John Whittingdale MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister may be aware that at the end of this week the UK takes on the chair of the global Media Freedom Coalition—a partnership of 51 countries pledged to protect journalists and the freedom of the press. How could the UK have any credibility in that role, given the revelations of the behaviour of a member of this Government, which are more akin to that of the worst authoritarian states?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

  In December, I asked the Prime Minister to make it clear that his visit to Beijing could go ahead only if Jimmy Lai was released. He responded: “It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue”. —[ Official Report , 17 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 910.] That clearly achieved nothing. Will the Minister also bear in mind the fact that, alongside Jimmy Lai, six other senior members of Apple Daily received lengthy prison sentences in what Reporters Sans Frontières has described as “the complete collapse of press freedom in Hong Kong”? What action will the Government take during the two-week period in which an appeal has to be lodged to ensure the release of not just Jimmy Lai but all of them?

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The league table of NHS trusts shows that the percentage of patients starting treatment for cancer within 62 days in Mid and South Essex is 21%, which puts it bottom of 121 trusts. Can the Minister say what additional help will be given to the Mid and South Essex NHS trust to recruit the additional staff it needs, and to help it to meet the targets that she has just set out?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were told by the Iranian ambassador that 80% of the deaths were the responsibility of ISIS-style terrorists. Will the Minister continue to give every support to journalists, human rights activists, and all those who are seeking to uncover the evidence to demonstrate who in the Iranian regime is truly responsible for this and potentially to refer them to the International Criminal Court for prosecution?

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who has been tireless in raising the issue of our support for Ukraine. I was delighted to hear from him that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has received the Order of Merit; it is richly deserved. I was proud to receive it when I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, and I know that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley was equally proud. It is a great honour. The hon. Member began his remarks by saying, rightly, that this is day 1,435 of the full-scale war, but he also rightly pointed out that Russia’s attack on Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea 12 years earlier. It was arguably even before that, when Russia made it clear that it believed Crimea was Russian territory and its Parliament voted that Sevastopol was a Russian city. The annexation took place in a flagrant breach of the Budapest memorandum, of which we were a signatory along with Russia and the United States. It was a breach of international law. As I have said before, I think the rather feeble response from the west to the annexation contributed to Russia’s belief that it could go further in attacking Donbas. After the annexation of Crimea, we had the little green men and the separatist movement in Donbas, but we knew—the evidence was overwhelming—that they were not separatists. They were armed, funded and directed by Russia. Indeed, after the horrific shooting down of MH17 on to the territory by separatists, we had intercepts to show they were clearly operating under the command of Russians. During that time I visited several parts of Ukraine, including those now under occupation. I went to Mariupol, a city on the Black sea. Even then, it was being squeezed by the Russians as a result of the blockade of the Kerch strait to prevent ships from reaching Berdyansk and Mariupol. Since then, Mariupol has been almost completely destroyed, with 75,000 civilians killed in the battle with the Russians. This was an area that Russia claimed wanted to be liberated. It argued that the people were Russian speakers who felt Russian, that their allegiance was to Russia and that they were somehow going to be freed from Nazi oppression in Kyiv. It is the Russian propaganda playbook. It had absolutely no basis in truth, and the fact that so many Russian-speaking citizens in Donbas have been killed in the war proves the cynicism of the Russians. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about the conditions in Donbas. I just had a quick check. This weekend in Donetsk, the temperature will be between minus 11 and minus 18. People can expect to receive water every four days. They are predominantly elderly people, the young people having largely fled, and the conditions there are utterly appalling. What is happening in the occupied territories is horrific, and the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is absolutely right to raise it. As well as the ongoing fighting, we know that atrocities are being committed, as mentioned by the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). We had a meeting yesterday with Dr Jade McGlynn of the war unit in King’s College London, who has done a lot of research about Ukrainians’ plight. We heard that an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Ukrainians have been detained or have disappeared. We were told that 92% of those who have been released have reported being tortured, ill-treated and systematically abused, with sexual violence used as a deliberate method of humiliation, initially triggering men but then also women. I want to put two questions to the Minister, one of which relates to those atrocities. On the statute book, we have sanctions available for deliberate abuse of human rights. There is a list of individuals who have been identified as perpetrators of these abuses. Will the Minister look at extending sanctions to the people carrying out these appalling crimes? My other question relates to a specific location in the Donbas area: Zaporizhzhia, which has one of the biggest nuclear power plants in Europe. It closed down in September 2022, but there are reports that the Russians intend to reactivate its first reactor. The head of the Ukrainian nuclear energy service has said that that risks “nuclear catastrophe”, that the Russians do not know about the safety systems, they do not have the details of the plant, and that to do so is reckless and potentially incredibly dangerous. We are told that it forms part of the discussions taking place between America and Russia but, given Chernobyl—also a Ukrainian nuclear power plant, and we know what happened there—I should be grateful if the Minister would say anything about that specific issue, or at least raise it.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. He will remember Operation Orbital, during which the UK provided training and supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces in anticipation of the attack that then followed.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, have been to the Museum of Occupations in Vilnius. It is a remarkable fact that it is in the building that was occupied by the Gestapo, which was then simply taken over by the KGB, who continued to murder people in the basement. That tells us something about the similarity between the atrocities carried out by the Nazis and those carried out under communism.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited the Ship Inn in Burnham-on-Crouch, which has a few hotel rooms, as well as Peaberries, a tea shop on the high street. Both are looking at existential threats as a result of business rates. Can the Minister say whether the package that he will announce later will benefit them as well?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  9. What fiscal steps she is taking to support the hospitality sector.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that elections in Essex are going ahead; indeed, they should have taken place a year ago. However, he will be aware that elections have also been proposed for new unitary authorities next year, although we in Essex do not even know what the unitary authorities will be. Will he say whether it is still his intention that we should have elections for the new authorities next year?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to repeat the excellent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but I have listened carefully to the Minister and I have to say that essentially, this measure is a sticking-plaster over a gaping wound. It is of course the case that specific relief was provided during covid and that was going to come to an end, but it did not have to be removed in its entirety overnight. It is that decision, which is a choice being made by the Government, that has inflicted these enormous rates bill increases on many businesses right across the country, particularly on the high street. I have been contacted by many of the pubs in my constituency and they have raised concerns about not just the impact of these existing measures, but the Government’s promise that there is some relief coming over the horizon, because it is extremely unclear what that will be. As one example, the pub I visited last weekend had rooms upstairs, so does it qualify as a hotel or a pub, and to what extent is the relief package going to benefit it? Those influences are having a real impact and affecting businesses’ decision about whether they can continue to trade. It is simply not good enough for the Government to say, “Well, in due course we’ll get round to telling them.” It is not just pubs; I hear the Minister talking about relief coming for pubs, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner said, many other kinds of businesses are equally impacted. I am a patron of the Music Venue Trust, which represents grassroots music venues across the country. As I raised with the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber earlier this week, some of them have not paid rates before and are suddenly facing bills, and others are seeing enormous increases. As the MVT said in its statement on the measures, these are not bills but “closure notices”—these venues will simply not survive. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Crawley that the measure that we are debating will provide some small relief but it is simply not enough. It is not going to address the real issues that are affecting businesses. I hope the Minister will press her colleagues to introduce those measures and tell us a little more because at the moment there is total uncertainty for businesses and their future.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  As well as pubs, hotels and restaurants, is the Minister aware that many grassroots music venues, some of which have never been liable for rates, now face demands for thousands of pounds? The Music Venue Trust has said that these are not bills but “closure notices”. Will he ensure that grassroots music venues are included in any relief he provides, and are recognised as critical creative infrastructure?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  A year ago, Ministers told council leaders in Essex that it was necessary to postpone elections in order to facilitate reorganisation to “the most ambitious timetable”. A year later, there has been absolutely no progress and we do not even know how many authorities are proposed. Was it not wrong to cancel elections last year and wrong to cancel them again this year?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  One of the reasons for the massive public opposition to mandatory ID is that it is seen to be an infringement of civil liberties and individual freedom. Will the Minister give an assurance that the digital ID database will not be made available to the police for the use of live facial recognition?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I have spoken about Ukraine and, indeed, initiated debates on Ukraine a number of times over the past 12 years. Of course, 12 years ago was when the war that Russia is waging on Ukraine started, with the annexation of Crimea. Over those 12 years, I have visited Avdiivka, Mariupol and Berdyansk, all of which are now under Russian occupation. I am proud that as a result of our pressing the Government over that time, the UK started supporting Ukraine through Operation Orbital. That was before the full-scale Russian invasion, but since then, we have been in the vanguard. That is because we have a duty as an original signatory to the Budapest memorandum, and because we believe that independent sovereign states should not lose territory as a result of military aggression, but also because Ukraine is our frontline. Putin’s threat extends not just to the territory of Ukraine, but to all those countries that used to be part of either the Soviet Union or the Warsaw pact, particularly the Baltic states. I am proud of the extraordinary resilience and courage shown by the Ukrainian people. People have talked in this debate about the fact that it will be minus 16ºC tonight, when 70% of Kyiv has no electricity—and that is also the case for large parts of Odessa, Kharkiv and a number of other cities. The losses during this war on both sides have been truly horrendous; there have been well over a million Russian casualties. Although the number for the Ukrainian side has not been released, it is almost certainly well over 100,000. We can understand why the Ukrainians want to see an end to this war, but they want a just and lasting peace. The original plan advanced by Steve Witkoff and President Trump—the so-called 28-point plan—was utterly unacceptable. It required Ukraine to accept the loss of its territory, and to commit to never having NATO troops on its soil. The plan that is apparently now coming forward is, we are told by President Zelensky, 90% agreed, but he has described the requirements on territory as being “very difficult”. While it must be for Ukraine to decide on the terms of any peace, the idea that Russia will be allowed to keep any of the sovereign territory of Ukraine is difficult to stomach. As we have debated, the peace plan may involve the deployment of troops as a security guarantee, and I share the concerns that a number of Members have expressed about how that will operate. While it is important that we talk about how a settlement might be enforced, there is a strong chance that we will not get one. Sergey Lavrov has said in the past 24 hours that the prospect of a ceasefire is simply not serious. Since talk of this peace plan was advanced, Russia has stepped up its attacks. The number of drones and missiles landing across the whole of Ukraine has gone on increasing. The settlement plan may involve stationing NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, as we have been debating, but Putin has made it absolutely clear that that is a complete red line, and something that he will not accept. We need to prepare ourselves for the real risk that this war will go on for a long time, so I say to the Minister: where is plan B? Plan B has to involve much tougher action against Russia. It needs to involve seizing Russian assets and stopping trade with Russia. It means arming Ukraine to an extent that has not been possible. I welcome the recent announcements, including on Project Nightfall in the past week or so, through which we will supply Ukraine with long-range missiles. On assets, the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning heard from the chief executive of the Chelsea humanitarian fund, and representatives of the legal firm advising it, about the difficulties in achieving what we all want, which is the use of the money from Chelsea football club to support Ukraine. Will the Minister please meet them? There are some serious legal obstacles. They said that they have a solution, but they are anxious for an opportunity to discuss it further with the Minister. I would love to think that this war will come to an end soon—my friends in Ukraine pray for that every night—but let us be prepared for the fact that it may go on for much longer, and that we will need to do a lot more to put pressure on Russia to stop.