Lord Mandelson

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way in a moment; I would like to make a little progress.

It was reported this morning in the press that in September, following Peter Mandelson’s sacking, there was a Cabinet Office investigation into any further wrongdoing. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether he is aware of such a report and at least assure the House that, if such a report comes to light during his investigations, that will be published in response to this Humble Address?

The Conservatives fully understand that the Government have a duty to protect national security and our international relationships—of course they do. They must also understand, however, that security and our international affairs are completely entwined with this issue. The Paymaster General will have seen this morning that the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland, one of our strongest allies in Europe, will examine the paedophile’s links with the Russian intelligence services. As he said,

“More and more leads, more and more information, and more and more commentary…all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented paedophilia scandal was co-organised by Russian intelligence services.”

Thousands of the documents released over the weekend refer to Putin and thousands more to Moscow. We know that Epstein recruited young Russian women and we know that he held parties in Russia. In some emails, I understand, Epstein said he could offer “insight” on Donald Trump to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Those are all the ingredients of classic kompromat and this House cannot be deprived of consideration of such issues in the case of the Mandelson papers.

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is quite right that this is exactly one of the issues that must now be investigated and done so very seriously, not just by this Government but by our allies in other jurisdictions. Though we do not yet know for certain how the money came to Epstein, we do now know where some of it went. Understanding its ultimate source will help us construct a picture of this very complex and devious web.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I promised to give way to my old adversary the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) first. Then, I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be correct in that there is certainly an indication that serious corruption may have taken place. In the light of that, the House must consider closely what the best means of getting to the bottom of all these relationships and influences will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

The right hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading Liberal Democrat press releases, because we believe that a public inquiry would be a far more effective way of getting to the bottom of this matter. I am delighted that he made that point.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

[Lisa Smart]

I am always delighted to get agreement from across the political spectrum, and I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman: an independent, judge-led inquiry would be the right way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This debate is crucial and seminal, but first and foremost it must be about the victims of the horrible web that Epstein created —the abuse, abduction, raping and secret imprisonment of women, who were apparently flown in and out of major cities around the world for the convenience of rich and powerful men. It is utterly disgusting, depraved and abominable behaviour on every single level, and every Member who has called it out is absolutely right to do so.

Epstein was not revealed yesterday; he was not convicted last week; he was not convicted last year. He was first convicted 18 years ago. It is not as if his record was not extremely well known. It seems that we are debating it now only because of the inclusion of Peter Mandelson in the ghastly, nasty, vile, horrible web that they created.

We have a duty to do something important today, and I for one support the Opposition motion. I hope that we vote on it, rather than coming to some crabby deal between the Government and the Opposition through a manuscript amendment that would kick the whole thing into the long grass, a long way away, on the pretence that we cannot discuss these issues because that might affect security or international relations. Almost anything can affect international relations. It sounds to me like the Government simply trying to get out of things.

The question is fundamentally one for the Prime Minister, and it is a bit odd that he is not here for the debate. It is a bit odd that he has not spoken in the debate and that all he has done is say what he did today at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I cannot believe that, when he was about to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington, he was not made fully aware of all of Peter Mandelson’s record. The Prime Minister would have known about the number of times that Peter Mandelson was forced to resign, even from the Tony Blair Government, because of his behaviour. He would have known Mandelson’s record as an EU Commissioner, and of his interesting relationship with global dealers in minerals and many other things. He would have known all of that, yet he still went ahead and appointed Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, apparently despite advice from the Foreign Office and others. What a shame, what a disgrace and what an appalling appointment to make. We do not even know whether Mandelson is still being paid by the Foreign Office.

Today, we have to be very stern and clear that there needs to be the fullest possible inquiry into all of this. Parliament is not competent to undertake this inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary and the civil service machine are not competent to do so. They have all been ensnared in this gilded, friendly web of Mandelson and his business, political and social contacts, where favours were done and contracts were apparently awarded. That ghastly company Palantir was trying to get hold of our national health service, apparently at the behest of Mandelson and others.

None of us here are competent to undertake that inquiry, which is why I intervened earlier—I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for giving way—on how it should be conducted. I think it has to be judicially led, independent and, for the most part, in the public eye—rather like when the Government were eventually forced to undertake the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war; that is the nearest parallel I can find—because it needs to expose the whole web that Mandelson created, and the power play that he operated within the civil service, the political establishment, the media and so much else.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made a wonderful and very powerful speech. I thank him for his reference to what Mandelson said and did about me when I was Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour party. I can confirm to the House that under my leadership, Mandelson had no role, no influence and no part to play, because I do not trust the man or believe him. We need to make that very clear, because his role in British politics has been basically malign, undermining, and a very corrupting influence altogether.

When we look at our politics, we need to look at the role that big money, patronage, and turning a blind eye to crime play in it, because what we end up with is the national embarrassment of Mandelson being the ambassador to Washington, apparently on the basis that it was a risk worth taking in order to please Donald Trump. I do not know whether it succeeded in pleasing Donald Trump, but I did notice that at one of his endless press conferences, he could not remember who Mandelson was, so I am not sure how big the impact on the President was. Today is a day of shame for our politics—shame that we have got into the situation that has now been exposed.

Epstein was very, very powerful and very, very wealthy. Obviously, there needs to be more examination of that. More files have been uncovered than even Julian Assange managed to uncover through Wikileaks, and those files are going to be read and studied for a long time to come. There are lots of people all around the world who were dragged into this ghastly web based on dishonesty, lies, corruption and patronage. It is up to us as MPs to ’fess up to what has happened and to make sure there is a genuinely open, independent inquiry. When it comes to the standards of democracy we have in our society, and the levels of patronage that continue within it, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror.

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He referred to the speech on factionalism made by his colleague on the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and made the point that we need an independent inquiry. One of the reasons for that is the number of staff from Labour Together, a factional group within the Labour party, who were appointed to civil service posts directly after the general election, including one—Jess Sargeant—who was appointed to the Cabinet Office’s propriety and constitution group. Labour Front Benchers should not say, “Don’t question the impartiality of the civil service.” They undermined the impartiality of the civil service, and we need an independent inquiry if the public are to know that we will get to the truth.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Member makes a very fair point. Of course, the role of factions within parties is enormous—we have seen the role that Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and others have played in sidelining, silencing and getting rid of very good, active people within the Labour party. Ultimately, it is the Labour party that loses as a result. I was extremely grateful for the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last election in Islington North: he came along and canvassed, and we won with 50% of the vote. That is the only useful thing he has done for a very long time that I can remember.

As I say, the right hon. Member’s point is a very fair one. It is right that Ministers and Governments should be able to bring political advisers into government with them. I remember discussing all this with Tony Benn in the 1970s; his view was that the civil service was intrinsically conservative and reactionary, and that there needed to be voices in there who were prepared to speak up for an alternative policy. I understand that point, but there has to be some kind of limit to the role of the political adviser in running the civil service—that is the Rubicon they must not cross. It is reasonable for them to advise the Minister, and they may have a very strong view or a view that is very different to that of the civil service. That is fair enough, but they should not be running the civil service. If we believe in an independent civil service, we must practise what we believe, even though it is probably quite uncomfortable for Ministers at various times.

I conclude by saying to the Government: do not come to some deal today just to get past today. Do not just get through today and think, “Wow, we got through that mess.” Members of the Government should not just put in their diaries, “Horrible day in the Commons, but tomorrow is another day. We’ll move on.” Let us have the open, public inquiry that is necessary. Let us have an understanding that we will turn the page on the era of patronage, and of close relationships between commercial pressure groups and lobbying—in the Lords, here, in the media and in our society. We should strive to build the open, fair, democratic society that we should all believe in. Those who suffered to get us universal suffrage and democracy did not do it so that we could develop a corrupt political system; they did it because they wanted an open, democratic, accountable system that benefited the poorest in society, as well as everybody else. Let us pass the motion today—no deals. We must inquire with real seriousness into the horror show that we have heard about.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There are several other points of order. I am keen that we do not conduct the debate via points of order, so, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will take two further points of order and then respond to his point of order. Hopefully we might then have an answer.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard this evening from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who celebrated Elon Musk—rather tactlessly, I believe—in this debate. Notwithstanding the fact that like Mandelson, Musk had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and in fact was found to have been practically begging for a visit to his island, the hon. Member declined to include—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

I can give but one comment to those new MPs who may think that a reshuffle is a good thing: it causes only more upset and heartache within the party, and it will not be a solution.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

[Alicia Kearns]

It is quite clearly the will of the House that that would be beyond unacceptable—it would be a contempt of Parliament, if it happened. I can say—I would like to think that this goes for the entire House—that I have complete confidence in the integrity of gentlemen such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who sits on the ISC. No one would impugn his integrity or question whether he would ensure that he got to the bottom of whatever is necessary. There is no question but that this issue goes so far beyond the vile and inhumane treatment of women; it appears, I am afraid, that Peter Mandelson betrayed not just his colleagues but his own country for the financial interests of others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I will get on to the motion, and then I promise I will give way.

As I said, the Government accept the spirit, purpose and intent of the Opposition’s motion, and we want to provide transparency and drain the swamp of Mandelson’s lies. Our amendment has two important points to it: one on national security and one on foreign relations. I want to cover those quickly, and then I will take interventions.

National security, as the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box—and has said to me more times over the years I have known him than I can remember—is his No. 1 priority, and he will never compromise on that. That is why we wanted it in the motion and why we put the amendment before the House. There is precedent for that in a Humble Address. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned earlier, our Humble Address regarding Lebedev included the words:

“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security”.

Our intention was to abide with that spirit and to make a clear point about national security. I will come on to how that will be treated by the ISC and the Cabinet Secretary in a second.

On international relations, as the Prime Minister said, these documents, which are significant in number, could well touch on sensitive issues concerning intelligence, trade or relations with other countries. For example, we would not want to release inadvertently information about our red lines in trade agreements, about peace negotiations and our position on things such as Ukraine, the middle east or Sudan, or information about sensitive assessments of our allies and the diplomatic conversations on which our lives depend. The point of the amendment is that we are trying to address that and to make it clear to the House, and we are trying to balance transparency with national security. That is what is most significant.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

[Chris Ward]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The police investigation will go wherever it needs to go. It will cover any criminality or allegations thereof. That is the right way to do it, and nothing will be hidden.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. The scale of violence and abuse suffered by women and girls is a national emergency, and the violence against women and girls strategy will be published tomorrow, setting out concrete steps to deal with this. We have already taken action to protect victims, including placing domestic abuse specialists in the first five 999 control rooms, and we are launching a new national policing centre to co-ordinate the police response and target these crimes. I will make sure that Ministers look specifically at the issues that he has raised.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), declined a meeting with the representatives of a number of hunger strikers in prison at the present time. These are all remand prisoners; they have not been convicted of anything. Since then, a further prisoner, Qesser, has been taken to hospital, as others have been. Many people are very concerned about the regular breaches of prison conditions and prison rules in respect of these hunger strikers. Will the Prime Minister make arrangements for the Ministry of Justice to meet representatives of the hunger strikers to discuss these breaches of the conditions that they are experiencing?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Member will appreciate, there are rules and procedures in place in relation to hunger strikes, and we are following those rules and procedures.

Digital ID

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Edward. The number of Members here and the demand for the debate show two things: first, it should be held in the main Chamber, not here, and secondly there are massive levels of public concern over the statement made by the Prime Minister. I will refer to two quotes that I have received from constituents and that summarise the situation very well. One states:

“Digital ID is a deeply illiberal idea that threatens privacy, autonomy, and the open society we should be standing for. It risks creating a two-tier Britain, where access to basic services—healthcare, housing, employment, even voting—depends on whether someone has the right app, paperwork, or digital trail.”

The second states that such measures

“entrench a presumption of suspicion, not trust, and put disproportionate burdens on the most vulnerable: migrants, the digitally excluded, the disabled, the elderly, and those without stable housing or documentation.”

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good case. I am utterly opposed to digital ID, as are many of my constituents. One of them has made the point that in fact our great liberty, our great freedom, which is that the state has to prove that a person is guilty of a charge—innocence before guilt—is reversed by this, such that almost everybody on an ID card is assumed to have guilt until they have discharged themselves as innocent. Does that not go against all our freedoms?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Member makes an important point. The huge number of people who have signed this petition indicates to me that many in this country are deeply concerned about the direction in which we are travelling. ID cards are one thing; restricting jury trials is another. Facial recognition at tube stations and now even in supermarkets is something that people find deeply disturbing. Across the country there is a whole vein of thought where people are feeling a quite reasonable sense of paranoia about the levels of surveillance that they are under at the present time. Members of Parliament would do well to try to understand that.

This attack on civil liberties—that is what it is—means that utterly vast amounts of information on all of us will be stored, as they are already in the health service. Unfortunately, the Government are now making that available to private healthcare interests at the same time. There is a huge issue here about our data, our information and our privacy, which we would do well to remember.

The last point I want to make is that the debate on this issue is being pushed by commercial interests that will make a great deal of money out of providing the necessary technical equipment to set up this surveillance system. They will do very well out of it, and we are being pushed into agreeing it by them. It is time for Members of Parliament to listen to what people are saying, listen to the concerns, have a proper debate in the main Chamber about this and say no to the Government, as we have said no before.

Ukraine

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is absolutely right about that, which is why we need to bear down on the shadow fleet. We are doing that through sanctions, and we are working with other countries to ensure that they do the same, because it is a vital part of the work that we need to do.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

We all want to see an end to this ghastly conflict in Ukraine and an end to the loss of so much innocent civilian life, as well as an end to the deaths of soldiers of all sides. Can I take the Prime Minister back to the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) earlier? Under what circumstances does he envisage British troops being deployed in Ukraine, under what circumstances does he envisage them taking part in fighting activity against a belligerent, and will he guarantee that any such decision will come to the House before it is taken?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. There is one person who does not want lasting peace in Ukraine, and that is Putin. We have to hold that centrally in mind, and we need security guarantees in place, because Putin’s ambitions show that if there is a deal, he will not keep to it unless those security guarantees are in place. Those guarantees are the guarantees, not of conflict, but of peace—which is, I think, what everybody in this House wants, including the right hon. Member. Of course it is right that this House should have details and discussion of any security guarantees and the right to express its view, and I will ensure that that happens.

Defence and Security

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly want that to be the case wherever we can. That is why we will have the plan for reform and efficiency, but that needs to be translated into British skills and secure British jobs in every constituency across the land.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It is disappointing that the Prime Minister’s statement did not include any reference to the United Nations, or a pathway to end the dreadful conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Clearly, his statement will have a massive effect on the poorest people in the poorest countries in the world through a cut in overseas aid budgets, but what effect will it have on the poorest people in this country—for example, those disadvantaged by the two-child benefit cap or by the housing crisis that so many face? The Prime Minister says that tough decisions are coming up; what is going to be the effect of the increase in defence spending on the poorest people in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman says I did not mention the UN. The UN charter is at the heart of this, because Russia is in breach of it. Russia is an aggressor that has invaded another country and is occupying part of that country, and it will go further if it is encouraged down that line. That is why we need to take these decisions. It is the first duty of Government to keep our country safe and secure. That is a duty I take extremely seriously. The poorest people in this country would be the first to suffer if the security and safety of our country was put in peril.

Speaker’s Statement

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will share two particular memories of Lord Prescott. The first is from my time working for the disability charity Scope. We had decided as a campaigns team to use the 1997 general election to highlight the many obstacles that disabled people faced when exercising their democratic right to vote. I and my campaign colleagues devised the “Polls Apart” campaign, which included a special campaign pack for candidates.

Bearing in mind that this was in the halcyon days before email, a campaign pack was something of a rarity. We printed, stapled and posted out hundreds of packs to candidates the length and breadth of the UK, including one to the Labour candidate for Kingston upon Hull East. Off it went, sent second class. To our amazement, a week or so later, a reply came back saying that Mr Prescott not only supported the campaign, but had written to all of Labour’s candidates in his capacity as the general election co-ordinator, instructing them to take the campaign actions that our pack suggested. More than that, when Labour was elected a few weeks later, he brought forward amendments to the Representation of the People Act to make it easier for disabled people to exercise their right to vote.

I had met John Prescott a few years before that, when I worked for the then Member of Parliament for Streatham, the right hon. Keith Hill. Both John and Keith were members of the RMT parliamentary group, which was as broad and diverse as its talent was deep. I asked Keith ahead of my remarks today if he had any particular memories of John that I might share with the House, and he told me of one from his time as a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

John and Keith were due to make a presentation on Labour’s housing growth areas to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in the Cabinet Room one morning at 9 am. At 4 am, John was still working on the presentation. He decided that he needed to know about the rail connections between Cambridge and Oxford, so he phoned Network Rail. Members can doubtless imagine the startled reaction of the poor Network Rail official who answered that call at 4 o’clock in the morning from someone claiming to be the Deputy Prime Minister, who had a very specific question about east-west rail links. Tony Blair was equally amazed at 9 am. “And did he tell you what the rail connections are?”, asked the PM. “There aren’t any,” replied John—“We’re going to change that.” Now, thanks to the Budget, that change will finally be delivered—a fitting tribute, perhaps, to the work ethic, energy and enthusiasm for change that John Prescott exemplified.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My condolences to Pauline and all of John’s family at what must be a truly devastating time for them. David used to work in my office, and he sent me a message just after John died. He was very close to his father and saw him as his hero and his friend. We send our condolences to all of them.

I obviously knew John in the House for many years. When he was first elected along with Dennis Skinner, they shared a flat in Clapham. I do not know what went on in that flat, but while they were good friends, they were very different characters. I later learned that after the last vote took place in the House, Dennis and John would both leave to go back to the flat, but they never travelled together. Dennis always made sure that he got there first, so that he could get hold of the one television in the flat, turn it on and watch the darts, the snooker or whatever else. John would turn up and want to watch “Newsnight”, and Dennis refused to change the channel—he would say, “No way. You’ll watch the darts with me.” You can imagine the repartee and the arguments that would have gone on between them, which would have been incredibly funny.

In the 2017 election, John offered to help in any way he could, and he was fantastic. We did several events together. One day, we started in Hull in the morning with the launch of our arts manifesto, and then went on a tour all around Yorkshire and Humberside in the famous bus. John seemed to know the owner of every fish and chip shop in the whole of Yorkshire, and insisted on stopping at every one, so we had a big supply of fish and chips all day long. Then we got to Scarborough, where we were doing a rally in the pavilion by the seafront. John and I got up to speak on the stage, and I do not think a lot of the people there realised that a political rally was going on. They thought they were just there enjoying the sunshine, and then these two guys got up on the stage and started talking.

The people loved John, because he brought out Freddie the fox. We had a long discussion about the evils of foxhunting—the evils of Tory foxhunting. “The Tories are always going to bring back foxhunting. The Tories would kill the fox.” Then he pulled Freddie out of his coat and said, “Look at poor Freddie here. They’re going to tear him apart. That’s what the Tories do to you.” He was loved for all of that.

I want to say thank you to John for what he did, but also to remember that one of the crucial points in his political career was the issue of climate change and Kyoto. It was not easy, popular or normal; a lot of people refused to even consider what we are doing to the natural world and the environment, and how there are limits to what we can do, hence the protocol that John negotiated and signed up to. He was one of the people who was very important in starting to change the global debate about climate change and respect for the natural world and the environment. We should all say thank you to John Prescott for that.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The first time I met John Prescott in his role as Deputy Prime Minister was in 1997, when he opened up Admiralty Arch to 60 young homeless people as part of the winter shelter programme. It was a bitterly cold winter, and at the time, the Conservative Back Bencher Crispin Blunt said that this project would be treating a historic building as if it were a “flagship for undesirables”. Given that John was frequently described as an undesirable by many of his opponents throughout his life, he took that as a badge of honour, and he was really proud of that homelessness project. I will never forget the way he shared breakfast with those rough sleepers and took a real interest in every one of their lives. It was a testimony to his compassion, his practical politics, and his unwavering commitment to housing policy. Many millions of council tenants saw home improvements—new windows, new doors and home insulation—and none of them will ever forget that. Those are the basics that many of us take for granted, but which far too many people lacked at the time.

In a superb biography by my late former colleague on The Independent, Colin Brown, naturally entitled “Fighting Talk”, there was a lovely and telling quote from John:

“There are those priests of the Left who want to keep their consciences and there are those who will get their hands dirty. I belong to the dirty hands brigade.”

John was regularly patronised and frequently under-estimated, but he had the last laugh by delivering for real working people. For that, we are all grateful.

G20 and COP29 Summits

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I did, because COP next year will be very significant and important, as I think everybody recognises. What is needed more than anything is for other countries to follow the lead of this country in relation to their emissions targets, and I discussed that directly with him.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I add my condolences to John Prescott’s family on their loss. I also thank John for his life and, in particular, for the joy of campaigning with him where he was much loved during the 2017 and 2019 elections.

The Prime Minister is right to say that refugee flows are caused in part by climate change, but they are also caused by wars. What did the G20 summit say about the wars in Sudan and Congo, as well as the need for a ceasefire in Gaza? While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is obviously wrong, what pathway does he see to bringing about a cessation of that conflict, rather than putting in long-range missiles, which can only exacerbate the conflict with Russia and lead us to a very dangerous place indeed? Is there a pathway to an end to that war that he or anyone else in the G20 saw during their meetings?

[The Prime Minister]

I did raise both climate and conflict as major drivers of migration across the world, which is why they need to be addressed at the international level. In relation to Ukraine, I was very clear that Russia is in breach of the UN charter. This is Russian aggression against a sovereign country in Europe—the sort of aggression I did not think I would see again in my lifetime—and we must ensure that Putin does not win this war. That is why I have been so clear in standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes, and providing it with whatever resource it needs.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is in the work that we are doing to bring about de-escalation and a ceasefire, because that is the only route through. That is why we are working with our allies so closely on those issues and will continue to do so.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The tragedy of the deaths a year ago has now been compounded by tens of thousands more deaths in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon. Gaza is now reduced to a place of rubble, famine, thirst and premature death, and lots of children looking for their families. The bombs that have rained down on Gaza and other places are in part supplied by this country. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court have both given strong opinions on the situation there. Will the Prime Minister revisit the whole situation of the sale of British arms that are being used to bomb Gaza and kill wholly innocent Palestinian civilians?

[The Prime Minister]

We have set out our position: domestic law is clear, international law is clear, and we have taken our decision and put a summary of that before the House.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it is important that they are held to account. I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues in relation to Dagenham and I join her in commending the emergency services who have to respond to these awful incidents. From speaking to some of the first responders, I got a real sense of the impact it has on them. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has visited the Dagenham scene in the last few days.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the way he delivered it, and Sir Martin for his comprehensive report. The needless deaths that happened at Grenfell will never go away and never be forgotten. Those of us who have been on the silent walks for Grenfell every year since it happened, and visited many times, fully understand the strength of feeling and the deep anger in the community at this needless loss of life, brought about by a contract culture, deregulation, privatisation, ignorance and, frankly, contempt for working-class communities by many who should have done much more to protect and defend those people. So I hope the Prime Minister’s words will be carried through, and that criminal action will follow against those who deliberately neglected those who were in appalling and extreme danger.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the removal of dangerous cladding that has happened at most local authority-owned buildings all over the country will now also take place in the private sector leasehold buildings that many of our constituents live in, where they are faced with enormous insurance costs because of the existence of dangerous cladding? This has gone on for several years, and as the companies that are responsible for the dangerous cladding refuse to pay up, the problem is forced on to the people who are themselves the victims who are being put in danger.

There are so many lessons to be learned from Grenfell, and I hope that the contract culture in local government that the Prime Minister just spoke about—the endless subcontracting, subcontracting and subcontracting so that those responsible for dangerous conditions evade all responsibility—will end. I also hope that we will end the idea of the local government internal market and instead have the principle of local government delivery of service as the primary responsibility to ensure that all citizens live in safety, and that council housing grows rapidly over the next few years and we get more good quality, secure council housing built for the good of the people who are living in desperate housing need, often in the private rented sector.

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action on that important point about leaseholders, be it in relation to insurance or in relation to other issues of which the House is well aware. It is important that is included in the work we take forward, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring the quality of council housing and social housing as we build those 1.5 million homes. As the whole House knows, it is not just a number that we are talking about. Each and every person who lost their life is a human being to be respected, cherished and remembered for who they were.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

2. Whether he plans to take steps to consolidate the number of national pay bargaining units in the civil service.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

7. Whether he plans to take steps to consolidate the number of national pay bargaining units in the civil service.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

Yesterday, I met the civil service unions together with the new Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould). We had a very positive discussion covering a whole range of issues. I made it clear that the days of Government Ministers waging culture wars against civil servants are over. Instead, we want a civil service that is motivated, valued and helps the Government to deliver their priorities. On the specific issue of pay, the Government will have more to say on civil service pay before the summer recess.

[Pat McFadden]

We do value civil servants, and of course we want all public servants to be properly and fairly rewarded. As with any public expenditure, what is spent on pay has to be balanced against other priorities and fair to taxpayers as a whole. On meeting the PCS, yesterday, I met the general secretary of the PCS, as well as other civil service unions. I hope for a fruitful dialogue with them. Departments do have flexibility on pay. They can direct pay towards the needs of their own workforces. As I have said, we will have more to say about civil service pay before the summer recess.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for the reply he has just given. Will he assure the House that he is going to make progress towards a return to full sectoral bargaining? He must be aware that many thousands of civil servants are not covered by a pay review body or any other bargaining mechanism. Will he take steps to ensure that all civil servants are bought within the purview of a pay review body bargaining unit as part of a return to sectoral bargaining?

[Pat McFadden]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I hope to have a good and fruitful dialogue with the civil service unions about pay and many other issues. It is important that we have public servants who feel valued and motivated, and who do their part on delivering the Government’s objectives. On the specific issue of pay that he has raised, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), the Government will have more to say on civil service pay before the summer recess.