Sudan: Humanitarian Situation

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

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

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

[Chris Elmore]

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

US National Security Strategy

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

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

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

[Seema Malhotra]

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

Kashmir: Self-determination

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

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

[Jeremy Corbyn]

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

[Mr Falconer]

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

Venezuela: US Military

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

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

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

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

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

[Mr Falconer]

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

Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I will be brief, Ms McVey. I simply say this: anyone who has observed what has happened in Gaza over the past 18 months must be disgusted and appalled at what they have seen—the deaths of children, the deaths of adults and the continued bombardment—and at the role that Britain has played in supplying arms to Israel that have contributed to all that. It is an utterly disgusting situation. History will be very harsh on European and north American politicians who stood by and allowed those weapons to be supplied, knowing full well what was happening to them, while we were watching genocide on live television.

Whole families have been destroyed. I have friends who send me stuff from the west bank and Gaza, and this weekend I was reading about one man who has been left looking after 26 grandchildren because all his children, his partner and his immediate family have been killed. He is an elderly man looking after 26 children, but that is not an unusual situation. He has no money or home, so he is trying to build a tent to house them all. That is the reality of what has happened because of this bombardment.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is vividly explaining the reality of what is happening in Gaza and the west bank. Does he agree that the Government of Israel are treating the international community with contempt, as well as the public the world over who are concerned about the genocide? Rather than treating the Government of Israel with kid gloves, this Government have a moral and legal obligation to introduce sanctions on Israel on the scale of those that have been rightly brought on Russia. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a failure to do so will go down as a real abdication of moral and legal responsibility at this crucial time?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

By any measurement of humanity, the people of Gaza have suffered as grievously as anyone has ever suffered in any conflict in the world. More than 60,000 are already dead, with the rest living among rubble, starving and unable to get the basic needs of medical attention. That also affects children, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out.

We are looking at an utterly devastating situation, which the British Government have been told about many times. They resisted the calls for a ceasefire at the very beginning; we even had the now Prime Minister saying that it was a legitimate act of self-defence by Israel to deny food and water to people in Gaza. Both the Conservative and Labour Governments have a pretty bad record on this, and I would have thought that the very least we could do now is say that there can be absolutely no arms sales of any sort or any military co-operation with Israel.

The so-called ceasefire in the Trump plan basically ensures Israel’s continued occupation of substantial parts of Gaza. It does not say very much about the abominable behaviour of Israeli armed settlers on the west bank, who are destroying villages and killing people as we speak. Surely this House needs to send the strong message that we recognise the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace, as well as recognising the importance and primacy of international law—the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made that point very strongly.

The hon. Member and I have visited the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and I sat through the entire hearing when South Africa made its application—a moving and fascinating experience. The case was made brilliantly by South Africa, which was condemned by Members on both sides of the House for even bringing the case of genocide against Israel. While it put its case, I was looking at the wonderful ceiling in the Peace Palace and thinking back to when all South Africa’s current leaders were called terrorists and denounced for undermining and upsetting the apartheid regime. They finished apartheid, and then they gave their support to the people of Palestine—well done, South Africa, for having the bravery to do that.

We need to understand the importance of international law. If we believe in international law, as this Parliament and Britain always claim—we helped to write the European convention on human rights and the United Nations universal declaration of human rights—we must stand by it and ensure that the Israeli Government are taken to task for their breaches of human rights around the world.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I reiterate the right hon. Gentleman’s words: we cannot speak of recovery without first seeking and speaking of justice and accountability. Does he agree that all alleged breaches of international law, including accusations of genocide, must be investigated; that those responsible must be held to account; and that the people of Gaza deserve not only immediate relief but a future built on justice? Does he agree that peace is impossible without justice?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer himself and far better qualified than me on these matters. I absolutely agree that justice requires us to act, otherwise we undermine the whole principle of international law. The long arm of international law might even reach to us—yes, to Britain—because we knowingly supplied weapons. We did that knowing that a genocide was going on, which makes us complicit in that genocide.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

This issue has a huge reach. Here we are in London discussing it, but I know that since I was re-elected in the summer of last year, every week a vigil has been held for the people of Gaza by concerned, decent people in Ullapool in Wester Ross, very far from here. The milk of human kindness still flows, and we should take courage from that.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I welcome the hon. Member being returned to the House, as well as the comments that he has just made. The support for Gaza has been incredible, despite the denunciations of all the national demonstrations, which were called “hate marches” by the then Home Secretary. I have been on all 36 of them; I have spoken at every single one and I will continue to do that.

I also recognise that all over the country, small and medium-sized demonstrations are being held in often very small communities. I think that well over 2 million people in this country have shown some degree of support for the Palestinian people through meetings, marches, demonstrations, emails, petitions, letters—a whole lot of things. This issue has moved people deeply, and those demonstrations have made a difference. The rhetoric by both the Conservative and Labour Governments started to change as the demonstrations got bigger; things have begun to change, and people have begun to understand the horror of the life of the Palestinian people.

I will finish with this point, because other Members wish to speak. It is becoming winter in Gaza and the west bank, and despite their latitude, it is actually very cold there in winter. Long before the current bombardment, I recall once being an election observer in Gaza in January, and the weather was bitterly cold and horrible—I thought it was terrible then, but it is a thousand times worse now. People will be dying of cold and hypothermia when there are stacks of tents on the other side of the border in Israel that are not being allowed in. People will be dying because of operations conducted without anaesthetic when plenty of anaesthetics are available just across the border, waiting to get in from Egypt.

This is an abominable situation. Can we not as a House say quite bluntly to Israel, “You’re wrong. What you’re doing is illegal and immoral. History will judge you for being the people who committed genocide against the Palestinian people”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree that Israel must release prisoners, particularly those who are there for their non-violent actions against the occupation. The Palestinians will need all talents, and the Israeli Government must take action on that.

I was speaking about the aftermath of the war in Iraq. Obviously, the situation in Gaza is not a carbon copy of what happened there; that was simply an example of where thoughtless implementation of a reasonable headline policy had an impact that went far beyond the stated intent.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Lady is making a very interesting speech. As she rightly says, in the aftermath of the Iraq war, there was a de-Ba’athification policy, which had the effect of destroying all public services, allowing anyone to get weapons from the now dysfunctional army. It set off a whole chain of the most ghastly civil and local conflicts. That is a real danger. Things have to be maintained. In Gaza now, despite everything, there is still some degree of functionality in the operations of local government, which is attempting to make plans for the rebuilding of towns and villages all across Gaza. Surely we should be a little less judgmental of those involved and support them in trying to make a start on reconstruction.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree that we need to use the people on the ground, who know the area best, in rebuilding. The international community would be foolish not to look at previous post-war measures in other conflicts and learn the right lessons, because the people of Gaza cannot afford for preventable mistakes to be repeated. With an economy in ruins and a population traumatised by years of conflict, Palestinians need international help to rebuild.

Gaza and Sudan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the points that my hon. Friend makes. We obviously have deep concerns about illegal settlements—they are illegal and should not be taking place—and the escalation of settler violence. There is a need for strong Israeli law enforcement action against the settler violence and a withdrawal from this approach to settlements.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

May I ask the Foreign Secretary not to link two statements together in one in future, so that we can seriously examine one subject? Is she satisfied that the British arms and equipment sales that go to the United Arab Emirates do not end up in the hands of the RSF or as part of the ghastly conflict in Sudan, which is fundamentally about people trying to grab the mineral resources of that country? Will she assure us that no more British arms are being sold to Israel and that there is no security sharing with Israel while it continues the illegal activities, killings and destruction—even since the so-called ceasefire—of 1,500 buildings in Gaza, until such time as there is a real ceasefire and real peace?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of both Sudan and Gaza. I felt that it was urgent to bring both matters forward so that the House could have an update and respond. He will know that we have very strong restrictions on arms sales, but I take this issue immensely seriously. When allegations were raised about three pieces of equipment in Sudan—a seatbelt, an engine part and a shooting target—I ensured that thousands of licences that the UK has were reviewed. There was no evidence of any of the parts that were identified or had allegations made about them being covered by any UK licences. I will continue to ensure that if any concerns or allegations are ever raised, there will be reviews of the licences, because it is immensely important that those restrictions are maintained. Let me also say that we are continuing the restrictions on arms sales to Israel that were set out by my predecessor, the current Deputy Prime Minister.

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.