James Cleverly MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister keeps bragging about closing asylum hotel accommodation from the peak of 400. Can it be put on record that I closed 180 of those asylum hotels in six months and the Labour Government closed only another 30 in two years? I would just like that read into the record. More broadly, large-scale asylum accommodation centres have a detrimental effect on local communities, as we have seen in Weathersfield: people are unable to sell their houses, and the number of children applying to go to the local primary school is dropping off and it is now close to being financially untenable. That is why there was a time limit on the use of Weathersfield. We also know that when the number of people in these centres is too large, disruption happens and fights break out, which is why there was a cap on numbers. We learn that the Government tried to sneak out over the weekend an increase on the cap and an extension to the time, completely undermining the confidence of the people of Braintree in this Government. Will the Minister now accept that that is a completely unprofessional way of doing this? It is deeply unfair to the people of Weathersfield and the surrounding areas. I urge him now, before it is too late, to rethink his proposals and scrap the foolish extensions of both time and capacity at the Weathersfield asylum centre.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  May I echo the words of the Secretary of State, nine years on from the terrible fire at Grenfell? It is incredibly important that we learn the lessons from that tragedy and ensure that people are protected in their home. Labour says that 16 and 17-year-olds are mature enough to vote, but in a written answer to me, it also says that 16 and 17-year-olds are not mature enough to serve on juries, because that is “an adult duty”. It says that 16 and 17-year-olds should vote, but should not play on their phone after the Government-defined bedtime of 8.30 in the evening. These are just two examples from the list of inconsistencies triggered by Labour’s “votes at 16” policy. The only consistent thing about that policy is the blatant party political self-interest, isn’t it? [ Laughter. ]

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Travellers built an unauthorised development in Willows Green in my constituency over a bank holiday weekend. I wrote to the Secretary of State about this, and his reply amounted to little more than a hand-wringing word salad. If he is serious about ending the abuse of retrospective planning in Essex and elsewhere, why will he not take up the proposals that we have put forward and end the “build first and apply later” culture?

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To central Government!

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment. Had his party in the other place voted to keep the protections in, we would not be having this discussion at this Dispatch Box now. His party failed to do its work in the other place. I will not stand here and be lectured by his party, which failed to do its job. The pattern is familiar. The Government centralise powers first and then consider accountability later. Some amendments before us represent sensible improvements and we will support them where they do. However, the underlying concern with the Bill remains. Devolution must trust local people in local areas. In so many ways, the Bill does not. Devolution only works when there is proper transparency in decision making and proper safeguards when powers are expanded. In many ways, this Bill does not have that. That is what we will continue to press for and that is why we will continue to hold this Labour Government to account. The Bill has serious consequences, it is still deficient, and we will support the Lords amendments that improve it.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will, because I have a thing to say about the hon. Gentleman’s party.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No. Let us talk about local consent. Lords amendment 98 addresses one of the central concerns with the Bill and would ensure that changes to local governance cannot simply be imposed from the centre. That matters, because devolution must be with the consent of local people and not imposed from Whitehall. The Lords rightly scrutinises the role of mayoral commissioners, and Lords amendment 4 would strengthen transparency in their appointment. We have consistently argued that power must come with proper accountability. Following engagement with colleagues in the other place, the Government have published draft guidance on appointments and remuneration. That is welcome, but guidance is not the same as proper accountability, and there remains a real risk of expanding layers of expensive and unelected roles without sufficient scrutiny. We will continue to press for further and stronger safeguards. On governance in London, Lords amendment 13 would make a targeted change to how decisions are taken on council tax requirement. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), who is sadly no longer in his place, it would lower the threshold for the London Assembly to amend those decisions, strengthening its ability to hold the mayor to account. That would be a step towards greater democratic accountability in London, and we support it. While we support those improvements, concerns do remain. On Lords Amendment 42 and land disposal, we have been clear about the need for proper safeguards. We argued that any change in this area must be preceded by a full review. The Government promised a wider review of protections for public open spaces and that they would engage widely before recommending any changes. Yet those commitments have been watered down and suddenly, we discover that a proper consultation has become an internal review. That is why we have again tabled an amendment to require a proper review of open space availability before the powers are exercised.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this fundamentally betrays a lack of ambition from the Government. The Minister for Housing and Planning will know Kidbrooke in south-east London, which is a fantastic example of redeveloping previously developed land. Poor-quality post-second world war tower blocks have been redeveloped, with increased beauty and increased density, which is good for the local economy and good for the local society. The Bill does nothing to encourage more developments like that; it encourages developers to build cheap and awful in green fields around urban areas, which is the opposite of what should happen.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to try to improve this legislation, which is in many ways such a curate’s egg. It has faults and flaws that their lordships in the other place have worked towards improving, and I thank them for that work. The Conservatives have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this is a centralising Bill. It takes decisions away from local communities and places them into the hands of Ministers, often without consent. We have already seen the consequences of this centralising of power and “Government know best” attitude. We have seen elections cancelled and then reinstated. We have seen the restructuring of local government imposed from the centre, driven by political considerations rather than the voice of the independent boundary commissions. Local leaders are being presented with plans and told to comply. It is called a devolution Bill, but it is not devolution. We welcome the improvements to this Bill put forward by the Lords. The question before the House, however, remains simple: does this Bill empower local areas, or does it continue a pattern of centralised control? I will go through the Lords amendments in turn. Lords amendment 36, which we support, would be an important and practical improvement to the Bill. It establishes the clear principle that brownfield land should be used first. That is just common sense. We want to get more houses built—of course we do—but we should start with land that has already been used rather than virgin land. The amendment protects communities while still enabling homes to be built with local approval and local consent.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Sir Olly Robbins.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State cannot answer—he does not have an answer. Perhaps he can give the answer that he failed to give in response to a written question, because he has once again refused to publish either the prospectus or the selection criteria for his election pilots. This is part of a wider pattern: cancelling elections that the Government do not think they will win, changing local government boundaries instead of giving that task to the independent Boundary Commission, and changing voter ID arrangements without consultation. When I saw this kind of behaviour overseas, I called it out for what it was: dirty, self-interested, partisan politics. Will the Secretary of State scrap this Orbán-style politics and start doing things properly?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week I was in Bromsgrove, a rural constituency facing an 85% increase in its housing target. Neighbouring Labour-run Birmingham, which has significant brownfield capacity, has seen its target cut by more than 30%. Targets are increasing by 37% in Essex, but decreasing by 11% in London. House building has collapsed under this Labour Government, so why is the Secretary of State letting his Labour-run urban friends off the hook while dumping housing targets in rural Britain?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  People will ask whether this is an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism or an act of gross incompetence and stupidity, but I can inform the House that it is both. There is no mandate for this; there was nothing in Labour’s manifesto. It is an imposition from Whitehall. If the Government were so proud of this work, why did they try to sneak it out in a written ministerial statement and have to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to justify their decisions? Unlike the hon. Lady, I have spoken to local government leaders in the areas affected. They were presented with a plan and told to comply—the outcome was predetermined. This is a stitch-up. Labour is redrawing boundaries from the centre and overriding local identity and local consent to maximise party political advantage. The Government have announced £63 million for this transformation, yet it turns out that that is the same £63 million that they have already committed to deal with the consequence of their botched attempt to cancel local elections. How can they now claim that that money will fund wholesale reorganisation? The Government are telling well-run councils to subsidise poorly run councils. Money that should be filling potholes will actually be filling black holes; resources that should be for collecting waste and supporting vulnerable residents will instead be diverted into restructuring and bureaucracy. Estimates point to a borrowing requirement because of these changes running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially approaching £1 billion, all to fund their vanity project, and the cost will fall on local people. I have some questions for the Minister. How can she claim that this reorganisation is locally led when it is being imposed on communities? Why are Ministers determining the boundaries rather than the independent boundary commission? What estimates will be made of the total borrowing requirement? How much money has been set aside for the inevitable judicial reviews that will flood out after this announcement? This is not reform, but vandalism; it is not empowerment, but imposition. It is local people who will pay the price for this Government’s incompetence and arrogance.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on local government reorganisation.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I echo his thanks to Mr Rycroft for the work that he has done on a very important report. We began work in this area through the defending democracy taskforce, and I am glad to see the Minister for Security in his place to highlight the important link between the work of this report and the work that he does. There should be no party political divide when it comes to protecting the integrity of our democracy, and there is a great deal in the report that my party instinctively agrees with. However, the process falls far short of what this House should expect. The 50-page Rycroft review was published just 20 minutes before Prime Ministers questions, and only five minutes before one of the Secretary of State’s Ministers was hosting a meeting to which I was invited about local government reorganisation, making it very difficult for me to read the detail of the report— [ Interruption. ] That made it very difficult for me to read the detail of an incredibly important report which, as I said, contains much with which we instinctively agree. This is not just poor procedure; it means that it is harder for the Opposition to scrutinise the actions of the Government properly, particularly in light of the fact that many of the proposals in the report are being initiated immediately. Sadly, this follows a pattern of behaviour by this Government. The Representation of the People Bill has already been through Second Reading and is in Committee, yet today is the first time we are seeing important elements of a report that goes to the heart of that legislation. Foreign interference is growing and it demands a coherent response—a cross-party response—and yet this Government choose to legislate first and make announcements later. They brought forward the Representation of the People Bill before the Rycroft review had reported; they asked the House to scrutinise legislation that was full of holes, as the Secretary of State is now announcing from the Dispatch Box. This is not good process. My comments are not about process for process’s sake, but about ensuring that unforeseen or bad outcomes are avoided, while protecting what needs to be protected. Now we are told that major changes—fundamental changes—on donations, enforcement and transparency are being rushed into a Bill late in its passage, without proper consultation, scrutiny or time. That is not the way to ensure that cross-party policy is successfully implemented. It is right that the Secretary of State and the Government want to send a clear message that they take this issue seriously, and we echo that desire, but this is not the way to do it. Announcing Government action by press release, then filling in the details later, undermines the important work at the heart of the report. Russia’s aggression, Iran’s hostile activity on British soil, cyber-attacks on our institutions and Chinese state-based activity against us here in the UK make it incredibly important that we fight this fight together. Having these things bumped on the House, in the way that this report has been, does not help. The Secretary of State knows that the Conservatives are very much on the same side in relation to these matters, so I have a number of questions for him, which I will rattle through now. Why did he not wait for the Rycroft report before introducing the Representation of the People Bill in the House? Which of the review’s recommendations will require primary legislation and what time will be provided for that primary legislation? Will he commit to a full consultation with political parties and regulators before making any substantive amendments to the Bill going through the House? From an initial reading, the proposals on company donations will have a significant effect on legitimate domestic donations, so why are the Government proposing to treat domestic philanthropy as if it were something distasteful? Will the Secretary of State confirm that these changes will not be brought forward without proper consultation and consideration on the effects of legitimate domestic funding? Foreign interference is not the only threat to the integrity of our elections. We have seen evidence of breaches of electoral law, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that current legislation is enforced? Will the Secretary of State tighten the rules on foreign donations? He talked about devolved franchise changes in Wales and Scotland. What will he do to make sure that the forthcoming elections are protected? Finally, does he now accept that a very short pause to enable good faith interventions from my party and others would make this legislation stronger and send the signal that we are united as a democracy in this endeavour?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the hon. Lady will have a go. Go on!

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the answer.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. Russian aggression, Iran’s hostile activities on British soil and the interference and espionage activities of the Chinese Government have sharpened the risks to our political system, but why have the Government not engaged with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who led the defending democracy taskforce before and during the last general election? He has been targeted by foreign Governments, and his advice has not been sought. It is right that the Government should seek to protect our democracy from foreign interference, dirty money, intimidation and corruption, but this Bill fails to match the scale of those threats. It does not address, for example, the consequences of devolved franchise changes to UK political finance rules—the devolution loophole. We agree that no Government should accept impermissible donations. The question is not whether we should; it is whether this Bill properly targets the sources of hostile state interference. Fund transfers to UK banks are already subject to robust anti-money laundering checks. If the objective is really to stop hostile state money, enhanced security should be focused on the higher-risk routes, not on duplicating existing restrictions and stifling legitimate domestic activity. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is no longer in his place, but the mask slipped when he basically invited the Secretary of State to ban donations from legitimate British companies because he just does not like the industry they are in. That is what causes concern about the integrity of the decisions being put forward in this Bill. Turning to automatic voter registration, individual voter registration was introduced for a reason: to improve accuracy and reduce fraud. Automatic registration cuts right across that principle. It risks adding names from datasets not designed to determine eligibility. People move and datasets lag behind, and an inaccurate register creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for abuse. This roll-out will be phased, which means that some parts of the country will have automatic voter registration ahead of the next general election, and others will not. The Government are making the case that automatic voter registration increases turnout, but they will be choosing which parts of the country have increased turnout and which do not. Surely the Secretary of State must see how cynical that looks in the eyes of an already sceptical electorate.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill because reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 is inconsistent with and contradictory to other aspects of the Government’s position on ages of majority and citizenship; automatic voter registration will lead to less accurate electoral registers and open the door to fraud; the Bill has been drafted without proper engagement with political parties; the Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in UK politics has yet to report; it does not include effective measures to tackle foreign interference from China and other hostile actors; and it believes that it would be preferable to proceed with a new Bill in the next Session of Parliament, following the report of the Rycroft review and proper consultation with political parties.” When Parliament legislates on elections and the franchise, it is not passing an ordinary Bill; it is rewriting the rules by which MPs and, by extension, Governments are chosen and removed. Therefore, changes to those rules should be made carefully, after proper consultation and in full knowledge of the potential knock-on effects. While there are many elements of this Bill that we support, it unfortunately comes up woefully short when measured against the metric I have just outlined. It creates deep inconsistencies around the age of maturity; it risks weakening the integrity of the electoral register; it side-steps serious questions about foreign interference in our politics; it reduces protections against electoral fraud; and it has been introduced without proper consultation. To start with the process, political parties were not properly consulted before these proposals were introduced. If the Government want to defend themselves against the accusation that they are putting their thumb on the scales for narrow party political advantage, this is not the way to do it. The Secretary of State should know that a quick phone call on the day before a Bill is introduced is no substitute for proper engagement. There is a long-standing convention in this country that Governments do not unilaterally impose changes to electoral law. When the last Labour Government brought forward major electoral reforms, they did so through working groups, a Green Paper, draft legislation and Select Committee scrutiny. That Government understood that legitimacy matters; this Government have chosen to put political advantage over consensus.