Debate on the Address

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate His Majesty on delivering the Gracious Speech, and I concur with the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that investing 0.7% of GDP in international development aid will bring greater stability and increase our ability to secure greater diplomacy, as well as development. I think that should be our focus. I also thank him for the work he does on the Public Accounts Committee.

The intersection of crises bearing down on our planet, our nation and our communities demands a bold response in this parliamentary Session. I recognise the current bind, but as we move into the next chapter of Labour’s story, there is one consideration that I want the Government to take through this legislative programme: how we bring our communities, our country and our fractious planet together. Such vision and policy must be the thread that gathers and inspires us.

Against the backdrop of fast-paced change, this planet is breaking. The grotesque inequalities, climate degradation and conflict are driving people apart. At home we have had 14 years of austerity, whereby the harder someone works, the tougher it gets. That is why I have called for a new economic orthodoxy, as neoliberalism preys on the working class and exploits all who want to get on as much as those who cannot. As people are fleeced, the energy giants and water bosses profit, despite putting carbon in our air and sewage in our rivers, such as the Ouse in York—the second worst in the country. The clean water Bill must pull this service back into public hands and public accountability.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s call to take water back into public ownership. Does she agree that in setting the share price at which we buy it back, we should take account of the cost of pollution, of the money that is being paid to distant shareholders with no investment or interest in this country, and of the inconvenience caused to so many of our residents by constant leaks and the waste of water? Shareholders should pay the price of it, not our constituents.

[Rachael Maskell]

I do agree. It is daylight robbery, and people should not be profiting from our natural resources. We should not see the levels of pollution that exist in our rivers, which should be pure and clean. I have a sewer running through the middle of my city, and it is not acceptable. It is right to legislate, but also to ensure that we are not adding carbon to our natural environment. On airport and road expansion, we should ensure that we bring down levels of carbon, and I fear that might not be the case with airport expansion.

The draft commonhold and leasehold Bill is welcome, as is freezing ground rents, but as developers extract all they can and people pay extortionate rents and management costs, we need to see good-quality housing as a right and to rethink the model. As I have witnessed in my constituency, co-operative housing is a powerful antidote that is worth investing in, alongside a new generation of council-built housing for the common good.

The system is rigged against ordinary people, as it was 126 years ago, when trade unions came together to form the Labour party. It is our duty in this Parliament to once again set the ambition to drive transformation for our communities, address the grotesque inequalities that drive people apart, and rewire the system to bring us together. That is our purpose. As the unions fought for common terms and better pay, Labour reimagined a society in which everyone can get on, a welfare state for those in need, and an NHS in which Bevan positioned the duke and the dustman as equals. Not understanding a collective, cohesive society puts all this at risk, as Opposition parties seek to exploit opportunity and people, sell off our common assets and sow division. That is why Labour has an immense obligation to be bold and ambitious, not for those who take all they can, but for those who serve, work and play their part—and to take away the stigma and barriers for those who cannot. I implore the Government to maintain the rights of those with indefinite leave to remain, as new communities work alongside established communities. When it comes to restraining traumatised children, on which the Government are consulting, I simply warn them: don’t! I will not support that. All children must be treated with dignity—nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

I think the answer to the question is, “No, it didn’t,” but the hon. Member should be aware that it was only two months ago that a Labour Member described me as the MP who is never knowingly on message, which is a label I espouse—I do not mind that. No Government have got this right. We need a welfare system that looks after the disabled and people who have no choice about what they are suffering, but not one that makes it an even choice to be on the dole or in a job.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is the right hon. Member aware that the discussion held some months ago, when the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions proposed big cuts in personal independence payments, caused unbelievable levels of stress and despair to often isolated people in receipt of PIP who have a carer who comes in to help them, and that the Government are still undertaking a review, the intention of which is to lower the personal independence payments bill? Does he agree that we should end that kind of debate and instead look at the needs of people with disabilities, particularly those who struggle to survive under the current system and especially those in receipt of PIP?

[David Davis]

I will be careful how I answer the right hon. Member because I have an interest to declare here: I have a disabled grandchild, and her mother is one of the people who suffers the stress he talked about. As I say, we need a humane system that deals with people properly. Our current system for supporting disabled people and people looking after disabled people is incredibly bureaucratic, unpleasant and nasty to deal with. That is not the area of welfare that we need to deal with; it is principally the area of employment that we need to deal with. We want to get people back to work, because there is no better way out of poverty than employment, rather than, as it were, being on the dole.

To come back to the thrust of my argument, what is it that we are talking about paying for? I will pick three issues—I could pick any number, but the top three issues that matter to my constituents are healthcare, education and defence. Our health service needs radical reform. I know we have a Bill in this King’s Speech, but it does not look to me like it will have a sufficiently radical impact. For some reason, we do not actually speak enough about the fundamental aims of our health service. Healthcare must be free at the point of delivery—that is an absolute—but it also must do its job of saving lives, and we turn our face away from that too often. Too many Britons are dying early and avoidably under a system that swallows money without delivering the outcomes. Every year, 125,000 deaths are listed officially as avoidable, and the situation has worsened in recent years. It went from 129 deaths per 100,000 people to 156 in the course of a decade. That is a huge increase and, as a result, we have an avoidable death rate that is higher than all our comparator nations. I am not just talking about rich nations like Japan; we are even worse off than countries like Portugal that are much poorer than we are. It is an extraordinary problem that we have to face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This debate is taking place in an almost surreal atmosphere. We have a psychodrama going on about whether the Prime Minister will be challenged for the leadership of the Labour party, whether he will still be Prime Minister by the time we come to vote on the motion, and whether the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is going to challenge and take over. The Government have been in office for less than two years and seem not to be reflecting on the results of last Thursday’s elections. It is obvious that the Government lost a huge amount of support because of their perceived failure to deliver on the promises made in the 2024 manifesto, and their vote split asunder to independents and Greens or to Reform.

At the same time, there is a horrific growth in our society of far-right racism and intolerance—a horror show in our society—with the growth of Islamophobia, of antisemitism and of all forms of racism. There was an attack on a prayer room in Blackburn on Monday evening; precious little was said about it on any of the media. Shame on them for not reporting it. They rightly report on antisemitic attacks on synagogues; the same should apply to any community that is under attack if we are to succeed in bringing our communities together and to show that we need to stand up against racism in absolutely any form in which it rears its ugly head.

This weekend, there will be an appearance in London by Tommy Robinson, attended by a lot of people, some of whom presumably adhere to his worldview, and others who will be there out of a mixture of frustration and lots of other things. It is a very dangerous situation and a very dangerous time. Every Member of this House will have been out on the streets last week for the local elections, and they will have picked up the language and understood what is going on. We have to be absolutely united against racism and racist violence in absolutely any form. I, for one, will be on the anti-racist and Palestine march on Saturday to show my support for the anti-racist campaigns in our society.

Behind all this lies an horrific level of inequality and the unrequited ambition of ordinary citizens in our society. We have become a society of food banks and billionaires, with a tax system that encourages the growth of billionaires and restricts the opportunity of so many of the poorest in our society. Unless we address the issues of social injustice and inequality that are so prevalent in our society, the situation is going to get worse. It is a feeding ground for the cheap, nonsense, headline-grabbing stuff that the Reform party comes out with all over the country. People from Reform lack a solution to any problem other than blaming the nearest minority they can find and pretending that the great threat to this country is asylum seekers and refugees, when actually they are desperate human beings trying to survive in a very complicated world. By their very actions, people from Reform drive humanity out of the discussion and the political debate. It is up to us to put it back there.

Reform plays on many issues, the first of which is housing, which is in absolute crisis. Local authorities are unable to get the funds necessary to build the council housing they all want to build, because of a failed funding model that does not allow them to develop 100% of sites. For example, in London the mayor has said that major sites will now have only a 20% social housing requirement. In other words, 80% of the development will not be available for people on the housing waiting list, or the needs register, as it is usually referred to. That drives many people who cannot get council housing and cannot afford to buy into the private rented sector.

I supported the Renters’ Rights Bill that was passed in the previous Session. I could see nothing wrong with it and much good in it, particularly the ending of section 21 evictions. It is a pity that the Government did not end section 21 evictions in July 2024, which they could have done—that would have saved a lot of tenancies at the time—but I am pleased that happened. Nevertheless, that legislation did not deal with the fundamental issue, which is the level of rent in our communities. It would cost at least £2,000 a month to rent a one-bedroom flat in my constituency. Roughly speaking, that is £500 a week. It is three, four or five times the level of rent for a council tenancy.

If a person has access to DWP benefits, some of their rent is paid through housing benefit, but if the rent is above the local housing allowance—and it nearly always is—families on universal credit have to subsidise their rent out of their benefit because they simply cannot afford it, and they have to stay somewhere. If they become homeless, they get moved far away, and we have children making horrendous journeys because they do not want to lose contact with their beloved primary school. That is the normal story all over inner-city areas in Britain today. We can do something much better about that.

I am sad that the King’s Speech does not address the issues in the clear way that it should. People are crying out for some degree of security, and housing security is fundamental. Is it right that when we all walk into Parliament every day we could count so many homeless people on the streets of London? Who could count the number of people begging to try to get a bit of money to get into a night shelter? They then spend the rest of the day trying to get together another £17 to spend another night in a shelter. What a terrible existence those people have—and that is pretty normal across every major city. We all travel a lot, and we know that every major station is surrounded by people begging for money. What is wrong with us that we cannot recognise that something can and should be done about that? I wish that was the case.

There is much else in respect of insecurity in society that has to be addressed. A large number of people are in insecure employment, despite welcome changes in employment legislation, and because wages are so low and prices and rent are so high, so many people are doing two jobs. How does a parent doing two jobs spend time with their children? How do they help them with their homework? How do they take them to a club? How do they do any of the things that we all love to do with our families? That parent simply cannot, because they are tied down to two jobs, and in some cases even more.

We have to recognise that we are bringing up a whole generation of children in this society who spend less time with each other and less time with their parents or carers, because of the economic stress and the cost of living. Can the Government not intervene and say, “We’re prepared to control food prices if they start going up at a ridiculous rate”? The Labour Government of the 1970s controlled food prices in order to control inflation, and I remember it being quite a successful policy. It was very controversial when it was mooted by Roy Hattersley, of all people—he was not on my wing of the Labour party by any manner of means—but he felt the need to do it.

[Tom Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about bringing younger people together. My constituent Caroline is watching this debate from Meon Road in Littledown and Iford in my constituency, where, as it happens, last Thursday a Labour councillor won for the first time ever: Councillor Patrick Connolly. Caroline wants to bring younger people together and she welcomes the Government signing the UK back up to Erasmus+. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a good thing for British young people to mix with their European counterparts and welcome this move closer to Europe?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I absolutely welcome the Erasmus scheme—indeed, I wanted to retain the scheme during the endless debates on the withdrawal agreement, because I can absolutely see the value of it. I also see the value of overseas students coming to this country; we should be encouraging them, but they are put off by the very high student fees. Something has to be done about that.

Many colleagues have brought up issues with the services within our society. The water industry has come up many times. I am a London MP and therefore fall within the purview of Thames Water, whose record is appalling and atrocious at every conceivable level. The water industry as a whole has had more than £70 billion taken out of it in profits and dividends since privatisation. We have had statements by every Secretary of State that I can remember for the past 35 years, saying that they will look at the regulation model to make sure there is proper control of what the water companies do. Yet every year the sewage pouring into our rivers and streams gets worse. The chalk streams are destroyed; the fish on our coastline are polluted and killed. It just gets worse and worse.

It is surely pretty obvious that the private ownership model, where the motive is profit, not service, has absolutely failed. We should take the whole water industry back into public ownership. It was public ownership that cleaned it up, it was public ownership that constructed the reservoirs and all the infrastructure, and it is public ownership that will deliver clean water in the future. However, it also needs to be democratic. We should not just have the appointment of a national water company or regional water companies, where the Secretary of State decides who the directors are. We should include the workforce, the local trade unions, the local business community, the local authority—we should make it a matter of community pride to be part of the water industry and the water company.

[Anna Dixon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the need to strengthen the regional water authorities, and to have a greater focus there on the consumer voice? Would he also agree that the special administration regime for Thames Water might offer an opportunity to explore alternative public ownership, such as mutuals, where we could have workers sitting on a board alongside consumers?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Yes, the water authority obviously needs to be strengthened and we need to explore all the options. The hon. Lady has probably got the gist of where I am going on this issue: wanting a more democratic form of ownership. Involving local government in that would be the obvious thing to do. After all, the London County Council had a big say post the Metropolitan Water Board and so on. We need to think about how we improve local involvement, because local people are the best guardians of the water service, making sure that we do not pollute our rivers and streams and that we do provide good-quality, safe water for everybody.

There are other areas of public ownership. I welcome the development of Great British Railways and the public ownership of the rail companies, particularly the train operating companies and the infrastructure. However, there is no public ownership of freight, and the retention of the principle of open access to our service is, to me, a sort of Trojan horse to bring the private sector back on to the railway network. Surely we need to look at that—and when the Government look at it, I would be grateful if they would also look at the ludicrous railway fares in Britain compared with any other railway anywhere in Europe, which are far cheaper and far more efficient to run.

I have a couple of other things I want to say before I sit down. Last year the world spent $2.4 trillion on warfare and weapons. This year it will be more than $3 trillion. Pretty well every country in the world is spending more and more on defence. I have heard the Prime Minister say that he wants Britain to go up immediately to 3%, and ultimately to 5%. The same kind of language is used across Europe, and in other countries as well, including Russia, China and so on. Everyone is massively increasing defence expenditure, and that defence expenditure ends up in the wars and in massive profits for the arms companies around the world.

It is a bit sad that the King’s Speech said nothing about funding the United Nations properly, or about peace initiatives to try to promote a ceasefire, difficult as that would be—I understand all that, but it has to happen—in the ghastly war between Russia and Ukraine, or the crazy war in Iran that President Trump has got us involved with. Despite the British Government telling us that they are not part of this war, in reality the bombing takes place from RAF Fairford and other bases in Britain. Surely we need an agenda for peace, not an agenda for war.

Israel’s bombardment of the Palestinian people in Gaza is an act of genocide against the Palestinian people. It is abominable and appalling, and we as a country have maintained the arms supplies to Israel throughout that conflict. We have allowed the use of RAF Akrotiri. We have had the overflying of Gaza, so the RAF know exactly what happened in Gaza, because they took all the pictures of it. Would it not have been good if the Government instead had said they would join with the Hague group of nations in the UN, who are determined to adhere to the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court decisions?

We need to look to the real issues facing this world—climate change, environmental destruction, global inequality and poverty, or the 70 million people worldwide who are refugees—rather than just the language of more and more money on arms and more and more preparedness for war. Can we not have an agenda for peace? If we cannot talk about peace when a war is going on, what is the point of ever talking about peace? I would hope that something could happen with that.

This was supposed to be, the Prime Minister said, a speech for hope for young people. Well, fine—I want hope for young people. I admire the young people of my community and others for what they do, for the efforts they put into so much, and for the joy and music and everything that they bring. But those who have been to university all tell me they are saddled with massive university debts. They cannot get anywhere to live; they are sharing flats into their 40s or beyond because they cannot afford to pay off a student debt and buy anywhere, and they cannot get council housing because they are not eligible. Others are working in the gig economy, being ripped off by delivery companies that do not pay them properly. Many of them are in school but not achieving everything they could, because we are over-competitive in the way we run our schools, and we are not inclusive enough.

Let us give some hope to young people; let us listen to young people, including young people with special needs and disabilities. They want to be part of our society too, not to be told that we are spending too much money on personal independence payments or on benefits. They want that support. Give hope to people. We cannot achieve everything that we want to achieve—at least, I guess most of us do—if we persist with the economic inequality within our society and the social injustices that follow from it.

This King’s Speech is such a missed opportunity. It could have been so good. It could have put so much hope in so many people’s minds. The lesson of last Thursday is that if we do not give people hope, they can go off in all kinds of directions. We can end up in a very nasty and a very dark place if we take away any opportunity for hope within our society.