Sir James Cleverly
MP for Braintree · Conservative · United Kingdom
“On 26 March, I said that people will ask whether these reforms are an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism, or gross incompetence and stupidity. I think today we recognise that it is both. The right hon. Lady has only just returned to the Dispatch Box, so it cannot really be her fault, so who has screwed up?”
“Increased energy costs, increased material costs, the increased cost of employing people, particularly young people, the increased cost of bureaucracy and business taxes are all pushing up the cost of building and squeezing the viability of projects.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is blatant—blatant. These changes, like so many of the Secretary of State’s decisions, have been driven by party politics.”
“In Nottinghamshire, Conservative-run Rushcliffe council is a well-run, financially secure council, yet under his plans it will be carved up with most of its assets transferred to debt-ridden Labour Nottingham city council.”
“In Devon, he has accepted the proposals put forward by Labour-run Exeter and Plymouth. In Leicester, he has accepted the submissions by a Labour-controlled council. In Nottingham, he has accepted the proposal put forward by the Labour-run city council. I could go on and on, but time does not permit.”
“So please can he inform the House: is two-tier local government good or is two-tier local government bad? He does not seem to know. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the democratic deficit?”
The complete record
Every one of 3,156 lines we hold for Sir James Cleverly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 64.
“Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) would like to not have this debate, and for the Bill just to be rushed through. That says a lot. This legislation is important, and time should be taken on it. We are running out of time in this Session, so why does the Secretary of State not do the right thing, pause for just a short period, introduce the Bill after the King’s Speech, and give us a proper opportunity to debate it and get it right? I have been Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, and I saw how persistent and serious the threats from hostile states are to the democratic process in this country and other countries. That is important, and I recognise that the Government are seeking to take action.”
“The Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box that the Government have commissioned a review on that very subject, but they have not waited for that review to report before bringing forward the legislation. If the Rycroft review matters, why legislate before it reports? If it does not matter, why commission it in the first place? The correct action would be to await the findings of the report, and then bring forward legislation in a coherent manner at the next King’s Speech. I appreciate that the Bill’s timetabling, and the time available for this debate, were not in the Secretary of State’s hands, but we have a huge number of Members wanting to speak on this important matter and a constrained timetable, because the Prime Minister rightly gave a statement on the middle east. [ Interruption. ] The right hon.”
“I am not sure that that addresses the point I was making, but I will come to votes at 16 in a moment. This Government have chosen political advantage over consensus, and that is part of a pattern not confined to this Bill. We have seen that in the handling of local election pilots, which were advanced without proper transparency or meaningful consultation with political parties. We saw it in the attempt to cancel this year’s May elections. That was another decision taken without proper engagement. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not an administrative inconvenience to be switched off and on at the whim of Ministers. Against that backdrop, Ministers say that this Bill defends against political interference.”
“If people are not voting, perhaps political parties—all of us—should ask why we are not inspiring people enough to register, rather than taking up the point that he is making, and putting people on the register who should not be there, because they do not live in that place.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point, but it is a point of debate. Registration in the UK is not difficult, and the fact that some people have not registered is not in itself a rationale for undermining the integrity of the voter registration process and introducing errors. He asks whether it would not be better to have errors of over-registration than of under-registration. That is a point for debate. I think it is better to have accuracy of registration. In many parts of the world, people literally put their life at risk to vote. People who do choose not to vote in the UK do not do so because voting is too difficult; it is not difficult to vote in the UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken steps over time to make it easier to vote.”
“I will move on in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Government’s contention is that auto-enrolment increases turnout, then turnout should be increased universally, or they risk being perceived as putting their thumb on the scales.”
“At the last general election the vast majority of those who sought to vote were able to do so successfully and immediately, and public confidence in polling integrity has increased, so why should we weaken the system by allowing bank cards without photographs to be used as ID? A name printed on a card is not an identity check, and I am not hearing that the Secretary of State is advocating the checking of PINs at the polling station. The risks are obvious, and, indeed, the Electoral Commission itself has raised concerns about the security and practicality of expanding the lists of acceptable IDs.”
“It is easy to vote. Everyone has the right to vote. The right hon. Lady says that voting should be as easy as breathing; she is advocating for the removal of all electoral limitations and restrictions, whether that is the need to show ID, to provide proof of address, or to register. [ Interruption. ] There you go; the mask has slipped. If we take democracy seriously, we should want everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote, but nobody who does not have the right to vote to be able to vote. Otherwise, the democratic process is meaningless. Safeguards must be robust, verification must be clear, and pilots should be transparent. Integrity is strengthened by accuracy, not automation for its own sake. As for voter ID, let us look at the facts.”
“The centrepiece of the Bill—its big sales point—is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16. Both domestically and internationally, through the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child respectively, we define 16 and 17-year-olds as children, so allowing votes at 16 can only logically be explained in one of two ways.”
“The vote belongs to the individual—not to that person’s husband, not to that person’s brother, and not to a community leader—and no cultural practice overrides the secrecy of the ballot box in this country. The Secretary of State mentioned artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He was right to say that we are entering a new era, and we support the idea of digital imprints. The rules exist, but the technology is moving fast. We would support and are happy to engage with sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement, but that work should be done carefully and in consultation. Again, this is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from cross-party engagement.”
“I need to make some progress, otherwise I will be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker. Integrity is not just about integrity at the door of the polling station. At the time of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported widespread breaches of ballot secrecy. Parliament strengthened the protections for ballot secrecy through the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—and this is not “family voting”; it is breaking the law. If polling station staff do not intervene when a voter is directed by another inside the polling booth, if secrecy signs are missing, if offences are ignored, the problem is not an absence of legislation, but a failure to enforce the legislation.”
“Well, let me at least make the point! I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching. Calm; calm; calm. Either the Government are intending to give votes to children, or the Government want to redefine 16 and 17-year-olds as “not children”. Now I will give way.”
“The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. We do have a legal definition of childhood, and there is an international definition of childhood. The Children Act defines 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK as children. The UN convention on the rights of the child defines 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So I ask again, do the Government plan to define this as giving votes to children, or are they now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?”
“Sixteen and 17-year-olds can only join the armed forces with parental consent, and they cannot be deployed. Sixteen and 17-year-olds in the armed forces are children, which is why they are still in the education system, even when they join the armed forces. They are non-deployable, and they can only join with parental consent. Let me say yet again—third time lucky—that the Children Act and the UN convention on the rights of the child define 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So, for the third time of asking, are the Government saying that they are giving votes to children, or are they saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?”
“It seems that no Labour Members are willing to address the point that I have raised. This is a really simple binary choice. As I have said, both domestically and internationally, 16 and 17-year-olds are defined as children. I have asked this question multiple times, but Labour Members will not address it.”
“I value the contribution of people in this country whether they are or are not able to vote, but again, that does not address the point. I am going to move on now, because it is clear that Labour Members either will not or cannot address it. They do not seem to know whether they are giving votes to children or stripping childhood from 16 and 17-year-olds.”
“As the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect him enormously, but there are a number of other points that I want to make. If he thinks he can answer the question that I have posed, let him do so. OK, here we go.”
“If the Government do not feel that 16 and 17-year-olds should have those full rights and responsibilities, this change appears to be selective at best and cynical at worst. Such a fundamental alteration to the franchise for UK elections should rest on broad consensus and careful reasoning.”
“As a society, we do not confer legal adulthood on children, and the law reflects that. Sixteen and 17-year-olds cannot buy alcohol. They cannot buy cigarettes and vapes. They cannot stand for election to this House or, indeed, to other statutory representative bodies. They cannot legally place bets. They cannot marry in England and Wales. They cannot join the armed forces without parental consent. They cannot go to war. They cannot consume pornography, and rightly so. If the Secretary of State and his Government now believe that 16-year-olds should in fact be of civic and legal adulthood, they should simply say so and put in place the legislative changes to bring consistency to the statute book. Good luck to him if he wants to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the rights laid out in the list that I have just given.”
“I take it from his intervention that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children. Is that his point? I have tried to squeeze the logical underpinning of this proposal out of the Government, but I have not been able to do so, because I do not think they know what it is. If the Government are going to make the case for giving the vote to children, why 16-year-old children? Why not 15-year-old children? The Secretary of State chuckles, but why not 15-year-old children? The argument is that 16-year-olds have a longer stake in society, but if that is true of 16-year-olds it is, by definition, more true of 15-year-olds—and why not 14-year-olds, or 13-year-olds? Will he take up the proposal of Professor David Runciman of Cambridge University and give votes to six-year-olds?”
“I say to the Secretary of State that we will work with the Government to improve this Bill, but we reserve the right to vote it down during its later stages if the Government do not act in good faith and in support of the broader principles of democracy.”
“My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am a believer in democracy, and being punished at the ballot box is a fundamental foundation stone of democracy. None of us should change the mandate for narrow party political advantage. I strongly suspect that the point he makes is right, but that is not the point that I am making. This move will be perceived to be partisan and counterproductive. This Bill could and should be so much better. If the Government were serious about this issue, they would work cross-party to get it right, because democracy does not belong to Ministers; it belongs to the people, and the rules that govern it must be worthy of their trust. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment, and I invite the House to support it.”
“An estimated 48,000 new entrants to the construction sector are needed every year to meet the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes. Apprenticeship starts come to about half that figure, and apprenticeship completions come to less than a quarter. Does the Secretary of State now accept that his target will not be met, that there is a growing crisis in construction skills under Labour, and that the Government have no credible plan to deliver the workforce needed to build those homes?”
“As my hon. Friends have highlighted, under a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, house building in London has collapsed to less than 60% of the target. In October, the Secretary of State said: “My job should be on the line if I fail to meet my target”. As the 1.5 million homes will not be built, will he keep his promise and resign, or will he wait to be fired by whoever replaces the Prime Minister after the May elections?”
“Specifically, how many councils that originally said that they had the capacity to bid to take part in these pilots later told his Department that they lacked the capacity to hold local elections? How many of the councils with restored elections are now expected to proceed with the pilots? Ultimately, where does this leave the Government’s flagship reorganisation process? Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not a convenience to be switched on and off at the whim of the Secretary of State, which is why the Conservatives opposed these cancellations. The Secretary of State’s judgment has once again been shown to be fundamentally flawed. If he cannot or refuses to answer these questions, and to be open and honest about his behaviour, he should resign.”
“Does the Secretary of State now accept that there are strict limits on the power to delegate or delay elections outside exceptional circumstances, such as war or public emergency? If so, will he ask his colleagues to accept the amendment tabled by Conservatives in the other place to limit the Secretary of State’s power to cancel elections using secondary legislation, given that Labour MPs voted down the same safeguards on Report in the Commons? The Secretary of State must tell the House what this shambolic episode has cost the taxpayer in legal fees, wasted preparation and the emergency expenditure now required to organise these elections at short notice. There is also a question about election pilots. What is their current status and why have the Government still not published the prospectus or provided it for parliamentary scrutiny?”
“I have been in contact with council leaders who describe being placed under intense pressure, repeatedly asked to restate capacity concerns, warned through multiple channels not to criticise the Secretary of State’s decision, and being left with the clear impression that future devolution, future reorganisation and future funding decisions depended on their compliance—a shocking state of affairs under his leadership. I believe that he acted inappropriately. If the Secretary of State is so confident that decisions were taken without political self-interest and without undue pressure being exerted behind the scenes, he should place all correspondence between his Department and local authorities in the public domain. If he does so, I will be more than happy to withdraw my accusation of inappropriate behaviour.”
“Was the Secretary of State so compromised by his own actions that he could not lawfully retake the decision himself? Will the Secretary of State now place in the House of Commons Library the full correspondence that he would have disclosed had this gone to court? And if not, why not? What new factors were considered that led to a completely different conclusion ultimately being drawn? There are also questions of motive. Is it really a coincidence that the elections first marked for cancellation were overwhelmingly in Labour-run areas?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Secretary of State has caused chaos, confusion and a significant cost to the taxpayer by cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later and then seek to avoid responsibility for the fallout. This is not an isolated incident: it is yet another Government U-turn. The unavoidable conclusion is that this Labour Government are running scared of voters. The original decision to cancel elections was taken by the Secretary of State. He repeatedly defended that position at the Dispatch Box. He said in The Times that these elections were “pointless”, yet when his decision fell apart, he recused himself from the process and left a junior Minister to pick up the pieces. My first question is simple: why was the retaking of this decision delegated?”
“Is he as unsurprised as I am that the vast bulk of councils asking for their elections to be scrapped are Labour-run councils? I give the Secretary of State notice that Conservative Members will vote against these proposals. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy, and when his Department puts intolerable pressure on councils, shifting the goalposts or pulling the rug from under them—whichever metaphor one chooses to use—he should have the courage to come to this House and say that it is his decision to cancel elections, rather than passing the buck to local government leaders.”
“He is putting councils in an impossible position, squeezing them financially, imposing the costs and disruption of large-scale reorganisation on them, making promises about structures, timescales and funding, and then reneging on those promises. Then, to add insult to injury, he is trying to dump the consequences of his arrogance and incompetence on to the laps of the local councils. It has always been the Conservative position that these elections should go ahead. The Secretary of State tried to claim in his statement that there were precedents, as his Minister did on Monday, but the scale and scope of these cancellations is totally unprecedented. I ask him directly: what was it about the Labour party’s collapse in the opinion polls that first attracted him to the cancellation of local elections?”
“In his statement, the Secretary of State plays heavily on what he claims is a wasteful system. He has said publicly that he thinks these elections are “pointless”, so it is clear what he thinks and it is clear what he wants. He wants to cancel all these elections, so why does he not simply say so? Why does he not have the courage of his own convictions? Why did he write to councils asking them to ask him to cancel the elections? Why, when they did not give him the answer that he wanted, did he write to them again asking basically the same question? Why was his Department putting pressure on councils to ask for cancellations as late as last night? I know why. He knows why. We all know why. It is because he wants to shift the blame. He wants to say, “I didn’t make them do it.” He wants a political gotcha.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. “This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils.” —[ Official Report , 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 57.] That is what I said on Monday, when I dragged the Secretary of State’s Minister—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—to the Dispatch Box. I say it again today, directly to him.”
“While those matters fall outside the scope of the legislation before us, I hope that Ministers have listened to those concerns and will ensure that they are communicated more widely to those involved in the construction of the education centre. If this House is to create a lasting national Holocaust memorial, it must be clear in its purpose and faithful to its promise.”
“This memorial is intended to last for generations, and it must have a clear mission that future trustees and future Governments cannot dilute or reinterpret. In the light of those assurances, we will not press this matter to a Division. That reflects the progress that has been made through constructive discussions in both this House and the other place. Let me make one final point clear. Those assurances must be carried through, and the good faith of those who have entered into the conversations needs to be rewarded. I recognise that concerns about the design have been raised throughout the passage of the Bill both directly with me and with the Government.”
“Those debates reflect the importance of this project and the desire to ensure that it is done properly. However, the issue before us today is the purpose of the learning centre. Conservative and Cross-Bench peers have been clear in expressing their concern. They have sought assurance that the learning centre will exist for one purpose only: to provide education about the Holocaust and about antisemitism. I welcome the assurances that the Government have now provided, in particular the commitment that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and on antisemitism, and that there must be no question of its drifting from that mission or that purpose in future years. I also welcome the commitment that the governing documents of the future operations body will make that purpose clear. Those assurances matter.”
“This Bill has taken much longer to progress than any of us would have wished. I am therefore pleased that the Government have chosen to take it forward. The primary purpose of the Bill is clear and narrow in scope. It is about the Holocaust, ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are learned and that history is preserved for future generations. On that point, there is strong and genuine cross-party agreement in both Houses. I thank the Minister for meeting me and listening carefully to the concerns raised by the Conservatives. Those discussions have been constructive, and I welcome the seriousness with which they have been approached. There has been contention during the passage of this Bill. Strong views have been expressed about the location, the security and the design of the memorial.”
“The Bill returns to the House at an important time of year. Next week, we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, when communities across the country will pause to remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered during the Holocaust. As a former Home Secretary, I have seen at first hand the strength and dignity with which Jewish communities have preserved the memory of the Holocaust. When I was Foreign Secretary, I saw that also in Israel and in other countries. The people who preserve that memory do so not only to honour those who were murdered, but to educate future generations. That act of remembrance is a service to the whole country, and it shows that education is essential if the memory of the Holocaust is to endure, and if we are to confront antisemitism wherever and whenever it appears.”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the cancellation of scheduled local government elections in May 2026.”
“It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to write to councils basically to ask them the same question, but they have already given an answer. When does the Secretary of State intend to lay the statutory instruments for these areas, and does he think it is appropriate to use secondary legislation under the Local Government Act 2000? Did Parliament really allow Ministers to run scared and cancel elections at will? I have always said that these elections should go ahead, but the Secretary of State was the one who called these elections “pointless”, so why does he not have the courage of his own convictions, take responsibility for his own ineptitude and stop laying the blame on local councils?”
“The Electoral Commission has been clear that the scheduled elections should go ahead as planned and that capacity constraints are not a legitimate reason for delay. Why was the Electoral Commission not consulted on these cancellations? Why is this being done at the last possible moment? Do the Government accept the Gould principle that at least six months’ notice should be given for any changes to election administration? Ministers say that they are following the wishes of local councils, and the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the Secretary of State has written to, among others, Essex county council. The leader of Essex county council has been clear that these elections should go ahead, yet the Secretary of State still cites Essex, among others, to justify the cancellations.”
“This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils. The Government’s own local election strategy said: “The right to participate in our democracy…should not be taken for granted.” Cancelling elections was not part of that strategy.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred earlier, and did so again in her final comments, to the cancellation or delay of the 2020 local government elections as being justified by the reorganisation of local government. That is a factual error; they were, quite unambiguously, delayed because we were in the middle of a global pandemic. How is it best to correct the record with regard to the reason those elections were delayed?”
“I am sure we all agree that we cannot have sustainable communities if we do not have sustainable high streets. Would the Secretary of State agree that a fourfold increase in business rates over this Parliament does not make high-street businesses sustainable?”
“So many words, yet no answer. I asked the Secretary of State specifically about a fourfold increase, like the one that the White Lion on Streatham High Road in his constituency faces. We are talking about a 400% increase, even after transitional relief, from £3,000 a year to £12,000 a year. Will he urge the Chancellor to scrap business rates for businesses like the White Lion on Streatham High Road, and other hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street?”
“The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and even the Secretary of State himself have said that they will not touch council tax bands in this Parliament. Does he not recognise that a new tax, or levy, revaluation or surcharge, would be a de facto breach of that commitment, and will he therefore rule it out?”
“All the Secretary of State had to do was repeat his earlier commitments. He chose not to do so. Labour’s unfair funding review shows that the party is consciously starving well-run councils of money, penalising councils that have kept council tax low and subsidising his political friends in high-spending, wasteful, Labour-run councils. How on earth can the Secretary of State justify this blatant party political decision?”
“People are not able to choose between alternative providers; the professionalism that is forced on commercial organisations through the pressure of competition is not working here, which is why we are seeing costs that are hidden, obscured and, in some instances, completely created out of thin air. That is not how a market is meant to work. There has to be Government intervention in this. As a free-marketeer Conservative, that is not my default setting, but in this instance it is clearly what we have to do. I will conclude by saying that when the Government take action to deliver on this matter, they can rest assured that the Opposition will give them practical support and will be chivvying them along at every opportunity.”
“Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) made it clear that implementation is key. People do not want grandstanding on this issue; they want actual shoulder-to-the-wheel delivery. I have no doubt that I speak for all Members of my party when I say that in the boring, behind-the-scenes, get-stuff-done bit of this House’s business, the Government will enjoy our support in using the legislation that we started off to bring about a better living environment for the people whom we serve. I will not detain the House much longer, because the message we need to send to the people we serve is that we recognise this challenge and we recognise that the market forces that provide consumer choice are not working properly in this situation.”
“Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) made a great point about a by-product of what my side of the House regard as an incredibly positive move by the Thatcher Government in the ’80s—I know that not everyone will agree that it was positive, for completely legitimate reasons. One of the practical implications of that move is a mixture of ownership types within a block of properties, and that has to be resolved. That resolution is not a political issue, but a practical one. Finding opportunities to work across the House to deliver those practical responses is absolutely key. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) recognised in his speech that there is cross-party unity and focus on this matter, and my hon.”