Renters’ Rights Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The UK needs a vibrant and fluid private rented sector. We need it to deliver communities that are happy and cohesive, and to deliver fairness, stability and security for families. I have been looking at the Government’s position on the Bill, and I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the work he has done on it—or is he the right hon. Member?

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated dissent.

[Sir James Cleverly]

Well, he deserves to be the right hon. Gentleman. He has been doing the hard yards; he has done loads of work on this Bill. I am sure he was disappointed that he did not get to lead the Department—congratulations to the new Secretary of State—but I have no doubt that the opportunity will come in the near future. I would just say: be patient for the moment.

While I have no doubt that the Bill is full of good intentions, it is poorly though through and counterproductive. In fact, I am assuming it is poorly thought through, but it is entirely feasible that the measures within it are well though through, and are designed to undermine the private rented sector. It is inept, either by accident or on purpose—I will go with inept by accident, because that is more in keeping with the Government’s actions in this Department.

The Bill is clearly a mishmash of measures on issues that are Back-Bench hobby horses—issues that those on the Front Bench do not have the authority or the courage to put to bed. It is entirely counterproductive, as has been recognised and highlighted by their lordships in the other place. The Bill risks driving private landlords out of the sector, reducing the supply of private rented accommodation and pushing up rents for those in the private rented sector. Limiting the supply of such accommodation means limiting the options for tenants in the private rented sector, and leaving them worse off.

We do not need to look very far to see what happens when Governments get this wrong. In Scotland, fixed-term tenancies were abolished, rent controls imposed and regulations tightened, and what was the result? Fewer landlords, shrinking supply and the fastest rises in rents in the UK, with Edinburgh and Glasgow facing steeper rent rises than ineptly Labour-run London. The Labour Government in Westminster are about to make the same mistake, because Government Back Benchers are, for whatever reason, obsessed with “fixing” an already highly successful sector. The private rented sector has the highest satisfaction levels of any tenure type—higher than levels in the social rented sector or among owner-occupiers.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I do not know what correspondence the right hon. Gentleman is looking at, but the correspondence I receive from my constituents in Hillingdon does not tell a story of a sector that is secure and safe; instead, my constituents tell me that they are battling damp and mould, and have had 35% rent increases in recent years. Is that success, in the Opposition’s view?

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes the classic statistical error of assuming that his inbox is representative of all the people in the sector. Has it not occurred to him that people who are happy in their private rented accommodation do not tend to write to their MP, saying, “Apropos of nothing, I just want to let you know that I am happy”? I have it on good authority from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—my good friend and colleague—that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) is not doing a terribly good job of championing the social rented sector in his constituency. He seeks to deny the private rented sector, while simultaneously denying people the social rented sector. I am not sure where he thinks people in his constituency should live.

The point is that the Bill is a mishmash of incoherent proposals, which, instead of being designed to improve the private rented sector, are designed to keep angsty Back Benchers happy, but Front Benchers are already starting to learn that they cannot pay political Danegeld to their Back Benchers. I give the Front-Bench team due notice: their Back Benchers will be insatiable. They will take whatever red meat they are thrown, and they will ask for more. We have already seen this, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the proposed changes to social security and disability benefits. The Front Benchers had plans, but their Back Benchers had other plans, and guess who won? Those showing courageous leadership on the turbulent Back Benches. The Government will see the same again on this issue.

The Opposition understand that a good tenure mix is good for the UK. We took measures to improve the private rented sector, but we made sure that we did it in the right order. We made sure that the courts were ready.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the success of the private rented sector. If the sector is so successful and is working so well, why have the Opposition consistently held the position—both when they were in government and, I believe, going into the election—that they would go forward with ending no-fault evictions? I am confused. I would be grateful if he could explain.

[Sir James Cleverly]

It is interesting that on the one hand, we have voices on the Front Bench saying that we did not do anything in government, while at the same time, voices on the Labour Back Benches say that we were doing something.

[Rachel Blake]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Sir James Cleverly]

No. Perhaps Labour Members should co-ordinate their criticism.

The previous Conservative Government understood that there is a need to reform the system, but that every part of the system needs to be ready. That is why we made sure that the justice system was ready first before we started making changes to the legal frameworks, giving tenants, landlords and courts the time to adjust. However, the Labour Government have abandoned that discipline. The changes put forward by their lordships came about through careful consideration of the provisions in the Bill and their implications in real-world scenarios, not the fantasy world of many Labour Back Benchers.

The Labour Government were defeated in the other place on several important amendments. There is a pattern to the Government’s defeats: time and again, Ministers accepted a principle but when it came to taking action to deal with the principle, they fell short. I will give some examples from amendments on Report in the other place. Amendments 87 and 88 in the name of Lord Keen would raise the standard of proof for financial penalties to “beyond reasonable doubt”. The principle is clear: setting serious penalties requires having serious evidence. The noble Lord Keen made the case powerfully in the other place, yet the Government still refuse to act. In doing so they are introducing a huge degree of uncertainty for both landlords and councils, and uncertainty is toxic to the provision of homes in the sector. Making these changes will reduce the housing supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

Earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the shadow Secretary of State said that my hon. Friend did not need to pay any attention to the people in his inbox who had contacted him. Was he not advocating exactly that—we should not listen because it is a small number of people, and we should accept these amendments so that this legislation can be watered down? Is he not arguing both sides of the same coin on this?

[Sir James Cleverly]

If the hon. Gentleman was going to criticise what I say, he should have at least listened to what I said. What I said was that extrapolating—

[Dave Robertson]

rose—

[Sir James Cleverly]

No, no, get it right first time. What I said was that extrapolating from a Member of Parliament’s inbox is not a good way of gauging the full spectrum of opinion within a cohort of people. At no point did I say—and I would never say—that we should ignore the people who write to us, and no one should assume that we do. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman would not, and I certainly do not. That is absolutely not what I said.

The point I am making is that the Government’s argument was, “There aren’t that many people, and frankly they’re all posh, so we can ignore them.” That was basically the framing of their argument, but tell that to the extended families of people, typically of ethnic minority origin, who often live in close proximity to each other. There will be communities all across the country where the elders of the family have rented properties that have tenants in them, but because those properties are near where they live, they envisage at some point in the future members of their extended family moving into the properties in order to provide care for them. Disregarding and diminishing this as an idea just because it is something that the Government Front Bench accuse only the posh Members of the other place of doing is rather distasteful.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Secretary of State failed to address the second concern the Government have about amendment 21, which is the substantial risk of abuse that will flow from the definition of a “carer”. The definition under the amendment could be anyone providing any form of voluntary care. It could be someone who provides the weekly shop. Does he not see the risk of abuse that comes with a ground that is so broadly drawn? That was our other concern, and he has not addressed it.

[Sir James Cleverly]

There are always opportunities for abuse, but we cannot be closing off a provision that would be really valuable to many families around the country because there is a risk of abuse. If we were to do that, there would be loads of areas where Government would not legislate. We do not disregard an opportunity just because of the potential for abuse; we manage that potential for abuse.

I will move on a bit more quickly as I want to ensure that all Labour Back Benchers get their opportunity to speak. [Interruption.] It is their legislation.

Lords amendment 58 in the name of Lord Cromwell would reduce the ban on re-letting from 12 months to six months. That is a wholly pragmatic point. There is the idea in the Bill that a landlord would have to wait for 12 months, but if it is clear after six months that, despite genuine efforts—there is provision to ensure that efforts are genuine—there is no chance of selling, it is entirely reasonable that a landlord should seek to re-let. That is not as quickly as Members on the Labour Benches would do so; nevertheless, it is an entirely fair provision.

The largest Government defeat in the other place came on amendment 59 in the name of Lord Young of Cookham, which is about the exemption for shared owners from the 12-month ban on re-letting. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he recognised that this area created challenges, but I urge the Government not to dig in their heels on the issue. The cohort of people envisaged by the amendment are often those most in need of flexibility—people who are not of significant financial means—and limiting their options when it comes to, perhaps, a distressed asset would be entirely wrong. I have no doubt that he recognises that. I urge him to move quickly to a resolution on this matter to reassure the Chamber and the other place that those people will not be disadvantaged by the Bill.

The Lords amendments are well thought through. They attempt to take this mishmash of a Bill and knock it into some credible shape, providing protection for tenants and a bit of reassurance for landlords so that they can continue to provide a supply of private-rented accommodation to help people get on the housing ladder and to live in homes they love and value in communities that they cherish. If the Government choose to blindly ignore those amendments, I have no doubt that the Bill will have the effect of reducing the number of landlords, reducing the number of homes and increasing rents, which is the opposite of what any of us in the Chamber should want. That is why the Opposition will support the amendments.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Once again, I stand here proud to speak in favour of this groundbreaking legislation that finally brings some balance back between the landlord’s right to profit from an asset and the renter’s right to a home. I oppose in particular Lords amendments 26, 27 and 18 proposed by the landlord lobby in the other place. Amendments 26 and 27 would increase the evidence bar for all civil penalty offences to the criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities. That would gut the ban on discrimination against housing benefit recipients, the ban on refusing to let to families and the ban on bidding wars. Those measures would be almost unenforceable if the amendment stood.

Discrimination is notoriously hard to prove, and we all know that early interactions between a renter and a prospective landlord are often not in writing, so proving beyond reasonable doubt that a prospective renter was prevented from letting a property because they might be a benefits claimant or have kids would be extremely challenging; it is the same for proving bidding wars. Councils already struggle to pursue civil penalty cases because of the staff time and resource involved in gathering evidence to support those cases. Introducing that new, higher bar of evidence for already challenging cases would make them almost unenforceable. It would also be out of line with other legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, which require only the civil standard of proof. If we do not oppose those Lords amendments, such unlawful practices will continue unchecked, and renters will continue to face homelessness as a result.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, because the Bill does nothing to empower local communities, but instead contains measures reducing the democratically elected representation of communities and enables the Government to impose local government restructuring on communities, irrespective of local opinion, disregarding local geography and identity; because bureaucratic restructuring of local government will cost money and reduce focus on housing delivery with no evidence that it will deliver better services; because the Bill will lead to greater costs for residents by creating new mayoral precepts, increasing borrowing powers, and raising parking charges on motorists, and adding more local bureaucrats as mayoral-appointed commissioners; and because the Bill will result in higher council tax bills for hardworking families, at a time when local government is facing increased costs pressures due to unfunded rises in employers’ National Insurance contributions.”

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it is a title straight out of the Ministry of Truth. The Bill is not about devolution; it is clearly a blatant power grab by the Deputy Prime Minister—a right hon. Lady for whom I have a huge amount of respect—and her Department. It is not about community empowerment at all; it is about stripping power from local authorities and concentrating it in Whitehall and the hands of the people in Whitehall.

Big Brother would be proud. Centralisation is devolution. Whitehall diktat is community empowerment. The fact that the Bill does the opposite of what it claims is, as we set out in our reasoned amendment, why we cannot give it a free pass. This Bill sidelines communities. This Bill forces restructuring without consent. This Bill wastes money while families are facing higher bills because of Labour’s mismanagement. This Bill disrupts and distracts councils from building the homes that local people need. Those are our objections. That is what we have set out in our reasoned amendment.

If the Government want to win the confidence of this House rather than just shoehorning their Back Benchers through the Division Lobby, they need to justify the demands embedded in the Bill. During the debate and when summing up, I sincerely hope that they answer our questions. Why centralise control? Why raise taxes? Why deny residents their voice? Those are the questions that those on the Treasury Bench need to answer before this Bill can make credible progress through the House.

The case has been set out, but before Members on the Labour Benches get too excited, let me put to bed a few spectres that have been raised. The Conservative party believes in devolution, not just in theory but in practice: we created many of the existing mayoral roles; we created police and crime commissioners; we empowered parish councils and neighbourhood planning; and we gave families the power to block excessive council tax rises. We devolved by consent—by agreement with local leaders—and not by Whitehall diktat.

The simple truth of the matter is that Labour does not and has never believed in devolution, and it does not deliver meaningful devolution. It is a centralising party and it centralises. This Government are abolishing councils without consent and forcing them to sign up to their model of restructuring. They forced the postponement of elections in nine county councils. That was unprecedented. Elections are the foundation of democracy, and denying them undermines public trust and confidence. In truth, denying residents their democratic voice was done for a very specific reason. It was done because Labour feared what people would say to it at the ballot box.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has just listed a load of things that the Tories did with devolution. He cannot deny that the reason we need devolution and local government reorganisation is because his Government significantly underfunded local government, which is now on its knees. We therefore have to take action to get local government back in a good place, and devolution and local government reform is one of those actions.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I think the hon. Member said the quiet bit out loud: this is about putting up taxes on local people. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about; we know that to be true. I promise the House that I did not tee up that intervention—it was the next bit in my speech. Labour, by imposing this restructuring from the centre, is leaving local people without a voice. This legislation is about creating what this Government want, which is a cohort of subservient Labour mayors.

Let us look at what Labour mayors actually deliver—as I say, this speech was written before the previous intervention. Labour mayors put up taxes. Labour mayors increase the tax burden on local people. The Liverpool city region—up by 26%; Greater Manchester—up by 8%; West Yorkshire—up by 6%; and London, since Sadiq Khan took office in 2016—up by over 70%. Labour Members are quiet now, aren’t they? The truth hurts.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, then, why Labour keeps getting re-elected to mayoralties?

[Sir James Cleverly]

I will mention Paul Bristow later in my speech.

The difference is that under Conservative mayors, we keep costs down. Ben Houchen, for example, is delivering a zero precept. If more places get mayors under this Labour proposal, how much more will local people pay? Will Ministers—whether that be the Secretary of State or whoever responds to the debate—guarantee that costs will not go up under this model and that council tax will not rise under this model, or is this another set of taxes on hard-working families by stealth? The truth is that the record of Labour mayors is that they increase taxes by well above the rate of inflation. Also, will the pressure on parish council precepts also hit hard-working local people in the pocket? The Conservatives are in no doubt that, once again, it will be hard-working families and local people who will pay the price for Labour’s ineptitude.

It is not only families that will be hit. This Bill forces councils to merge, and prudent councils—those that have been careful with their money—will be forced to inherit the debt of others. How on earth is penalising good financial management at local government level fair? What protections will be in place to protect people from higher bills? Looking through the Bill, there are none that I can see.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

How does my right hon. Friend think my constituents on the Isle of Wight feel about being fused under a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire without having a single say?

[Sir James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of these proposals. For all Labour’s warm words about community engagement, community voice and communities actually having a say, that is a classic example. I have visited the Isle of Wight, not only in a personal capacity but as a guest of my hon. Friend, so I know full well that even though the county of Hampshire has many, many excellent things, the people of the Isle of Wight want to maintain their autonomy—and they should have the right to do so if that is what they want.

It is not just that local councils will lose control of their finances; they will also lose control of their powers, which are being stripped from them in this Bill. Mayors are gaining sweeping planning and transport powers without council consent or representation. Let me give an example: what if communities oppose punitive anti-driver proposals from a mayor in their local neighbourhoods? How can they make their voices heard? Who will win? Will it be the mayor who has been imposed upon them, or will it be the local communities? What will the accountability model be for those mayors? We can see nothing in the Bill about people holding their mayors accountable. There is no provision for meaningful scrutiny during the tenure of the mayoralty.

The Secretary of State made reference to the upwards-only rent reviews. I completely get that that is a superficially attractive set of proposals, but what assessment has been made of the effective valuation of commercial property, including properties that are owned by the local authorities themselves? If she is confident that this is such a good idea, why was there no scrutiny? Why was there no consultation on these proposals? Do Ministers really think that that is best practice when it comes to creating a stable investment environment and confidence for people spending money in the high street commercial properties that keep our communities alive?

The silence on those questions about the Bill is frankly deafening, because the Government have no answer. This Bill is not about empowering local communities, and it is definitely not about empowering local councils. It is about creating a cohort of puppet mayors controlled by the right hon. Lady’s Department. I respect her enormously, but her ability to strip power not just from local councils but from the Prime Minister is something well worth watching. I think we should at least be impressed by that. I put this to Labour Members: if this is about community empowerment, why does it reduce local representation? If it is about fiscal responsibility, why will it burden ratepayers—council tax payers—with debts that their local authorities did not create? If it is about more homes, why does it hamper and suffocate councils with increased bureaucracy?

Devolution can work, and indeed does work, when it is done properly. We know that it works because Conservative mayors have delivered. Ben Houchen saved Teesside airport, delivered the UK’s largest freeport with 18,000 quality jobs and secured Treasury North in Darlington with 1,400 high-skilled roles, all with a zero mayoral precept. Paul Bristow in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is ending Labour’s ideological attack on drivers. Boris Johnson, while Mayor of London, delivered the 2012 games and secured Crossrail. In the west midlands, Andy Street was a genuine champion for his region and a household name. Who has he been replaced by? A person who is not even a household name in his own household. That says it all. We Conservatives deliver. We delivered devolved government that delivers infrastructure, jobs and economic growth. What has Labour delivered? Higher costs and broken promises—[Interruption.] More tax, less delivery. That is the Labour way.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—sorry for treading on his punchline. I was very pleased to hear his new-found enthusiasm for Teesside. That is something we all share, but it seems to stand at odds with the comments he made to my predecessor about the town of Stockton. Does he stand by those terrible comments that he made, or would he like to take this opportunity to apologise to my constituents?

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman really does need to keep up. I addressed those comments at the time. I have been to Stockton. I have campaigned with my good friend and colleague the Conservative mayor of the town. I have knocked on doors in Stockton, and I have a huge amount of respect for the town. The point I was making was about the then Labour representative, who I was not terribly impressed with, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case.

We were always deeply sceptical about whether the content of the Bill would match its aspirational title, so we set five tests, framed in the form of five simple questions. First, is this a genuine choice for councils? Secondly, do all the affected tiers agree with the changes? Thirdly, is there genuine public support for the changes? Fourthly, will the changes keep bills down? Fifthly, will the changes protect social care? Having looked through the Bill, it is clear that the answer to every single one of those questions is no. Five questions, five failures.

As I have said, Conservatives are in favour of devolution when done properly, but only if that devolution is meaningful and only if local communities and their immediate representatives have the power to deliver. We are its champions because we delivered it. We have proven that it works, but it must be by consent; it cannot be by compulsion. It should be by partnership, not imposition, and by empowering councils and councillors, not by erasing them. This Bill is not devolution; it is central control. This Bill is higher taxes and weaker local democracy. This Bill is a power grab by the Secretary of State. It fails to deliver on its promise, and that is why the House must decline to give it a Second Reading and demand that the Government rethink these proposals.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Chinese Embassy Development

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope hon. Members will appreciate why I will not comment on hypotheticals, again, on a decision that has not been made on a case that is not before the Department. I have made it very clear that we stand with the Hong Kong community. The Minister with responsibility for Asia and the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), met members of the Hong Kong community in this country, along with my hon. Friend the Security Minister. We will stand by them.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of any talks—

[Sir James Cleverly]

I was not asking for details.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman is asking for details, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On the particular issue of whether representations have been made, as I made clear in answering the initial question, the Home and Foreign Secretaries made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry, and that will be taken into account alongside all other relevant matters.

English Devolution

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I entirely understand that there are local tensions in Lancashire, to put it mildly, but my experience of council leaders in all parties and at county, district and unitary level has been positive. Even when there are differences, they are shared in a respectful way. I would not underestimate the progress of the level 2 agreement that we have in Lancashire, which will see a devolution of powers relating to, for instance, skills and compulsory purchase orders as a first step towards overall devolution. The agreement contains a commitment that by autumn next year a proposal for a mayoral combined authority will be submitted to the Government, with or without local government reorganisation. We have been very clear about our direction on local government reorganisation, and our expectation is that those in Lancashire and other places have heard about that direction and will act accordingly. In the end, times change. My son’s primary school in Oldham had the Lancashire education committee plaque on it; in Lancashire county hall, there is the Oldham plaque. Times change and boundaries change, but people and communities do not, and the Government who represent them have to be fit for purpose.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

If devolution means anything, it means giving local leaders the right to do things differently. If a future mayor of Essex wants to compete with London by creating a less heavily regulated or less heavily taxed business environment, would that individual have the power to do so under the proposals put forward by the Government?

[Jim McMahon]

It is in the eye of the beholder. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to turn Essex into Monaco, I suspect that it will not happen. But if he is asking for genuine freedoms and flexibilities so that local leaders can make the right decisions to attract investment, assemble sites, invest in infrastructure, and remove barriers to planning and infrastructure, that is absolutely where we are going. On the issue of tax and fiscal devolution, we are very clear that the White Paper represents a moment in time; it is very much the start, not the end. What should be read in the White Paper is an ambition to provide certainty across Government and to make sure that the level of ambition is raised. When the right hon. Gentleman sees the schedule of devolution across the programme and the competencies—which are very important for economic development and regeneration—he will see that there is a lot of scope there.