Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cleverly and Steve Reed

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[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

Debate between James Cleverly and Steve Reed

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

Debate between James Cleverly and Steve Reed

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cleverly and Steve Reed

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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

Debate between James Cleverly and Steve Reed

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cleverly and Steve Reed

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.