Standards in Public Life

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to bring us back to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and to all women and girls who have been subjected to these atrocious crimes across the country, because evidently their voices continue to not be heard and these crimes continue to perpetuate. That is why the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls and why we have introduced measures to ensure standards of public life are enforced in this place and in the other place.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

May I tell the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, in relation to his previous answer, that the Foreign Affairs Committee repeatedly asked for Lord Mandelson to appear, but he refused to come, and that what the Committee did hear, from the permanent under-secretary, was that Lord Mandelson would be entitled to a payoff in relation to the terms of his contract? Can the Chief Secretary say how much Lord Mandelson received and whether he will be asked to repay it?

[Darren Jones]

The Foreign Office is currently reviewing the terms of the contract that led to the suggestion of severance payments when Peter Mandelson was sacked, and it is due to update the House in due course.

Lord Mandelson

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

We have heard some very powerful speeches in this debate. It is a credit to this House that we are discussing this issue and the appalling behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein in a way that is not happening in Washington. However, what we have heard in the last few days has been truly shocking. There have been the photos, the emails, and the revelations of the very close nature of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which raise questions of potential criminality, and even treason.

The House is asking how it was that somebody who was already established, who had already had to resign twice from Government in disgrace, who was the subject of questions about his performance in the European Commission, and who was known to have maintained a very close friendship with a convicted paedophile, ever came to be regarded as an appropriate appointee to the position of ambassador in Washington. That was the critical issue that the Foreign Affairs Committee was anxious to examine. We repeatedly asked that Peter Mandelson come before the Committee; he did not. We were told eventually that we had had an opportunity to speak to him briefly over breakfast when we were in Washington, and that was sufficient. It was not sufficient. We were not able to ask him any of our questions.

We did subsequently have the opportunity to ask those questions of the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has already set out some of the issues that were raised, but I think it is worth repeating that we were told that Lord Mandelson’s appointment process had three stages. On the first stage, because this was a political appointment at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, there was no interview panel, and there was not the “fireside chat” that would normally take place between an appointing Minister and a candidate. Instead, the Foreign Office was told that this was the wish of the Prime Minister, and Lord Mandelson was asked to fill in a conflict of interest form, so that there could be an understanding of private interests that “might” conflict with his position.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Prime Minister made a huge deal about the process that had been gone through when he answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. If I understand it correctly, the process was that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

That was made absolutely clear right from the start. Indeed, the permanent under-secretary described this as a political appointment, which was made on the direct instruction of the Prime Minister.

I want to go through the three stages. The first stage was the conflicts of interest form. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, this essentially consisted of Peter Mandelson being asked to fill in a form and to choose what to put on it, and there was no subsequent questioning about anything that did not appear on his form. Of course, we have not seen the form. I believe that as part of the motion, which we are likely to pass today, that form should now be made public.

Given the potential conflict of interest, I raised with the permanent under-secretary the question of Lord Mandelson’s continuing shareholding in Global Counsel. The permanent under-secretary replied:

“This was honestly the hardest bit of this bit of the process for both of us. Lord Mandelson was a founder of the company…While he was confident that he could conduct his role as ambassador without giving rise to a conflict, we wanted to make sure we managed and mitigated that possibility in some particular ways.”

The conclusion was not that Lord Mandelson should dispose of his shareholding. Instead, some Chinese walls were put in place to ensure that he was not aware of who the clients of Global Counsel were, or of the work being undertaken. I listened with concern to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said about the meeting that took place with Palantir. That raises real questions about the effectiveness of the so-called undertakings that were put in place by the Foreign Office, and we need to understand that.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I rise with incredulity, having learned that there was not a requirement to dispose of the interest. I recall going through ethics and propriety when being made a Minister, and I was told that it would be entirely inappropriate to hold things. I know of colleagues who had to dispose of their interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the noble Baroness Gray had still been running propriety and ethics, something like this would not have happened?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely share the view of my right hon. Friend. Like her, I went through a process in which I was required to get rid of shareholding interests, which were rather smaller than those held by Lord Mandelson. This is just one of a huge range of questions to which we need to know the answers.

[Alicia Kearns]

Another appointment that we have had is that of the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who some might argue is the de facto Foreign Secretary. Given that he is running around having secret meetings with Wang Yi and other Chinese senior officials, how can we have confidence that he went through the appropriate vetting, when we cannot have confidence that it was done for our ambassador to America?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Once we get the revelations from the documents as to precisely what occurred in the case of Lord Mandelson, that is bound to raise questions about what procedures were followed in the case of other appointees, particularly Jonathan Powell, who in many ways is the Foreign Secretary of this country.

We were told that the second stage of the process was the “due diligence” carried out by the Cabinet Office. The due diligence consisted of “identification of information” and judgment about it. However, all the information that was obtained in the due diligence was actually in the public domain already. No additional investigation took place; it was simply, essentially, an internet trawl. That due diligence report was presented to the Cabinet Secretary for onward transmission to the Prime Minister. However, due diligence through an internet trawl, even at that time, would already have shown up the fact that Peter Mandelson had stayed in the townhouse belonging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, so the continuing association after his conviction had already been reported in the press and was therefore bound to form part of the due diligence process.

The question that has been raised several times in this debate already is this: when the appointment was made, did the Prime Minister know? We understand that, potentially, he did, which I assume was contained in the due diligence report. That was put directly to the Cabinet Secretary:

“did you tell the Prime Minister about Mandelson staying in the Manhattan townhouse when Epstein was in jail?”

All that the Cabinet Secretary said to us was:

“I will consider whether there is further information that can be shared and write to the Committee.”

We have never had a full answer to that question.

The third part of the process was the developed vetting, which we are told is a usual process for very senior appointments. We are told that it consists of a wide range of different investigations into staff files, company records checks, spent and unspent criminal records, credit history, a check of security service records, and an interview—not just of the candidate, but of the referees supplied—by a trained investigating officer. We will need to see the outcome of that report, even if it can only be provided, as the Government have now conceded, to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

With those three processes, the Prime Minister still decided that there was no obstacle to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. We then come to the question put to him at Prime Minister’s questions following the Bloomberg report of the large number of emails. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learnt of those emails the night before Prime Minister’s questions. I pressed the permanent under-secretary on whether No. 10 had been told that the emails contained material evidence that could potentially change the whole perception of Lord Mandelson’s relationship. He said that he had a “duty of care” to Lord Mandelson and therefore needed to make checks. He essentially told us that No. 10 had not been informed. I find that very hard to believe. As somebody who used to prepare a Prime Minister for answering questions, I find the idea that the Prime Minister was not told something of that order absolutely extraordinary.

There is another question that needs to be asked. The British Government say that they discovered all the emails that proved the relationship was of very long standing and much closer than had ever been admitted by Lord Mandelson, because Bloomberg obtained copies in a leak. They were held by the US Government in the Department of Justice for months. The US Government knew all about them, but we are told it was only when Bloomberg obtained them that the British Government found out.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Does my right hon. Friend believe it is conceivable that the Government did not ask, “Is there any kompromat on the British ambassador to the US?” The idea seems incredulous. As he rightly points out, this has been known about for years.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two possible questions. First, why did the British Government never ask the US Government, who they knew had all this material from Jeffrey Epstein, whether it contained any additional information that might be relevant to the appointment of Peter Mandelson? Equally, we are told that our relationship with the US is so close that we share intelligence. Is it really the case that they did not feel it necessary to tell us? Either way, it is an appalling breakdown of communication, and I have to say that I find it very difficult to believe.

These are all questions on which we pressed the permanent under-secretary and the Cabinet Secretary, and on which we failed to obtain any answers. I have to say that my confidence in a further investigation by the Cabinet Secretary is influenced by his failure to answer any of those questions when he came before the Foreign Affairs Committee the first time.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

As I am sure my right hon. Friend remembers, once the Bloomberg leak had happened, many of us said to the Government that now that those things had turned out to be true, we should turn Lord Peter Mandelson inside out as if he had been outed as a spy; surely, had the Government done so, the things that were released over the weekend would have come out. Is he surprised, as I am, that the Government did not seem to do an investigation into Peter Mandelson subsequent to him being fired?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely share my hon. Friend’s astonishment. As further revelations come out about the behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly in relation to his links with Russia and other hostile powerhouses, one would have thought that the Government would say, “Please, if there is anything involving Peter Mandelson, we wish to know about it.” The potential damage to our national interest that may have occurred as a result of Lord Mandelson continuing to feed information to Jeffrey Epstein is huge. That is something that has not even begun to be properly exposed yet.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

In his interrogation of the permanent under-secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Secretary, was my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on another part of our motion as to whether severance payments were paid to Lord Mandelson and, if so, how much they were? If payments were made, we should be seeking to get them back for the taxpayer.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and actually he anticipates my next point. I asked the permanent under-secretary whether or not Lord Mandelson was still on the civil service payroll and was told that he was not. When I asked whether a settlement or payment had been made, I was told that he had resigned but that his contract would be honoured; when I asked whether that included a payment, I was told that was a confidential matter between Lord Mandelson and the civil service. I will read the direct quote, because the exact wording is worth quoting again. I said:

“So the Foreign Office is not going to give any information as to whether payment was made to him”.

The permanent under-secretary replied:

“Any implications of his termination will be reported in our annual report and accounts, but termination payments below a particular threshold, which I think is £300,000, do not get itemised”—

I think the quick answer is no. However, I hope that is also something the Government have indicated will now be made public.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I was just thinking about the response that my right hon. Friend got from the permanent under- secretary. Does he think that was a permanent under-secretary trying to be helpful to the Committee, or was it him obfuscating and telling elected Members of Parliament to get their noses out of his business?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I have to say to my hon. Friend that I regarded the whole session as a sort of masterpiece in Sir Humphrey-speak—an awful lot of words that conveyed very little substance.

I absolutely understand the necessity of not revealing information that may be damaging to national security. However, as one or two Members have already said, transparency is really important here, and I therefore hope that the Government will make public as much as possible. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I will certainly be pressing the Committee to look at all the information that is published and to follow up on the rather unsatisfactory session that we have already had.

I will conclude with my overall impression, having looked at this process in some depth. It was clear that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. The Foreign Office had to go through the usual procedures—we heard about the three parts of the process—but I believe that the clear message that was sent to the Foreign Office was: “Go through your motions, but make sure that it ends up with his approval being granted.” The overriding impression is that, to some extent, boxes were ticked, but the Foreign Office was told very clearly that Mandelson was to be the next ambassador, and that was a direct instruction from the Prime Minister.

China and Japan

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we did discuss the car manufacturing going on at the moment and the potential for further work in that regard, along with other issues of trade broadening between our two countries.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual-use items that Russia needs for the drones and missiles it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised that matter. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this issue. That is precisely why I raised it again in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussion, but I did raise it, for the very reasons that he sets out. Across this House, we are committed to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. This has been an issue of concern for a considerable period, which is why I raised it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are replacing a failed settlement system with one that is fair and that recognises contribution. It is right to apply more stringent controls, and we are currently consulting on the right approach. I recognise the huge contribution of those working in our NHS, and we will not change the rules for those who already have settled status.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Jimmy Lai is 78 and is a British citizen. He has already been in prison in Hong Kong for five years, simply for being a journalist. If he receives a further sentence on 12 January, he is likely to die in prison. Will the Prime Minister make it clear that his visit to Beijing can go ahead only if Jimmy Lai is released?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important case. As he knows, we continually raise it with our counterparts, and we will continue to do so. I condemn the conviction. Obviously we await the sentence, but it is absolutely clear that Jimmy Lai has been targeted by the authorities. It is wrongful, and I call it out. It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue with those counterparts.

G20 and Ukraine

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course I will. From my discussions with President Zelensky this morning, I will need to look precisely at that, but I suspect it will not be the whole of the agreement that needs to be reached, because obviously the discussions so far have been predominantly Ukraine/US. Obviously, there are European elements that are important and NATO elements that are important which need further discussion, and of course none of this has been back to the Russian side yet. I will have a look at the report and look behind the headline, and if there is anything material to report, I will of course do so. My sense is that it will probably be progress on the Geneva exercise rather than the agreement of all elements.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, if Ukraine has agreed to a proposal that has been brokered by the United States, it must be made acceptable to Russia and that we need to exert every possible pressure on Russia through increased military support, sanctions and the use of frozen assets to make Russia accept a ceasefire?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with that wholeheartedly. We will see; I suspect it is the version that emerged from Geneva yesterday that is being talked about, but of course the next step is Russia, and we need to exert every pressure, whether that is capability, the assets, or oil and gas, on which we have been bearing down for a considerable period of time.

Official Secrets Act

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I certainly agree with the hon. Member in his assessment of my being not happy. The decision was communicated this morning. The points he raised were reasonable, constructive and helpful, so let me take them away and consider them with colleagues across Government.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The threat to our national security from China is real, and I share the disappointment and concern expressed. However, the Minister will also be aware that China has used entirely bogus national security charges to imprison a British citizen, Jimmy Lai, who has now been in solitary confinement for five years and whose health is deteriorating rapidly. This morning, his son Sebastien Lai asked to see the Prime Minister to press him to do more. Will the Minister reinforce that case and take every action possible to get the Chinese to release Jimmy Lai?

[Dan Jarvis]

Jimmy Lai should be released immediately.

Trade Negotiations

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous words of congratulation. I know that the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and India has been a constant feature of his long service in the House, and a particular focus of his parliamentary work. He is right to recognise, in the context of both digital services and the services sector more widely, the huge potential mutual benefits for the United Kingdom and for India working together, and he is right to recognise the broad and deep relationship between our two countries—as I have said, 1.9 million people with Indian heritage live in the United Kingdom—but, as his question suggested, it is also right to recognise quite how dynamic the Indian economy is today. It has the highest growth rate in the G20, which is expected to remain above 6% over at least the next five years. Given that ours is a largely services-based economy, notwithstanding our excellence in advanced manufacturing, the opportunities for UK service exporters are huge and growing.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Indian trade deal, but will the Minister now switch his attention to the other side of the Atlantic, and ask Lord Mandelson to explain to the United States Administration that tariffs on films are unworkable and impossible to implement, and would do real damage to the film industry not just in the UK but in the United States?

[Mr Alexander]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing interest in matters relating to culture, media and sport and to the creative industries more generally. We are grateful for the expertise and experience that he brings to the House on these issues.

It would be one of the first occasions on which I told Lord Mandelson to do anything in many decades of our working together, but I will ensure that that is duly registered, not only in the record of this House but directly to our distinguished ambassador in Washington. It should also be placed on record that the film sector is a key part of the UK’s world-class creative industries—and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that those sectors continue to thrive and create good jobs—and that the UK has a strong and balanced trading relationship with the United States, worth £315 billion.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his challenge to me to reach out directly to Lord Mandelson in respect of what we have read in the newspapers in the last couple of days, and I give him my word that I will ensure that Lord Mandelson is fully aware of the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; it is important to hear about the important work that the James Cook hospital is doing in his constituency. We are investing £350,000 in research on interventions that support people with functional neurological disorders, in order to rehabilitate them within the community. Of course, our plan for change invested £25 billion to cut waiting lists, speed up treatment and shift more care into the community. In relation to the hospital, I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the Minister to see what further can be done.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister look at the case of my constituents Mr and Mrs Adrian Fenton, who returned home from visiting France in their motorhome to discover an illegal immigrant concealed in the bike rack? They reported the matter immediately to the police, only to receive a fine of £1,500 from Border Force. Does he agree that my constituents ought to be thanked, rather than punished, and does he accept that this action will deter anybody from acting responsibly in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising this important case on behalf of his constituents. I have seen some of the details, and I am concerned about it. I do think it is important, as he says, that the Home Office look into it, and therefore we will do so. I will ensure that he is updated in relation to that in due course.

Ukraine

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do think it is important that we work with our European allies, whether on ramping up spending or on capability, but the point my hon. Friend made about co-ordination is also important. We have to learn the lessons of the last three years. Many European allies and others have provided capability to Ukraine, but it has not been co-ordinated enough. Our collective security and defence, to my mind, requires that we co-ordinate our efforts much more closely as well.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister share my concern and sadness that any settlement appears to involve acceptance of the Russian occupation of parts of the sovereign territory of Ukraine? Will he recognise that the Baltic nations will now feel even more exposed? While I welcome his telephone conversations with their leaders at the weekend, can he give an assurance that they will be at the table for any future discussions of European security?

[The Prime Minister]

On the question of territory, obviously there are discussions to come, but I take the tenor of what the right hon. Member said. On the Baltic states, he is right. Just before Christmas, I was at the joint expeditionary force meeting in Estonia to have discussions with them. I have been twice to the frontline in Estonia, where we have British troops. They feel immediately the threat, for very obvious reasons. I spoke to the Baltic states yesterday morning at some length, and assured them that we need to look again at the configuration when we have meetings of European and other allies to ensure that those states are properly represented, because, for them, the threat is very clear and very near.

General Election

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I, too, thank the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for introducing the debate, and, through him, Mr Michael Westwood, who has given us an opportunity to debate these matters.

I am proud to speak on behalf of the constituents of Maldon, 8,057 of whom had signed the petition by the time this debate started—that figure has probably increased even further since. We are the second highest constituency, beaten only by the electors of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who I am sure would be here as well were he not serving on the Front Bench.

I share the sentiments behind the petition in full, but, as has already been pointed out, clearly under our system the ability to have another general election does not exist, unless there is a remarkable change in the view of either the Prime Minister or of Parliament. Our system is designed to deliver a “strong and stable” Government, and most of the time it does that. I remain a supporter of the system of government, even though I understand the anger felt by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). It is the case that our system was built essentially for when there were two main parties, with perhaps a third minority. We now have not just a third, but a fourth, and even a fifth minority in some areas. That has produced this extraordinary result, whereby the present Government have a majority of 100 seats in Parliament, having achieved fewer votes than the Labour party achieved under its last leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). But that is the system that we have.

The reason why this petition has attracted such support, and so quickly, is not just that people dislike what this Government are doing, but that they feel, as the petitioner sets out, that it is a direct breach of the promises made to the electorate at the time of the last general election. Even within a few weeks of the election, I was receiving angry emails from pensioners who had been misled. They had listened to claims by Labour spokesmen during the election that if they voted Conservative, a Conservative Government might abolish the winter fuel allowance. The implication of that was that a Labour Government would be safe and would protect the winter fuel allowance. Yet a few weeks later, it was announced that it would go.

That was followed a few weeks later by the farmers. The farmers in my constituency had been to the National Farmers’ Union conference and had listened to the leader of the Labour party tell them, from the platform, that a Labour Government would have no intention of getting rid of agricultural property relief. Yet that was precisely what was announced in the Budget. The consequence is that families who have farmed in my area for generations, going back to their great grandparents, now say that they will have to sell up because they will not be able to afford the inheritance tax bill.

I have also had letters from small businesses that understood that working people would not see a tax rise, but they—the people who employ those working people—now find that their entire profit has been wiped out by the increase in national insurance contributions, with the result that they will now have to either scrap pay rises this year or, in some cases, lay off staff.

In my constituency in Essex—which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) pointed out, was well represented in the petition—we were already faced with a massive amount of development taking place with no corollary in terms of infrastructure. The new housing targets that have been imposed in Maldon represent an increase of 100% on what was already required, while in Chelmsford they represent an increase of 60%—and yet there is no sign of the infrastructure investment. Those targets are being imposed on our local communities despite the Labour party saying that it would take into account the feelings of local communities. In all these areas, people listened to what they were told in the election and have found that the new Government have done precisely the reverse of what was promised.

[Mr Francois]

I am completely opposed to increasing VAT on school fees, but at least Labour did put that in its manifesto. Have my right hon. Friend’s constituents told him, as mine have told me, that one of the reasons they are so angry about the decision on winter fuel allowance is that it was not in the manifesto, they were not told that was what they were voting for and, therefore, Labour has no mandate for it at all?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I entirely sympathise with my right hon. Friend’s point. The winter fuel decision was a very direct breach of an undertaking given, but even with VAT on schools, which he correctly says was in the Labour party manifesto, it was said that the money it raised—if it does raise any money, which a number of us doubt—would be invested in employing teachers and go to schools. However, in the last few days, we have heard that there is no guarantee of that at all and the money will just go to the Treasury. The assurances given about how this will benefit state pupils have, again, proved worthless.

There will not be an election unless something extraordinary happens; under our system, only the Prime Minister or Parliament can call an election early. I suspect the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is the only other person here who can remember when a Labour Government were brought down in a confidence vote in 1979. With a majority of 170, that is unlikely to happen to this Government. Prime Ministers who have called elections earlier than five years have found that it was not always a wise decision—as was certainly the case in 2017 and, arguably, in 2024—so the truth is we are likely to have this Government in power for the next five years, but I believe it is unlikely to be longer.

We will use that time to regain trust. The new leader of the Conservative party is right that we have to work to do. We did not get everything right and, indeed, made some bad mistakes. We need to learn from that, just as the Conservative party did in 1974 and 1997, when we reflected on the reasons why we lost and worked hard to regain trust. However, in the meantime, we also have a job to do over the next five years in holding this Government to account. I echo the remarks of the Father of the House: even if this debate does not bring about a general election, I hope that Labour Members will listen to the voices expressed in terms of the 3 million signatures on the petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

I am not here to say what should happen to the free breakfast clubs in secondary schools—we can have that debate another time. I am here to respond to anybody in this Chamber who says that the Labour party is not keeping its promises; I am reading out those promises word by word.

I will talk about sewage, of which there is plenty. The manifesto says:

“Britain’s coasts, rivers, and lakes are being polluted by illegal sewage dumping… Labour will put failing water companies under special measures to clean up our water.”

We have brought in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which has had its Second Reading and will strengthen regulation. Water companies and bosses can be fined; we can ban bonuses; and there will be new environmental standards. It is all there in our manifesto and in what we have done.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I want to give the hon. Gentleman a little more time. He is very keen to quote from the Labour manifesto. Will he comment on the third paragraph of the page introducing that manifesto, which states:

“It contains a tax lock for working people—a pledge not to raise rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT.”?

[Ben Coleman]

This is where—[Interruption.] I’m sorry; does the right hon. Gentleman want me to answer the question? [Interruption.]