Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We have always been clear that we would work closely with the United States to put in place the agreements to protect our national security and the operations on Diego Garcia. That is exactly what we have done. That is exactly what this Bill and this deal secures. I have set out clearly the importance of updating the exchange of notes. That has been clear throughout and it was made clear in the other place before Christmas. It has been made clear on a number of occasions. Really, there is nothing new here.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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.

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been clear about that on a number of occasions. The right hon. Gentleman sets out very many important aspects of the history of this matter, and importantly puts on record the views of a range of other Chagossian groups who speak in support of the treaty and in support of the deal, primarily because it gives them the best chance to be able to resettle on the outer islands. We continue to support them on that measure, and we will continue to engage with all Chagossian communities—even, of course, those who disagree with the deal—to ensure that their needs and concerns are heard both in this country and internationally. That is also why we are capitalising the Chagossian trust fund.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I need to make progress, as Madam Deputy Speaker has asked me to be conscious of time. I will come back for further interventions.

Before moving on to discuss the specific amendments, I express my thanks to the noble Lords for their tireless efforts and to the many noble peers who scrutinised and supported the Bill. Lords amendment 4 was tabled by the Government, and I thank Lord Lansley for his helpful conversation and collaboration on the topic. The amendment will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in clause 6. With that amendment, all instruments made using that power will be subject to the negative procedure. Previously, no parliamentary procedure applied unless the power was used to amend, repeal or revoke Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments made under them. The amendment makes it clear that the Government are prepared to work with those who engage in genuine, constructive dialogue, rather than those who rely on political point scoring, to achieve meaningful compromise.

Turning to the other amendments made in the other place, I make it clear that the Government are thankful for all the scrutiny and are willing to engage with challenge. However, the other amendments are either already provided for or not necessary, or they simply make political points and play games with our national security, so we cannot accept them.

Lords amendment 1 would amend clause 1 to prevent the Bill and the treaty from entering into force until the Government had sought to renegotiate the termination clauses to include the base becoming unusable due to environmental degradation. That is unnecessary and I shall set out why. First, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the United States, which has invested heavily in the base. In line with the United States’ wishes, the previous Conservative Government agreed to limit termination to two grounds, both of which are in UK control, and this Government have secured that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

Let me make some progress on the issue of termination.

As I have said, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the US. The Government have secured that procedure.

Secondly, I reassure the House that, given the importance of the base, we are taking necessary steps to protect it from environmental damage. Working with the United States, again in partnership, we already have extensive measures in place, such as the coastal erosion programme, and scientific studies show that natural land loss over the past 50 years has been less than 1%. That said, we recognise the concerns of Lord Craig and Lord Houghton, and I would like to reassure them and Members of this House that the international law of treaties allows for the termination of a treaty when it becomes impossible for a treaty to be performed as a result of

“the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty”.

Baroness Chapman set out the legal position clearly in the other place.

For further reassurance, since that debate we have consulted Mauritius to verify that it shares our assessment. I am happy to update the House that this has been confirmed in writing to the Government. Mauritius is clear on the point, both as a matter of international law and in its domestic law. We welcome that confirmation by Mauritius and trust that it will assure Members in this House and in the other place who share this concern that such an amendment is unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

It has been said that some hon. and right hon. Members have come to the debate on Chagos late in the day. That is right. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been banging on about Chagos for decades, and I admire him for doing so. I first became concerned when I saw how much it would cost the United Kingdom to pay for something that we own. As a litmus test, I asked myself whether I could explain to my constituents why we are going to pay an island nation that has no direct connection with Diego Garcia.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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.

[Graham Stringer]

That is at the heart of what has gone wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on. The only solution to the central issue is not a survey, which the House of Lords is doing in good faith; it is to have a referendum, which has been ruled out of order today, for good reasons in procedural terms. We should give the Chagossians a say in a referendum on whether they want to return or not. Otherwise, it is all speculation.

I do not think the Minister explained why we should not take notice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That is fundamental, because the Committee goes back to the 1960s decision, and it sees what happened then, and what is being perpetuated now, as racial discrimination, and we and the Mauritians are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend the Minister did not really respond to that point, just as he did not really address what has changed. I have listened to many of his statements in this House, when he has said in good faith that the United States supports us. Regardless of whether it did so in the past—it probably did—it certainly does not support us now. Those are two reasons for pausing and thinking again: becoming compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and talking to the United States, because it has changed its position.

The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, because that was dealt with in a very short period of time on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee, but they are important in as much as they ask for information. We are going to pay for something that we did not used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability to look after our defence interests in the Indian ocean, and we do not know how much it will cost. Amending the Bill to give us an exact figure for those costs is important. Lords amendment 1 is also important if for some reason Mauritius changes its view or the islands disappear under water. I do not have the opportunity this evening to vote for what I would like to vote for, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We remain strong defenders of the Falkland Islands as part of our global great British family. I was pleased to speak with the new Legislative Assembly just the other day. It was, of course, the Brexit deal that the previous Government negotiated that left the Falklands out when it comes to tariffs, but we continue to work closely with them on a range of trade and tariff issues and have done so successfully in relation to the United States.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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?

[Mr Falconer]

I answered the substance of the right hon. Gentleman’s question when I replied to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). We are aware of the reports in relation to the UNRWA headquarters in east Jerusalem and, as the Foreign Secretary has set out already, we are taking them very seriously indeed.

Iran

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

As we have seen with the case of the Bella, which was interdicted by US forces with the support of the UK, there is often a nefarious link, including through the shadow fleet, with the Iranian regime, Russia and more widely. We are continuing to increase pressure on the shadow fleet and the broader threats posed.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The horrendous loss of life in Iran this week has to be mourned, as does the horrendous loss of life of Palestinians in Gaza over the past two years. The British intervened in Iran in 1952 and brought about regime change. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that external regime change attempts in Iran are very unlikely to work and will actually create a much worse situation? Will she give us an undertaking that Britain will not be involved militarily with either Israel or the USA if they try military activity in Iran now?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me say again that the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people. We should also be clear that it is not currently—there is not currently any opportunity for the Iranian people to have their voices heard, because when they have sought to do so, we have seen this incredibly horrifying, brutal repression. That is why we are urging an immediate end to the violence and fundamental change in Iran.

Venezuela

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I think I have been clear not only that rules matter and that international law matters, but that we need to ensure that we look at the different circumstances of different situations and rightly approach each one in turn. That is why we have today set out our position on Greenland. I caution hon. Members against creating equivalence between different situations in different parts of the world and between very different circumstances in very different countries. We have to be realistic about the differences between them in the approach that we take.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Has the Foreign Secretary had an opportunity to study the United States national security statement that was made at the end of November, in which it appears to give itself the right to intervene in any country in the western hemisphere in order to exploit raw materials and minerals? Is she not concerned about the overt threats that are now being made against Colombia and Cuba, as well as about the illegal kidnapping of Maduro? Is she going to make any representations to the USA about that as well?

[Yvette Cooper]

On Colombia, for example, we have worked closely with the Government of Colombia. We continue to be the penholder on Colombia at the UN and continue to work closely with it. We have also made representations on aspects of the US national security strategy, where we take a very different view from the US. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long history in this area, but it has included support for the Maduro regime, which is now being investigated for crimes against humanity.

Sudan: Humanitarian Situation

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

My hon. Friend raises such an important point. In a previous answer, I spoke about the 98,000 children who we are supporting to tackle malnutrition. I reassure her that we are working with organisations like UNICEF to ensure that we are getting support to children on the ground. Conflict is horrific in all its forms, but there is no worse conflict than that against children, and it must be called out and stopped.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will this country be more robust with the UAE on its financial support for the RSF, the clear supply of weapons to the RSF, which have come from somewhere around the world, and the interesting similarity between the areas occupied by the RSF and those where there is a massive supply of minerals and oil that will be available to it in the future? Is this not just a grab for the natural resources of Sudan being undertaken by the RSF on behalf of bigger actors around the world?

[Chris Elmore]

We continue to work with the US-led Quad effort, which includes the UAE, to ensure that we bring about a sustainable humanitarian pause and a broader ceasefire. We continue to work with all countries to bring about the cessation of violence as quickly as possible.

US National Security Strategy

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I am very happy to echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments and to thank those US troops, who also make a contribution to our security. The US is the UK’s principal defence and security partner, and the depth of our defence relationship with the United States remains an essential pillar of our security. The UK is deepening defence, security and foreign policy ties with the United States to uphold those peace and security objectives, particularly in the Indo-Pacific and north Atlantic. AUKUS, the carrier strike group’s 2025 deployment and our nuclear collaboration are other examples of where we work together to respond to a more contested and volatile world.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Does the Minister not think that the Government’s response is extraordinarily low-key and acquiescent to a declaration by the US that it gives itself the right to interfere in the internal affairs of any country around the world with which it does not agree? This is an extraordinary state of affairs. Will she make any comment on what is actually an act of piracy in the Caribbean, where the US has seized and taken into custody an oil tanker with no basis in international law and without any kind of military threat being made to the US? This act seems to me to be wholly illegal within international law.

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that while it is ultimately for the US to decide its own strategy, there are parts of it with which we disagree. It is important that friends and allies respect each other’s choices, as we respect the US as a democracy. We can have robust political debate, but we must do so in an environment of respect. I believe the right hon. Gentleman was referring to Venezuela in his question. The act was a decision taken by the US Department of Justice in co-ordination with the FBI, the Department of Defence and other US agencies. It is for them to answer questions on that decision.

Kashmir: Self-determination

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I will be brief, because a lot of colleagues want to get in. I compliment the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on his superb presentation, which showed passion and knowledge of the issue.

The fundamental issue, of course, is the one that the hon. Gentleman hit on many times: this is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, but an international issue that comes from all that went on in the process of the decolonisation of British India in 1947-48. It was India that referred the issue to the United Nations for resolution, so India’s constant denial that it is a UN matter fits rather strangely with Indian political history ever since that time.

The effects of the partition of Kashmir and the line of control have been beyond dramatic for both India and Pakistan. The partition encouraged massive levels of arms expenditure in both countries, doing enormous damage to the social infrastructure of both societies, in the ’50s, ’60s and ever since. It then encouraged both countries to develop nuclear weapons and to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The inadequacy of British behaviour in the 1940s led to the militarisation of the whole of the subcontinent; the loss of thousands of lives in successive conflicts between India and Pakistan, as well as with China; and, of course, the ever presence of nuclear weapons. If we look at India’s and Pakistan’s expenditure on defence compared with the expenditure that should be going on education and social needs, we begin to see the consequences of the issue.

Many people in this country feel very strongly about this issue. They are from Kashmir themselves, or they have grandparents, parents and many relatives in Kashmir; there is a very close relationship. They feel angry—the hon. Member for Bradford East put this well—that at every election, when party leaders happen to descend on Birmingham, Bradford or parts of London, they are given a note by their offices saying, “Say something about Kashmir, because it’ll go down well.” They do, and it does go down well, and that is the end of the story. Absolutely nothing has been done, by any Government, for a very long time to promote the idea that the people of Kashmir should be allowed to decide their own future.

That is not to say that there are not serious imperfections in both Azad Kashmir and Jammu Kashmir. The Indian military presence in Indian-occupied Kashmir is now the biggest it has been for a very long time. Successive laws have been passed, particularly by the Modi Government, to reduce the special status of Kashmir—which at least gave a nod towards the idea that it was an international dispute to be settled—and, essentially, to try to fully annex it.

I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will tell us that the Government recognise, first, that the issue should go to the UN, that the Government will push it at the UN as a permanent member of the Security Council, and that the Government will revisit the UN statements made in the 1940s and the many since. Secondly, I hope that the Government will do everything they can to encourage the self-determination of the people on both sides of the line of control in Kashmir. The idea that a beautiful place such as Kashmir, with such history and potential, should be divided and occupied by the military, and that resources go into the military and into what becomes a security state because of the tensions over the occupation of Kashmir is incomplete decolonisation. It is decolonisation that should have happened in the 1940s. Britain, because of its colonial history, has a very special responsibility to ensure that the people of Kashmir are able to decide their own future.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I am now setting a formal four-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

As the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) rightly said, this has clearly been a year of incredible tension between India and Pakistan. We have used our relationships with both countries, both of which are friends and have long-standing diplomatic, historical and political connections with the UK, to try to ensure dialogue. It is clear from press reporting, let alone diplomatic reporting, that the tensions between those two countries continue.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

What plans do the UK Government have to take the issue to the UN? We must ensure the UN is seized of the issue in a way that it has not been. It has obviously tried to bring about a ceasefire when there has been conflict between India and Pakistan, but that is not enough; there has to be a fundamental resolution to the basic problem, which is the lack of a right to self-determination for the people of Kashmir.

[Mr Falconer]

As I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), we talk directly to both India and Pakistan. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows, there is strong disagreement between India and Pakistan about whether this issue should return to the United Nations. As my hon. Friends the Members for Brent West and for Bradford East noted, at different times India and Pakistan have respectively thought UN involvement was helpful or not helpful. I do not wish to take a view this morning about whether a further reference to the United Nations is useful at this time, but it is critical in 2025 and into 2026 that there is dialogue between India and Pakistan. We have seen the extent of the pressure when dialogue breaks down.

Venezuela: US Military

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As the House will know, Ministers receive legal advice on a range of matters relating to foreign policy, and that advice is subject to legal and professional privilege.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I compliment the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) on securing this urgent question.

Could the Minister be very clear? What the US is doing, in bombing vessels at sea in both international and potentially territorial waters, is illegal, as is the harassment of Trinidadian fishing communities. The threat now of bombardment on the Venezuelan mainland is completely illegal within all sections of international law. Have the British Government made any representations to the US on this, and what role do the British Government play at the United Nations in the discussions about this issue? Does the Minister accept that this is an incredibly dangerous, massive build-up of military force in the Caribbean, and that it can only be dangerous to the people not just of Venezuela but of every other country and island within the region? Surely there should be some move towards peace, rather than allowing this military confrontation to develop.

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience of Latin American issues to this House. On the legal position, I do not have much more to add. There has been extensive reporting over the last few days of some specific US strikes. I reiterate to him that they were not strikes in which the UK had any role, so we are not in a position to provide the fuller explanation that we would have, had we been involved—which we were not. On his wider question about build-up in the region, the House has heard his views.