Simon Hoare
MP for North Dorset · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The hon. Lady is making a principled argument that the House must listen to and respect, but she has spoken about choice and dignity, and the one thing I have never understood about this Bill is the importance of the specific time period—that it would apply to adults who have six months or fewer to live.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. This is the democratically accountable House; I think we would all agree on that point.”
“Against a backdrop of realism—things just go wrong, no matter how much money is invested in them, or how up to date they are—does it not seem slightly ludicrous that NATS has put all its eggs in one basket? There is no shadow, back-up or secondary scheme that can be used.”
“This creates a situation where important issues risk being overlooked and where residents feel they do not have a sufficient voice.” I have had a number of emails from across the country and from other constituents that effectively mirror and echo that point.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend and with his constituent, Alex Roll, who has been in contact with me via Facebook. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes on her behalf, and that she makes on behalf of countless others, which is that these companies are inclined to effectively hunt with the hounds and run with the hare at the same time.”
“The issues that Peter has raised with me on behalf of those residents, which are echoed by others, is the absence of management transparency—a key and important thing—and accountability of the companies involved, as well as a lack of clear communication that sets out in easily digestible form information that residents require and opennes…”
The complete record
Every one of 606 lines we hold for Simon Hoare, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). I will return in a moment to a point that he was just making. I have the great privilege of being the father of three wonderful teenage daughters. Any parent or relative will feel their stomach turn and churn at the thought of vulnerable young women being trafficked and used as playthings for the sexual gratification of warped and twisted minds who thought they were above the law, to whom the rules did not apply, and who thought they could get away with it because of who they were. I suppose the surprise as it relates to Peter Mandelson is that we are surprised. He was a man who seemed magnetised to money like a moth to a flame, and who had caused considerable and significant embarrassment and discomfort to previous leaders of his party.”
“My understanding is that a simple Bill to amend section 1(2) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 to apply a cessation date to the honour of a life peerage would be all that was required. We have passed important legislation for Northern Ireland and other issues in a day’s sitting before when the mood of the House was clear. I think the Prime Minister indicated today at Prime Minister’s questions that he had tasked his team—his officials—with drafting legislation. There is an appetite for urgency in this place, and allowing this issue to suppurate and drip will not be the answer. I ask the Minister in his summing up—or, if he wishes to intervene on me now—to give us a timetable as to when this House will see the Bill and to confirm that Government time will be found to take it through in a single day. That would be very helpful.”
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Why else would we have an Intelligence and Security Committee with that remit? It is not as if we are retrospectively trying to establish a Committee of the House to do a specific job. It exists to do this sort of job, among other things. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have listened. On Monday, in response to my question on his statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that it would be much better to deal with the removal of Lord Mandelson’s title via the procedures and Standing Orders of the House of Lords than by legislation. He also told the House—in complete and utter sincerity at the time, I am sure—that it would require a complex hybrid Bill, which was not an analysis I shared.”
“It is either naivety or, worse, some form of complicity that the legitimate and obvious questions that should have arisen for any political appointee, but particularly Peter Mandelson, were not asked. I think it is extraordinary that the views of the Foreign Secretary were not invited on this appointment. I also find it very strange that vetting is undertaken only after the announcement of an appointment—that is a most bizarre way of dealing with things. I am pleased that the Government have realised that things need to change.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hospital pass has just gone through the shredder. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, in all candour: yes. The likelihood of Mr Windsor ever putting a crown on his head is so remote as to be unimaginable, but for clarity and probity, I agree with him. I do, however, think we should deal with the matter in hand today. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has written to Sir Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to appear before us. This follows a letter we wrote last October, to which we received a reply on the 30th of that month. The way of vetting a political appointment to be an ambassador was woefully inadequate. I welcome the fact that No. 10 has put in place new procedures, but that is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.”
“Being in government is obviously different, but the reason the appointment of Mandelson befuddles everybody is that the argument that the Prime Minister has deployed is that the full extent of the relationship and friendship with Epstein was not known. The fact that there was any relationship with Epstein post conviction should have precluded Mandelson’s appointment. Why? Because an ambassador is not a representative of the Government. The position is His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America, so it brings in the impartiality of the Crown as well. There are therefore serious questions to ask about the operation of No. 10 and about how the Prime Minister exercises his judgment.”
“Go and be our ambassador to Washington.” In the general scheme of things, that is perfectly fine, but I think we deserve to see the paperwork that shows the paper trail. It is not unusual for political appointments to be made in that way, but that is in the abstract. In this specific case, it is unconscionable, and it is surprising given the fact that the Prime Minister flaunts, with some degree of credibility, his previous role as a senior lawyer and his ability to tell right from wrong. And by God, did we not hear that when he was Leader of the Opposition? Whenever a Conservative committed even a minor misdemeanour—if they put something plastic in the paper recycling box—by God it was a hanging offence: “They should all be taken outside, hanged, drawn and quartered” and so on.”
“My right hon. Friend is right, but if this motion is passed unamended this afternoon, all those papers will be available either to this place or to the ISC, and then we will know. We are all aware of these sorts of things. Somebody will set a hare running at some point and we will say that we think this, that and the other. I have heard, for example, that Peter Mandelson was at Labour party headquarters each and every day in the run-up to the general election and that he was intimately involved with the selection of candidates—I can see a couple of Labour Members nodding as if to say, “Yes, I knew exactly what was going to happen”—and that in essence, the ambassadorial position was a thank you present: “Thank you for getting us back into No. 10—here’s your final gift from the public purse.”
“Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, the best thing that we can have is transparency. The best disinfectant is sunlight. We need as much sunlight on these papers as possible, and we can start to make some progress this afternoon. Do not press the amendment and publish the Bill.”
“Conscious of that, Mr Speaker, let me say that I agree with my hon. Friend, and then conclude with two asks of the Government. First, will they confirm when a Bill will be introduced and that it will be passed speedily in both Houses before the Easter recess; and, secondly, although it is not my job to speak on behalf of those on the Labour Back Benches, I ask the Government to read the Chamber. Allowing the Government Chief Whip and others to press this amendment would, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) has said, send such a bad message to our constituents and to victims—not just of Epstein and Mandelson but to the wider victim community—that when push comes to shove, officialdom somehow or another circles the wagons and finds a vehicle to filter and to protect. As the hon.”
“Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there may be some considerable merit in both the European Commission and the European Parliament looking over their paperwork to see precisely where these things link up and whether Peter Mandelson breached rules when he was serving as Commissioner?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point relates to the point of order from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), which he did not quite finish. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has in the published register of interests significant monthly payments from X Corp, headquartered in California. That surely should have been a declared interest when making the intervention.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the point the Minister made about the Metropolitan police asking that certain documents not be released, in case they prejudice a trial or investigation. You know as well as I do, Sir, the importance of privilege to this place. Will your office and counsel work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that the rights and privileges of Members of this House are protected?”
“The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is right to say that the other place must modernise its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandelson can down the road. This is not the first time this modern-day Icarus has flown a little too close to the sun, usually over money; we all remember the Geoffrey Robinson mortgage loan, which of course occasioned an earlier resignation—”
“And the Hinduja passport, yes. Where I disagree with the Minister is in conflating the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and the bringing forward of legislation—which is allowed—to remove Mandelson’s peerage. I am absolutely certain that, were the Government to bring forward a Bill, which need not be complex and hybrid as he suggested, it could be rushed through this House in a day, such is the appetite to make the point.”
“The Secretary of State has demonstrated her commitment and interest in this issue at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, and we thank her for that. However, with the greatest respect, if social media had just arrived in our sitting rooms two weeks ago, a consultation might be necessary, but the canon of evidence about the demonstrable harms being done to our young is now very clear; that is what we have all read in our inboxes in recent days. The consultation will not throw up anything that we do not already know. Still less will it find a unanimity of view. There will always be differences of view on whether to ban. To govern is to choose. Can I urge the Government to choose to act swiftly, and to use the legislative vehicle in the other place to act now, because too many of our young people are on a precipice?”
“Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has prayed in aid the support of the United States of America and the wider Five Eyes community. This morning the President of the United States dropped what could be described as a depth charge on that and made very clear what he thinks. What are the House and the Government to read of what the Minister says was the American position on the Bill and what it appears that its commander-in-chief is saying today?”
“When I and other colleagues intervened on the Minister, we seemed to get a rather la-la land answer about the Government’s response to what the President of the United States has said. In terms, the Minister said, “I’ll go and have a word with him and put him straight.” Well, good luck with that! The Government, having prayed in aid for so long the unalloyed support of the United States, have now lost it. Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am to see that they are pretending that the incident never happened? It is like the “Bobby in the shower” moment in “Dallas”.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—never has a point of order been greeted with such joy from the Chair—you have rightly pointed out, as has Mr Speaker, the Lords amendments that engage Commons financial privilege. We guard that privilege jealously and exercise it with caution. How is the House supposed to exercise that financial privilege in an informed way when, despite several probes to the Minister to come up with a figure for what this deal will cost the public purse, those right hon. and hon Members attending the debate this afternoon have not been given that figure? We have had a lot of theory about how a figure had been arrived at, but no figure. How do we exercise—”
“The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, NATO, the Danes and others have been commended for responding to this situation through the usual channels and the usual means. That would be fine if we had an occupant of the White House who understood and respected all that, but he laughs now not just behind his hand but blatantly, in our faces, as a result. While all that continues, we need to try to work out what makes this man tick. He is thin-skinned, he has an ego, and he does not like to be embarrassed. Should the state visit go ahead this year? Should football teams play in American stadia for the world cup? These are things that would embarrass the President at home. We now need to fight fire with fire.”
“The Government’s interim dental measures will of course be welcomed by residents in North Dorset, but they know, as I do, that we in this place have been discussing the inadequacy of the dental contract for years. What they and I cannot understand is why it will take until the end of this Parliament, as the Minister told us just a little while ago, and not sooner, to sort out that big problem and turbocharge NHS dentistry in rural North Dorset.”
“Leonardo is an important company for Somerset, Dorset and the wider south-west. The Minister will know that corporate decisions are competitive, and his Department plays a key part in shaping what those decisions will be. The defence investment plan is now long overdue. I appreciate that he probably cannot give us a specific date, but it would be helpful if he could tell the House whether we will see the plan in this financial year or the next.”
“I hate to interrupt the Minister, but the Chancellor in effect told the House and the country when this policy was first introduced that people need not really worry a huge amount, because not a vast number of farms would fall into this trap. The welcome but limited announcement made just before Christmas will of course reduce still further the number of people who will fall into this trap. He has just set out to the Committee a very complicated set of checklists, including this, that and the other. Would it not make more sense to scrap this whole damned stupid idea, and give a big tick of confidence to our food-security-bringing, environment-protecting, job-creating farming sector, which is so vital to UK plc?”
“My hon. Friend is making a serious point. Given the huge discrepancy in the robustness of the figures from the Treasury and wider Government, the challenges they have faced from industry bodies and experts, and the sensitivity of the issue and importance of the agricultural sector, does my hon. Friend agree that while the Treasury may well wish to stick to its policy, it should pause and take some time to build consensus across the sector on the data and work out the trajectory of costs? This back-of-a-fag-packet, fly-by-night way of trying to approach serious policy is simply insulting.”
“Correct me if I am wrong, but the Leader of the Opposition responded to the Budget and opposed it. The Liberal Democrat spokesman would have spoken later down the list, so I beg to differ from the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party was the first party to oppose this proposal, not the Liberal Democrats.”
“Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if the argument that runs is, “It is about expert lawyers arguing their case to an expert judge”, the next way of trying to speed up the jury process or modernise our legal process will be a further erosion of our rights by reducing the rights of appeal, because of that use of expert judges alone, without the benefit of a lay jury?”
“I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. I share her support for a reduction in VAT for our rural hospitality sector, but does she get the irony that such a reduction would be illegal if we were still a member of the European Union?”
“Given the time available, I want to read into the record, if I may, some key suggestions for the Government on this important issue. I welcome the fact that we have secured a debate on rural communities. In passing, it is interesting that we have been told in the media over the past few days that Reform UK is the party of the farmer. Its Members must be out tilling the fields! As always, they are all noise, no delivery. I echo the call that many Members have made to reduce business rates for our vital rural pubs through revaluation and to reduce VAT for them.”
“I agree, but I think those on our Front Bench go one step further, which is to get rid of the whole damn thing in the first instance, as that solves the problem at a stroke. I urge the Government to do what they did slightly with the family farm tax. There seem to be noises off from the Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade, and others, about potential changes here there and everywhere, and that they are listening. Businesses are at the brink, and they need certainty now. Stop playing cat and mouse with rural businesses on these policies. Take a decision, announce it. If it is a screeching U-turn, perform it. Do it elegantly, but for the love of God, just do it.”
“Finally, we need a fundamental ruralisation of the formulas that underpin important funding decisions, whether for schools, the police or Environment Agency projects. If they get all that right, the Government might begin to restore their reputation within the rural community; continue as they are, and they are on a hiding to nothing.”
“Pull the plaster off that provision—and again, do it quickly. I say to those on the Treasury Bench that it is not worth the pain to continue to torture small family farms. North Dorset is the “Vale of the Little Dairies” to quote Thomas Hardy, and there are lots of family farms. They will go to the wall even with the changes to the threshold that the Government have announced. Everybody within the dairy sector will be aware of the unsustainable fluctuations in milk price, and we need a Government-led dairy strategy to secure that vital part of our agricultural sector. We need to restore funding for neighbourhood plans, because that will deliver the local vernacular housing that local communities wish to see.”
“I will not, if the hon. Member will forgive me. My second point is for the Government to please restore the listed places of worship scheme, which is vital for our rural churches. I echo the point that has been made: it is daft to merge sections 1 and 2 with regards to shotgun licensing—I declare an interest as a holder of one. As we know, a very serious issue happened in Devon a few years ago, but this is a draconian response to that and there are other ways to deal with shotgun licence safety. Drop the family farm tax. It was the wrong policy. It was suggested by officials to Conservative Treasury Ministers every Budget cycle, and Conservative Treasury Ministers said no. It was never going to raise the amount of money that the Government told us before the changes, and it will now raise even less because of the changes to the threshold.”
“The essay question is not whether Mr Maduro was a good man, which is a clear no-brainer, but whether, as others have asked, the actions of the US President were legal. America cannot be expected to mark her own homework, so I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, what body or bodies would she identify as being responsible to adjudicate on the legality of the American action? Secondly, as the vice-president of Venezuela, whose hands are as tainted with the previous regime as Maduro’s, has this afternoon been sworn in as the new President, what read-across should this House have from that incident?”
“In his white shirt and red tie, the Minister is doing a very good impression of Santa making an early visit. The announcements that he has made this afternoon are—I think—to be warmly welcomed, and he is to be personally congratulated on the good faith and patience that he has shown in his conversations with Maroš Šefčovič and others. That is clearly paying dividends. Does the Minister agree that those of us on the Opposition Benches who last week voted against the idiotic proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a customs union have been proved right and them wrong, because the evolution of the relationship within the guardrails of the existing arrangement are the way to go, preserving those new free trade deals and seeing them extended while encouraging businesses to trade with Europe?”
“I thank the Minister and her officials for their work—it is the most painful task to have to pull all this together and they are all to be commended. I agree with her that multi-year settlements should lead to smarter commissioning, which should then deliver greater return on the money. She will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is higher—everyone across the House recognises that—so can she say what this proposed settlement will do specifically to address that and allow equity of opportunity in access to services, whether one is an urban or rural resident?”
“As a former elections Minister, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I wonder if he would reflect on two points, together with his hon. Friend the Security Minister, with regard to the defending democracy taskforce. First, the Electoral Commission has plenty of influence, but it possibly needs more financial resource and sharper teeth that it can deploy more quickly. Would he reflect on that and ask Sir Philip to advise on that point? Secondly, the response of our police across the country is, at best, patchy when it comes to their interpretation of their key and pivotal role in defending democracy and ensuring that it works fairly and well for all of us. Through the taskforce, can he ensure that there is a more uniform approach from the police on this issue?”
“From one state school boy to another state school boy—we were also the first in our families to go to university—does my hon. Friend agree that we all have gaps in our knowledge, understanding and experience, but that the way you fill them is by asking the people who practise in a sector and listening to what they have to say? You should not just tell them that they are wrong and you are right because you are the Government, and you should change when the facts urge a change upon you.”
“I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady should have been hanging on my every word yesterday, but she was in the Chamber during that debate. I would not call 100 votes in favour and 100 votes against a win. A ten-minute rule Bill will go nowhere. Why her leader jumps up and down on social media as if he has just introduced Magna Carta, I fail to understand. Did she not hear me when I said that in conversations with the European Union, the EU itself will not entertain a new customs union with the United Kingdom? It wants to evolve the agreement that we have, as per the agreement, not have groundhog day. Which bit of that does her party not understand, or are the Liberal Democrats just ignoring it because it is convenient to do so?”
“I suggest that a new customs union might take a little bit of time—maybe just a day or two. The hon. Lady asked a perfectly legitimate question: how do I know? In direct response to her party’s motion, I raised the issue directly with representatives of the European Union, and the answer was, “No, thank you.” That is what I know. I was not speculating; it was knowledge.”
“But the Government will not help seasonal workers if they cannot become seasonal workers because putative employers have neither the confidence to employ nor the headroom to create jobs and pay salaries. We are in fantasy land, with a fantasy idea about how to run an economy: we just legislate and, hey presto—pantomime-like—it happens. A strategy is published and—bingo!—it is all resolved. That is not the case. This first example will, I am sure, be of enormous interest to the Labour party. Mark Fulton, a constituent of mine in Tolpuddle, is the landlord of the Martyrs Inn.”
“The Government need to learn, I suggest, a key and important lesson: policy papers, plans and comprehensive visions deliver of themselves nothing. They create no jobs. They give no certainty. They provide no confidence to employees, employers, investors, entrepreneurs, innovators or consumers. Strategy and policy are not the same things. Vision and delivery are not two sides of the same coin. The Government tell us in their amendment that their Employment Rights Bill “will help season workers by bringing the UK’s outdated employment laws into the 21st century”. Well, I would dispute first and foremost the idea that our employment laws are outdated; I think they have been organic and iterative over the decades, as one would expect.”
“Let us take a look at the amendment which Mr Speaker has selected in the name of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s amendment tells us that he “welcomes the policy paper” on “the plan for small and medium sized businesses, which sets out”— wait for it— “a comprehensive vision for productivity and success”. [ Interruption. ] “Wow” indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) says from a sedentary position—she is less well trained in keeping her excitement levels under control. After 14 years of opposition and 18 months in government: a policy paper, a plan, a comprehensive vision—that is the sum of the contribution from the Treasury Bench towards these important and vital parts of the sector.”
“It is a lovely pub. The hon. Lady has been and has not been barred yet. Anybody who knows their trade union history, as I know she does, will know about the Tolpuddle martyrs in 1834. The pub is named after them.”
“Again, that is an important part of social mobility—we know that a lot of seasonal jobs are created in the construction sector. However, Travis Perkins sent out a customer email just today that said that, from 1 January, supplier increases in prices will come in across the industry.”
“Barbara Cossins replicates many of the points made by Mark Fulton, but adds that rural pubs in tourist areas are particularly reliant on seasonal summer trade. They have to pay business rates, but their major competitor in those small rural settings, Airbnb, pays no business rates at all. It is an un-level playing field. The Government had an opportunity—and they possibly still do, as the Finance Bill progresses—to try to level that playing field. We are asking these important sectors of our economy to go into bat for UK plc—to create the jobs that create the tax that funds our public services—but at every step and turn, this Government seem hellbent on hobbling and hamstringing them and tying their hands behind their backs. The Government have the laudable aim of seeing housebuilding increase. Who does not?”
“Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said in his excellent speech, many of the harmful decisions taken in the recent Budget were not of the Government’s choosing. They were, in essence, a fulfilment of what the Chancellor rightly said to rebellious Back Benchers on welfare: “Rebel if you like, and we’ll abandon if we have to, but there’ll be a cost that will have to be paid. That cost will be taxed, and there will be a concomitant diminution in confidence among employers and customers.” I could quote several publicans, but Barbara Cossins, who owns and runs the Langton Arms in Tarrant Monkton, would have my guts for garters if I did not take this opportunity to mention her. [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) knows it well and says what a good pub it is.”
“It is about time that one or two people on the Government Benches stood up and told the Treasury team that many of their policies leave the Government naked as they try to garner and foster a small, entrepreneurial business sector. On employer national insurance and increases in the minimum wages, I quote Mark Fulton again: “The latest rise risks opportunities for young people to be employed in our sector.” He goes on to remind us that “40% of young people begin their careers in hospitality—the sector plays a crucial role in training, upskilling and supporting social mobility.” All that is put at risk. Surely, irrespective of geography or party affiliation, we should all be worried if a cogent argument is deployed about social mobility being reduced as a direct result of Government policy. As my hon.”
“We are asking publicans, who provide far more in the community hubs that Mark talks about, to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, when in essence they are paying a VAT rate of 20% compared with the 2% paid by supermarkets. Business rates are clearly going to go up. That is, again, the fantasy world of this Government. One sector representative group after another tells the Government that, by the Government’s own figures and calculations, business rates will rise. “Oh no,” says the Minister. “Everybody else is wrong. I am right, because I am a Minister of the Crown.” This is the politics of the emperor’s new clothes.”
“The pub was bought by the village for £500,000. It is a community asset-type pub. One significant stakeholder is the TUC itself, which decided that thirsty trade unionists might, after the martyrs memorial, enjoy a pint and, indeed, one of the excellent sandwiches that the hon. Lady has referenced. After the Budget, Mark Fulton wrote to me: “With the impact of this Budget, we risk losing these vital community hubs that are so important to our local life and economy.” He, like others in all our constituencies, has been arguing for—and this freedom exists now we are outside the European Union—a bespoke reduction of VAT on pub sales, including the wet trade.”
“I will, but let me finish this point. Roofing prices are up 7%, bricks 8%, blocks 9%, landscaping 8%, drainage 8%, and plaster, plasterboard and cladding 7%. Costs can be increased, and companies can absorb as much as they can, but at some point, as Travis Perkins points out, those increased costs can no longer be self-absorbed and must be passported off to the consumer. When the consumer’s costs go up, their margins of profit decrease, and their likelihood, potential and appetite for creating additional jobs disappears, like an early spring frost, arguably never to return.”