Jeremy Corbyn MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, there you go. Thank you very much indeed. I will finish with a couple of points. This country now suffers serious flooding almost every year. We have all experienced the pain that our constituents and others face as a result. Part, but not all, of that is brought about by unusual weather patterns and excessive rainfall. We also need to think seriously about natural river management and natural flood prevention; that is specified in the Bill, and is important. The city of York, for example, is at a confluence of rivers. It has always been in danger of flooding, because it has these rivers flowing into it. There could be a combination of solutions. One is, yes, flood defence walls, concrete barriers and so on to protect central York from flooding. However, there is also the management of what happens upstream. If we deforest further upstream, build on floodplains and prevent the river following its natural course, we end up with flooding. There are lots of small-scale natural defences one can have against flooding, such as not building on floodplains, having rivers meandering rather than flowing in straight lines, and letting beavers build their dams on streams and so on. There are a whole lot of solutions, all of which add up to something valuable and good. That will not be thought about by water companies; it is done with imagination. Farmers in Shropshire are promoting exactly that kind of solution. Likewise, what happened with the River Parrett, which had excessive flooding, has partly been resolved—but not completely—by the Environment Agency recreating peat bogs up in the hills. There are a lot of things that we can do, but they require imagination. A water company, whose sole interest is in making money out of the water industry, will not be interested in that. That is why the public must have a voice in this process, and that is what the Bill ensures. The levels of pollution are truly shocking—the sewage that flows in and the danger to all of us. The water we drink is not pure and it is not clean, because there is a limit to how much scrubbing of water can be done to make it clean. We end up drinking all kinds of foul things in our water, not to mention the microplastics that exist because of the excessive use of plastic water bottles as people do not trust the water supply. It breaks my heart. Every day I walk up Seven Sisters Road and outside every shop is a great stack of plastic bottles of water, because people do not trust the water. Would it not be nice if we totally trusted our water and did not feel the need endlessly to buy plastic bottles of water to keep us going through the day? Last Saturday, I took part in a local people’s forum in my constituency. We invited people to come to discuss water and the water supply. The hall was completely full and the forum was also followed online by a number of other people. We had two excellent speakers: Johnbosco Nwogbo from We Own It, and Laura Reineke from Friends of the Thames. They both spoke with passion, knowledge and interest. We then threw open the discussion for questions and asked each table to come up with their ideas. The commonality was: clean water; ownership and control; the cost of water; and anger and irritation at Thames Water’s lack of investment in the pipe network, including the lack of re-sleeving of the Victorian mains in so many places. We have had major floods on Isledon Road, Stroud Green Road, Holloway Road and Seven Sisters Road in the recent past, not to mention one in the constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington—not the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who has been speaking today—which flooded into our area. The Sobell leisure centre, near where I live, was flooded out. It is now two and a half years later and the restitution works for the damage done are just being completed. That is the irresponsibility of Thames Water not investing in the network, wasting money in the short term by digging up short sections of road, replacing the pipe, filling it in again and coming back the next month to dig up another bit of road 100 metres away to do exactly the same thing. We need a much more coherent and comprehensive approach. The Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Norwich South gives us the chance to do something better and do something different: to make our water a public asset and a public resource; and to take it away from those who have done so much damage to it. Instead, let us do something better and say that we are going to provide all the people of this country with good quality clean water. We will stop polluting our rivers and seas, and we will have river basin management to ensure that flooding, if not ended—we are not going to end it completely—will at least be under control through natural as well as other means. Let us end the waste and start investing in a sustainable future for all of us. That is what the Bill does.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South for that helpful reply to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). I am just doing my best to facilitate debate here, and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will appreciate the congenial atmosphere that I am trying to create. I do not know whether it is working; please let me know later.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Some people would not require any training or skills development at all; others might, and of course a short period would be needed for that. This is more a question for the promoter of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Norwich South wishes to intervene, I would be happy to give way on this point.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think there is a contradiction at all. I think it is mature, grown-up politics to say, “We have the objective of public ownership. We want you to consider what the best form and structure of it would be.” It could be that people do not agree with it at all; we would then have to discuss and debate the matter with them. Obviously, ultimately Parliament has to make the decision. I know everyone in the House is brilliant; the intellect is superb, and the knowledge amazing, and they are infallible in all their judgments, but is it just possible that there are some people who are not Members of Parliament who also have enormous knowledge, experience and ability? Perhaps we should listen to them, too.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Could I take the hon. Member back to the question of farming pollution? Does she feel that the problem is too many pesticides being used in farming, too large fields, or an inability to restore the natural drainage systems, such as ditches, which lead to water going into groundwater, rather than rushing down and filling and polluting our rivers?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making an important point about river pollution, and she is absolutely right. Would she agree that there is also a planning issue? There are too many paved spaces, and not enough run-off is available to go into the ground water. We need a holistic approach that includes much more assertive planning policies on drainage. Otherwise, we end up with sewage in our rivers during periods of heavy rainfall.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Since the hon. Member used to live in Islington, he is well aware of how great the connectivity to the area is. Obviously, we live in a country where the capital, London, is in the south-east. That is maybe not an ideal geographical location, but I do not think it is going to change any time soon. If we have a national commission, it has to meet somewhere—it does not have to be in London. Do we have to pay the cost of getting people to the meetings? Yes, of course, obviously we do. I envisage a more localised form of consultation in regional water areas, such as Severn Trent, Humber and so on. I think that would meet the concerns that the hon. Gentleman legitimately raises about the overly centric nature of our political structures in this country.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I compliment my good friend the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on his passion, commitment, knowledge and determination. If I may say so, I am also grateful that he mentioned the late, great David Graeber in his introduction. He was a good friend to both of us, an amazing young man and an amazing philosopher sadly taken from us too soon. I think his family will be really chuffed that the hon. Member has included him in his speech on something so fundamental as the right to fresh, clean water for us all. This Bill seeks to protect that right; it recognises that water is an essential and basic need, and therefore something so universal and so essential surely ought to be completely in public hands. Most countries around the world do not even countenance the idea of privatising water; they say, “It is our public responsibility to ensure that we can provide clean and safe water for everybody.” When the Government of Margaret Thatcher and others privatised water in the 1980s, many of us strongly opposed it—I think I am the only Member in the Chamber who had the privilege of voting against privatisation at the time. We predicted that it would lead to a rip-off of the public sector, and to asset stripping of the land and other resources that the water boards had built up. We also pointed out that the water infrastructure we enjoy—the reservoirs in Wales, in Scotland and all over England, the piping, the sewage works, and all the other hugely complex elements of infrastructure—was, for the most part, built by public enterprise and public investment. We all laud the work of Bazalgette in producing a sewage system for London. That was not done by the private sector; it was done through Victorian investment in a public structure to bring about proper treatment of sewage and provide clean water for the people of London. We should be proud of the public investment that brought about the water system that we have, and should recognise that since 1989, when water was privatised, £72 billion has been taken out in dividends by the water companies. That amounts to £2 billion a year not invested in water—not invested in new pipes and in protecting the system we have. Those profits are extraordinary. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) rightly talked about the amount of pollution flowing into our rivers. I cannot get my head around the fact that 300,000 hours-worth of sewage was pumped into the Thames in the last year alone. When we add that to the amount being pumped into the Severn, the Trent, the Humber, the Mersey and all the great rivers across this country, we realise the scale of the problem we are dealing with. We then realise what happens to that—the sewage goes into the sea, and it comes back in fish. It pollutes water, which does not stop at the river’s mouth; it goes into the oceans, creating further global water pollution. Surely we can do much better. I therefore welcome the Bill, and I invite Members to look seriously at clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 sets out the measures that will be required in the Secretary of State’s strategy, including measures on prioritising investment, collaborating with local authorities and using natural flood management techniques, and a requirement for local authorities to take into account the need for conservation—all incredibly sensible measures that can only be delivered by public authorities. Privatised water companies do not have as their top line the conservation of the natural world and the environment. They have as their top line, their middle line and their bottom line the profits they can take out of it. And please, nobody tell me that the £72 billion paid out in dividends has been reinvested in the British economy. It is in tax havens all over the world. We are subsidising tax havens all over the world on the back of our polluted and privatised water industry. Clause 2 relates to the commission on water, which is a fascinating proposal. The commission would include representatives of water companies—which are privatised at the moment but would hopefully be publicly owned—union representatives in the water industry, environmental or conservation groups, water users, which would be local businesses, and local authorities. I strongly support public ownership of water, but I do not envisage a situation in which the Prime Minister, as a gift to his friends, puts them all on a British water board. I would like to retain the existing system of managing river basin areas—Thames, Severn Trent and so on. That makes sense, because that is where the primary water supply comes from. That would be managed through a commission that includes the workforce, trade unions, all the local authorities in the area, local businesses, because they use water and supply services locally, and others who can be appointed from elsewhere. We would have public buy-in to the structure, which would give us a much better and more democratic system. I urge Members to look with some imagination at what the hon. Member for Norwich South has put forward. Some say, “We can’t possibly bring this into public ownership because it might cost money.” The 1945 Labour Government started by nationalising the Bank of England in 1946 and went on to bring many other industries into public ownership. Even the Ted Heath Government in 1971 brought Rolls-Royce into public ownership and created Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd because the company was failing. The agreed share price was set by Parliament—it was not set by the market in all those cases. We can do the same in this case.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with what the hon. Member is saying about levels of pollution. Does he really think that United Utilities is a fit and proper organisation to carry on supplying water? Does he not think that somebody else should be doing it—like us?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way for the last time.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that incredibly friendly and helpful intervention. I am most grateful to him for the collegiate way in which he put that; I could not put it better myself. That manifesto included public ownership of water and other services because those industries needed to come into public ownership; they were failing. The policies in that manifesto were all well in the plus category—more than 70% supported public ownership of water. This might be uncomfortable for him, but the Labour party actually received more votes publicly and nationally in 2019 than it did in the recent general election. We have an electoral system that is unbelievably unfair, and which brought about an enormous majority on a very low total vote. We can all play with the numbers. I do not resile from what was in that manifesto, because it was put there by people who worked in the industry. The GMB and other unions took part in the consultation that brought about that policy on water. I urge the hon. Member to consider the Bill put forward by my friend the hon. Member for Norwich South, and to recognise that it is an opportunity to do something different. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about having a commission, or a citizens’ assembly. Why is everybody so scared of a citizens’ assembly? What is the big problem with it? Is it something in Members’ heads? What is going on? Why would anyone be so worried about it? Citizens get together and put forward a proposal. We do not have to agree it or accept it, and it does not take away the powers of Parliament. It gives an opportunity for randomly selected ordinary citizens to put forward a point of view. That was done a lot in Scotland when we were talking about devolution. It has been done in other places; in Chile, it was done to develop a new constitution, some of which was ultimately rejected in a referendum. Do these assemblies take away from or diminish the principles discussed? No. I believe they do the very opposite.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  There are 4.3 million children living in poverty in our society, and 1.2 million people in receipt of PIP are about to lose it following the statement last week. The Chancellor has put a huge amount of money into defence. Could she not think for a moment of reversing the decision last week to take £5 billion out of the welfare budget, and of ending the two-child benefit cap, which has driven so many children and families into really desperate poverty?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  Like the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), I have visited Calais on a number of occasions, and I have met people there who are desperate. They are victims of war, human rights abuses, environmental degradation and sheer poverty and desperation. They do not cross the channel without a reason to do it. What conversations is the Minister having with those in European countries, north Africa and the middle east about the root causes of the huge numbers of people globally who are seeking asylum at the present time? Inhumanity and deportation will not work.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying, and any specific protection for chalk streams. Does she feel that the Bill goes far enough on that, or is specific legislation needed to preserve these beautiful, almost unique things that we have in this country?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I compliment the Transport Committee and its Chair on this report, which, from what I have read so far, is absolutely excellent. I have two very short points for the hon. Lady. In London, ticket offices were closed by Transport for London some time ago. Does the report include anything about the possibility of reopening those ticket offices or having better information available for people, particularly those with sight or hearing difficulties, going to stations? Secondly, there are still a large number of underground stations with no lift access whatsoever. What evidence has she had that Transport for London will bring forward a programme to make all underground stations fully accessible for everyone?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Conflict in Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  Millions around the world saw in real time last night the destruction of life, the loss of children’s lives, more destruction and the Israeli attempt to annex northern Gaza, if not the whole of Gaza. That is clearly what the whole agenda is about. Israel continues to commit war crimes through the denial of food, water and electricity to the people of Gaza. Will the British Government confirm that they are in breach of international law? Secondly, will we cease all military co-operation with Israel, including arms supplies and the use of RAF Akrotiri as a staging point for the delivery of weapons?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Military Co-operation with Israel · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief, Ms Jardine, because we need to get through the debate and have the Front Benchers speak. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. I attended the International Court of Justice hearing, where South Africa presented an historic and brilliant case that led to that historic opinion being offered by the court. I was also at The Hague for the launch of the Hague declaration by a number of nations that have dedicated themselves to pursue support for the ICJ and ICC decisions diplomatically, and recognise that Israel is in breach of the fourth Geneva convention on the obligations on occupying powers in countries, which applies to Israel in Gaza and the west bank. I believe the Hague declaration is an important step forward. I would be grateful if the Minister would answer some specific points. What exactly is going on at RAF Akrotiri? What was it that the Prime Minister on his visit there said he could not talk about, but there was lots of it going on? That was a very strange statement and comment to make on television at that time. Why are so many flights going from Akrotiri to Israel? What is happening, as the hon. Member for Leicester South mentioned, to the information collected by those flights over Gaza? Is all the information collected going to be provided to the ICC and the ICJ to pursue their investigations, if they request it? The 300 licences that still exist have been increased by another recently approved 34—

• 18 Mar 2025 · Military Co-operation with Israel · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing the debate, as well as the authoritative way in which he introduced it. Last night, 400 more people died in Gaza as a result of direct bombardment in breach of the ceasefire. At the same time, Israel is denying access to food, water and supply of electricity to the people of Gaza, who are now going through the most ghastly time ever, on top of all the horrors they have been through over more than a year. So many people—69,000—are now known to be dead there, and more bodies are found every day that rubble is cleared away. Those who survive will forever live with survivor’s guilt for the fact that they survived while all their friends and family died around them. This is devastation beyond belief on live television all around the world. We watch people being starved to death in front of our very eyes, while there is food aplenty just a few kilometres away, deliberately denied to them by a decision of Israel. That is a war crime. We have to be quite clear about that. In a statement in the Chamber yesterday, in response to the G7 summit that the Foreign Secretary had attended, I asked a specific question about international law and the war crimes that I believe Israel has committed. He, it seemed to me, conceded that Israel was in breach of international law. That is quite significant. Presumably, there are many Foreign Office briefings going around saying that Israel is in breach of those laws. That leads to the second question: if we, as a country, knowingly accept that Israel is in breach of international law and continue to provide it with the weapons with which people can be killed in Gaza then we ourselves, as a country, also become complicit in breaches of international law. Those laws are there for a purpose, to try to prevent genocide and the crimes against humanity that are happening before our very eyes.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  This whole statement is predicated on saving £5 billion at the expense of people with disabilities in our society. Anyone who has been through the trauma of trying to apply for a personal independence payment knows about the intrusive nature of the questioning, and about the great difficulty of obtaining that payment and then continuing to receive it in future. The Secretary of State’s statement has caused consternation and dismay to many people around the country—particularly those with disabilities—who are understandably alarmed that their benefits will go down and that they will live in greater poverty as a result. Can she say with hand on heart that no disabled person will be worse off after her statement, or will that £5 billion be taken at the expense of those in our society who already live the most difficult lives?

• 17 Mar 2025 · G7 · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary described the blocking of aid to Gaza in his statement as “appalling” and “unacceptable”. Why does he not also confirm that it is illegal and in breach of international law, as is the continued bombardment of Gaza and the bombardment of the west bank? When will the British Government finally say to Israel, “We will no longer supply weapons to you and we will no longer continue security co-operation while you continue to illegally occupy territory and commit war crimes in both Gaza and the west bank”?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Swann Report: 40th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her excellent speech and for the brilliant event that was organised last night. Does she agree that many brave black parents in the late 1960s, and even earlier than that, recognised the abominable way in which their children were being treated, including people like Bernard Coard who led the campaign against the banding policy in Haringey? At that time, black children were unfairly treated and classified in the way that the hon. Member has described, and we should pay tribute to the brave work of those people and acknowledge the abuse that those families suffered because they stood up for their rights. Her debate today and the meeting she held last night are a testament to the efforts that they put in all those years ago.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for coming to the House and making what is a very important statement today. Is he able to make any comment on the continuing presence of foreign troops in Syria? Russian, Turkish, American and Israeli forces are presently occupying at least the demilitarised zone just beyond the Golan heights. What pressure is being applied for the withdrawal of those forces and the cessation of their military activities within Syria, to give Syria an opportunity to bring this appalling period to a conclusion, hopefully with peace and justice in the future?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  There have now been 60,000 known deaths in Gaza. Israel is already accused by the ICJ and the ICC of war crimes, including genocidal acts, and it is now committing a new war crime by denying food and water to the people of Gaza. What will it take for the British Government to cease all arms supplies to Israel and to end the use of the RAF base in Akrotiri as a staging point for delivery to Israel? When will we end the security co-operation with Israel to make it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to support a regime that is breaking international humanitarian law in so many respects?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Palestinian Rights: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that we are having this debate. I compliment the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) not just for securing the debate, but for the decent, human way that he presented the case for people who want peace in the region. That must be the message that we all put forward today. The images that we have seen and heard about today are unbelievably horrific; I can relate to many of them, having visited Israel, the west bank and Gaza many times and seen those horrific images for myself. People’s thirst to gain peace, and in particular peace through justice, has led to a search for peace through international law, hence the application that was made by South Africa to the International Court of Justice and the application that was made to the International Criminal Court. It was my pleasure to go to the International Court of Justice with the South Africans to observe the proceedings there. I was recently in The Hague, alongside the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for the launch of The Hague Group. The group is made up of a number of nations that have determined to proselytise on every global stage for the carrying out of international law, with respect to the illegal nature of the occupation and the bombardment of Gaza, as well as the continuing bombardment of the west bank. As Members of Parliament, we have been elected and we are all very proud to be here. Our primary function is to hold the UK Government to account and to demand policies of our Government that are appropriate to a given occasion. I wrote yesterday to the Prime Minister to ask that he initiate a Chilcot-style inquiry into the whole gamut of policies in relation to Israel, Palestine and the conduct of this war. I think that we, as a country, need examine ourselves in this, and what we have actually done over the past few years. I say that with respect to both the current and previous Governments, because some of us were in the previous Parliament or previous Parliaments before that. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough and myself have been here for an equal length of time; it is just that he signed the book 15 minutes earlier than I did on that fateful day in 1983. I compliment him on his speed. In my letter, I put the following points to the Prime Minister. History is repeating itself. Today, the death toll in Gaza has exceeded 61,000; two Israeli officials are now warranted by the ICC for war crimes; and Britain has played a highly influential role in all of that. A recent report by the British Palestinian Committee outlined the extent of that relationship, including the sale of weapons, the supply of intelligence and the use of RAF bases in Cyprus. Many of us have repeatedly objected to the use of those bases, and the continuing supply of weapons. We must pursue all the avenues that we can for an independent inquiry and some transparency about what is going on. Our Government—both the current and previous Governments—have supplied weapons, have supplied intelligence and have allowed the use of the RAF bases in Akrotiri. Some 61,000 people are already dead in Gaza, there is a rising death toll in the west bank and, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough pointed out, the Israeli Government are encouraging the settlement policy. Let us have some transparency and let us hold our Government to account so that we can play our part in bringing about peace and justice for the people of the region.