Tag: Jeremy Corbyn

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2019.

I thank the Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of his statement. Unfortunately, it was like his illegal shutting down of Parliament—“null” and

“of no effect and should be quashed”,

in the words of the Supreme Court. This was 10 minutes of bluster from a dangerous Prime Minister who thinks he is above the law, but in truth he is not fit for the office he holds. I am glad to see so many colleagues back here doing what they were elected to do: holding the Government to account for their failings. Whether it is their attempt to shut down democracy, their sham Brexit negotiations, their chaotic and inadequate no-deal preparations, the allegations of corruption, their failure on climate change or their failure to step in to save Thomas Cook, this Government are failing the people of Britain, and the people of Britain know it—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker

Order. I said that the Prime Minister should not be shouted down. The same goes for the Leader of the Opposition. Let me say to people bellowing from a sedentary position: stop it—you will exhaust your vocal cords, you will get nowhere, it will not work, and these proceedings will continue for as long as is necessary for the Chair to be satisfied that proper scrutiny has taken place. It is as simple and incontrovertible as that.

Jeremy Corbyn

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court verdict represents an extraordinary and, I believe, precarious moment in this country’s history. The highest court in this land has found that the Prime Minister broke the law when he ​tried to shut down our democratic accountability at a crucial moment in our public life. The judges concluded that there was no reason,

“let alone a good reason”,

for the Prime Minister to have shut down Parliament. After yesterday’s ruling, the Prime Minister should have done the honourable thing and resigned, yet here he is—forced back to this House to rightfully face the scrutiny he tried to avoid—with no shred of remorse or humility and, of course, no substance whatsoever.

Let us see if he will answer some questions. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Attorney General that the Government “got it wrong”, or with the Leader of the House that the Supreme Court committed a “constitutional coup”? This is a vital question about whether the Government respect the judiciary or not.

The Attorney General was categorical that the Government would comply with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Can the Prime Minister confirm that?

I pay tribute to those MPs from all parties across the House, to the Lords and to those in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly who have not only fought so hard to stop a disastrous no deal, but continued to take the case against Prorogation through the courts. The Government have failed to silence our democracy.

During the period of unlawful Prorogation, the Government were forced to release their Yellowhammer no-deal analysis and plans. No wonder the Prime Minister has been so eager to avoid scrutiny and hide the dangers of his Brexit plan. The release of those documents leads to many questions that the Government must answer now that our Parliament is back in operation.

I would like to start by asking the Prime Minister why the Government in August described leaked Yellowhammer documents as out of date. When the documents were later produced in September, they were word for word the same. It is clear that they have tried to hide from the people the truth—the real truth—of a no-deal Brexit and the fact that their policy would heap misery on the people of this country.

Let us take a look at the analysis: chaos at Britain’s ports, with months of disruption; people going short of fuel and fresh foods—[Interruption.] It is your paper, you wrote it and you tried to hide it. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker—I do not hold you responsible for writing the document. There would be disruption of people’s vital medical supplies, rises in energy prices for every household in the country, and a hard border for the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Most damning of all is the passage that simply says:

“Low income groups will be disproportionately affected”.

There we have it, Mr Speaker: a simple warning, a simple truth, that a Tory Government are continuing to follow a policy they know will hit the poorest people in our country the hardest. They simply do not care.

The damning document we have seen is only six pages long. It is only right that this House should expect more transparency from the Government.

The Government say that they are doing all they can to get a deal before 31 October, but the truth is that the Prime Minister has put hardly any effort into negotiations. Any progress looks, at the most generous, to be minimal. Only yesterday, the European Union’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said that there was

“no reason today for optimism”.​

Why does the Prime Minister believe Mr Barnier has that view? This House is still yet to hear any detail of any deal the Government seek to negotiate. We are told the Government have distributed papers to Brussels outlining proposals for a change to the backstop. Will the Prime Minister publish these papers and allow them to be debated in this House of Parliament? For this Government to have any credibility with our people, they need to show they have an actual plan.

The Prime Minister also has questions to answer about his conduct in public office and, in particular, about allegations that he failed to declare an interest in the allocation of public money to a close friend while he was Mayor of London. It was announced today that, in light of the Sunday Times report, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the funds allocated. Did the Prime Minister initiate that review? Will he fully co-operate with the DCMS review and that of the London Assembly? Will he refer himself to the Cabinet Secretary for investigation? No Prime Minister is above the law.

No one can trust the Prime Minister, not on Iran, not on Thomas Cook, not on climate change and not on Brexit. For the good of this country—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker

Order. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard in this Parliament, and he will be heard. [Interruption.] Order. I do not mind how long it takes, these exchanges will take place in an orderly manner. Be in no doubt about that.

Jeremy Corbyn

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Quite simply, for the good of this country, the Prime Minister should go. He says he wants a general election. I want a general election. It is very simple: if he wants an election, get an extension and let us have an election.

Below is the text of the statement made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, on 28 August 2019.

I am appalled at the recklessness of Johnson’s government, which talks about sovereignty and yet is seeking to suspend parliament to avoid scrutiny of its plans for a reckless No Deal Brexit. This is an outrage and a threat to our democracy.

That is why Labour has been working across Parliament to hold this reckless government to account, and prevent a disastrous No Deal which parliament has already ruled out. If Johnson has confidence in his plans he should put them to the people in a general election or public vote.

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP for Islington North, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1986.

It is interesting that today we are having a number of debates on the National Health Service. That reflects the great public disquiet about its administration and the appallingly low levels of pay. I wish to draw attention to that issue.

First, I say with pride, not by way of apology, that I am sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, and it is right and proper that that should be on the record. I was formerly a full-time official of that union, working in the NHS, and at one stage I was a member of an area health authority, so I have some experience of NHS matters.

There is grave disquiet within the NHS about the way in which staff are treated. During the past five years NHS workers have suffered from the threat of privatisation, which essentially means that many ancillary staff are being asked to offer their job on an annual or biennial basis to the lowest bidder, as a series of contract cleaning and catering companies line up to take the pickings from the NHS. That has resulted in job losses and a reduction in the real wage levels of many workers, and has created a climate of fear and intimidation. I hope that the Minister will try to understand what it is like to be a hospital cleaner, knowing that one’s job is with a contract cleaning company, whose bid the following year may not be successful, and that a new contractor may pay even lower wages or not offer one a job. A series of hired hands are moved from one contract cleaning company to another.

Other groups and grades feel equally worried. It started with cleaners, moved to catering staff, and may move to building staff, the various maintenance and gardening grades and right up the scale. The NHS has a major function to play, and we could and should be proud of it. It is no way to treat employees every year to offer their jobs for sale to contractors. If it can be done for cleaners and catering grades, clearly it can be done for many other grades. A number of technical and professional grades already feel the cold wind of privatisation.

Late last year, as in the previous year, the Department of Health and Social Security produced a glossy book called:

“The Health Service in England”.

It is designed to make us believe that the NHS is doing particularly well. Table 19 on page 43 deals with Health Service employed staff by main staff group for England, and shows that nursing and midwifery staff increased from 351,000 to 397,000—an increase of 13·2 per cent.—and lists other grades showing increases in staffing levels.

I am particularly interested in the treatment of ancillary staff. Their numbers have decreased from 172,200 to 152,200, which is an 11·6 per cent. reduction over six years. That reduction appears to be continuing. The ancillary grades are not only the lowest paid in the National Health Service but are suffering the largest number of job losses.

On page 46, appendix C shows Health Service expenditure on staffing, goods and services broken down into salaries and wages and supply and maintenance. Within the section on salaries and wages is shown the proportion of total wage expenditure that goes on nurses ​ and midwives—44·5 per cent.—and on ancillary staff—15·3 per cent.—medical and dental 13·7 per cent. and so on. However at the end as a tiny footnote there is “Chairmen’s remuneration 0·03 per cent.” There are not many chairmen in the health authorities, but together they managed to collect £1·7 million in chairmen’s remuneration. When one compares that with the average wages of an ancillary worker one begins to understand the issues I am concerned with. At one end of the scale in the National Health Service we have the doctors’ remuneration at £21,000 a year. However, they are in dispute, as consultants get far more than that. There is also the absolute scandal and disgrace of the ludicrous merit award system, which operates for consultants. Essentially, consultants nominate each other for merit awards, it is done in secret, and the public pick up the bill without having any say in the levels of merits awards that are made to those people. I believe that the last figure quoted was something like £20 million being handed out to themselves in merit awards.

I am not saying that the doctors, consultants or surgeons do not do a valuable job. One could not run a health service without them. However, I am sure that most of those people would agree, that neither can one run a health service without cleaners, caterers and portering staff. It is a team approach that is adopted in the hospitals and I wish that the Government would understand that with regard to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) spoke in the previous debate about job losses and cuts within the National Health Service. He mentioned the temporary closure of St. Thomas’s hospital and the threat to Westminster hospital. Yesterday there was an announcement in a local paper of job losses at St. Nicholas’s hospital in south-east London.

The closure of the Dreadnought seamen’s hospital resulted in yesterday’s strike of cross-channel operators because they are not prepared to see their hospital close. That is the degree of the frustration and anger that exists among the supporters of the National Health Service, never mind those who are within the Health Service.

I wish to put specific questions to the Government regarding pay. The pay for nurses and midwives has been in the public eye recently and is a matter of public concern. The cause of the concern is the pay gap between nurses and other grades and the way the award was funded. Health Service workers are not prepared to go on being told that they can agree a pay level—an agreed national level—through negotiations and then be told by the Government that the Government are not prepared to pay that award in its entirety, instead passing part of the cost of the award over to the local district health authority.

That is specifically intended to create an atmosphere wherein, if the health workers accept lower wage rates, there will be more money spent on patient care. We know that this is not the case. It is a cynical manipulation of the way that negotiations should be conducted within the National Health Service.
I wish to quote from the evidence submitted by my union, the National Union of Public Employees, in its pay review body document 1986 for nurses, midwives, and health visitors.

“There is still a large pay gap. When we compare current pay levels with the levels established in 1974 by Halsbury and in 1980 by Clegg, and take into account movements in prices and ​ earnings since those dates, we find that a large pay gap amounting to nearly 20% of current salaries exists. It is important to emphasise that the comparison with pay levels set by Halsbury and Clegg is not intended to be purely mechanical. Our point is that on each occasion when an independent review has taken place of nurses’ pay in relation to the pay of comparable outside occupations, a substantial increase in nurses’ pay has been recommended to bring it into line. We believe that this is strong evidence that a similar independent study carried out today, making similar comparisons, would establish that a substantial increase is needed across the board in order to restore fair pay for nurses. In short, a big gap remains, and a substantial across the board increase is needed to fill it.”

Later in the evidence of the staff side to the nurses and midwives Whitley council, it says:

“The Review Body must now be aware of the grave concern and anger within the profession which was caused by the Government’s decisions relating to the funding and staging of the 1985 award, although the tone of the Government’s written evidence gave some indication of the cynical and intransigent view it held with regard to funding the award of an independent Review Body. It will be recalled that having acknowledged that the paybill for nurses and PAMs in 1983–84 was some 36 per cent. of health authorities’ total costs, the Government subsequently stated that pay costs in excess of those allowed for in the public expenditure programme would not be funded.

The Government’s written evidence concluded that ‘the higher pay settlements turn out to be, the less service development will be possible overall’ (para C10). On its own admission this position represented a significant departure from previous years when the level of financial provision has been reviewed in the light of Review Body recommendations and the Government’s decisions on them”.

On nurses’ pay and prices, it goes on to say:

“the current (April 1985) value of the Staff Nurses’ pay remains significantly below its real 1975 value. By April, 1986, even with the second, delayed, stage of the 1985 award taken into account (February 1986), the increase in Staff Nurses’ pay since 1975 will have been insufficient to accommodate the effect of inflation, let alone facilitate the rise in living standards which has been the experience of the majority of employees over the period.”

That is the cry of health workers over the past 15 years or longer at the way that they have continually been left behind other grades, industries and professions.

It is not only the nurses and the ancillary grades that are concerned, but the doctors, who have seen over the years their 1981 review body decision reduced from 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. and in 1984 and 1985 the fourth and fifth rejections of pay review body recommendations. There is anger across the Health Service about pay levels.

Ancillary workers in the Health Service have suffered the largest cut and received the lowest pay, and are very much at the bottom of the pile in the hospital, but no hospital could operate without catering workers, cleaners and porters, all those who do the dirty, filthy unclean jobs that nobody else wants to do. They deserve a substantial increase in their basic levels of pay. There is no reason why people have to live on the poverty wages that they are getting.
I have before me the payslip of a woman in my constituency, Mrs. Gertie Turner, who is employed at the Whittington hospital at Archway. For 23 years and three months she has worked in the Health Service. Until 1977 she worked in the laundry as a press hand, until that department was closed, and since then, she has worked in the linen room. She has the important job of ensuring that the linen is distributed and is available for all the beds, as patients come and go. She has to ensure that the linen is there on time.

I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that such people are the backbone of the Health Service. Mrs. Turner’s basic pay is £80.10. She gets a bonus of £17.06 ​ and a London weighting of £13.50. Her weekly pay and allowances total £110.66. After stoppages, she takes home £67.34 for a full week’s hard, responsible service. This is a disgraceful figure for somebody who has put in so much work for the Health Service in such a responsible way.
I turn to the claim that has been put forward on behalf of Gertie Turner and thousands of other people like her in the National Health Service. The 1986 trade union claim for ancillary staff council employees includes:

“1. A substantial flat rate wage increase, as a major step towards the target of two thirds of national average earnings.
2. A revision of the grading structure on equal value principles.
3. A substantial increase in shift and related payments.
4. A reduction in the working week to 35 hours.
5. An increase in annual leave and a change in the calculation of leave from a retrospective to a current basis.
6. A change in the public holidays agreement to provide entitlement for part-time workers whose work on fixed days currently excludes them from most public holidays.
7. The right of access to arbitration.”

When I talk about poverty levels of wages and poverty pay in the National Health Service, there is plenty of evidence to support what I am saying. The TUC definition of low pay, two thirds of average male earnings, is £109.06 in 1985 and 117.78 in the current year. The Low Pay Unit has slightly different figures of £115.20 and £124.41. The Council of Europe’s decency threshold, 68 per cent. of the average of men and women, shows a figure of £116.28 and £125.58. The supplementary benefit levels for a family with two children would be £123.61. By all those criteria, people like Gertie Turner are well within the current poverty pay levels.

I quote next from the document which was put forward by all the trade unions on the ancillary staffs council, trade union side, at page 7:

“In April 1985 the difference between the average weekly earnings of male NHS ancillary workers and male manual workers throughout the economy was £40.10. The gap with average male earnings was nearly £70 per week. The equivalent earnings gap for women was £96.84 Ten years ago, the earnings gap with male manual workers was £4.90. Nearly 50 per cent. of male ancillary staff earn as little as the lowest 10 per cent. of all manual workers throughout the economy.”.

The booklet goes on to demonstrate that the problem is even more serious for women full-time ancillary staff. Despite equal pay legislation over the years, it is quite clear to me that women workers in the National Health Service get significantly less on average than their male counterparts.

When a comparison is made of the earnings of female and male full-time ancillary staff as a proportion of all male manual earnings between 1970 and 1985, it is found that there are certain high points. There was a high point in 1971 when women earned 55 per cent. of the male average and men earned just under 90 per cent. There were then the low points which led to the 1973 dispute. After that there was the award which took men to 90 per cent. and women to just under 70 per cent. of earnings. Then there was the low point which led to the 1979 industrial dispute. Following that there was the Clegg award that took women up to about 65 per cent. and men up to about 85 per cent.

The current position, from graphs provided not by trade union sources but by the Government’s new earnings survey, is that at present NHS women workers are well below 60 per cent. of male manual earnings and men are just under 80 per cent. of that figure.

Frequently employees in the National Health Service have had their wages compared with those in local government. The gap now exists on every grade between workers in the local authorities who are not overpaid by any means. Under the local authority manual workers’ agreement a cook would get £92.40 a week. A National Health Service ancillary cook on grade 6 would get £82.92 a week. At the other end of the scale, a local authority dining room assistant or kitchen assistant—that would be somebody working in the school meals service or in a municipal canteen—would get £83.20 a week. A NHS ancillary worker—canteen, grade 1, domestic—would get £72.53 a week.

Therefore, NHS workers are not happy The Government must tell us what their policy is towards low paid workers in the NHS. And what is their policy on pay generally in the NHS? When the awards are agreed this year for all grades in the NHS, will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State undertake that those pay awards will be paid for out of national funds and not by local health authorities being forced either to lay off staff, close hospitals, close wards temporarily, or to lock up wards to subsidise the Government’s expenditure in other areas? Will the Government give an undertaking that no longer will health workers, who maintain the health of this nation and who work so hard, for so long and for so little, have to suffer the indignity of poverty wages? I find it ironic that so many Department of Health and Social Security employers are forced at the end of each week to go to another arm of the DHSS to register for the various benefits to which they are entitled because of the poverty wages that they are given in the first place by their main employer, the DHSS.

Below is the text of the point of order made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP for Islington North, in the House of Commons on 17 February 1986.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to the behaviour of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) last week. Was it in order for him to pass on information which he had received privately about allegations of child sex and pornography on a council estate in my constituency? I raise this point of order because he received a letter from a constituent of mine, as I did, making allegations about a large number of people in my constituency, involving child pornography and abuse.

I wholly deplore child pornography or abuse, and I think that the best way to deal with these matters is through proper and sensitive investigation, which was going on at the time. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth chose, last Thursday, to make a statement to the Press Association, which appeared later in The London Standard. The effect was to make any inquiries difficult to follow, and the estate was besieged by the media, seeking salacious gossip and stories.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth will, in the light of the investigations that have taken place, withdraw the statement that he made, visit that estate and apologise in person to the tenants, to whom he has caused a great deal of personal insult and hurt in the past few days.

I have raised this point of order because constituents of mine are extremely upset by the fact that an hon. Member from another part of the country should behave in such an irresponsible and disgraceful manner, which is not in the best interests of the tenants of that estate, or of the cause that he purports to support.

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in Corby on 19 August 2019.

Thank you, Beth, for that introduction. You’re a powerful voice for the people of Corby and we need that voice in parliament.

It’s great to be back in Corby and I’d like to thank all the staff and everyone involved at the Pen Green Centre for Children and Families for hosting us today.

I’m sure I don’t need to convince anyone here that as we look towards the return of parliament in September the country is heading into a political and constitutional storm.

It’s the Conservative Party’s failure on Brexit and its lurch to the hard right that has provoked the crisis our country faces this autumn.

After failing to negotiate a Brexit deal that would protect jobs and living standards. Boris Johnson’s Tories are driving the country towards a No Deal cliff edge.

We will do everything necessary to stop a disastrous No Deal for which this government has no mandate.

Boris Johnson’s government wants to use No Deal to create a tax haven for the super-rich on the shores of Europe, and sign a sweetheart trade deal with Donald Trump.

Not so much a No Deal Brexit more a Trump Deal Brexit.

Have no doubt, No Deal would destroy people’s jobs push up food prices in the shops and open our NHS to takeover by US private corporations.

That’s a price Boris Johnson is willing to pay because it won’t be him and his wealthy friends paying it – it will be you.

Labour will do everything we can to protect people’s livelihoods.

We will work together with the MPs from across parliament to pull our country back from the brink.

I will bring a vote of no confidence in the government, and if we’re successful, I would seek to form a time-limited caretaker administration to avert No Deal, and call an immediate general election so the people can decide our country’s future.

If MPs are serious about stopping a No Deal crash out, then they will vote down this reckless government and it falls to the Leader of the Opposition, to make sure No Deal does not happen and the people decide their own future.

Labour believes the decision on how to resolve the Brexit crisis must go back to the people.

And if there is a general election this autumn, Labour will commit to holding a public vote, to give voters the final say with credible options for both sides including the option to remain.

Three years of Tory failure on Brexit have caused opinions to harden to such a degree that I believe no outcome will now have legitimacy without the people’s endorsement.

But while Brexit is the framework of the crisis, we face the problems facing our country run much deeper.

A general election triggered by the Tory Brexit crisis will be a crossroads for our country. It will be a once-in-a-generation chance for a real change of direction potentially on the scale of 1945 or 1979.

Things cannot go on as they were before. The Conservatives and the wealthy establishment they represent have failed our country.

They have failed to protect living standards, savaged our public services, deepened inequality and failed to keep us safe.

Boris Johnson and his Tory cabinet have direct responsibility for the Tory decade of devastating damage to our communities and the fabric of our society.

However, the Brexit crisis is resolved, the country faces a fundamental choice.

Labour offers the real change of direction the country needs a radical programme to rebuild and transform communities and public services to invest in the green jobs and high-tech industries of the future and take action to tackle inequality and climate crisis.

The Tories have lurched to the hard right under Boris Johnson.

Johnson is Britain’s Trump, as the US president himself declared the fake populist and phoney outsider funded by the hedge funds and bankers committed to protecting the vested interests of the richest and the elites while posing as anti-establishment.

The Tories cannot be trusted to deliver on their quick-fix promises because their first priority is tax cuts for the big corporations and the richest.

The Tories can’t be trusted to deliver for the majority because they will always look after their own. Instead of fixing a failed system, they will turbocharge its inequalities, insecurities and climate destruction.

Labour can be trusted to deliver to end austerity, to take on the elites and the vested interests holding people back and to transform our country for the many, not the few.

Labour can be trusted to take the radical steps necessary to protect the environment provide hope, decent jobs, secure homes, opportunity to every nation and region and build a fairer country that works for all.

Our country has been held back for too long by the establishment that the Tories represent.

But together, we can take our future into our own hands and tackle the great challenges facing our country alongside Brexit; inequality and an economy run for the richest; public services that have been stripped back and sold off; and the climate emergency threatening our children’s future.

Inequality holds all of us back. It means the talent of millions of people is squandered.

We don’t have to be a country of food banks and rough sleepers at one end while the super-rich dodge taxes at the other.

People have a choice.

Labour will raise tax for the richest and make sure they pay their share towards the common good.

The Tories will cut tax for the richest.

Labour will require the big multinational corporations to actually pay the tax they owe in this country.

The Tories will cut tax for big corporations.

It’s Labour that will get more money into your pocket rather than line the pockets of multi-millionaires.

We’ll introduce a real living wage of £10 an hour, including for young people who deserve equal pay for equal work.

But we need to go further. The problem with an unfair economy isn’t just the imbalance of wealth; it’s the imbalance of power.

Labour will give working people more power to win better wages and have security at work.

We’ll put workers on company boards and give the workforce a 10% stake in large companies; paying a dividend of as much as £500 a year to each employee.

And Labour won’t tell people they have to work until they are 75 before getting their pension, as Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank has suggested – a policy that discriminates against working class people – especially in manual jobs.

It’s past time that we rewrote the rules of the economy – to shift wealth and power – from a small elite at the top into the hands of the majority.

And that principle of empowering people doesn’t just apply to the workplace.

We’ll bring rail, mail, water and the national grid into public ownership. So the essential utilities people rely on are run by and for the public, not shareholders.

And we’ll give tenants more power and security including controlling rents, so dodgy landlords can’t rip them off.

And when we talk about inequality, we aren’t only talking about economics. We need a government that’s seriously committed to tackling the entrenched inequalities faced by women and ethnic minorities too.

The coming general election will be make or break for our public services.

The new prime minister has been making some pre-election spending pledges over the past few weeks.

That shows Labour has won the argument that austerity damages our country and that it was always a political choice.

But it insults voters’ intelligence to expect them to be grateful for a bit of extra money here and there, with no confidence that it will actually be delivered when it’s Boris Johnson’s Tories who ran our public services into the ground in the first place.

And it shows no understanding of the depth of the problem.

Take crime which the Prime Minister is now trying to turn to his political advantage, with yet more promises to tackle what the Tories have failed to bring under control for a decade.

In the 2017 election, Labour won the argument that Tory cuts to the police had made people unsafe, and we pledged to hire more officers.

The Conservatives have now conceded that we were right, but police cuts are not the only reason violent crime has doubled.

What the Tories won’t address is the much wider impact of austerity; the closed youth services; under-resourced mental healthcare; and the lack of funding for community mentoring.

We take youth services so seriously that we will make it compulsory for local government to deliver them.

And we know the direct impact that rhetoric around immigration, crime and stop and search can have on the lives of those from minority communities.

Labour will rebuild our public services because we understand they are the glue that binds society together.

We’ll restore pride in our NHS by funding it properly and end the sell-offs and privatisation.

And we’ll create a National Education Service providing free learning from the cradle to the grave including free school meals for all primary children smaller class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds and no tuition fees at university or college.

So who can the public trust to rebuild our public services after a decade of Conservative austerity – Labour, or the Tories led by Boris Johnson?

And on the issue that poses the greatest threat to our common future the climate crisis, it’s Labour that has shown leadership.

We ensured our parliament was the first in the world to declare a climate emergency.

That must be followed by radical and decisive action that will only be delivered by a Labour government.

It certainly won’t come from the Tories the party that scrapped the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon, effectively killing off new onshore wind power projects, and is forcing fracking on local communities who oppose it.

We have to turn the climate crisis into an opportunity, to rebuild British industry with a Green Industrial Revolution that will create 400,000 well-paid high-skilled jobs in renewable energy and green technology, particularly in parts of our country that never recovered from the decimation of our industrial base by Margaret Thatcher’s government places like here in Corby, where the closure of the steelworks cost thousands upon thousands of jobs.

Imagine if the Derbyshire and Yorkshire coalfields that once powered the nation became the new centres of green energy generation.

Or if towns that used to make locomotives built the next generation of high-speed electric trains.

Just imagine how it would feel for those communities to once again be the beating heart of our economy while reducing our greenhouse emissions.

That future is within our grasp.

But I ask again: who do you trust to act on the climate emergency – Labour, or the Tories led by Boris Johnson?

We can’t afford more of the same, but even worse. The future could be fantastic. New technologies have the power to liberate us and help tackle the climate emergency.

But for too many, the future is frightening and uncertain because those technologies have been used instead to benefit the wealthy elite while driving down pay and security for millions.

The next Labour government will take on those who really run our country the bankers, tax dodgers and big polluters. So that the real wealth creators, the people of this country, can have the services, jobs and futures they deserve.

Because when Labour wins, we all win. The nurse wins, the pensioner wins, the student wins, the office worker wins, the engineer wins, we all win.

The chaos and dislocation of Boris Johnson’s No Deal Brexit is real and threatening as the government’s leaked Operation Yellowhammer dossier makes clear. That’s why we will do everything we can to stop it.

Then, after years of elite-driven austerity and neglect, we will recharge our politics with a massive injection of democracy kicking out the big money interests and putting the people in the driving seat.

We will rebuild our public services by taxing those at the top to properly fund services for everyone.

We will drive up people’s living standards by boosting pay, improving rights, and running our utilities and economy in the interests of the millions, not the multi-millionaires.

And we will transform our communities with investment in every part of our country breathing new life into our high streets, giving security to older people and hope and opportunities to our young people.

This is a historic moment, with the potential for real change to transform our country if we grasp the opportunity.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2019.

I want to say thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for the fantastic campaign she has mounted and the comfort that she has brought to those who have been through the unimaginable strain of losing a child. Those who, sadly, will lose a child in future will at least know that, because of her work, one part of the commemoration of that child’s life will be made a little bit easier. On behalf of so many families, may we just say thank you very much for everything you have done?

I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement. While this year marks the 20th anniversary of the G20, there is little progress to commemorate in tackling the urgent challenges that we face. Where the ​leaders of the world’s most powerful countries fail, we look instead to civil society, trade unions and community groups, and to an inspirational generation of young people, for the transformative change that is required.

This summit’s communiqué did not make the necessary commitments on climate change. Does the Prime Minister agree that President Trump’s failure to accept the reality of man-made climate change, his refusal to back the Paris accords and his attempts to water down the communiqué’s commitments are a threat to the security of us all, all over this planet? Is the Prime Minister concerned that he could soon be joined by one of her possible successors, who has described global warming as a “primitive fear … without foundation”? It is the responsibility of the G20 to lead efforts to combat climate change, as the Prime Minister herself acknowledged. These nations account for four fifths of global greenhouse gas emissions. As I confirmed last week, we back the UK’s bid to host COP 26 next year. In 2017, the Government agreed to:

“Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions”

in developing countries. So can the Prime Minister explain why 97% of the UK’s export finance support for energy in developing countries goes to fossil fuels, and less than 1% is for renewable energy? The Government’s pledge to cut carbon emissions by 2050 is an empty one. They have no serious plan to invest and continue to dismantle our renewable energy sector while supporting fracking.

The Prime Minister says that the international community must stand against Iran’s destabilising activity in the region. The Iran nuclear deal agreement was a multilateral agreement signed up to by President Obama, and a number of other Governments, but reneged on by President Obama’s successor. Beyond just saying that we need to protect the deal, what action has the Prime Minister taken to ensure this? What conversation did she have with President Trump on this issue?

Is it not about time that the Prime Minister’s Government stood up to our supposed ally, Saudi Arabia? She says that she met Crown Prince bin Salman but gives no details. So can I ask her: did she raise the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, did she raise the killing of thousands of Yemenis, and did she pledge to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia? Did she raise with him the Saudis’ financing and arming of Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar, who is fighting the UN-recognised Government of Libya, and who, only last night, has been held responsible for an airstrike on a migrant centre in Tripoli that killed 40 people and injured dozens more? The Prime Minister rightly points to the need to protect people from terrorist propaganda, so before she leaves office, will she finally release, in full, the report she suppressed on the Saudi Government’s funding of extremist groups?

The Prime Minister talks of confronting countries that interfere in the democracy of other nations, including Russia. I remind her that it was Labour that delivered amendments to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, which introduced the Magnitsky powers. The truth is that the Conservatives have questions to answer about the almost £1 million-worth of donations from wealthy Russians to their party under her watch. If we stand up to corruption and condemn human rights-abusing regimes, then politicians should not be trading cash for access.​

The Prime Minister mentioned the worrying outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Could she outline what assistance the Department for International Development is providing in that terrible situation? I welcome the Government’s £1.4 billion for the Global Fund to fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. However, the main conclusion from the G20 is that the world deserves better leadership for the urgent challenges facing humanity.

Moving on to the EU summit in Brussels, it has taken leaders three days to come up with a decision on who should take the EU’s top jobs. But a three-day summit pales into insignificance next to the three years of failure that this Government have inflicted on us all over Brexit. I would like to congratulate those who have been appointed or nominated to new roles within in the EU, especially Josep Borrell as High Representative for foreign affairs and security. For as long as we remain in the EU, we should seek reform. That includes increasing our efforts to tackle tax evasion and avoidance; stepping up our co-operation over the climate emergency that faces us all, all over this continent and this planet; and challenging migration policies that have left thousands to drown in the Mediterranean while sometimes subcontracting migration policies to Libyan militias.

Can the Prime Minister explain her decision for the Conservative party to join a political group that includes far-right, Islamophobic parties such as Vox of Spain? It claims that Muslims will impose Sharia law on Spain, turn cathedrals into mosques, and force all women to cover up. It is a party that campaigned to repeal gender violence laws and threatened to shut down feminist organisations. Does the Prime Minister understand the worry that this will cause many people in this country who will rightly be asking why her party has aligned itself with this far-right organisation whose policies are built on division, discrimination and hate?

Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that whoever succeeds her should have the courage to go back to the people with their preferred Brexit option to end the uncertainty and get Brexit resolved?

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2019.

Mr Speaker, I understand that it is 10 years this week since you assumed the Chair of the House. May I just say congratulations on the first 10 years and thank you for being such a popular Speaker and for taking the role of Parliament out to the public in a meaningful way, particularly to schools and colleges all over the country? That has made a big difference.

I thank the Prime Minister for her kind words about John Prescott. We all obviously wish John all the very best. I cannot wait to see him return to full activity and to hear that voice booming out of loudspeakers all over the country exciting people in the cause of Labour, which is what John does so well.

I thank the Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of her statement.​
Last week, we came within minutes of the USA launching a military attack on Iran. Britain and other European nations must play a role in defusing, not raising, tensions, and that needs to start with the restoration of support for the Iran nuclear deal.

We note that there will be continuing EU-Morocco trade discussions. I hope that the United Kingdom Government will recognise that there is an ongoing territorial dispute over the Western Sahara and that those issues will be borne in mind during the negotiations.

I echo the European Union’s call on Turkey to cease its illegal drilling in the eastern Mediterranean; I welcome what the EU Council said on that.

I also welcome the EU Council’s discussion of climate change, which emphasises how important it is to continue to work with progressive forces to tackle the climate emergency, which this House declared on 1 May. I welcome the EU’s continued commitment to the Paris climate agreement and to deliver a practical plan of action to meet its obligations, and I also welcome the fact that COP 26 will be jointly hosted by Britain and Italy, with some events being held in London.

Yesterday marked three years since the EU referendum —three wasted years in which the Government’s deal has been rejected three times. We have endured three separate Brexit Secretaries, and we will soon have our third post-Brexit Prime Minister. It has been three years of chaos, in-fighting and incompetence. For too long, the Prime Minister allowed herself to be held to ransom by the wilder extremes in her party, instead of trying to find a sensible majority across this House—[Interruption.] Some of the wilder extremes have absented themselves today, but they are no doubt making their views known elsewhere. By the time the Prime Minister finally did reach out, it was a bit too late, and she was unable to deliver meaningful compromise or change.

Does the Prime Minister now regret that she continued to legitimise the idea of no deal instead of warning of its disastrous implications? The two Tory leadership candidates still say that if they cannot renegotiate the backstop, which EU leaders last week said was not possible, they would pursue a no-deal exit. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether she believes that no deal should be on the table as a viable option? What would be worse: crashing out with no deal in October, or putting this issue back to the people for a final say? Given the—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, it is normal for the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions of the Prime Minister, and that is exactly what I am doing.

Given the shambolic no-deal preparations so far, which were paused in the spring, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will not be ready to crash out in October? Neither of the Tory leadership candidates has a credible plan. One even claims that we can crash out on WTO terms and still trade without tariffs, which is interesting. The Governor of the Bank of England was clear when he said:

“Not having an agreement with the EU means that there are tariffs automatically because the Europeans have to apply the same rules to us as they apply to everyone else”.

Will the Prime Minister confirm whether the Bank of England Governor is correct on no deal? The former Foreign Secretary also told us that under his no deal plan he could​

“solve the problem of free movement of goods in the context of the Free Trade Agreement… that we’ll negotiate in the implementation period.”

Will the Prime Minister confirm that there will be no implementation period if there is no deal?

It is deeply worrying that those who seek to lead this country have no grip on reality. The Prime Minister said that the Council reiterated its wish to avoid a “disorderly Brexit”, but I am unsure whether it will have been reassured by the statements of her potential successors.

Labour put forward a plan that could bring this country back together, but the Prime Minister refused to compromise. Whoever the next Prime Minister is, they will barely hold the support of this House, so they will certainly have no mandate to force a disastrous hard-right Brexit on this country. I want to make it clear that Labour will work across the House to block no deal. Whatever plan the new Tory leader comes up with, after three long years of failure they should have the confidence to go back to the people to let them decide the future of this country.

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2019.

I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of the statement. In fact, I received it yesterday when she made an appeal entitled, “Seeking common ground in Parliament”. Where did she make that appeal? Not in Parliament, but in a small room just down the road.

It is now clear: the bold new deal that the Prime Minister promised is little more than a repackaged version of her three times rejected deal. The rhetoric may have changed, but the deal has not. I thank the Prime Minister for her letter, but it offers no change on a customs union, no change on single market alignment, and no dynamic alignment on environmental protections. This Government are too weak, too divided, to get this country out of the mess that they have created. For more than two years, the Prime Minister bullishly refused to consult the public or Parliament.

She did not seek a compromise until after she had missed her own deadline to leave, and by the time she finally did, she had lost the authority to deliver. That became evident during the six weeks of cross-party talks that ended last week—talks that were entered into constructively on both sides to see if a compromise was possible.

But while those talks were going on, Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister made statements undermining what their colleagues in the room were offering. The Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House, the International Trade Secretary and the Treasury Chief Secretary all made it clear that they would not tolerate a deal that included a customs union, while Tory leadership contender after Tory leadership contender took it in turns to make it absolutely clear that any compromise deal would not be honoured. Therefore, no matter what the Prime Minister offers, it is clear that no compromise would survive the upcoming Tory leadership contest. The multiple leaks reported from the Cabinet yesterday show that the Prime Minister could not even get the compromise deal she wanted through her own Cabinet, and it is clear that the shrunken offer that emerged satisfied no one—not her own Back Benchers, not the Democratic Unionist party and not the Official Opposition either. No Labour MP can vote for a deal on the promise of a Prime Minister who only has days left in her job.

Even if the Prime Minister could honour her promises, the deal she is putting before us does not represent a genuine compromise. Her 10-point plan is riddled with contradiction and wishful thinking. First, the Prime Minister pretends she is delivering something new with a temporary customs union. This is not a compromise— ​it is just accepting the reality. Under the withdrawal agreement, we will already be in a temporary customs union through the transition period, which can last up to four years, and if not, we will enter the backstop, which, in effect, keeps us in a customs union, too, without any say.

Secondly, why would this House legislate for a plan that has already been comprehensively rejected by the European Union? The Government want to align with the European Union on goods to keep frictionless trade, but they also want to pursue trade deals that would undermine this process. It is simply not compatible. The technology they need to continue to pursue their Chequers plan simply does not exist. It has already been ruled out by the EU as illegal, impractical and an invitation to fraud. The Government have failed to provide any economic analysis to show that this would make us better off. Why would the House support such a chaotic and desperate approach?

Labour set out a sensible compromise plan over a year ago, including a comprehensive and permanent customs union with the EU that gives us a say, which would allow us to strike trade deals as part of the world’s biggest trading bloc, bringing investment, while maintaining the highest standards. It is credible and achievable, and the best way to protect industry, manufacturing and jobs—something that this Government are woefully indifferent to, as the latest crisis in the steel industry shows today. The Government must be prepared to step in and take a public stake to save thousands of high-skilled jobs at British Steel—a foundation industry for any major economy. Instead, the Tory obsession is for striking trade deals with the likes of Donald Trump. They prioritise chlorinated chicken, further NHS privatisation and deregulation over protecting supply chains and jobs in this country.

On workers’ rights, we have yet to see the full package the Government intend to bring forward, but many people in the trade union movement remain very sceptical. As Frances O’Grady of the Trades Union Congress said yesterday:

“This reheated Brexit deal won’t protect people’s jobs and rights.”

On environmental protections, it is clear that the Prime Minister is not offering dynamic alignment and that under her proposals the UK would fall behind in a number of areas, with only a toothless regulator under the control of the Environment Secretary in place of binding international commitments to protect our environment.

Finally, on a confirmatory vote, I am sure that nobody here will be fooled by what the Prime Minister is offering. Will she tell us now, if this offer is genuine: will she give her party a free vote on this issue or will she, as before, whip against a confirmatory referendum? If the Government truly believe this is the best deal for the economy and for jobs, they should not fear putting that to the people.

For too long, our politics has been seen through a prism of leave or remain. This is dividing our society and poisoning our democracy. It means that vital issues are being neglected—the crisis in our schools and hospitals, the housing crisis and the cruelty of social security policy and universal credit. Our country needs leadership to bring us together. However, this Prime Minister is ​not the person to do that. Throughout the last three years, she has made no attempt to unite the country. She has been focused only on keeping her divided party together—and it has not worked. Her time has now run out. She no longer has the authority to offer a compromise and cannot deliver. That is why it is time for a general election to break the Brexit deadlock and give the country a say.