicted 18 years ago. It is not as if his record was not extremely well known. It seems that we are debating it now only because of the inclusion of Peter Mandelson in the ghastly, nasty, vile, horrible web that they created. We have a duty to do something important today, and I for one support the Opposition motion. I hope that we vote on it, rather than coming to some crabby deal between the Government and the Opposition through a manuscript amendment that would kick the whole thing into the long grass, a long way away, on the pretence that we cannot discuss these issues because that might affect security or international relations. Almost anything can affect international relations. It sounds to me like the Government simply trying to get out of things. The question is fundamentally one for the Prime Minister, and it is a bit odd that he is not here for the debate. It is a bit odd that he has not spoken in the debate and that all he has done is say what he did today at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I cannot believe that, when he was about to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington, he was not made fully aware of all of Peter Mandelson’s record. The Prime Minister would have known about the number of times that Peter Mandelson was forced to resign, even from the Tony Blair Government, because of his behaviour. He would have known Mandelson’s record as an EU Commissioner, and of his interesting relationship with global dealers in minerals and many other things. He would have known all of that, yet he still went ahead and appointed Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, apparently despite advice from the Foreign Office and others. What a shame, what a disgrace and what an appalling appointment to make. We do not even know whether Mandelson is still being paid by the Foreign Office. Today, we have to be very stern and clear that there needs to be the fullest possible inquiry into all of this. Parliament is not competent to undertake this inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary and the civil service machine are not competent to do so. They have all been ensnared in this gilded, friendly web of Mandelson and his business, political and social contacts, where favours were done and contracts were apparently awarded. That ghastly company Palantir was trying to get hold of our national health service, apparently at the behest of Mandelson and others. None of us here are competent to undertake that inquiry, which is why I intervened earlier—I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for giving way—on how it should be conducted. I think it has to be judicially led, independent and, for the most part, in the public eye—rather like when the Government were eventually forced to undertake the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war; that is the nearest parallel I can find—because it needs to expose the whole web that Mandelson created, and the power play that he operated within the civil service, the political establishment, the media and so much else. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made a wonderful and very powerful speech. I thank him for his reference to what Mandelson said and did about me when I was Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour party. I can confirm to the House that under my leadership, Mandelson had no role, no influence and no part to play, because I do not trust the man or believe him. We need to make that very clear, because his role in British politics has been basically malign, undermining, and a very corrupting influence altogether. When we look at our politics, we need to look at the role that big money, patronage, and turning a blind eye to crime play in it, because what we end up with is the national embarrassment of Mandelson being the ambassador to Washington, apparently on the basis that it was a risk worth taking in order to please Donald Trump. I do not know whether it succeeded in pleasing Donald Trump, but I did notice that at one of his endless press conferences, he could not remember who Mandelson was, so I am not sure how big the impact on the President was. Today is a day of shame for our politics—shame that we have got into the situation that has now been exposed. Epstein was very, very powerful and very, very wealthy. Obviously, there needs to be more examination of that. More files have been uncovered than even Julian Assange managed to uncover through Wikileaks, and those files are going to be read and studied for a long time to come. There are lots of people all around the world who were dragged into this ghastly web based on dishonesty, lies, corruption and patronage. It is up to us as MPs to ’fess up to what has happened and to make sure there is a genuinely open, independent inquiry. When it comes to the standards of democracy we have in our society, and the levels of patronage that continue within it, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I mean no disrespect to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Minister will have heard the points of order that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I made earlier. We need to know that there is a timetable for this inquiry, that it will not rule out specifically commercial interests such as Palantir and fail to investigate them, and that it will investigate the whole web of influence that Peter Mandelson had over so much in Government, which has brought about this dreadful position in which we appointed somebody who is a friend of a paedophile to be the ambassador to Washington. Many people watching today’s debate will not be happy that Parliament is merely shoving this issue off to one of its Committees, because they think there should be a wider public interest inquiry into the whole affair.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the House should be slightly cautious here? We should not just roll over and accept the Government’s manuscript amendment without clear assurances about how far the inquiries will go where they relate to commercial interests, rather than just security interests, as well as a very clear process of reporting and a timetable, so that this is not just a carpet-brushing exercise to get rid of an embarrassing day for the Government.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member makes a very fair point. Of course, the role of factions within parties is enormous—we have seen the role that Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and others have played in sidelining, silencing and getting rid of very good, active people within the Labour party. Ultimately, it is the Labour party that loses as a result. I was extremely grateful for the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last election in Islington North: he came along and canvassed, and we won with 50% of the vote. That is the only useful thing he has done for a very long time that I can remember. As I say, the right hon. Member’s point is a very fair one. It is right that Ministers and Governments should be able to bring political advisers into government with them. I remember discussing all this with Tony Benn in the 1970s; his view was that the civil service was intrinsically conservative and reactionary, and that there needed to be voices in there who were prepared to speak up for an alternative policy. I understand that point, but there has to be some kind of limit to the role of the political adviser in running the civil service—that is the Rubicon they must not cross. It is reasonable for them to advise the Minister, and they may have a very strong view or a view that is very different to that of the civil service. That is fair enough, but they should not be running the civil service. If we believe in an independent civil service, we must practise what we believe, even though it is probably quite uncomfortable for Ministers at various times. I conclude by saying to the Government: do not come to some deal today just to get past today. Do not just get through today and think, “Wow, we got through that mess.” Members of the Government should not just put in their diaries, “Horrible day in the Commons, but tomorrow is another day. We’ll move on.” Let us have the open, public inquiry that is necessary. Let us have an understanding that we will turn the page on the era of patronage, and of close relationships between commercial pressure groups and lobbying—in the Lords, here, in the media and in our society. We should strive to build the open, fair, democratic society that we should all believe in. Those who suffered to get us universal suffrage and democracy did not do it so that we could develop a corrupt political system; they did it because they wanted an open, democratic, accountable system that benefited the poorest in society, as well as everybody else. Let us pass the motion today—no deals. We must inquire with real seriousness into the horror show that we have heard about.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the answer we have just heard, if the Intelligence and Security Committee comes across evidence of commercial misdemeanours as well as intelligence and international relations misdemeanours, what powers does it have to do anything about that? Where will it refer those concerns and where will those inquiries lead? The issues of lobbying and potential corruption in the handing out of Government contracts are massive, and I would not want that swept under the carpet on the basis that the Committee is dealing with international relations and national security.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely welcome this Bill. It is an enormous step forward and will bring great relief to a lot of families. Does the hon. Lady recognise that the continuation of the overall benefit cap will mean that about 150,000 children will not benefit from this Bill and will remain in relative poverty? Would she welcome further legislation to remove the overall benefit cap in order to try to eliminate all poverty among children?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member recognise that additional causes of child poverty include a tax threshold that has not been raised at all and the insufficiency of the minimum wage, which drives many working families into desperate poverty, with their children suffering as a result?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I absolutely agree with her about those 50,000 families not getting any benefit. Does she agree that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to child poverty, including raising the tax threshold to take the poorest families and poorest people out of taxation altogether, and looking at the extraordinarily high private sector rents in many places, which are way above the local housing allowance and mean that families on benefit end up subsidising their rent in order to keep a roof over their heads?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I compliment the hon. Member on the amazing work he has done on the Right to Food Commission and on food banks in Liverpool, supported by all the football clubs there. He must be aware—maybe he has figures—of the number of families with children who use food banks who are in work, and sometimes doing two jobs, but who are still so poor that they cannot afford to pay a weekly grocery bill.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister acknowledge that, ever since the brutal removal of Chagossians from their homes in the 1970s and 1980s, their one unifying factor has been their determination and desire to return? Will he also confirm that international law indicates that the Chagos islands—both the archipelago and Diego Garcia—should be, under decolonisation statute, handed over to Mauritius, and that the only way of guaranteeing the right of return of Chagos islanders is for the House to accept the treaty that the Government have negotiated, which is supported by the Chagos Refugees Group, largely based in Mauritius and the Seychelles, and some of the Chagos islanders who live in this country. [ Interruption. ] Of course there is debate—nothing wrong with that—but this guarantees a right of return.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Fundamentally, I spoke about Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands for many years because of the injustice that was done and the islanders’ right of return. The whole point has been to gain the right of return, which has been won through this Bill for the outer islands and, in a limited form, for Diego Garcia itself.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Israeli occupation of the west bank has resulted in almost 1,000 deaths over the past year and a half. We have seen the loss of villages, the loss of life and the continued enabling of settler violence against ordinary Palestinian people in their villages, and this morning there are reports that the Israel Defence Forces are now demolishing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters in Jerusalem. When are the British Government going to do something serious, with sanctions against Israel for its continued illegal occupation of the west bank?