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 4 of 64.
“We are asking legitimate questions of the Government, because the markets and the country are worried about what is happening and we want to allay their fears.”
“The simple fact of the matter is that a key indicator of confidence in a Government is the cost of borrowing, and, currently, that is at a multi-decade high. As we have said, it has not been higher this century; it is trending in the wrong direction. The Bank of England, when setting interest rates, made it clear that it is concerned about the trajectory—specifically the trajectory on property taxes. Those on the Treasury Bench say that they do not want to speculate on what might be in the Budget later this year. They did not want this House to investigate what they claim to be speculation. They probably should not have spent so much time briefing the media over the summer. They cannot have it both ways.”
“No, I will not give way. The hon. Member had his chance. This is the point: the Government love putting up taxes. We in the Conservative party put up taxes when we had to; this Government put up taxes at every chance they get. And the reason they put up taxes whenever they get the chance to do so is that they think taxes are not a necessary evil, but a good in and of itself. That is at the heart of the problem. The fact that gilt markets, bond markets, businesses and individuals know in their heart of hearts that taxes will go up under this Government has produced the stagnation and the stifling that Labour Members are criticising. I was about to say that we have had a number of good contributions from both sides of the House, but that is being generous.”
“That is why speculation among those on the Government Benches is so damaging and so dangerous. They are causing economic problems because of their kite flying. We have given them an opportunity to put one of those pieces of speculation to bed and they have failed to do so. In that failure, the mask has slipped—they want to put up taxes. They love putting up taxes and they are going to put up taxes.”
“No, I will not give way. Let me just say this: if we are to address the slowing of the housing market, we should make sure— [Interruption.] I say “we”, but Labour is in government now and it should therefore make sure that it does nothing to stagnate the market further. Speculation is rife that there will be a £14,000 tax bill on average for UK households, a £23,000 tax bill for those in the south-east, and potentially an average tax bill of £33,000 for property transactions. That is the Government’s fault. They have the opportunity to put that speculation to bed and they choose not to do so. Despite the fact that they are now in government, they do not seem to have learned the lesson that when they speak—whether it be on or off the record—markets move.”
“Labour Members are quiet now, aren’t they? The truth hurts.”
“Elections are the foundation of democracy, and denying them undermines public trust and confidence. In truth, denying residents their democratic voice was done for a very specific reason. It was done because Labour feared what people would say to it at the ballot box.”
“The Conservative party believes in devolution, not just in theory but in practice: we created many of the existing mayoral roles; we created police and crime commissioners; we empowered parish councils and neighbourhood planning; and we gave families the power to block excessive council tax rises. We devolved by consent—by agreement with local leaders—and not by Whitehall diktat. The simple truth of the matter is that Labour does not and has never believed in devolution, and it does not deliver meaningful devolution. It is a centralising party and it centralises. This Government are abolishing councils without consent and forcing them to sign up to their model of restructuring. They forced the postponement of elections in nine county councils. That was unprecedented.”
“This Bill disrupts and distracts councils from building the homes that local people need. Those are our objections. That is what we have set out in our reasoned amendment. If the Government want to win the confidence of this House rather than just shoehorning their Back Benchers through the Division Lobby, they need to justify the demands embedded in the Bill. During the debate and when summing up, I sincerely hope that they answer our questions. Why centralise control? Why raise taxes? Why deny residents their voice? Those are the questions that those on the Treasury Bench need to answer before this Bill can make credible progress through the House. The case has been set out, but before Members on the Labour Benches get too excited, let me put to bed a few spectres that have been raised.”
“The Bill is not about devolution; it is clearly a blatant power grab by the Deputy Prime Minister—a right hon. Lady for whom I have a huge amount of respect—and her Department. It is not about community empowerment at all; it is about stripping power from local authorities and concentrating it in Whitehall and the hands of the people in Whitehall. Big Brother would be proud. Centralisation is devolution. Whitehall diktat is community empowerment. The fact that the Bill does the opposite of what it claims is, as we set out in our reasoned amendment, why we cannot give it a free pass. This Bill sidelines communities. This Bill forces restructuring without consent. This Bill wastes money while families are facing higher bills because of Labour’s mismanagement.”
“I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, because the Bill does nothing to empower local communities, but instead contains measures reducing the democratically elected representation of communities and enables the Government to impose local government restructuring on communities, irrespective of local opinion, disregarding local geography and identity; because bureaucratic restructuring of local government will cost money and reduce focus on housing delivery with no evidence that it will deliver better services; because the Bill will lead to greater costs for residents by creating new mayoral precepts, increasing borrowing powers, and raising parking charges on motorists, and adding more local bureaucrats as mayoral-appointed commissioners; and because the Bill will result in higher council tax bills for hardworking families, at a time when local government is facing increased costs pressures due to unfunded rises in employers’ National Insurance contributions.” The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it is a title straight out of the Ministry of Truth.”
“I think the hon. Member said the quiet bit out loud: this is about putting up taxes on local people. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about; we know that to be true. I promise the House that I did not tee up that intervention—it was the next bit in my speech. Labour, by imposing this restructuring from the centre, is leaving local people without a voice. This legislation is about creating what this Government want, which is a cohort of subservient Labour mayors. Let us look at what Labour mayors actually deliver—as I say, this speech was written before the previous intervention. Labour mayors put up taxes. Labour mayors increase the tax burden on local people. The Liverpool city region—up by 26%; Greater Manchester—up by 8%; West Yorkshire—up by 6%; and London, since Sadiq Khan took office in 2016—up by over 70%.”
“The Conservatives are in no doubt that, once again, it will be hard-working families and local people who will pay the price for Labour’s ineptitude. It is not only families that will be hit. This Bill forces councils to merge, and prudent councils—those that have been careful with their money—will be forced to inherit the debt of others. How on earth is penalising good financial management at local government level fair? What protections will be in place to protect people from higher bills? Looking through the Bill, there are none that I can see.”
“I will mention Paul Bristow later in my speech. The difference is that under Conservative mayors, we keep costs down. Ben Houchen, for example, is delivering a zero precept. If more places get mayors under this Labour proposal, how much more will local people pay? Will Ministers—whether that be the Secretary of State or whoever responds to the debate—guarantee that costs will not go up under this model and that council tax will not rise under this model, or is this another set of taxes on hard-working families by stealth? The truth is that the record of Labour mayors is that they increase taxes by well above the rate of inflation. Also, will the pressure on parish council precepts also hit hard-working local people in the pocket?”
“Boris Johnson, while Mayor of London, delivered the 2012 games and secured Crossrail. In the west midlands, Andy Street was a genuine champion for his region and a household name. Who has he been replaced by? A person who is not even a household name in his own household. That says it all. We Conservatives deliver. We delivered devolved government that delivers infrastructure, jobs and economic growth. What has Labour delivered? Higher costs and broken promises— [ Interruption. ] More tax, less delivery. That is the Labour way.”
“I think we should at least be impressed by that. I put this to Labour Members: if this is about community empowerment, why does it reduce local representation? If it is about fiscal responsibility, why will it burden ratepayers—council tax payers—with debts that their local authorities did not create? If it is about more homes, why does it hamper and suffocate councils with increased bureaucracy? Devolution can work, and indeed does work, when it is done properly. We know that it works because Conservative mayors have delivered. Ben Houchen saved Teesside airport, delivered the UK’s largest freeport with 18,000 quality jobs and secured Treasury North in Darlington with 1,400 high-skilled roles, all with a zero mayoral precept. Paul Bristow in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is ending Labour’s ideological attack on drivers.”
“If she is confident that this is such a good idea, why was there no scrutiny? Why was there no consultation on these proposals? Do Ministers really think that that is best practice when it comes to creating a stable investment environment and confidence for people spending money in the high street commercial properties that keep our communities alive? The silence on those questions about the Bill is frankly deafening, because the Government have no answer. This Bill is not about empowering local communities, and it is definitely not about empowering local councils. It is about creating a cohort of puppet mayors controlled by the right hon. Lady’s Department. I respect her enormously, but her ability to strip power not just from local councils but from the Prime Minister is something well worth watching.”
“Let me give an example: what if communities oppose punitive anti-driver proposals from a mayor in their local neighbourhoods? How can they make their voices heard? Who will win? Will it be the mayor who has been imposed upon them, or will it be the local communities? What will the accountability model be for those mayors? We can see nothing in the Bill about people holding their mayors accountable. There is no provision for meaningful scrutiny during the tenure of the mayoralty. The Secretary of State made reference to the upwards-only rent reviews. I completely get that that is a superficially attractive set of proposals, but what assessment has been made of the effective valuation of commercial property, including properties that are owned by the local authorities themselves?”
“My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of these proposals. For all Labour’s warm words about community engagement, community voice and communities actually having a say, that is a classic example. I have visited the Isle of Wight, not only in a personal capacity but as a guest of my hon. Friend, so I know full well that even though the county of Hampshire has many, many excellent things, the people of the Isle of Wight want to maintain their autonomy—and they should have the right to do so if that is what they want. It is not just that local councils will lose control of their finances; they will also lose control of their powers, which are being stripped from them in this Bill. Mayors are gaining sweeping planning and transport powers without council consent or representation.”
“It fails to deliver on its promise, and that is why the House must decline to give it a Second Reading and demand that the Government rethink these proposals.”
“Fifthly, will the changes protect social care? Having looked through the Bill, it is clear that the answer to every single one of those questions is no. Five questions, five failures. As I have said, Conservatives are in favour of devolution when done properly, but only if that devolution is meaningful and only if local communities and their immediate representatives have the power to deliver. We are its champions because we delivered it. We have proven that it works, but it must be by consent; it cannot be by compulsion. It should be by partnership, not imposition, and by empowering councils and councillors, not by erasing them. This Bill is not devolution; it is central control. This Bill is higher taxes and weaker local democracy. This Bill is a power grab by the Secretary of State.”
“The hon. Gentleman really does need to keep up. I addressed those comments at the time. I have been to Stockton. I have campaigned with my good friend and colleague the Conservative mayor of the town. I have knocked on doors in Stockton, and I have a huge amount of respect for the town. The point I was making was about the then Labour representative, who I was not terribly impressed with, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case. We were always deeply sceptical about whether the content of the Bill would match its aspirational title, so we set five tests, framed in the form of five simple questions. First, is this a genuine choice for councils? Secondly, do all the affected tiers agree with the changes? Thirdly, is there genuine public support for the changes? Fourthly, will the changes keep bills down?”
“The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, keeps saying that the Government had no choice but to do this deal. I do not believe that to be true. My successor, Lord Cameron, did not believe that to be true either, which is why neither he nor I signed off an agreement. Will the Minister please explain to the House in detail why he believed that he had no choice, including what body, at what time, and with what jurisdiction?”
“There are Members on the Government Front Bench who know a thing or two about leadership—I can say that with confidence, because the Prime Minister is not in that place. The Government have a commanding majority and do not need the support of Members from any other Benches to hit 3% of GDP, and further, if only the leadership of the Labour party could get its own Members of Parliament through the Division Lobby. Given that the Prime Minister shows no ability to do that with the changes to welfare, how will he ensure that 3% is spent on defence in a timely manner?”
“I welcome the element of the Prime Minister’s statement where he explicitly links defence, diplomacy and domestic security. He is absolutely right to highlight that interconnection. Therefore, will he revisit the spending review, which sees 4.5% and 5% real-terms reductions in Home Office and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets, to make sure that they can actually do their jobs within that interconnected system? To pay for that, will he ensure that his Chancellor removes the job-destroying taxes on employment and reduces the tax burden, which is seeing entrepreneurs and wealth creators leave the country in their droves? Will he show real leadership and ensure that his Back Benchers do not prevent his Front Benchers reducing the cost of our welfare bill so we can pay for these incredibly important governmental functions?”
“Does the Minister recognise that the UK’s armed forces are a visible manifestation of the philosophy and values that underpin the country? If society does not value the armed forces, would he concede that it might be because we have consistently failed to defend the principles and values that underpin our society? We should confront the accusations, for example, that this is an inherently racist country, which it absolutely is not, and that our history is not something to be proud of. Perhaps then wider society would appreciate the men and women who defend not just the physical country but our values, our history and our philosophy.”
“Dame Karen Pierce is one of our most senior and experienced diplomats, and I very much welcome her appointment as an envoy to the western Balkans, but since her appointment, we have heard precious little about the western Balkans from the Foreign Secretary’s Department. Can he reassure this House that we have not lost interest in the western Balkans?”
“Will the Foreign Secretary now concede that the international community’s unwillingness to take robust action through things like the snapback mechanism and the JCPOA is part of the reason that Israel felt the need to take the initial strikes and America to do likewise? I agree that diplomatic means will ultimately be the only long-term resolution, but that means not just asking nicely for Iran to put its nuclear weapons away, but enforcing that and ensuring it does so through such mechanisms. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that if we are not going to be involved in military action—I understand why we might not want to do that—we will ensure that robust action is taken, and that it is underpinned by measures that will force Iran to do the right thing, rather than just hoping that it will do the right thing?”
“My position is driven by my concerns about the practicalities of the Bill, rather than any religious viewpoint. It has been suggested, particularly when people talk about their experience of talking to people who have lost loved ones or who are themselves terminally ill—this has been said to me on a number of occasions—that if we had seen someone suffering, we would agree with the Bill. I have seen someone suffering. Earlier this year, my closest friend died painfully of oesophageal cancer, and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. I come at this from a position neither of faith, nor of ignorance, and I hope that the House will take those factors into consideration when I say what I am about to say.”
“I have no doubt that the vast majority in this House—probably every single hon. and right hon. Member—is sympathetic to the underlying motivation of the Bill, which is to ease suffering in others and try to avoid suffering where possible. For the most part, the debate, both in this Chamber and in Committee, has been good natured and conducted in a way that we can be proud of. There have been wider questions about the motivations of both the proponents and the opponents of the Bill. Although this is not about any individual one of us, I think it is only fair that, because some questions have been asked, I put a few things on the record about my own position. I do not come at this from a religious point of view—I am an atheist; I am a humanist.”
“Where is their head?” Whereas, with the situation we have at the moment, the patient knows that the medical professional is dutybound to do no harm, and to preserve life and dignity wherever possible.”
“I have also heard people say, where there are still problems, issues and concerns, that the Lords will do that work. But none of us should think that it is right to subcontract our job to the other place. We are making an incredibly important and fundamental change, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, in the relationship between medical professionals and those they serve. If we make that change, we will introduce a small but permanent question mark in the minds of every patient, particularly a patient who is discussing a serious illness or terminal diagnosis: “What is this medical professional expecting of me? What are they thinking?”
“I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s point later in my speech. I will try not to take too many interventions, because many people have not had the chance to speak in the debate and I want to give them the chance to do so. On Second Reading I made the point that we need to think about the detail of the Bill and not just vote in accordance with the broad principles. I made the point that, because it is a private Member’s Bill, the opportunity to change it fundamentally is limited, and so we have an enhanced duty to get it right first time. We were told on Second Reading that a lot of the concerns, worries and detailed questions would be resolved in Committee. We were promised the gold standard: a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards. Those protections did not make it through Committee.”
“Member for Spen Valley, I do not have time to go through every single argument that was had on Second Reading, in Committee and beyond, but in order to ensure that we are rigorous, there are three fundamental questions that we should ask ourselves—not lean on our friends and colleagues, but ask ourselves—and ensure that we answer fully and honestly.”
“Yes, it is a mixed picture in the medical professions, but I am struck by the number of professional bodies that are neutral on the topic of assisted dying in general but opposed to the provisions within this Bill in particular. We cannot just say, “They are neutral on assisted dying, and therefore this particular vehicle has to progress.” We carry a responsibility—it is what we are sent here to do—and we need to take it very seriously. We must be rigorous on the specific details in the Bill. Just like the hon.”
“Many people will say that these are not conflicting or contradictory positions. But—and I will crack on because otherwise you will tell me off, Mr Speaker—we know that there could be circumstances where assisted dying would be on a statutory basis and the provision of palliative care would not. We also have to address the point that we can all pray in aid individuals and institutions to reinforce our positions on this, but we cannot subcontract our decisions. Yes, we can fish around for people to come up with the perfect quote to reinforce our arguments, but another five minutes on Wikipedia, Google, or with friends of ours in the medical profession will find another voice that opposes that.”
“The hon. Lady asks me to speculate about a set of circumstances that are personal and painful. I suspect that she and I both know that the outcome could have been very different, and that the moments she had with her sister, just like those I had with my dear friend, might have been lost. We have to recognise that this is an important moment. While I respect the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), I disagree with her assessment that it is now or never; that it is this Bill or no Bill; and that a vote against it on Third Reading is a vote to maintain the status quo. None of those things is true. There will be plenty of opportunities. Indeed, we are dutybound, stimulated by this debate—which is why I do not criticise the hon. Lady for bringing forward the Bill—to have a serious conversation about palliative care.”
“The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point, and I will touch on that briefly in my remarks. I am minded to take no more interventions, because otherwise I will be stealing time from others. There are three questions we need to ask. First, are we happy for this Bill—not for the principle, but for this Bill as drafted—to become law? Many of the elements that I have already discussed are concerning. In the criteria set out, medical professionals do not need to seek deeper motivation. We have said there is not a real choice between palliative care and assisted dying, because one will have a statutory underpinning and the other will not. As I say, the “gold standard” protections were lost in Committee, because a number of professional bodies and—”
“Even if they do not imply that it is the right thing for her to do, the very fact that they bring it up will have a significant influence on that woman’s thinking. We cannot believe that the effect will be completely neutral across all communities.”
“That is what this legislation says: they will prioritise this above any other work that they might otherwise do. Thirdly—the hon. Member for Spen Valley hinted at this, and I mentioned it in an intervention in an earlier stage of the Bill—on coercion, on the pressure that individuals put on themselves and on medical professionals raising the issue, we know that there are inequalities in health provision already, none of which will be addressed by the Bill. There are certain communities, and certain people in those communities, particularly women, who are overly deferential to men and to men in authority. Can we genuinely say that we have no fear whatsoever about a potentially vulnerable woman sitting in front of a medical professional who raises assisted dying?”
“I understand people’s desire to ensure that this cannot be lost down the back of the sofa when it comes to Government work, but when the people on whom we would rely to deliver this Bill say that they are not ready and that they do not feel that they will be ready—they do not have enough people and they do not have enough capacity, so they will have to take resource from current provisions to move across to this provision, which will be driven by a statutory requirement and a locked-in commencement date—we should listen. If the people who are going to make this work—and work as well as we hope it will, if it becomes legislation—say that they are not confident that they can make it happen, we should be very careful about demanding that they prioritise this.”
“I need to make progress. A number of professional bodies have said they do not have the capacity. They do not have enough people to fill the slots that this Bill demands of them. Secondly, in terms of fundamental changes, are hon. and right hon. Members genuinely happy to write the blank cheque that this Bill demands? It is normal for the Secretary of State of a Government Department to decide when a piece of legislation comes into force, and they make their decision based on the state’s ability to deliver that legislation. Commencement dates matter; they are not just some arbitrary dates on a piece of paper.”
“It is interesting that there are both proponents and opponents of the Bill who hope that the Lords will make significant changes to the Bill. That should surely set off alarm bells. Ultimately, because the Bill is such a fundamental change, we need to ensure that there is an enhanced level of scrutiny of its detail. We all want to avoid and alleviate suffering wherever possible, but I do not believe that we have had the opportunity to get the Bill into the right shape. That is why I will oppose Third Reading, and I encourage others to do likewise.”
“The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I refer her to my second question. Those bodies say that they do not have the people to populate those panels, yet that is what the commencement date demands. The principle of having a person or group of people to protect against coercion is important—I am talking not just about coercion, but about how people perceive people in authority—but royal colleges and social workers have told us that they do not believe they will be ready to put those guardrails in place by the commencement date. We should listen to them. This is an important debate that has stimulated an important conversation, which demands our full attention, but I do not believe that the Bill is ready to go to the other place.”
“The right hon. Gentleman will know—and he will not take this personally —that for the most part I think his Government’s ability to negotiate is appalling. The only reason I have any confidence that this might be a good deal is that the Government of Gibraltar were heavily involved. At some point in the future, this House—me included—will see the detail of this agreement, and I will know what red lines I stuck to when I was negotiating. To save time and for the education of the House, will he, without going into details, let us know: did the European position, including the Spanish position, move closer to ours or did we move closer to theirs to get this deal over the line?”
“The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have all had recent, high-level interactions with Ministers of the Chinese Communist party—the Chinese Government. Has the Chinese embassy been brought up in any of the meetings with those Ministers, and have those Ministers in any way corresponded with the Minister’s Department on the Chinese embassy application?”
“Like many in the House, I have only had a chance to skim-read the SDR. Fundamentally, it seems to be heading in the right direction, but why is it so timid? Why is it so slow? If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, we face an era-defining moment, why not move with the pace that the era demands? Why not commit to 3% within a meaningful timescale, to give industry and the forces a serious opportunity to plan, and to make this a document worth its name, rather than saying, “Let’s see how little we can get away with while keeping the papers happy”?”
“Both the Prime Minister—in his extensive press conference prior to the Secretary of State for Defence coming to the House—and the Secretary of State have said on numerous occasions that this deal is the only way of protecting the military operations on Diego Garcia. When I was Foreign Secretary, I did not see anything to make me agree that this is the only way of protecting military operations on that base. The Defence Secretary suggested in his statement that a judgment could come within weeks that would undermine the operations of the base. From which binding legal authority does he fear that jurisdiction may come? We know it is not the International Telecommunication Union or the International Court of Justice. Who does he believe would prevent us from military operations on that island?”
“I tabled an amendment to ensure that the self-defined responsibility to go for assisted dying did not become a rationale. What is the right hon. Lady’s view on the impact of intersectionality on this issue? We know that, in practical terms, a number of people do not have full control over their lives. The Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), made the point that people who are often pushed around by their families and their wider society—particularly women from ethnic minorities—will be at particular risk from the gentle advice or suggestions from authority figures to whom they will be overly deferential, which could lead them into a very dangerous position.”
“The sustainable success of Ukraine and its self-defence hinges very much on the appetite of the President of the United States of America. What steps are the Foreign Secretary, his Ministers and his officials taking to ensure that the President remains committed to defending the territorial integrity of not just his own nation but all nations, and will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the White House understands that allowing an aggressor to prosper in this case will encourage other aggressors to invade their neighbours in the future?”