Representation of the People Bill

Debate between James Cleverly and Jim McMahon

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 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:

“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.

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

In 2017, I was fortunate enough to be selected in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, and Oldham Youth Council asked that it be about votes at 16. They have seen votes at 16 go from being a campaign to being in a manifesto and, today, to being in a Bill on the Floor of the House. If they saw this coming in a manifesto, why did the right hon. Gentleman not?

[Sir James Cleverly]

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.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between James Cleverly and Jim McMahon

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.

English Devolution

Debate between James Cleverly and Jim McMahon

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.