James Cleverly MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Defence Spending: Cross-party Talks · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 26 Jun 2025 · G7 and NATO Summits · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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? 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.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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? 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.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Chinese Embassy Development · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Chinese Embassy Development · Hansard source

  More

  I was not asking for details.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  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”?

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  Well, you had to write them down.

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  Shameful.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 May 2025 · Ukraine: Diplomacy · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary, in her statement, said that the visa changes she is putting in place will reduce net migration by 100,000 people a year. The House of Commons Library has figures that say the visa changes that I brought in would reduce net migration by 300,000 people per year—so would she concede that her proposals are only a third as effective as mine?

• 6 May 2025 · Eye Care: 10-year Health Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Another part of the 10-year health plan is the use of digital technology. Auto-contouring with artificial intelligence reduces waiting times and frees up capacity for radiotherapists, which is why £15.5 million was allocated to it under the Conservative Government; money that has been cut under the Minister’s Government. Why?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Ukraine War: London Talks · Hansard source

  More

  Our international relationships the world over are dependent on partner countries’ confidence that we will stick by our word, and that our allies will do likewise. Will the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), convey that message to the United States of America? The world—friends and foes alike—is looking at our willingness to stick by the commitments that we have made to Ukraine. If we renege on those commitments, every single relationship around the world will be undermined.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In February, the Foreign Secretary rightly criticised America’s aid cuts. Two weeks later, he was humiliated by his own Prime Minister when his departmental budget was smashed to bits. What is he doing to re-establish his and his Department’s credibility on the world stage, so we can once again have genuine influence internationally?