Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member will know from previous conversations that we continue to engage with the fishing industry on all areas of policy. Fishing falls outside the scope of the Bill, but it is important that the Government maintain that dialogue.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

[Seema Malhotra]

As the right hon. Member will have seen—I know that he has studied the Bill closely—we are looking to implement our obligations in line with many existing obligations. It has been important for us to hear from scientists and other involved parties that there should be no extra burdens and that we should consider how to move forward together. When we ratify the agreement, we will be party to the Conference of the Parties and able to participate in how future decisions are made. That will be important to understanding how the UK can incorporate decisions efficiently, effectively and with the fewest possible resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I will make a bit of progress—I thank my hon. Friend for his patience.

The Bill is divided into five parts. Parts 2, 3 and 4 align directly with three operational pillars of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, and environmental impact assessments. I will address the Government amendments and clauses stand part now, but I will address the Opposition amendments in my closing remarks, so that I have had an opportunity to hear the shadow Minister’s contribution.

Part 1 sets out the definitions that underpin the rest of the Bill. Given that those definitions will be discussed at some length today, I say for the benefit of the Committee that “areas beyond national jurisdiction” comprise the high seas—waters beyond exclusive economic zones—and the area, meaning the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and “marine genetic resources” are defined as any marine material containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value. Those definitions mirror the agreement and ensure consistency between domestic law and our international obligations. Clause 20 provides definitions for terms that are used in the Bill but not defined elsewhere in it.

In part 2, clauses 2 to 10 implement the provisions of the agreement relating to marine genetic resources. The provisions promote transparency in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and associated digital sequence information, and provide the building blocks for benefit sharing.

Clauses 2 and 3 create reporting obligations for individuals collecting marine genetic resources using UK craft and for those utilising those resources and associated digital sequence information. Information must be provided to the Secretary of State before and after collection, and information about the results of utilisation should be provided in accordance with the schedule. Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may transmit to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism the information provided on collection and utilisation, unless it is protected from disclosure under domestic law. Those clauses are designed to implement the UK’s obligation on information sharing, with the clearing house mechanism facilitating transparency and helping us to deliver on our obligations while protecting information that is not to be shared.

Clauses 5 to 7 impose duties on those managing repositories that hold marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction, or databases of digital sequence information on those resources. They must ensure that samples or data can be identified as originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction, provide access, and submit biennial reports. Clause 8 sets out exceptions from the requirements of part 2 in respect of fishing and fishing-related activities, military activities, and military vessels and aircraft, as well as anything done in Antarctica, the marine genetic resources of Antarctica, and the digital sequence information of such resources. The Committee will be aware that this is because the Southern ocean is governed by the Antarctic treaty system, which was part of the debate we had on Second Reading.

Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with regulation-making powers, including those necessary to implement the UK’s future obligations under part 2 of the agreement. Given that the conference of the parties may adopt further measures once the agreement enters into force, those powers are essential to ensure that the UK can respond in a timely and appropriate manner. The clause also allows for provision for any enforcement of those requirements imposed by or under part 2 of the Bill. We will ensure that there is ample time for scrutiny of additional measures that may be brought in under secondary legislation.

Finally, clause 10 requires guidance to be published in relation to the above-mentioned provisions on marine genetic resources. Those will be prepared by the national focal point in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and will provide practical illustrations to help institutions and researchers understand the requirements placed on them. The guidance developed will also be laid before Parliament. Taken together, these measures create a clear, proportionate and internationally aligned system that allows UK researchers to continue their world-leading work with confidence, meeting the requirements of the Bill and, in turn, allowing the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member will be aware that the UK also made a declaration upon the signature of the BBNJ agreement stating that the Antarctic treaty system comprehensively addresses the legal, political and environmental considerations that are unique to that region, and provides a comprehensive framework for the international management of the Antarctic. It is important to recognise that it is also about the international management of the Antarctic, to which we are committed as part of the international community. I thank the right hon. Member for his comments.

In part 3 of the Bill, clauses 11 to 13 implement the provisions relating to area-based management tools, including areas beyond national jurisdiction designated as marine protected areas. Clause 11 contains provision for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations to implement decisions adopted by the BBNJ conference of the parties under part 3 of the agreement. Many activities under UK jurisdiction or control in areas beyond national jurisdiction, such as fishing, are already regulated domestically, and where existing powers suffice, the clause 11 power will not be needed. However, where new measures are adopted by the conference of the parties, where they require additional controls or restrictions, the clause ensures that the UK has the necessary legislative mechanisms to comply. Clause 12 sets out the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 11.

Clause 13 provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue directions to UK craft, without the need for secondary legislation in order to implement emergency procedures adopted by the conference of the parties. As emergency procedures may require immediate action to prevent serious harm to marine biodiversity, regulations alone may not provide sufficient responsiveness. The clause enables swift operational steps, such as directing vessels to avoid a particular area. Clause 13 is modelled on existing direction-making powers available to the Secretary of State’s representative under schedule 3A to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Given the nature of any scenarios that could arise, it is power-limited in scope and emergency in nature.

Part 3 of the Bill ensures that the UK can meet its obligations and exercise leadership in protecting ecologically important areas beyond national jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Savage]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the treaty can help to provide clarity about previously unregulated areas. Many countries have already ratified it, which shows that ocean conservation really can unite us where, in the past, there has been disunity.

While I welcome the speed with which the Government have introduced the Bill following the Climate and Nature Bill, thus giving us a seat at the table at the first ever ocean COP next year, it is a little disappointing that the UK was not one of the first 60 nations to ratify the agreement. We hope to be a country that leads on climate diplomacy, so we should not arrive late at the crucial environmental treaty of the decade. While many of our colleagues are in Belém, and with the world preparing for that first ocean COP, the UK must demonstrate not only that it supports global ocean governance in theory, but that it is prepared to deliver it in practice. It is also vital to recognise that the health of our oceans depends on the health of our land-based environment; one cannot heal without the help of the other. We need to decrease our carbon emissions on land if we are to slow ocean acidification, which threatens plankton, ecosystem health, and the millions of people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean.

This responsibility starts at home. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both domestically and internationally. If we want credibility internationally, we need coherence domestically. Our own marine protected areas must live up to their name, which means ending destructive practices such as bottom trawling and implementing a clear, science-driven ocean strategy that rises above and goes beyond departmental silos and party-political lines. A strong stance on the high seas will ring hollow if our waters remain vulnerable. The public understand that, the environmental community understand it, and I know that many Members on both sides of the House understand it too. I join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in calling for a coherent oceans policy that joins up our commitment to international waters with stronger protections at home.

As I draw to a close—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting there! Let me just say this. If we choose to pursue a strategy of high ambition, the UK can once again be a leader in global ocean protection, championing the first generation of high-seas sanctuaries, pushing for robust monitoring and enforcement, supporting small island states, and ensuring that the benefits of marine science are shared fairly. So yes, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It enables the UK to participate fully in the new regime for marine scientific resources, for marine protected areas, and for stronger environmental impact assessments. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The work that follows will determine its true legacy, and I trust that the Government will continue to draw on the support and perspectives of Members on both sides of the House to secure the wellbeing of the oceans for generations to come.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). Every time she describes her ocean journeys, I think of that wonderful poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Coleridge, which she must have repeated to herself dozens of times while pulling on those oars.

I repeat, very briefly, my welcome for this good Bill, which will hopefully lead to much greater protection for the oceans. However, I want to ask the Minister to respond to one question. Over the years, we have been through all kinds of arguments about Antarctica, from the original Thatcherite concept of mineral extraction to, much later, the protection of the whole continent and the seas around it. On the whaling industry that was, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient protections, including for the whales that have survived, and for the growth in their numbers? There are still endless reports of illegal whaling on the continent, particularly by Japan but also by other countries.

The hon. Member for South Cotswolds rightly raised the issue of plastic pollution. There are many wonderful schemes to try to clean up the plastic island in the Pacific ocean and ensure that the plastic is recycled in a proper manner. That is good, and we hope that it will be clean by 2040. The problem, as I understand it, is that two thirds of the plastic is actually under the ocean and not on the surface. Therefore, something else has to be done, but crucially, it is up to us to decide how much plastic flows into the oceans through our rivers, through dumping and through illegal activities. It is the responsibility of our water industry and sewage disposal system to ensure that plastic does not flow into the ocean.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important things the Government can do at COP1 when it meets next year is to establish a regime with the other members of the conference of the parties on how enforcement of the new treaty will take place?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

Conflict in Sudan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

There are three particular areas in which we are focused on UN action. The first relates to the fact-finding mission that we have supported, which is critical to accountability and justice; the second relates to the Human Rights Council itself, where, as I said earlier, there will be an emergency session; and thirdly, we will be discussing with our partners on the United Nations Security Council what more can be can be done following last week’s events there.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

[Mr Falconer]

There have been a number of contributions this afternoon about the various countries with an interest in the region. We of course continue to discuss the events in Sudan with all members of the Quad and all those in the region with an interest, including the UAE, which we spoke to on Friday.

Gaza and Hamas

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

These are vital questions from my hon. Friend, who I know has remained very focused on the issues. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West, who has kindly joined me on the Front Bench, and I remain focused on the issues. As access to Gaza becomes easier, as we all hope that it does, among the most urgent actions are ensuring that medical supplies, personnel and infrastructure are in place to meet the very significant needs of Gazan people. We will continue to work closely on that.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

[Mr Falconer]

I have set out our arrangements in relation to arms and the very significant suspensions that we made from the Dispatch Box a number of times—they remain in place. The right hon. Member asks about RAF flights; I think he refers to the RAF flights that were attempting to find hostages in Gaza. Those flights have stopped. The hostages have been released, so there is no further function for those flights and they have ended.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

[Wendy Morton]

I will make a little more progress.

We are not talking about a small area. The British Indian Ocean Territory spans 640,000 square kilometres of ocean. The Government’s treaty with Mauritius compels the UK to help Mauritius to establish and manage a new MPA, but we are being asked to fly blind with this Bill, because no agreement has been reached on what the MPA managed by Mauritius will look like.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I will speak in support of seven amendments tabled in my name. For too long, decisions about the Chagos islands have been made without the consent of Chagossians. My grave concern is that the treaty to be given effect by the Bill fails to rectify that historical and ongoing injustice. Not only does it fail to provide adequate protection of their rights, it fails to establish a legally binding right to return or a binding programme of resettlement of the islands for Chagossians.

Turning to amendment 9, we recognise and support the importance of abiding by international law and believe that the UK was indeed right to open a process of negotiation with Mauritius—especially so given the risk that a judgment against the UK in any court could threaten our sovereignty over and security interests in Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. However, the treaty that has emerged not only falls short in addressing past injustices, but introduces new injustices of its own.

At the very core of the United Nations charter—a document that this country helped to shape—lies the right of all peoples to self-determination. Article 1(2) could not be clearer: one of the purposes of the United Nations is to

“develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.

Yet for the Chagossian people that right has been denied for more than half a century. They were exiled from their homeland in the Chagos archipelago, scattered across the globe, and left without the means or permission to return. It was, and remains, a moral stain on our modern history.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am aware that he has a long history in advocating for this particular cause, but I am relentlessly surprised by the position he takes on this point. He would seek to effectively reinscribe the colonial construction that was British Mauritius and in doing so ignore the right of Chagossians as a people to self-determine their own future. I do not see the colonial convenience of administration as anything other than overwriting a people’s right to determine their own future.

On that point, in 2019 the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that concluded that the decolonisation of Mauritius had not been legally completed and that the United Kingdom should end its administration of the Chagos islands as rapidly as possible. The General Assembly subsequently endorsed that same view. But I say to this House that the ICJ opinion, however well intentioned, poses a profound problem. It proposes to hand sovereignty not to the Chagossians themselves but to Mauritius, without consulting those who were born of the islands or who are descended from them. That is not self-determination but the transfer of sovereignty over a people without their consent. The right to self-determination belongs to peoples, not to Governments. It is not and should not be a device for tidying up the diplomatic ledger of empire, but a recognition that every community has the right to shape its own future. To remove the Chagossians once was a horrific wrong. To barter away their sovereignty now without their voice compounds that wrong.

If we truly honour the UN charter and the principles that this country has long championed, the Chagossians themselves must be placed at the centre of any future settlement. They must have a say over their citizenship, over the governance of their islands and over the prospects of return. The commitment to a referendum that sits at the heart of amendment 9 seeks to address that long and burning injustice by providing Chagossians with the opportunity to exercise their right to determine their own future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is for exactly those reasons that we so desperately need new clause 5, which would require an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would mean that we are not caught with our heads in the sand again.

We are beginning to build a picture of a slippery Government who are not being honest with the British people, not being honest about the legal justifications for this deal and not being honest about the security risk associated with the deal, and who are now being slippery about the financial cost as well. Again, the Prime Minister himself said that this slippery deal was going to cost the taxpayer £101 million a year for 99 years. He rounded that down from £10 billion, which my maths would have come to, to £3.4 billion. Through a freedom of information request, the Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that the actual cost is £34.7 billion. Did the Prime Minister just get the decimal point in the wrong place, or was it something more sinister?

Madam Chair, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Government should no longer be trusted. They are changing their story in relation to this agreement, and they changed their story in relation to the China spy trial collapse. We need new clause 1 so that no payments can be made without direct approval from the House of Commons. At least then the Government would have to explain the real figures and be open to transparency and scrutiny.

The public see through Labour’s deal, and they know a sell-out when they see one. The Opposition amendments and new clauses bring transparency to expose this sell-out from a weak Prime Minister without the backbone to stand up for Britain. No wonder Labour Members are about to vote against them.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will be brief, but I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands, which last week had its 103rd meeting. It has been ably supported by David Snoxell, the former British high commissioner to Mauritius, who has done incredible work with his knowledge of and empathy for the Chagossian people. There are two former chairs of the group in the Committee at the moment—the hon. Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—and the former Member for Crawley was also chair of the group at one time.

We founded that group a long time ago to listen to, and take action in support of, the Chagos islanders, who were angry that they had been forcibly removed from their homes, angry at the way they had been treated by successive British Governments, and very angry at the initial decision that was taken and the sheer brutality that went with it. To give Members a brief example, in 1973 a 20-year-old Chagossian woman, Liseby Elysé, while carrying her unborn child, was forcibly removed from the Chagos island of Peros Banhos. She lost her unborn child soon after her traumatic upheaval and the journey, and she and her husband survived with considerable uncertainty and in very precarious living conditions, like all other Chagossians. However, 45 years later, in 2018, she represented her community at The Hague when she spoke about her life and her losses. Her story was compelling and memorable, like those of so many other Chagos islanders, because of the personal horror, trauma and abuse that they suffered. They have always demanded and fought for their right of return, and that is the central core of what the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands has done.

I realise there are now different opinions in the group about the sovereignty or otherwise of the islands, but there has always been a fundamental agreement on the right of return. That led to massive legal actions, which were bravely fought by the Chagos islanders with very little support. There were a few people such as Richard Gifford, their solicitor, who were fantastic in their support. Eventually, we gathered wider support, and we got favourable decisions at all levels of justice around the world, including at the United Nations General Assembly.

It is worth recalling, as many Members have done, the 1965 decision made by Harold Wilson, then Prime Minister. In offering Mauritius its independence, he came to this extraordinarily complicated deal, which essentially involved the United States getting a base on Diego Garcia and, in return, Mauritius getting its independence. Somewhere along the line, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) pointed out, there would either be a discount on the next generation of nuclear weapons, or free delivery of weapons at some point in the future. A lot of this was shrouded in mystery, in the private conversations between Wilson and Prime Minister Ramgoolam at the time, so there is a lot of confusion surrounding that.

Somewhere at that time the idea was to set up the British Indian Ocean Territory, and somewhere at that time the decision was made that the archipelago—including Peros Banhos, which is a considerable distance from Diego Garcia—would be separated from Mauritius as well and that it would have to be depopulated, hence the utter brutality of the removal of the entire population from the islands. So the question that many Members have brought up is this: should the Chagos islands be separate from Mauritius or part of Mauritius? Interestingly, during the 1965 discussions Mauritius never accepted the separation. It never accepted that the Chagos islands should be separated either constitutionally or in any other way from Mauritius. As we know, the decision was basically forced on the Mauritians in return for their independence.

We now have a situation in which we have finally got a treaty. It has its imperfections—of that everyone is agreed. Personally, I am less than happy about the idea of a massive military base on Diego Garcia, and even less happy that it might be there in 100 years’ time. However, a treaty has been agreed that will ensure the right of Chagos islanders to return to the Chagos islands, but unfortunately only a limited right of return to Diego Garcia itself. I am looking forward to the Minister’s speech, and I would be grateful if was able to say a bit more about the rights of access to Diego Garcia for Chagos islanders, their right to visit the church and the graves of their ancestors, and whether there is some possibility of a degree of residence on Diego Garcia. There is no other place in the world where a military base is surrounded by an entirely depopulated area, in this case an island, and I would be grateful if the Minister was able to say something about that.

Ambassador to the United States

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

I understand all too well the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Many have made it in the newspapers, although generally anonymously. A double standard applies to the top of the Labour party—Labour royalty, if you like—as opposed to other people who have been punished for doing their job, representing their people and so on. He has got a point.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

rose—

[David Davis]

I will give way, but then I must make some progress.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

[David Davis]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. We will come to a number of circumstances in which information was available and should have been, but was not, acted upon. This was not as hard as some may try to portray it as being: after all, the appointment did not come as a surprise. Lord Mandelson himself was clearly campaigning to become the ambassador after failing to win the chancellorship of Oxford University. Indeed, someone told me that he was actually campaigning for the ambassadorship while also campaigning for the chancellorship, so he was after two jobs, not one. It was clear at an early stage that he was going to attempt to do this, and there was widespread discussion at the time about his suitability for the role, so there was plenty of time for a preliminary investigative or vetting process. There was, and is, a vast amount of data in the public domain. Most of what I will speak of today is public domain material—I will explain when it is not.

What would those conducting that vetting process be looking for? A number of us on these Benches and, I would imagine, on most Benches have been through such processes ourselves. Traditionally they would review the history and personality of the candidate, assessing risks, such as the risk of the candidate being susceptible to undue influence, or, in extreme examples, blackmail—the Russians and the Chinese collect kompromat all the time; the risk of the candidate abusing or misusing the role; the risk of the candidate doing something that would cause reputational damage; or the risk, with which some on the Labour Front Bench may have difficulties and which they may find rather old-fashioned, that the candidate is too morally flawed to be given a major role in any case and fails a simple ethical test, which is where we may arrive in a moment. I am afraid that I am old-fashioned. I view ethical tests as an absolute, which cannot be traded off against some benefit or other.

In the history that I am about to detail, we see a Peter Mandelson who is easily dazzled by wealth and glamour and is willing to use his public position to pursue those things for himself. This was visible very early in his career, even to his friends. In 1998, he was sacked as Trade and Industry Secretary for failing to declare a pretty enormous interest-free loan that he had received from Geoffrey Robinson. At that time Mr Robinson’s businesses were being investigated by Mandelson’s Department, so there was a clear clash of interests, and Mandelson did not even declare the loan. That was the first occasion on which we saw so publicly the abiding flaws in his character, which would generally disqualify any normal person for a job as important as this. Even his friends saw that. One of his flaws was described plainly by one of his friends back then, who said:

“Peter was living beyond his means, pretending to be something he’s not, and therefore he was beholden to people.”

The important bit is that last phrase: he was beholden to people. It was a characteristic that was displayed time and again as he sought to use his position to curry favour with very wealthy and very powerful people who were either current or future benefactors.

This was repeated in 2001, when Lord Mandelson was again sacked after attempting to broker a British passport for Mr Hinduja, a wealthy donor to the Millennium Dome project, with which he was involved. Mandelson attempted to influence the Home Office to give Mr Hinduja a passport when Mr Hinduja and his brother were under investigation in the Bofors weapons contract scandal—again, a dubious reason. Incidentally, it was at about that time that his association with Epstein started, and the infamous birthday book entries date from then.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We have condemned the strike, and I do so again. It violates Qatar’s sovereignty. Obviously, the question of the facts of the strike will now be contested, and, as I said earlier, the Qatari Government are releasing those facts as they conduct a full investigation. Regardless of anybody else, there were Qatari officials killed in the strike, and it was a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty. For that reason alone, it is worth condemning.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

What security information is now shared with Israel? Is the information collected by the more than 600 Royal Air Force flights over Gaza being used to guide the Israeli bombardment of buildings in Gaza City and other places? Are we still continuing security co-operation with a country that has bombed almost every neighbouring state over the past year?

[Mr Falconer]

For reasons the House will understand, I will not give a lengthy commentary on security and intelligence matters, but I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not provide any information to aid in targeting strikes in Gaza in the way that he described.

Middle East

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will understand that the Israeli Government have set themselves against some of the UN agencies that would need to uphold that, so I think that that feels unlikely from the conversations that we have had, but I do applaud the work of Cindy McCain and the World Food Programme to get essential food to people who need it.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Foreign Secretary chose very carefully his words about arms supplies that could be used in Gaza. Could he now be a bit clearer with the House? Are we still supplying parts for F-35 jets that are used to bombard people in Gaza? Is the information gathered by planes from RAF Akrotiri flying over Gaza being shared with the Israeli military forces? Thirdly, is RAF Akrotiri being used as a staging point for the delivery of weapons to Israel, in contravention of what he said about arms sales? Does he not realise that if we supply arms to a country that is complicit in war crimes, including genocide, we are also complicit in those war crimes?

[Mr Lammy]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience, that it is my job to make sure that we are not complicit. That is why we are not selling arms that could be used in Gaza, and it is why we are not selling direct F-35 kit to Israel. In terms of those reconnaissance flights, I am sure that he would agree that it has been right, certainly up to this point, to support hostage release. The only reason we have offered support is to find those hostages and get them home, and surely he would agree with that.

Middle East

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

In some senses, that is in the hands of those who continue to prosecute this conflict. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when she says that each life is of incalculable value. I think I have made more statements on this subject than any other Minister has made statements in this House over the past year—of course, the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has also made his fair share of statements. The strength of feeling is well known, and it is reflected not just here, but across the globe. The current course of the Government of Israel is bringing that country into ill repute. That is what is happening.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Last week, in Bogotá, the Hague Group met, led by South Africa. Those nations pledged to support the ICC and the ICJ, to refuse all arms sales to Israel, to refuse the facilitation of arms to Israel, and to refuse anything that enhances the occupation of Gaza and the west bank—in short, global opinion supporting the Palestinian people. Will the British Government also sign the Hague declaration and support that group of nations, which are determined to bring the world’s attention to this, to end the genocide that is going on and the continuing occupation?

[Mr Lammy]

I will speak to my South African counterpart about that issue. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we in the UK support the ICC—indeed, it receives funding from British taxpayers—and the ICJ, and we also stand against what we are seeing in the west bank and in Gaza, so I would say that much of what he has said is consistent with UK policy.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I am confused—I have mentioned ITLOS on a number of occasions, including just a moment ago. The long-standing view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation. Even if we chose to ignore binding judgments made against us—we would not do so—their legal effect on third countries and international organisations would give rise to real impacts to the operation of the base and the delivery of its national security functions.

International organisations have already adopted decisions based on Mauritian sovereignty, and others would follow suit following such litigation. That could affect the electromagnetic spectrum, access to the base by air and by sea, and the ability to patrol the maritime area around the base and to support the base’s critical national security functions. Further, the UK would likely face a provisional measures order in a matter of weeks. The position is clear, and we have explained it. The hon. Member’s previous Government knew exactly the same. [Interruption.] However much he shouts and however much he does not like the arguments, they are the facts.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Minister confirm that 40 years ago the most disgusting, cynical injustice was done against the Chagos islanders and that it was their resolute campaigning over decades—often alone, with little friendship or support—that eventually brought the whole case to international law and an opinion from the International Court of Justice, which has brought about the situation we are now in? Instead of obsessing with the twilight of empire, should Opposition parties not be thinking about the injustice done to the Chagos islanders?

Will the Minister confirm that in the arrangements now being made, the Chagos islanders, wherever they are resident, and whatever their opinions are, do have a right of return? Will he give us some idea of what the attitude will be about the right of visit, the right of residence and the right of return to Diego Garcia, where the majority of the Chagos islanders have come from? They are a people who have been badly treated by history and are now being used as pawns by people more interested in defending some strange notion of the twilight of empire than justice for the Chagos islanders.

[Stephen Doughty]

The primary purpose of the deal was of course to secure the base on Diego Garcia and the national security of the UK and our allies, but the right hon. Member is right to point out the historical situation regarding the Chagossians. We have expressed deep regret for how they were removed from the islands in the 1960s and ’70s; indeed, that is on the face of the treaty. We recognise the importance of the islands to the Chagossians as well as the different views in the community, which he is well acquainted with.

We will be restarting those visits, including to Diego Garcia. The programme of resettlement to islands outside Diego Garcia will be for Mauritius to determine, but we have committed to Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place that we will provide further statements on how that will work in due course. There is also the trust fund and the support we provide here in the UK. We are listening to the different Chagossian groups and trying to ensure that their interests are at the heart of the treaty deal as we move forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

16. Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of supporting Pious Projects’ paediatric hospital in Gaza.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

We are clear that Israel must immediately allow rapid and unhindered aid into Gaza, including desperately needed medical supplies. The UK continues to support the delivery of medical assistance through trusted partners, including UK-Med, which has completed over 500,000 patient consultations in Gaza since January 2024. We will continue to assess how we can best support those in need.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Foreign Secretary will understand my question, because I wrote to him on 18 June asking if he would meet Dr Mohammed Mustafa, who has assembled a children’s hospital in prefabricated form in Jordan and is ready to go into Gaza. It will be able to help the 400,000 children in northern Gaza who have no access to any medical facilities at all at the moment. This is desperately urgent. Will the Minister meet Dr Mustafa to familiarise himself with the opportunity here of doing something practical and good to help desperate children in northern Gaza?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his continued engagement on these questions. We have discussed across the Dispatch Box many times the restrictions on aid getting into Gaza, including in relation to construction materials. I am very happy to take a further look at this specific proposal and see if there is anything that we can do.