Did he just say "shithole"? Cleverly vs Cunningham

Last week a Labour MP accused the home secretary of insulting his constituency in the House of Commons: there is still not agreement on what happened

Today was James Cleverly’s first oral question time in the House of Commons since he became home secretary two weeks ago in the wake of Suella Braverman’s dismissal. There is enough within his brief to keep any man anxious and overworked, with an escalating political row over immigration and tension over the policing of major public demonstrations; but there was particular piquancy because Cleverly has been involved in a to-and-fro argument with Labour MP Alex Cunningham since last Wednesday.

The fons et origo is this: Cunningham, the Member for Stockton North since 2010, rose at Prime Minister’s Questions on 22 November to ask Rishi Sunak “Why are 34 per cent of children in my constituency living in poverty?” It was an ordinary question, and the prime minister batted it away as prime ministers tend to, saying “It is this Government who, as a result of our actions, have ensured that across our country 1.7 million fewer people are living in poverty.” It was not a direct reply and didn’t address the specific issue Cunningham had raised, and he shouted “That’s not true!” Sunak should have ignored the remark but tried again.

Yes, it is true. Not only that, but hundreds of thousands fewer children are living in poverty, and income inequality is at a lower level than we inherited from the Labour party. We do not want any child to grow up in poverty, and the best way to achieve that is to ensure that they do not grow up in a workless household. That is why the right strategy is to ensure that we provide as many children as possible with the opportunity to grow up with parents in work, and because of the actions of previous Governments several hundred thousand more families are in that—

The speaker had had enough by this stage, and declared “Got it”. That might have drawn a line underneath the affair, which would not even have been regarded as “an affair”. But Cunningham was not finished. After PMQs, and after the chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, had delivered his Autumn Statement, Cunningham took the first opportunity to raise a point of order. The speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, had by this stage left the chamber, handing over to his senior deputy, Dame Eleanor Laing, chairman of Ways and Means.

During Prime Minister’s questions today, I asked the Prime Minister why 34 per cent of children in my constituency live in poverty. Before the Prime Minister answered, the Home Secretary chose to add his pennyworth. I have contacted his office, advising him of my plan to name him, but sadly he has chosen not to be in the Chamber. He was seen and heard to say, “Because it’s a shithole.” I know he is denying being the culprit, but the audio is clear and has been checked and checked and checked again. There is no doubt that these comments shame the Home Secretary, this rotten Government and the Tory party. He is clearly unfit for his high office. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you advise me how I can secure an apology from the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box for his appalling insult and foul language?

It is worth saying for casual observers that points of order are supposed to be issues raised by MPs with the occupant of the chair to obtain clarification or a ruling on whether the procedures of the House have been contravened. However, there s a consensual acceptance that points of order are often used as an opportunity to emphasise specific issues for political purposes, and a huge proportion will receive an answer which begins “That is not a matter for the chair…”

In fact Cunningham’s was a genuine point of order. Because he focused on the language he claimed the home secretary had used, he put the matter squarely in the speaker’s bailiwick as conduct in the House is clearly a matter for the chair. However, one striking feature of proceedings, and may be no bad thing, is that it is very difficult to wind things back. If something has happened, there is not always much that can be done about. In helpful terms, because she is naturally generous, Dame Eleanor tried to compose an answer which might mollify Cunningham.

My understanding is that Mr Speaker did not hear any remark of the kind from the Chair at the time when the hon. Gentleman was asking his question of the Prime Minister, and I understand that the alleged words were not actually used.

Presumably she had been assured by the home secretary, or someone on his behalf, that Cleverly denied saying that Stockton was a “shithole”. She then tried to bring everyone together to agree that the point, and a wider issue of courtesy, had been addressed.

I think we all know that it is very difficult in the noisy atmosphere of Prime Minister’s questions to discern exactly what someone says, so I can make no judgment from the Chair as to what was or was not said—but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I remind all hon. Members of the need for good temper and moderation in the language they use in this Chamber, and that the rules of decency should be observed.

It is hard to imagine what more Dame Eleanor could have said. She had not been present, so she was confronted by two Members with incompatible versions of events. Cunningham insisted not only that Cleverly had said “Because it’s a shithole”, but that he had also had the audio feed of the remarks “checked”, while Cleverly simply denied having said it at all. There was no evidential slam-dunk: whatever analysis Cunningham had carried out, listeners heard different things. I’ve listened to the sounds (there is no visual feed for the front bench just at that moment) and it is possible that here are two vowel sounds which might be “shithole”, but it is impossible not to be influenced by what you are expecting to hear. Even the questionable words did not sound to me like being made in Cleverly’s voice. Cunningham remained adamant.

The home secretary later issued a statement through a spokesman. “He did not say that, and would not. He’s disappointed people would accuse him of doing so.” For what it’s worth, I would have advised a different tone: Cleverly’s I’m-shocked-I-tell-you-shocked tone of innocence is a little too much; I would have counselled a humble apology that Cunningham thought he had said that, a firm reassurance that he had not and a grave sympathy with the strength of his feeling. But no-one asked me.

The opportunity of embarrassing a newly appointed minister was understandably too tempting for the Labour front bench to ignore. At business questions on Thursday last week, Lucy Powell, the new shadow leader of the House of Commons, asked the leader, Penny Mordaunt:

Does the Leader of the House agree that besmirching another hon. Member’s constituency goes against all the courtesies of this place and is utterly disrespectful to their constituents? Will she ensure that the Home Secretary comes to this House and apologises? That sort of foul language may be accurate when describing Government policy, but not the great town of Stockton.

A reasonable run at shock and disappointment, and enough to rekindle the flame for a moment. But Mordaunt excels in this arena. She addressed all of the questions Powell had put before that one, soberly and gently, drawing the heat out of the exchange, and then simply responded:

The hon. Lady mentions Stockton North, which will benefit from £20 million of levelling-up funding for Billingham town centre. With regard to the charge that she makes against the Home Secretary, he denies it and I believe him.

There was not much more to be said. However, that same day, Cleverly admitted that, while he had not described Stockton as a “shithole”, he had called out after Cunningham’s question to respond that the level of deprivation was “Because you’re a shit MP”. His spokesman stressed that the home secretary apologised for using unparliamentary language, but had played the man, not the ball. (I explained what constitutes unparliamentary language in an essay last year.) But Cunningham was having none of it: “This is simply not true. I don’t believe it. Two syllables were clearly heard.” Perhaps trying to tempt the home secretary, Cunningham continued “‘MP’ doesn’t fit. He’s moved today but needs to go the full distance and admit that he said the words.”

With no way to resolve the impasse, the matter has descended to a purely political one. Opposition MPs assume Cunningham is right and have condemned Cleverly’s alleged language, leveraging it to portray the government as disdainful of ordinary people and the North of England, while Conservatives have followed Cleverly’s line and repeated his denial and his partial explanation. The notable exception has been Lord Houchen of High Leven, the Conservative mayor of the Tees Valley, whose domain includes Stockton-on-Tees. Without specifying if he believed that Cleverly had said “a shit MP”, he wrote on X (formerly Twitter):

I’m pleased James Cleverly has apologised for using unparliamentary language Whatever was said, the speculation dragged Stockton’s name through the mud, which is unacceptable We’re all human & he’s a good guy who made a mistake Now let’s get back to building Teesside

There seemed nothing to break the pattern of trench warfare. But with Cleverly back at the dispatch box on Monday, the controversy was likely to be revived. So it was that Cunningham rose again at 4.30 pm with another point of order.

It is extremely sad that the Home Secretary has not the guts to admit to his appalling remark made about my Stockton North constituency from the Front Bench and apologise to the people I have the privilege of representing. There was quite a chain of events last week. After I raised the matter on the Floor of the House, the Home Secretary first denied he had said anything at all. The Government then sent out the Tory party chairman, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), to tell the media that no words had been uttered from the Treasury Bench. Next up, the Leader of the House said she had been told by the Home Secretary that he had not said anything and she believed him. She did not help matters by referring to Billington instead of Billingham.

The Home Secretary clearly took them both for fools, as he later admitted his foul language but tried to minimise the damage to his reputation by claiming his remark was aimed at me. Well, that is all right then, but it is untrue and has been shown to be untrue. My thanks go to The Mirror and the other wizards out there who have proved that to be the case.

He is clearly exercised about the matter and sincere in his belief. However, Dame Eleanor Laing, once again in the chair, had to pick up one aspect of Cunningham’s point: he had said the home secretary’s response was “untrue”. Erskine May, the handbook of parliamentary procedure, specifically forbids MPs from “the imputation of false or unavowed motives; the misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation; and charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood”. Cunningham had clearly broken this rule and the deputy speaker asked him to “find another way of expressing that”.

He complained that it was not easy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you offer me a considerable challenge. Perhaps the Home Secretary has inadvertently misled people across the country in relation to this particular matter.

This matters: people take notice of what the Home Secretary says and his talking down of Stockton and Teesside can have consequences. He may have whispered in your ear, Madam Deputy Speaker, but can you advise me on whether you have any powers to order him to return to the Dispatch Box to apologise in person for insulting Stockton, rather than hiding behind the half-truths uttered on his behalf by an official?

Dame Eleanor could so little except repeat the general remarks she had made last week, underlining, in the words of Erskine May, that “Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language”. However, Cleverly had returned to the chamber and so was given the opportunity to speak.

For the avoidance of doubt, the hon. Member for Stockton North accused me of making derogatory remarks about his constituency. My response, issued through my office, was that I did not, would not and would never make such comments about his constituency. What I said was a comment about him. My apology was for using unparliamentary language, but I will make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of doubt and with no ambiguity, that I did not, would not—

Then the temperature rose. “You did!” shouted Cunningham. “What are you calling me, sir?” Cleverly responded. Dame Eleanor intervened to stop a debate, and the home secretary concluded:

I know what I said. I rejected the accusation that I criticised the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. My criticism, which I made from a sedentary position about him, used inappropriate language, for which I apologise. But I will not accept that my criticism was of his constituency, because it was not.

At that point, there was little room for any progress and the deputy speaker declared the matter closed. But Cunningham was not done.

I do not require any apology for an insult against me, because it did not happen. You have just intimated, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Home Secretary has apologised to me. He has not apologised to me. He has not apologised to the people of my constituency. He has apologised for using unparliamentary language.

Dame Eleanor’s patience seemed to be at an end, and she recognised the impasse, telling Cunningham:

I require an apology, the Home Secretary has issued that apology, and the matter is now closed. I must say that the people who elected us to this place expect us to concentrate now on the very serious matters that we have been discussing and that we are going on to discuss.

It is hard to see where we go from here. Cunningham clearly believes he heard the home secretary say “shithole”, whether he did or not, unless he is pathologically committed to scoring a point; and I’ve no reason to thank that. So he is acting in sincerity, whatever else. He has wrung a great deal of publicity out of it, for which he should bear no censure. This is politics, and it is a contact sport.

Over the weekend, The Sunday Mirror examined the audio evidence and suggested that the word “shithole” had indeed been used. An “info nerd” on Twitter, Mike Jay, had conducted some kind of analysis which reached the same conclusion. Prima facie, this is suggestive, if not necessarily compelling, in terms of the word being said; and yet the home secretary maintains he did not say the word. Of course there are many who will simply ascribe this to the habitual lying either of Conservatives or politicians in general; and it may be that Cleverly is lying, and that the technical analysis shows what it seems to show.

If that is the case, the home secretary is pursuing an extraordinarily unwise course of action is blank denial of something he actually said. Stereotypes aside, it is relatively unusual for politicians to tell, and to persist in, outright, indisputable untruths—a striking exception is Boris Johnson, who has demonstrated an ability to say that balck is white without his pulse going above 60 beats per minute—not least because the risk of exposure and consequences is so high. It is possible Cleverly shouted “Because it’s a shithole!” in a lapse of judgement, realised it had been detected by the microphones, panicked and had now committed to a lie from which he cannot resile. Or he really didn’t say it, is frustrated at being misrepresented and wants to defend his conduct.

Procedurally, we are not going to make any progress. Cunningham has levelled his charge, the evidence has been presented and Cleverly denies it. The House of Commons does not have a VAR, and it is quite right that the speaker must rule on points of order when they are received rather than attempting some kind of forensic reconstruction of the events. If there were some mechanism for pursuing complaints ad infinitum, the House would still be dealing with Dennis Skinner’s point of order on discussing the royal family in November 1988. The caravan must move on.

If it could be proven that Cleverly said “shithole”, since he has denied it more than once in the House, it would be a serious offence. Making a deliberately misleading statement may be considered a contempt, and the Member in question could be censured by the House; this course of action was taken in June 1963 against the former war secretary, John Profumo, after he lied about his relationship with Christine Keeler. However, the government is under no obligation to provide time to consider a motion of censure, and, even if it did make time available, the government would be within its rights to whip against the motion, making its defeat likely.

Honesty is required by the Seven Principles of Public Life, which were drawn up in 1995 by Lord Nolan, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and are enshrined in an annex of the Ministerial Code. The code is enforced by the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, currently Sir Laurie Magnus, and any sanctions arising from a breach are ultimately a matter for the prime minister. All of this means that if it were determined that Cleverly had misled the House, his fate would in the end be a political rather than an administrative matter: the prime minister would judge whether dismissing or retaining a minister had a lower cost in political capital.

Alex Cunningham has a reusable weapon with which to strike the government. Those who accept his version of events will be dismayed by an attutide of indifference to a high level of child poverty in a town in North-East England and it will not play well in “Red Wall” seats. In Stockton-on-Tees as a whole (Cunningham represents the northern division, which has traditionally been less prosperous), the mean household income is a little lower than the national average, and levels of crime are slightly higher than other similarly sized towns in the region. The unemployment rate is slightly lower than the regional average. It is far from the most deprived area in the North-East, and has a proud heritage as one end of the world’s first steam-powered passenger railway, the Stockton and Darlington Railway which opened in 1825. The idea that a senior Tory minister dismissed it as a “shithole” could be damaging.

Absent any definitive proof of what Cleverly said, Cunningham should probably judge he has a limited amount of time henceforth to squeeze advantage out of this episode, if for no other reason than the public can get bored and politicians should be wary of losing their attention. Cunningham himself is not standing for re-election and the Labour Party has selected chemical engineer and executive Chris McDonald as their new candidate. Perhaps the new candidate can embrace a more positive note while Cunningham punches home the anti-Tory message.

There is a lesson in here on the importance of good humour and moderation, to use the words of Erskine May. I have said time and again that I believe genuine ideological clash is a healthy thing in a democracy, and a choice between passionately held and eloquently expressed world views is something we should all want, rather than a split-the-difference mushy centrist compromise. But it is perfectly possible to be passionate and polite, and we must try to maintain a degree of courtesy between opponents. The Cunningham/Cleverly spat may fizzle out: let us hope we don’t find ourselves here again.