Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jeremy Wright

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a genuine privilege to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). Knowledgeable and passionate Ministers are a huge asset to any Government, and she is a significant loss to this one. If I may say, the same can be said of the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who sits next to her. The hon. Member for Pontypridd makes important points about the victims of Epstein, which I will not repeat, and she has added considerably to this debate.

I also take the opportunity to join in the tributes that were made earlier to Alan Haselhurst, Madam Deputy Speaker, who occupied your Chair with immense dignity and considerable rigour, but did so with deep warmth and kindness. He will be missed in both Chambers of this place.

Turning to the motion, I will say something about the process that has led to the publication of the documents we are now considering, and then something about their contents. On the process, I start by offering thanks to the officials of the Cabinet Office and the staff of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The whole House will now be conscious of the sheer scale of the task that lay before both those groups of people and the immense work that they all had to put in to turn the process around as quickly as they did. The House will also now appreciate that, given their nature, it was inevitable that a large number of those documents raised questions of either national security or international relations.

On behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I want to make it very clear, as I have before, first that we are very grateful for the words of the Paymaster General, and indeed the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on previous occasions, on the work that we have done. Secondly, I want to reassure the House that throughout the process, we were rigorous in our view that Government embarrassment was not sufficient cause for redaction of these documents. I hope the House can now see that that is the case, as there is plenty of Government embarrassment left unredacted.

The prejudice that we sought to establish in relation to international relations or national security needed to be real prejudice, and not the vague possibility of that prejudice. That is the way in which we approached the task. I am confident in the redactions that we agreed to make, and indeed in the decisions we took not to support the redactions that we refused to consent to.

In the process that we undertook—I have spoken about this before—two issues of process have arisen. The first is the question of who checks proposed redactions for reasons other than national security or international relations. I am very glad that the Government have agreed that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) should fulfil that role, as he has now done. The second concerns the grounds for redaction beyond the protection of national security or international relations. As many who have heard these conversations before know, I have been and remain critical of the way the Government have maintained the unilateral right to redact for other reasons. I do not propose to go through all those arguments again. I take that position not because I do not think the Government have a good case to do so, but because I think it is wrong for the Government to assume Parliament’s consent to that case.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

For clarity, is the redaction done in Downing Street—in Government—and then sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s Committee, or is it done by the Committee on grounds of national security and international relations?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman that clarity. The documents that we received were unredacted documents marked with the proposed redactions the Government sought to make for reasons of protecting national security or international relations. Where we agreed with the Government, we agreed that those redactions should be made; where we disagreed, those redactions were not made. We saw all the documents unredacted, and we decided whether to accept the Government’s proposals for redaction or not. The House made it clear that it wanted the final word on those redactions—yes or no—to be ours as a Committee, and not the Government’s. I hope that is of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman.

Gaza Healthcare System

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The situation in Gaza is beyond appalling in every way we can think of. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing the debate, and also the wonderful Palestinian activists in his constituency, who do a fantastic job in drawing attention to all this.

We must have some sense of urgency. We have a continuation of the occupation. Israel is now using thermal weapons, which have killed over 2,000 people since last year. Those weapons basically vaporise the body, which is barbaric by any stretch of the imagination. Temperatures can reach as high as 3,500°C, which is the temperature achieved when a nuclear explosion takes place. If we look at the silhouettes of the bodies vaporised on the streets of Hiroshima, that is what the people of Gaza are now having to tolerate. That is disgusting at any level.

We have the continued occupation of Gaza by Israel. Then we have the so-called Trump peace plan—that is such a disgusting misuse of language it is unbelievable—which is actually a military reoccupation of Gaza. A very large military base is now being built in the north of the Gaza strip, presumably to assist the expulsion of many Palestinian people from Gaza and the construction of hotels, casinos and all the rest of it, which is what the dream of that wretched peace plan is. Can we not ask our British Government to do something serious and say that we totally condemn the Trump plan and the reoccupation of Gaza?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows that the terms of this debate are fairly confined to healthcare. He is perfectly entitled to set out the context, but I know that he will want to shortly come on to discuss healthcare specifically.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy.

I ask the British Government whether they will kindly do everything they can to allow MSF and all the others to continue working in Gaza, to respect the work of health workers and those assassinated by the Israeli occupation? Unless we look at the wider context, it is impossible to get a solution. That requires political action by the British Government to enable health workers to carry out their work.

As colleagues have pointed out, the consequences of the health disaster that is Gaza at the moment are large numbers of deaths, orphaned children and mothers dying in childbirth because of the lack of equipment. As the hon. Member for Stroud pointed out, it would be perfectly possible to get emergency medical equipment—operating theatres and so on—in very quickly. The world has beyond the capacity to deal with every health problem in Gaza. Why is it not being done? Because Israel will not allow it to happen and will not allow equipment to go in. Unless we are utterly determined as a country and a Government to get that medical equipment into Gaza, the situation will simply continue to get worse. We will be wringing our hands here in six months’ time, in a year’s time and so on—as many of us have been for many years—about the treatment of the Palestinian people.

The long-term consequences will not disappear. Communicable diseases will get worse, the sewerage system will get worse and the mental health trauma for future generations will not go away. I remember talking to Dr Mona El-Farra on the day after the 2006 election in Gaza, at which I was an observer. I went to her apartment in Gaza City and I said, “Mona, what’s the mental health situation for people in Gaza?” She said, “Jeremy, by my estimate 70% of the population are now suffering severe and profound mental health trauma.” That was 20 years ago, at a point at which there was some degree of hope for the future. There was some degree of optimism at that time. Now, there is no hope. There is no optimism. We are talking about the entirety of the population suffering from mental health trauma. That will carry on intergenerationally—and we are supplying weapons, which has allowed some of that to happen.

I simply say to the Government, “Do everything you can to demand access for healthcare workers, everything you can to get the equipment in there, and everything you can to end the occupation of Gaza and allow the people of Palestine to decide their own future in their own land, and decide what society they want to create there. It is not up to us to recolonise it; it is up to us to help them to liberate their own lives.”

Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. The state of the infrastructure does need to be examined. Like many Members, my constituents have endless complaints about that. Thames Water is one of the most frequent visitors to my constituency; it digs up the roads frequently. With the resulting road closures—which are absurd—Thames Water is much better at traffic management than Transport for London, actually.

I would also ask that we look much more seriously at river basin management. I remember visiting York with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) during the flooding at that time. We had a long discussion with the Environment Agency about planning for flooding, which would involve restoring peatlands, upland planting, reintroducing beavers and others into rivers—that has an effect on a small scale, with lots of rivers and streams—and restoring floodplains. Those sorts of things are some of the most important things we can do.

Water should be taken back into public ownership—not old-style public ownership, with a board of governors or directors appointed by the Government, but a popular form of public ownership that would involve the brilliant workforce in all those companies, and their knowledge. The directors would come from them, and from local communities, businesses, local authorities and unions, so we would have a locally and popular-based water industry in our society. We could do it. Why don’t we try that?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I call Charlie Maynard, but the bad news is that I can only give him three minutes.