Local Government Reorganisation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

This is blatant—blatant. These changes, like so many of the Secretary of State’s decisions, have been driven by party politics. He tried to cancel local elections, and he was caught trying to tip the balance in Labour’s favour, but nothing in today’s statement has done anything to dispel the belief that this is purely partisan. Many communities have been left in limbo, while Labour councils have been allowed to redraw the map on which the future elections in which they will be engaged will be fought. Can he honestly say that that will inspire confidence in the integrity of the process?

If the Secretary of State wanted accusations of gerrymandering to be put aside, why on earth did he create such a clearly gerrymandered set of boundaries? The maps speak for themselves. In Devon, he has accepted the proposals put forward by Labour-run Exeter and Plymouth. In Leicester, he has accepted the submissions by a Labour-controlled council. In Nottingham, he has accepted the proposal put forward by the Labour-run city council. I could go on and on, but time does not permit. How on earth can the Secretary of State expect anyone to believe that the process has been politically impartial?

Devolution should be about transferring powers away from Whitehall. It is about giving freedom to succeed to local areas, and for them to keep the reward of that success, creating the conditions for more investment, more jobs and more opportunity, but none of that is dependent on imposing a single organisational model from Whitehall. Unitaries should never be the admission price for a devolution deal, nor should local areas be compelled into so-called strategic authorities simply because the Secretary of State and Whitehall prefer organisational uniformity. Devolution should mean trusting local people to make local decisions.

The Secretary of State says that he is holding councils to the standards of best value, transparency, consultation, good governance and sound decision making, yet by the very same standards he fails his own test, with minimal consultation, partisan judgments and arbitrary decision making. He speaks about stronger councils, yet some of these new authorities will be burdened with crippling debt from the day they are created. In Nottinghamshire, Conservative-run Rushcliffe council is a well-run, financially secure council, yet under his plans it will be carved up with most of its assets transferred to debt-ridden Labour Nottingham city council. How on earth can weakening well-managed councils to prop up bankrupt ones create a stronger foundation for local government?

What of local democracy? The Secretary of State talks with great pride about how many local representatives will be culled in these proposals, but that means decisions taken further away from the communities they affect and planning powers becoming increasingly removed from the very people who have to live with the implications of those decisions.

The Secretary of State complains about two-tier local government, but his own mayoral proposals create two tiers of local government. So please can he inform the House: is two-tier local government good or is two-tier local government bad? He does not seem to know.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the democratic deficit? Given the pace at which he is driving the changes, and the fact that a number of the proposals have still not been outlined and will not be until the autumn, what on earth gives him the confidence that they will be implemented in time for shadow elections in May next year? What assessment has he made of the likelihood of judicial reviews further delaying the timetable before 2029?

The statement raises more questions than it answers. If this proves to be the Secretary of State’s final appearance at the Dispatch Box in this role—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Although we do not agree, I have enjoyed working with him across the Dispatch Box; but I hope he recognises the mess that he is leaving behind. He cannot believe that he has squandered this opportunity for genuine devolution. Instead, his legacy will be one of taking power away from local communities, imposing an unfair funding review on councils and gerrymandering local government boundaries. I find it difficult to believe that that is a record he will genuinely be proud of.

[Steve Reed]

I have also enjoyed working with the right hon. Gentleman, who is, unfortunately, a very effective shadow Secretary of State. I hope that our relationship can continue in this manner for a long time into the future. Unfortunately, the facts do not support the claims he is making. The majority of proposals I have outlined as decisions have cross-party support. I accept that reasonable people may agree or disagree with the decisions, but the important thing for residents is that we move ahead to realise the savings and to secure economic growth, because those things will benefit local people.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about debt. Of course, when the Conservative party was running Woking council, it racked up billions of pounds. The Government have had to intervene and write that off because of the severity of that debt. In fact, councils across the country will realise savings of up to £1 billion—that is the councils’ own estimate—that they can then invest in frontline services. That is to the benefit of local people.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment on judicial reviews, but I reassure him and the House that this programme will go ahead, on schedule.

Local Government Reorganisation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 13th July 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 local government reorganisation.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Nearly 21 million people in our country are served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. The Government’s aims for local government reorganisation are clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services. We have set out the timetable and we are on track, which includes making announcements on the remaining areas this week. My officials have written to councils to confirm that the announcement will take place this week, and I am pleased at the progress made so far, with unitary councils announced for five areas and elections held in Surrey. Structural changes orders are being brought forward as planned, and we are on track for new councils to go live in April 2028.

Some £63 million of funding is available to support transition costs, which we are paying directly to councils, and each new council will receive at least £900,000. This is the first time that funding has been made available by central Government for that purpose, because we need to get the reforms right. Local government reorganisation offers an opportunity for our communities to give local leaders the funding, powers and capacity to grow their economies, build the homes their communities need, and create better public services, improving the lives of the people we serve. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to set that out.

[Sir James Cleverly]

We have all watched this film before. The Secretary of State, who once again scurries away to avoid scrutiny, tried to cancel local elections. He was caught putting his thumb on the scales and forced into an embarrassing climbdown that cost time and money, and undermined confidence in politics and local government. He is setting about the biggest reorganisation of local government in more than half a century, and doing so with no mandate for a change of this scale. Ministers now appear to be desperate to avoid scrutiny, by announcing these decisions on the final sitting day before the House rises for the summer recess—a pattern we have seen before.

The Minister insists that elections for the new shadow authorities will take place next year. We also heard that elections for county mayors would take place in May this year, but—spoiler alert—they did not happen. In many areas there are still no agreed authority boundaries, no ward boundaries and no legislative timetable. How are councils, candidates and electors supposed to prepare for elections without those key details? Why are Labour councillors allowed to redraw the boundaries of the very authorities that they hope to represent, before any independent review by the Local Government Boundary Commission? If the process is not about narrow party political advantage, why were Labour MPs and councillors briefed before this House? If the elections are to happen next year, the Government must bring forward the necessary legislation before the House rises. I ask the Government to break with tradition, to be open and transparent, and to avoid diktat from the centre—or is it really the legacy of the Secretary of State to leave things in such a shambles?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He said I was desperate to avoid scrutiny—

[Sir James Cleverly]

I said “the Secretary of State”.

[Alison McGovern]

I am a Minister, too, and I can answer. I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree with me that I have answered a number of Westminster Hall debates on this subject, and we have also had debates upstairs on statutory instruments, as is absolutely right. Members of this House will have an opportunity to question the Government and put their views forward, as they already have done in Westminster Hall debates and on other occasions.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman missed what I said, which was that we will make announcements on the remaining areas this week. [Interruption.] The day will be decided by the usual channels; I will not presume to say what the usual channels and Mr Speaker will decide. If the right hon. Gentleman has a little patience, he can give me another go at this when I make the announcement very soon.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I will begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to try to improve this legislation, which is in many ways such a curate’s egg. It has faults and flaws that their lordships in the other place have worked towards improving, and I thank them for that work.

The Conservatives have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this is a centralising Bill. It takes decisions away from local communities and places them into the hands of Ministers, often without consent. We have already seen the consequences of this centralising of power and “Government know best” attitude. We have seen elections cancelled and then reinstated. We have seen the restructuring of local government imposed from the centre, driven by political considerations rather than the voice of the independent boundary commissions.

Local leaders are being presented with plans and told to comply. It is called a devolution Bill, but it is not devolution. We welcome the improvements to this Bill put forward by the Lords. The question before the House, however, remains simple: does this Bill empower local areas, or does it continue a pattern of centralised control? I will go through the Lords amendments in turn.

Lords amendment 36, which we support, would be an important and practical improvement to the Bill. It establishes the clear principle that brownfield land should be used first. That is just common sense. We want to get more houses built—of course we do—but we should start with land that has already been used rather than virgin land. The amendment protects communities while still enabling homes to be built with local approval and local consent.

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. In the west midlands under the leadership of Andy Street, it was proven that we can regenerate brownfield sites—we have done it in the Walsall borough. The Government must be prepared, as we were when we were in government, to put in some funding to unlock those sites. It can be a win-win as we develop brownfield sites, regenerate our towns and cities, create the housing wanted by young people and old people, and protect the green belt and our green spaces for as long as we possibly can, allowing communities such as those I represent—600 people came out last weekend to protest against the Government’s measures—to enjoy the amenities of life that they currently do.

[Sir James Cleverly]

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

[Mr Forster]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir James Cleverly]

No. Let us talk about local consent. Lords amendment 98 addresses one of the central concerns with the Bill and would ensure that changes to local governance cannot simply be imposed from the centre. That matters, because devolution must be with the consent of local people and not imposed from Whitehall.

The Lords rightly scrutinises the role of mayoral commissioners, and Lords amendment 4 would strengthen transparency in their appointment. We have consistently argued that power must come with proper accountability. Following engagement with colleagues in the other place, the Government have published draft guidance on appointments and remuneration. That is welcome, but guidance is not the same as proper accountability, and there remains a real risk of expanding layers of expensive and unelected roles without sufficient scrutiny. We will continue to press for further and stronger safeguards.

On governance in London, Lords amendment 13 would make a targeted change to how decisions are taken on council tax requirement. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), who is sadly no longer in his place, it would lower the threshold for the London Assembly to amend those decisions, strengthening its ability to hold the mayor to account. That would be a step towards greater democratic accountability in London, and we support it.

While we support those improvements, concerns do remain. On Lords Amendment 42 and land disposal, we have been clear about the need for proper safeguards. We argued that any change in this area must be preceded by a full review. The Government promised a wider review of protections for public open spaces and that they would engage widely before recommending any changes. Yet those commitments have been watered down and suddenly, we discover that a proper consultation has become an internal review. That is why we have again tabled an amendment to require a proper review of open space availability before the powers are exercised.

[Mr Kohler]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Sir James Cleverly]

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

[Mr Kohler]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Tories’ amendment (a) would do nothing and that it is actually just a tick-box exercise that would allow Lords amendment 42 to pass with the Minister just having to have regard to a report? Why did the Tory party not vote against the amendment? There are many that did not pass. Why did they not vote against this amendment from Lord Banner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly]

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment. Had his party in the other place voted to keep the protections in, we would not be having this discussion at this Dispatch Box now. His party failed to do its work in the other place. I will not stand here and be lectured by his party, which failed to do its job.

The pattern is familiar. The Government centralise powers first and then consider accountability later. Some amendments before us represent sensible improvements and we will support them where they do. However, the underlying concern with the Bill remains. Devolution must trust local people in local areas. In so many ways, the Bill does not. Devolution only works when there is proper transparency in decision making and proper safeguards when powers are expanded. In many ways, this Bill does not have that. That is what we will continue to press for and that is why we will continue to hold this Labour Government to account. The Bill has serious consequences, it is still deficient, and we will support the Lords amendments that improve it.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

The implications of this legislation will be significant for communities across the country. It is therefore crucial that we get it right.

I pay tribute to Eamonn Boylan, who sadly passed away earlier this month—a pivotal figure for Greater Manchester’s devolution journey. During his time as chief executive of the combined authority, he understood that the more power we obtain, both regionally and locally, the more we can deliver. Eamonn certainly helped Greater Manchester to deliver, following the progress made by the likes of Sir Howard Bernstein and Sir Richard Leese.

We in Greater Manchester have been at the forefront of progress in this area and we have been focused on one thing: making tangible improvements to the lives of those who elect us. This Labour Government must be radical in their approach to devolution, bringing power closer to people and not hoarding it in this place, and we must future-proof this Government’s achievements from those who would seek to undermine and unravel our progress.

We need to ensure that the transfer of power to our communities is permanent. From adding culture as a devolved competence to strengthening restrictions on gambling premises, there is much to welcome in the amendments. Today I will cover the amendments related to private hire vehicles, both in terms of national standards and Lords amendments 55 to 62 on enforcement powers for drivers operating in other areas. I previously tabled an amendment on this matter, which I believe would have empowered mayoral strategic authorities to require private hire vehicle drivers to licence within their region. That would have brought licensing, enforcement and monitoring closer to home and forged stronger ties between drivers and the communities they serve.

I acknowledge the efforts of Baroness Pidgeon, who sought, as I did, to phase out out-of-area operations. I welcome the steps that the Government, in the form of Lords amendments, have taken towards enabling licensing authorities to take enforcement action against a PHV licensed out of area and to temporarily suspend licences.

I especially welcome the steps that these amendments take to improve information sharing between licensing authorities on the conduct of individual drivers. Although I support this step and the Government’s work on national standards, we must acknowledge that the system at large will still be characterised by out-of- area operations. I commend what the Government are seeking to do, but if we are to bring about better enforcement processes, we need to incentivise or perhaps mandate drivers to license locally and therefore disincentivise drivers from taking shortcuts to obtaining a licence hundreds of miles away from where they wish to operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a considered and insightful debate. Many hard-working communities in this country have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappear, their high streets decline, and the dream of a decent, affordable home fade. This Bill will do the job of empowering forgotten communities and restore local pride by making devolution the default setting. It will give our strategic authority mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration, and help rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver strong local services that we all rely on. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their important contributions, and I will respond to some of them in the time left.

Again and again, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) has accused the Government of this being a centralising Bill. Candidly, that is just not true. The Conservatives, who had an ad hoc and all-over-the-place approach to devolution over the last decade and a half, had the opportunity to fundamentally reset the relationship between national Government and local government, and they chose not to do so. We are acting where they did not act. We are doing the biggest transfer of power that we have seen in a generation—

[Sir James Cleverly]

To central Government!

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

No, to our mayors, our local leaders and our communities. Not acknowledging that is quite simply churlish.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the key issue of scrutiny of commissioners and all the key decision makers at strategic authority level. We recognise and agree with that, which is why we have included amendments to introduce stronger local scrutiny committees with greater teeth, so that with greater responsibility comes an accountability framework to make sure that we hold decision makers to account on behalf of local people.

On the question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke to Lords amendment 2. Again, there is no agreement on policy. We are very clear that mayors have a responsibility to ensure that their rural communities are looked after and protected, and the reality of what we are seeing in places like North Yorkshire is that that is exactly what our mayors are doing. We do not believe that we need to put that on the face of the Bill, because it sits within each of the competencies that mayors will have to take on board. The guidance that sits alongside that, which points to good practice and the work that mayors have done, will be far more powerful in ensuring that this policy bites in the communities where we want it to bite.

Several Members spoke about the brownfield-first approach, and we agree with that policy. That is very clear in the national planning policy framework, which we have strengthened to ensure that it is the case. [Interruption.] No, I am not just saying it, because that is the policy, and the policy determines what happens in the planning framework. However, we are clear that is there is variability—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says we are centralising, but we say we should leave it to mayors and local authorities to deal with diversity in their particular circumstances, so that they are not caught in legal wrangling, but can make such choices. The policy is very clear: it is about putting brownfield first. Critically, unlike the last Government, we are investing to enable our councils and our mayors to remediate and regenerate such land, so that the policy can bite in the way it is supposed to.

On the question of the cabinet and leader model, I go back to the fact that we are doing this because we fundamentally care about creating strong local authorities that can deliver for their people. Some 80% of local authorities already have this model, and it is effective. We have already made the concession that, where alternatives such as the committee model or the mayoral model exist in particular places, they can see out their terms. However, we think it is right to move in the long term to a model that will serve local people.

The hon. Member for Guildford also talked about devolution being imposed. On the approach we have taken to strategic authorities—I ask the House to judge us by the way we are acting, not just by the words I say—we are incredibly clear that it is ultimately for local partnerships to come together, and Government will enable and pass devolution down to them. We are not imposing, and we are committed to not imposing.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cleverly Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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

[Steve Reed]

It was, of course, the Conservative Government who abolished housing targets everywhere, which led to the housing crisis that we are now facing. Under that Government, the number of people sleeping rough, on the streets and in shop doorways, doubled. Opposition Members are smiling while I explain what they did: they are smiling because the number of people sleeping on the streets doubled, while the number of families in temporary accommodation doubled as well. The Conservatives did nothing when the housing market collapsed in 2022-23 because of Liz Truss’ Budget, which the shadow Secretary of State supported.

[Sir James Cleverly]

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

[Steve Reed]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, elections are going ahead all over the country right now. I suspect that, like me, he has been campaigning and knocking on doors to talk to people about how they will vote, and we will find out in a few weeks what their judgments on all of us will be.

Local Government Reorganisation

James Cleverly Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 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 local government reorganisation.

[Hon. Members]

Where is he?

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for the—[Interruption.] I am always happy to be at the Dispatch Box; I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to set out the latest steps in local government reorganisation.

For too long, many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. The Government’s aim on local government reorganisation is simple: clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. We are getting on with delivering that aim.

Yesterday the Secretary of State announced the next steps on local government reorganisation in six areas of England. He has decided, subject to parliamentary approval, to implement proposals for 15 new councils in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth; Norfolk; and Suffolk. In addition to the Isle of Wight, that will see 16 councils operating across these areas in place of the current 44. The proposals are supported by two thirds of councils within these areas and many local communities. They will help to expand key towns and cities, deliver housing and growth, and simplify public services for residents. We will bring forward the secondary legislation to implement the proposals for the new local councils in due course.

On East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and West Sussex, we have carefully considered the four proposals submitted alongside the views expressed during the consultation, but no final decision has been taken at this stage, reflecting the need to address a number of important matters. Proposed modifications will form the basis of a further technical consultation to be carried out after the May local elections, which will allow councils and partners to provide focused views before any final decisions are taken. Taking the time to get this right now provides the strongest foundations for delivery, supporting improvements to people’s lives in the places where they live and enabling councils to operate effectively from day one.

We have set out the timetable, with elections to new unitary councils taking place in 2027 ahead of them going live in April 2028. Reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour, and we will continue to work with councils to see that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at heart.

[Sir James Cleverly]

People will ask whether this is an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism or an act of gross incompetence and stupidity, but I can inform the House that it is both. There is no mandate for this; there was nothing in Labour’s manifesto. It is an imposition from Whitehall. If the Government were so proud of this work, why did they try to sneak it out in a written ministerial statement and have to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to justify their decisions?

Unlike the hon. Lady, I have spoken to local government leaders in the areas affected. They were presented with a plan and told to comply—the outcome was predetermined. This is a stitch-up. Labour is redrawing boundaries from the centre and overriding local identity and local consent to maximise party political advantage.

The Government have announced £63 million for this transformation, yet it turns out that that is the same £63 million that they have already committed to deal with the consequence of their botched attempt to cancel local elections. How can they now claim that that money will fund wholesale reorganisation?

The Government are telling well-run councils to subsidise poorly run councils. Money that should be filling potholes will actually be filling black holes; resources that should be for collecting waste and supporting vulnerable residents will instead be diverted into restructuring and bureaucracy. Estimates point to a borrowing requirement because of these changes running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially approaching £1 billion, all to fund their vanity project, and the cost will fall on local people.

I have some questions for the Minister. How can she claim that this reorganisation is locally led when it is being imposed on communities? Why are Ministers determining the boundaries rather than the independent boundary commission? What estimates will be made of the total borrowing requirement? How much money has been set aside for the inevitable judicial reviews that will flood out after this announcement?

This is not reform, but vandalism; it is not empowerment, but imposition. It is local people who will pay the price for this Government’s incompetence and arrogance.

[Alison McGovern]

Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not saying what he really thinks about the proposals; I am glad that he had the opportunity to do that. He asked about proposals being locally led. Of course, all the proposals have been put forward by the areas they affect. Residents and others had their chance to feed into the consultation, and we weighed those consultation responses alongside other factors that he will be aware of. He mentioned some of them, including finances.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Boundary Commission. Officials have engaged with it extensively. I have met it to talk through the process, and I am confident that it can do the work needed to make the process a success. Finally, on finances, I have spent the past six months or so listening, day after day, to councils that have deficits caused by a failure in the special educational needs and disabilities system, a failure in children’s care and a failure in adult social care, presided over by a Government of which he was an active part, so if I was him, I would be cautious about lecturing other people about council borrowing.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

James Cleverly Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I echo his thanks to Mr Rycroft for the work that he has done on a very important report. We began work in this area through the defending democracy taskforce, and I am glad to see the Minister for Security in his place to highlight the important link between the work of this report and the work that he does.

There should be no party political divide when it comes to protecting the integrity of our democracy, and there is a great deal in the report that my party instinctively agrees with. However, the process falls far short of what this House should expect. The 50-page Rycroft review was published just 20 minutes before Prime Ministers questions, and only five minutes before one of the Secretary of State’s Ministers was hosting a meeting to which I was invited about local government reorganisation, making it very difficult for me to read the detail of the report—[Interruption.] That made it very difficult for me to read the detail of an incredibly important report which, as I said, contains much with which we instinctively agree. This is not just poor procedure; it means that it is harder for the Opposition to scrutinise the actions of the Government properly, particularly in light of the fact that many of the proposals in the report are being initiated immediately.

Sadly, this follows a pattern of behaviour by this Government. The Representation of the People Bill has already been through Second Reading and is in Committee, yet today is the first time we are seeing important elements of a report that goes to the heart of that legislation. Foreign interference is growing and it demands a coherent response—a cross-party response—and yet this Government choose to legislate first and make announcements later. They brought forward the Representation of the People Bill before the Rycroft review had reported; they asked the House to scrutinise legislation that was full of holes, as the Secretary of State is now announcing from the Dispatch Box. This is not good process.

My comments are not about process for process’s sake, but about ensuring that unforeseen or bad outcomes are avoided, while protecting what needs to be protected. Now we are told that major changes—fundamental changes—on donations, enforcement and transparency are being rushed into a Bill late in its passage, without proper consultation, scrutiny or time. That is not the way to ensure that cross-party policy is successfully implemented.

It is right that the Secretary of State and the Government want to send a clear message that they take this issue seriously, and we echo that desire, but this is not the way to do it. Announcing Government action by press release, then filling in the details later, undermines the important work at the heart of the report. Russia’s aggression, Iran’s hostile activity on British soil, cyber-attacks on our institutions and Chinese state-based activity against us here in the UK make it incredibly important that we fight this fight together. Having these things bumped on the House, in the way that this report has been, does not help.

The Secretary of State knows that the Conservatives are very much on the same side in relation to these matters, so I have a number of questions for him, which I will rattle through now. Why did he not wait for the Rycroft report before introducing the Representation of the People Bill in the House? Which of the review’s recommendations will require primary legislation and what time will be provided for that primary legislation? Will he commit to a full consultation with political parties and regulators before making any substantive amendments to the Bill going through the House?

From an initial reading, the proposals on company donations will have a significant effect on legitimate domestic donations, so why are the Government proposing to treat domestic philanthropy as if it were something distasteful? Will the Secretary of State confirm that these changes will not be brought forward without proper consultation and consideration on the effects of legitimate domestic funding?

Foreign interference is not the only threat to the integrity of our elections. We have seen evidence of breaches of electoral law, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that current legislation is enforced?

Will the Secretary of State tighten the rules on foreign donations? He talked about devolved franchise changes in Wales and Scotland. What will he do to make sure that the forthcoming elections are protected? Finally, does he now accept that a very short pause to enable good faith interventions from my party and others would make this legislation stronger and send the signal that we are united as a democracy in this endeavour?

[Steve Reed]

May I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the purpose and intent of this legislation, and, indeed, for his and his party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft and his review? He lists the reasons that this is important to all of us and I agree with him. Certainly, I want to see both proper engagement with the Opposition and the opportunity for proper scrutiny, because that will strengthen the legislation. It is important that the legislation has cross-party support given the nature of the issue.

We had to act quickly to bring forward the provisions, because we could not allow a window of opportunity to open that would enable evasion by malign and hostile actors. Beyond that, the proposals will proceed in the usual way through the parliamentary processes and Members from all parts of the House will have the opportunity to comment and be engaged. It was necessary to act at speed because of the gravity of the threat that Philip Rycroft’s review outlined very clearly.

None of wants to allow foreign interference to continue. All of us believe that it is the right of the British people—and the British people alone—to freely choose their own Government. We will engage with Governments across the United Kingdom and parties across this Parliament to ensure that is the outcome.

Representation of the People Bill

James Cleverly Excerpts

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.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that 8 million people being either registered in the wrong place, or not on the register at all, is also an example of an inaccurate register? Would it not be better to have people over-registered—presumably they would then not turn out, because they had moved away or whatever—than under-registered and disenfranchised? Of the two inaccuracies, being unable to vote is the one we should be more worried about, if we believe in democracy.

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point, but it is a point of debate. Registration in the UK is not difficult, and the fact that some people have not registered is not in itself a rationale for undermining the integrity of the voter registration process and introducing errors. He asks whether it would not be better to have errors of over-registration than of under-registration. That is a point for debate. I think it is better to have accuracy of registration. In many parts of the world, people literally put their life at risk to vote. People who do choose not to vote in the UK do not do so because voting is too difficult; it is not difficult to vote in the UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken steps over time to make it easier to vote. If people are not voting, perhaps political parties—all of us—should ask why we are not inspiring people enough to register, rather than taking up the point that he is making, and putting people on the register who should not be there, because they do not live in that place.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that if the Government are going to push forward with auto-enrolment on to the electoral roll, it should at least apply to everybody at the same time, for the same general election? If not, they could be perceived by the British people as gerrymandering to get a specific result at the general election.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I will move on in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Government’s contention is that auto-enrolment increases turnout, then turnout should be increased universally, or they risk being perceived as putting their thumb on the scales.

[Emily Thornberry]

I take objection to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, because surely if someone is a citizen, they should be able to vote. It should be as easy as possible—as easy as breathing—to vote, because a citizen has a right to vote. Every attempt should be made to make voting easier, not more difficult. If automatic enrolment helps people to vote, that is what we should do. Of course we need to be careful about it, though, and one of the reasons why this is a rolling programme, rather than putting it in place everywhere on the same day, is presumably to ensure that it is done properly. In the end, we should all want the same thing; British citizens should be able to vote in British elections, and nothing should get in their way.

[Sir James Cleverly]

It is easy to vote. Everyone has the right to vote. The right hon. Lady says that voting should be as easy as breathing; she is advocating for the removal of all electoral limitations and restrictions, whether that is the need to show ID, to provide proof of address, or to register. [Interruption.] There you go; the mask has slipped. If we take democracy seriously, we should want everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote, but nobody who does not have the right to vote to be able to vote. Otherwise, the democratic process is meaningless. Safeguards must be robust, verification must be clear, and pilots should be transparent. Integrity is strengthened by accuracy, not automation for its own sake.

As for voter ID, let us look at the facts. At the last general election the vast majority of those who sought to vote were able to do so successfully and immediately, and public confidence in polling integrity has increased, so why should we weaken the system by allowing bank cards without photographs to be used as ID? A name printed on a card is not an identity check, and I am not hearing that the Secretary of State is advocating the checking of PINs at the polling station. The risks are obvious, and, indeed, the Electoral Commission itself has raised concerns about the security and practicality of expanding the lists of acceptable IDs.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir James Cleverly]

I need to make some progress, otherwise I will be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker.

Integrity is not just about integrity at the door of the polling station. At the time of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported widespread breaches of ballot secrecy. Parliament strengthened the protections for ballot secrecy through the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—and this is not “family voting”; it is breaking the law. If polling station staff do not intervene when a voter is directed by another inside the polling booth, if secrecy signs are missing, if offences are ignored, the problem is not an absence of legislation, but a failure to enforce the legislation. The vote belongs to the individual—not to that person’s husband, not to that person’s brother, and not to a community leader—and no cultural practice overrides the secrecy of the ballot box in this country.

The Secretary of State mentioned artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He was right to say that we are entering a new era, and we support the idea of digital imprints. The rules exist, but the technology is moving fast. We would support and are happy to engage with sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement, but that work should be done carefully and in consultation. Again, this is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from cross-party engagement.

The centrepiece of the Bill—its big sales point—is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16. Both domestically and internationally, through the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child respectively, we define 16 and 17-year-olds as children, so allowing votes at 16 can only logically be explained in one of two ways.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Sir James Cleverly]

Well, let me at least make the point! I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching. Calm; calm; calm.

Either the Government are intending to give votes to children, or the Government want to redefine 16 and 17-year-olds as “not children”. Now I will give way.

[Kevin Bonavia]

We have just heard the Conservative definitions of a child and an adult, but according to the law in this country, there is no single definition. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10, the driving age in this country is 17, and the voting age has gone down over the decades. Surely we should be thinking about what it means to be able to vote. By bringing the voting age down to 16, we are bringing that to people who have the capacity to vote and who actually will vote. There is also evidence out there that 16-year-olds voting in Scotland are more likely to carry on voting. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that will be of benefit to our country—to the United Kingdom as a whole?

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. We do have a legal definition of childhood, and there is an international definition of childhood. The Children Act defines 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK as children. The UN convention on the rights of the child defines 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So I ask again, do the Government plan to define this as giving votes to children, or are they now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Not long ago, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, some of us went down to the commando training centre at Lympstone to see the Royal Marines’ passing-out parade. One of the brave young people there was just 17, and at the end of the parade he was told, “Marine, go off and do your duty.” At 17, he should be allowed to vote. Does the shadow Secretary of State not agree with me?

[Sir James Cleverly]

Sixteen and 17-year-olds can only join the armed forces with parental consent, and they cannot be deployed. Sixteen and 17-year-olds in the armed forces are children, which is why they are still in the education system, even when they join the armed forces. They are non-deployable, and they can only join with parental consent. Let me say yet again—third time lucky—that the Children Act and the UN convention on the rights of the child define 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So, for the third time of asking, are the Government saying that they are giving votes to children, or are they saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir James Cleverly]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the answer.

[Sam Rushworth]

On the basis of the argument that he is advancing, the right hon. Gentleman believes in children having sex, because the age of consent is 16—but I think that the mask slipped earlier when he said that this was gerrymandering and giving an electoral advantage. I wonder whether he will comment on why his party is so afraid that young people will not vote Conservative.

[Sir James Cleverly]

It seems that no Labour Members are willing to address the point that I have raised. This is a really simple binary choice. As I have said, both domestically and internationally, 16 and 17-year-olds are defined as children. I have asked this question multiple times, but Labour Members will not address it.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Sir James Cleverly]

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

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the valuable contribution that young people in Scotland have made to the democratic process, first in 2014, when they were able to vote in the independence referendum, and subsequently in Scottish local and parliamentary elections? Does he value their contribution?

[Sir James Cleverly]

I value the contribution of people in this country whether they are or are not able to vote, but again, that does not address the point. I am going to move on now, because it is clear that Labour Members either will not or cannot address it. They do not seem to know whether they are giving votes to children or stripping childhood from 16 and 17-year-olds.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir James Cleverly]

I will give way, but then I will move on.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my right hon. Friend notice the inconsistency in the Government’s plans? They propose to lower the voting age to 16, but they do not propose to allow those same 16 and 17-year-olds to stand for Parliament, presumably because they are children.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I have tried on a number of occasions, but I have not received an answer either the Benches opposite or from the Benches to my left.

[Kevin Bonavia]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State is not giving way.

[Sir James Cleverly]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect him enormously, but there are a number of other points that I want to make. If he thinks he can answer the question that I have posed, let him do so. OK, here we go.

[Kevin Bonavia]

The shadow Secretary of State has asked, on a number of occasions, whether we agree with his so-called legal definition. The legal definition is always for the purposes of the law for which it is intended, so the Children Act definition is for the purposes of that Act, and what we are debating today is for the purposes of voting.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I take it from his intervention that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children. Is that his point?

I have tried to squeeze the logical underpinning of this proposal out of the Government, but I have not been able to do so, because I do not think they know what it is. If the Government are going to make the case for giving the vote to children, why 16-year-old children? Why not 15-year-old children? The Secretary of State chuckles, but why not 15-year-old children? The argument is that 16-year-olds have a longer stake in society, but if that is true of 16-year-olds it is, by definition, more true of 15-year-olds—and why not 14-year-olds, or 13-year-olds? Will he take up the proposal of Professor David Runciman of Cambridge University and give votes to six-year-olds?

As a society, we do not confer legal adulthood on children, and the law reflects that. Sixteen and 17-year-olds cannot buy alcohol. They cannot buy cigarettes and vapes. They cannot stand for election to this House or, indeed, to other statutory representative bodies. They cannot legally place bets. They cannot marry in England and Wales. They cannot join the armed forces without parental consent. They cannot go to war. They cannot consume pornography, and rightly so.

If the Secretary of State and his Government now believe that 16-year-olds should in fact be of civic and legal adulthood, they should simply say so and put in place the legislative changes to bring consistency to the statute book. Good luck to him if he wants to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the rights laid out in the list that I have just given. If the Government do not feel that 16 and 17-year-olds should have those full rights and responsibilities, this change appears to be selective at best and cynical at worst. Such a fundamental alteration to the franchise for UK elections should rest on broad consensus and careful reasoning.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Clearly this was cynical, but judging by the by-election in Greater Manchester, perhaps the Labour party, when it comes to giving votes to 16-year-olds, should be careful what it wishes for.

[Sir James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am a believer in democracy, and being punished at the ballot box is a fundamental foundation stone of democracy. None of us should change the mandate for narrow party political advantage. I strongly suspect that the point he makes is right, but that is not the point that I am making.

This move will be perceived to be partisan and counterproductive. This Bill could and should be so much better. If the Government were serious about this issue, they would work cross-party to get it right, because democracy does not belong to Ministers; it belongs to the people, and the rules that govern it must be worthy of their trust. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment, and I invite the House to support it. I say to the Secretary of State that we will work with the Government to improve this Bill, but we reserve the right to vote it down during its later stages if the Government do not act in good faith and in support of the broader principles of democracy.

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.