Oral Answers to Questions

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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?

[Steve Reed]

The Government remain fully committed to meeting the target of 1.5 million new homes, and we are working with the sector to ensure that that happens. Local authorities now have housing targets again—they were sadly scrapped under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—and we are investing £600 million to increase vocational skills and training to ensure that we have the supply of workers that the sector needs. We are working closely with developers, which are themselves helping to fund the pipeline of talent to build the homes that the country needs.

[Sir James Cleverly]

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?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, since he was a member of the previous Government, that house building across the country collapsed in 2023-24, and they chose to do nothing. This month the social and affordable homes programme opens for bids. London will get 30% of that, worth more than £11 billion, and that will help to provide the biggest increase in social and affordable homes in London and across the country that this country has seen.

Local Government Reorganisation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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? 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 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.

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? 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.

[Steve Reed]

I have received a letter from the shadow Secretary of State, and he will receive a response to that in due course.

The decision was updated following legal advice. We acted as promptly as possible after receiving that further legal advice, and that was the right thing to do. When decisions are revisited following legal advice, fresh ministerial consideration is perfectly normal and has happened before, and that was why that was done in that way. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-standing principle that Government do not publish or comment on legal advice. I know he knows that, because his words—spoken in November 2023—in this Chamber, were as follows:

“In accordance with a long-standing convention in this House, we do not discuss the content or nature of legal advice to Government.” —[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 947.]

He was right about that.

The motivation of council leaders, who wrote to me to share their views, and indeed my motivation, was based on concerns raised across the political spectrum about the capacity to complete local government reorganisation on time, because of the benefits that that represents to voters in eliminating wasteful duplication and ensuring that the savings can be ploughed back into the frontline services that matter the most to local people.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about amendments tabled in the other place, the Government will consider amendments to these powers in the usual parliamentary way.

Local Government Reorganisation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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.

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. 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? 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.

[Steve Reed]

I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman’s case would be much stronger and would sound less self-righteous if he had not done exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons, when he was in government—only, unlike him when his party was in government, I have imposed nothing. This was a locally led approach. [Interruption.] He was a member of the Cabinet, and he is trying to claim that Cabinets do not take decisions collectively. He was in the Cabinet that took these decisions and he backed them to the hilt. Now, in opposition, he believes the opposite. He seems to think he has become a Lib Dem. He is supposed to have consistency in what he believes.

This is a locally led approach. I was guided by local councils, which came to me with their views. I respectfully suggest that his argument is with those Conservative councils and leaders who have requested postponement so that they can get on and deliver a reorganisation that will benefit their residents, but which he is now trying to block for party political reasons.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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.

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. 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 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. 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.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State for their speeches in opening this important debate. I absolutely welcome this Bill and its aim to create a lasting memorial to the 6 million people who lost their lives in what was probably the most devastating event in recent history, to those who survived and carry the scars with them, and to their families. I recognise what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about the Bill and Lords amendment 1, and in particular about the need to move the Bill forward at pace.

I am attending a Holocaust Memorial Day event in Harlow at the weekend. The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2026 is “Bridging Generations”. The reason why this Bill is so important is that we need to recognise that the responsibility of remembrance cannot just end with survivors. When we came together in this House last year to recognise the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, we all recognised that it would be one of the last significant anniversaries for which veterans of that terrible conflict would be with us.

We must recognise that, as we move forward, those who survived the terrible events of the Holocaust will no longer be with us, but we must carry their flame and continue to remember. We must build a bridge between memory and action, between history and hope for the future, and education about the Holocaust and antisemitism is hugely important for that reason. Like many right hon. and hon. Members across the House, I have visited Auschwitz and seen the horrors of the Holocaust, but what we perhaps do not see so often are the events that led to it; I think about Kristallnacht and the ghettos.

It has been a real pleasure to meet on a fairly regular basis with my local rabbi in Harlow, Rabbi Irit, to talk about how the Jewish community in Harlow is doing. I am pleased to hear that the Jewish community in my constituency has not experienced antisemitism, but we must always be mindful. I pay particular tribute to Rabbi Irit for the work that she has done with faith groups from across my constituency. For personal reasons, I was sadly unable to attend this year’s interfaith service that she ran at Harlow synagogue, but I look forward to attending it next year.

It is an opportunity for the Christian, Muslim and Hindu communities to come together and show that we are as one in fighting the scourge of antisemitism and other forms of racism. I look forward to standing with Rabbi Irit and other religious leaders in Harlow at the weekend to recognise Holocaust Memorial Day. We must never forget the evils of the Holocaust, and I am really pleased that this Government are taking that mission very seriously. This Bill is a huge part of that.

Local Elections: Cancellation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

(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.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are undertaking a once-in-a-generation reorganisation of local government. We have now received proposals from all areas, and from councils across the political spectrum. For decades, the two-tier council system, where it still exists, has made local government more complicated and more bureaucratic than it needs to be. This Government are bold enough to change that.

We will put in place single-tier councils everywhere by the end of this Parliament. That will mean faster local decisions to build homes and grow our towns and cities. It will bring services such as housing and social care under one roof, making them more effective and responsive to what communities need, and it will end the duplication that sees two sets of chief executives and two sets of councillors, which creates confusion and waste for local taxpayers. This is a proven model, and when we change to unitaries, we never hear calls for a return to two-tier local government.

On 18 December I updated the House on our plans to seek councils’ views on their elections in May. There is clear precedent for postponing elections due to local government reorganisation—the previous Government postponed many elections between 2019 and 2022 in order to smooth the transition to new councils. I therefore wrote to 63 councils undergoing reorganisations with elections in May to ask them if postponing their elections could release essential capacity to deliver reorganisation and to allow it to progress effectively. It is only right that we listen to councils when they express concerns about their capacity. Local leaders know their areas best and are best placed to judge their own capacity. As we have said, should a council say that it has no reason to delay, we will listen; if a council voices genuine concerns, we will take those seriously.

We are running a legally robust and fair process, and all representations are now being considered before decisions are made. The Secretary of State has written to four councils to ask for more clarity on their position by 10 am tomorrow. These councils are Essex county council, Norfolk county council, Oxford city council and Southampton city council. As I have said, no decisions have been made, but we want to make them as quickly as possible in order to give councils certainty, and we will update Parliament on those decisions in the usual way.

[Sir James Cleverly]

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. 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. 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?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making those points, which I will certainly relay to the Secretary of State so that he can take them under advisement. We wrote to notify the Electoral Commission, and we are grateful for its ongoing engagement. We will certainly have regard to all views and representations made, including those of the Electoral Commission, but this is fundamentally about local councils and their capacity, and that is why we have asked for representations from them.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Gould principle. That principle is underpinned by the need for certainty, so if there are technical changes, those responsible for the delivery of elections have time to adapt, but this is not about technical changes. We are listening to councils’ views about their capacity in the context of local government reorganisation.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked when the Secretary of State will make decisions. We have moved quickly to get these representations from councils, and the Secretary of State will make a decision as soon as he possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the attention and care that he gives to these issues. He gives me the opportunity to come back to the underlying reason for this whole process, which is reorganisation to get councils in a good position. In those areas that are undergoing reorganisation, once we have got the new institutions set up, which we are doing without delay, people will be able to elect representatives to those new institutions. That is what happened when we had reorganisation previously—as has been mentioned, this process has been gone through recently—and it will mean that people can elect their councillors, and have their say about the kind of public services they want in their area.

[Sir James Cleverly]

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?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That is a continuation of the debate, and I am not responsible for the Minister’s comments; however, he has put his point of view on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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?

[Steve Reed]

Of course high streets are vital to local communities. That is why it was so sad to see high streets up and down the country fall into severe decline in the 14 years in which the Conservatives were in power, during which the right hon. Gentleman served in the Cabinet. Units closed down; their shutters were pulled down, and the graffiti and litter in front of buildings deterred people from going to the high street. This Government are committed to restoring our high streets and protecting the businesses that operate there.

[Sir James Cleverly]

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?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that the measures put in place during the pandemic were always intended to come to an end; his Government were going to do the same thing. The Chancellor is looking at the impact of revaluation. She is fully aware of the concerns raised by publicans in Streatham and across the country, and is reviewing the situation, and we expect an announcement in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It will all be on Sky News in between. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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?

[Steve Reed]

Again, much as I would like to comment on matters that are properly for the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a very long-standing convention that prevents me from doing so.

[Sir James Cleverly]

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?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman will remember his former colleagues being caught on video boasting about how they were taking money away from poorer areas, and giving it to wealthier parts of the country that needed it less. Through the fair funding review, this Government are ensuring that funding is aligned with need and with deprivation. That is the right thing to do.

Property Service Charges

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I start by putting on record my gratitude, which I suspect echoes the views of many right hon. and hon. Members, to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing the debate and setting out so clearly in her opening remarks the significance of this issue and the corrosive impact it has on so many people.

The number of speeches, the tone of those speeches and, sadly, the regular themes we have heard through those speeches tell a really tragic and frustrating story. The experience of constituents across many different parts of the country is unfortunately consistent. They are in a situation where they feel trapped, powerless and voiceless, and where the balance of power is completely unfair. And that is all wrapped up in something that should be a positive experience: owning a home and being able to enjoy your home and its surroundings. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) summed it up very well as something that is meant to be a dream turning into a nightmare. That a consistent theme we have heard.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). He clearly has not just passion on this issue, but real experience of it. I also pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I was struck by his confession that his normal mild mannered demeanour was sacrificed after a meeting. I know his background—I am not sure if all right hon. and hon. Members know it—and I can assure the House and the management companies that he is not someone they should inspire to lose his temper.

Today’s debate has been held in a very positive spirit. This is an issue, as has been evident today, that generates genuine cross-party agreement. I am proud of the fact that my party in government started the process of reform in this area. I will concede that we did not complete the process—we absolutely recognise that. A number of things that we put in place have made a difference, but we recognise that there is more to do.

I have no intention of trying to play party politics on this matter. This debate has shown that whether a leaseholder is living in a—currently—Labour-held constituency, a Lib Dem constituency or a Conservative constituency, their pain and suffering is real, and I think we are all collectively duty bound to do something about it. That is why I encourage the Government to continue with the process of implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and ensure that the appropriate secondary legislation is fully in place, and to do so quickly. Like others, I have received numerous pieces of correspondence from people whose properties are managed by FirstPort and others, and our constituents want us to get a grip of this situation.

There are political and legitimate philosophical differences across this House. The hon. 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. 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. 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.

Renters’ Rights Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

We are considering the Lords amendments in lieu to the Renters’ Rights Bill, and I begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to improve this legislation, and by thanking their lordships for the constructive way in which they have approached this endeavour.

On the amendments themselves, the issue of shared ownership leaseholders was rightly championed in the Lords by my noble Friend Lord Young of Cookham, and I pay tribute to him for his persistence. He made a fair and compelling case for shared owners who, through no fault of their own, may be unable to sell their share and should not be penalised for re-letting in those circumstances. The Government’s acceptance of that principle, although through a modified amendment, is a sensible and pragmatic improvement, which we will therefore support.

On the decent homes standard and the service family accommodation estate, the Government have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the conditions of service family accommodation and provide independent oversight. Our armed forces and their families deserve and need decent, well-maintained homes, and we believe that greater transparency will strengthen service families’ confidence in the system. We support this improvement, and we hope that the Government will look at our policy to create an armed forces housing association that would oversee these changes and address the declining recruitment and retention rates that, sadly, we have seen under this Government.

While we support these improvements, I fear the Bill in its current form will in some areas be counterproductive, and drive landlords from the market as well as putting up rents for tenants. Labour’s own impact assessment for this Bill supports that concern, stating that

“landlords can pass through some, but not all, of their cost increases to their tenants in the form of higher rent”

due to new costs. Under the Bill, all tenancies will continue until either the tenant gives notice or the landlord obtains a court order for possession on specific grounds. The Government have committed to ending section 21 evictions, but they must also ensure matching court reform so that the system works for both tenants and responsible landlords. We need clarity about when and how these changes will be implemented, because uncertainty helps no one. Local councils must have the means to enforce the new rules effectively, and the Government should set out a clear and workable plan to that end.

The Lords amendments represent a sensible set of adjustments that I would say make this Bill slightly more workable, but sufficient challenges remain in how it will operate in practice. We recognise the value of the scrutiny that has taken place in both Houses, and the constructive way that many of the concerns have been addressed, but the uncertainty in this sector is seeing landlords leave the market at an alarming rate.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Secretary of State knows that I have a great deal of time for him as a person, but he must reflect on how all of his speech is about the rights of the landlord with absolutely nothing about the rights of tenants. In my own constituency, 600 children are in temporary accommodation, having largely been driven out of their private rented accommodation because of no-fault evictions. Does he have anything to say about the rights of tenants?

[Sir James Cleverly]

I can only assume that the hon. Member has been asleep through the last couple of paragraphs I have read out, in which I specifically spoke about the rights of tenants in the military estate, for example, so I reject his characterisation of our position. The simple fact is that tenants’ rights are all well and good, but if accommodation for those tenants does not exist, they are no better off.

We have seen an estimated 18% of new homes for sale that were previously in the private rental market estate, and in London that figure is 29%. A reduction in the private rented sector market harms, not helps, people seeking to rent in the private sector. Labour Members will say, “Well, we are going to deliver 1.5 million new houses,” but no one—I doubt even their own Front Benchers—actually believes they have any chance of delivering that figure. The Office for Budget Responsibility certainly does not believe that they have any credible chance of doing it, so the housing and rental situation is likely to get worse.

I confirm that the official Opposition will support the Lords amendments, for the reasons that I have set out. We urge the Government to implement them professionally and swiftly, and to focus on delivering a fair and effective system for tenants, for the landlords that provide accommodation for those tenants, and for the wider housing market. However, there are still a number of flaws in the Bill—it does not do enough to protect renters or ensure a stable rental market, as it will reduce supply and, perversely, push up rents—which is why, having committed to not opposing the amendments, we will hold the Government to account on the Bill’s consequences.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I fully support my hon. Friend the Minister’s motion to agree with Lords amendments 19 and 39, and I thank him for all his work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for piloting this momentous legislation through the House. If I may, I add my own thanks to the noble Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who has been a doughty champion in the other place and, of course, in my constituency of Stevenage.

Some 7,000 households rent privately in Stevenage. They fear their tenancies coming to an end for no good reason. I was knocking on doors in the ward of Roebuck last weekend. A young mother opened her door, and I noticed that the window next to the front door was broken and patched up with a wooden board. I asked whether it was a council property, and she said, “No, I rent privately. He’s a good landlord.” I said, “Okay, so will he fix that window?” She replied, “Oh, no. He has given me this bit of wood. I am a bit worried that if I ask, he will throw me out.” That is what a “good” landlord is assumed to be. It must come to an end.

Renters like that young mother have been waiting 40 years for change. Today, should the House agree, the Bill will go for Royal Assent, and that fear will come to an end, so I support the motion. I thank the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Nobody but nobody believes that 1.5 million homes will be built under this Government. Although the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), spent a lot of time at the Dispatch Box, she did not answer the question about whether the Treasury will be asked to scrap stamp duty. We know that 2.8 million people said that they would consider downsizing if stamp duty were abolished, freeing up family homes of all sizes. She would not answer, so I ask the Secretary of State directly: will he ask the Treasury to scrap stamp duty—yes or no?

[Steve Reed]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman was a strong supporter of Liz Truss when she stood for leadership of the Conservative party, but surely he cannot have forgotten what she did: she made multibillion pound unfunded spending commitments that crashed the economy, and sent wages down and prices, mortgages and rents skyrocketing. The last thing this country needs is tens of billions of pounds of more unfunded commitments, crashing the economy again and destroying people’s dreams of home ownership—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are lots of Back Benchers who wish to speak and this is topical questions. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I asked for a simple yes or no, but the right hon. Gentleman struggled to give that. The truth is that we have outlined exactly where the money could come from and we have made it clear that if those on the Labour Front Bench have the guts to take on their Back Benchers, they will have the support of Conservative Members in making the expenditure cuts that are needed. The London School of Economics has estimated that £16,000 of economic activity comes with every house purchase, so if he will not agree to cutting stamp duty, will he at least agree to not putting up property taxes?

[Steve Reed]

I have to say again that the right hon. Gentleman’s devotion to Trussonomics is admirable, particularly given that we have already seen it fail once. We heard from the shadow Chancellor that the Conservatives would put up income tax if they won the general election. They put it up to the highest level since the second world war; we are not going there.