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 4 of 13.
“There is an alternative Conservative vision for this, and I look forward with colleagues to presenting that to the country over the coming months.”
“They are family businesses, most will be micro, some will be small, and precious few will be medium-sized. A small business owner in my constituency has a family business that he has grown and he was seeking to employ. He wanted his kids to get involved with it as well. He said to me, “Simon, you can tell that Rachel Reeves”—because he said “Rachel Reeves”, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Lady— “to describe this Budget, in a few easy words for the media headline, as ‘The why the eff should I bother Budget’” Why the eff should he bother to invest, to create, and to provide opportunity for our young to then pay the taxes to deliver the public services that we require? But if the Government do not give an eff, Opposition Members certainly do.”
“That is saying to potential investors and job creators, “Well we thought we might have believed them on year one, but year two transpired not to be the case.” How many more acts that would make the Artful Dodger blush will they be dipping into our pockets next time, next time, and the next time? We will have a rebellion on that, or on that, and that rebellion will have to be funded not by a recalibration of where Government spending is allocated, but by increasing the pot that the Government have to spend by increasing taxes. I took the advice of our Clerks, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether I should conclude with a certain word or not. The advice was that I would be better to slightly spell it out, so I will take that advice. North Dorset is not a constituency of large firms.”
“In fact—it is the greatest perversity that we have seen since July 2024—the complete reverse is taking place. Why is that? Last year, the Chancellor created in her own mind a black hole. She decided to fill it by additional taxes, and she assured the House and country that it was a one-off. Growth was going to do everything else, spending was going to be looked at, and everything would be hunky-dory. Well, that did not come to pass. The Government changed the environment, and we had the Budget just a few weeks ago—fabrication, being economical with the actualité.”
“Over the next 10 years—another “wow” moment. Jam tomorrow—well, we don’t even know if it is jam tomorrow; it is a promise of something that might materialise, but these sectors need support now. Let me conclude my remarks by highlighting what I fear will be a terrible downward-pulling spiral in confidence from investors, employers and consumers. I am not an economist, but it seems to me self-evident that if we increase the costs of employing people, we are likely to see fewer people employed. Someone might not expand their business; they might not create that new job. General elections create a lack of confidence in the sector. This Government were returned with a massive majority, which should be giving stability and confidence to the marketplace.”
“I am afraid that I do not know anything about Mr Williams, so I cannot add to the lovefest. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has reflected, as I have, that in households that have been workless for quite a long period of time, temporary seasonal intro-jobs often show our young people the value, importance and benefit of work and what it can do for their families and communities. When those opportunities are reduced, so the opportunity and potential for social mobility is curtailed.”
“On my hon. Friend’s point, how can businesses be expected to plan, having been told in the 2024 Budget that the tax rate was a one-off, and in 2025 that there was an unforeseen second tax rate but with no further plans? That is not a promise that one can necessarily rely upon. The presumption is that there will be more next year. How can businesses, whether they are agricultural, industrial or whatever, be expected to plan for growth, investment and job creation when they have absolutely no idea of the trajectory of the tax take that the Treasury is hellbent on introducing?”
“In the hope that the Government had listened to the National Farmers’ Union and others, a North Dorset farming family sat to watch the Chancellor’s Budget statement, in expectation. They were disappointed with the announcement on the family farm tax. The farmer withdrew from his medical treatment, and three days later he died. That is how determined he was to keep the farm in his family. He knew the struggle that they would have had in meeting the tax bill after 1 April. I share that not to be inflammatory, but to ensure that Members on the Treasury Bench know that their decision on the family farm tax has direct consequences for people up and down the country.”
“For those four clear and compelling reasons, I say to colleagues across the House—whether they were ardent Brexiteers, ardent remainers or maybe even the one or two who were not entirely sure—this Bill should command no support, it has no merit, and it should be voted against should a Division be called. Question put (Standing Order No. 23) .”
“However—this is where we must look at it from the other end of the telescope—as far as the political leadership of the European Union are concerned, they have spent quite enough time dealing with the needs of the United Kingdom. They are very happy to engage in the tidying-up exercise and the Government’s spreading-out proposals, but to start from scratch, in some sort of perverse groundhog day approach to our withdrawal from the European Union is an utter nonsense. They are not interested in that, they do not want to go back to day one, they are perfectly happy with how things are, and they want to see it evolve.”
“They were never easy to deliver, but to start to unpick them now would show a degree of bad faith and certainly uncertainty in the collected and settled mind of the political class of this country. The fourth reason, which I would suggest is probably the most compelling to even the most ardent rejoiners in Parliament, is that the European Union does not want it. The European Union now sees us for what we are. Whether we like it or not, we are a third country. This motion is an enormous arrogance. I cannot speak for all of them, but I have had the lucky and favourable opportunity of talking to senior EU officials about this very proposal. There is neither interest in nor appetite for it. They want to engage with the UK Government, as they are doing, in the organic evolution of what we have.”
“Quite what Harrogate has ever done to deserve them, I do not know, but I will leave that to the good folk of Harrogate—we wish them well. To embark upon a customs union approach analogous to that of Turkey would be a mistake, because it would engender more uncertainty in the minds of British businesses just as they are settling their trading patterns and getting their heads around things, with the hope and promise that those creases will be further ironed out in the work that the Government are doing, through the right hon. Member for Torfaen. The third reason is that, unless they met the requirements of the European Union, the trade deals that we have already entered into would have to be rewritten or scrapped. We are in the foothills of trying to maximise the benefits of those trade deals.”
“With the exception of about six who survived the 2015 cull, I am afraid that not many on the Liberal Democrat Benches served in this place when we were trying to deliver Brexit. But the one thing they would have taken away had they been here—and thankfully, they were not—was that business wanted certainty. Slowly but surely, but with a certain degree of typical UK energy, flare and élan, businesses are now meeting the new trading regimes, and businesses up and down the country—small, medium, large and micro—are making a decent fist of it. We wish them well. The process that the Government have under way is designed to— [ Interruption. ] Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Liberal Democrats wish to shout like this is some sort of Harrogate Lib Dem spring fair, they can feel free so to do.”
“Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), to continue to grow that iterative process of a relationship with the European Union without being part of it. That endeavour deserves the united support of all right hon. and hon. Members in this House because it will deliver, as always intended through that organic process, identification of creases and an attempt to iron them out. We all want to see small, micro and medium-sized businesses flourish and prosper. We all want to see an increase in trade with the European Union and the uplifting benefit that that will have to all our citizens. But the proposal before us in the Bill is not the way to achieve it because, as I say, it would fundamentally undermine the good offices of the Government in trying to achieve what it seeks to achieve. My second point is that business needs certainty.”
“I say respectfully to him and his colleagues that that in no way can meet the fundamental essay question that the electors of this country gave to us through that referendum decision. They wanted us to forge our own destiny. Whether that was going to be a path that was without a ripple or stumble-stone, nobody knew, but that was the instruction which the British people gave, and democrats of good faith said, “We will abide by that decision.” The hon. Gentleman’s argument may be liberal with a small l, but democratic it certainly is not. The first reason is that the proposal in the Bill would fundamentally undermine the welcome and energetic efforts of His Majesty’s Government, principally led by the right hon.”
“I say that as somebody who voted to remain part of the European Union in the referendum and campaigned strongly to do so, but I accepted the result of the referendum, as most people on the Conservative Benches did. I say to the hon. Member, whom I woke up to in my ear— [ Interruption. ] Before anybody worries about that, I was in my bedroom and he was on Radio 4—at least that is the story I am telling everybody. He said that we could be like Turkey—that was the relationship he was suggesting to the listeners of the “Today” programme—but Turkey aligns trade policy and tariffs with the common external tariff for industrial goods. It has no say on EU trade decisions, agriculture or services.”
“Gentleman also declared, as a matter of fact, that the United Kingdom, post its membership of the European Union, is weaker and isolated. I honestly cannot fathom how he can arrive at that conclusion. The convening powers of the scenes outside Downing Street yesterday when we stood with allies in support of Ukraine, the recent state visits of the US President and the German President, and the fact that this country is head of a Commonwealth, a leading member of NATO and a permanent member of the Security Council do not suggest to me a country that is weaker or more isolated—far from it. The two are entirely separate things. The proposal in the Bill deserves to be opposed for four reasons.”
“I rise to oppose the Bill—for those who know me, yes, I did say “oppose”, and smelling salts are available through the usual channels, I am sure. I listened intently to what my friend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) had to say, and he said it with great passion and his typical eloquence. He and I have worked together on Northern Irish issues and other issues since he entered this place. It is a pleasure to do so, and I am sorry that we are on separate sides this afternoon. It might be cheeky of me to remind the hon. Gentleman that, of course, his party was the first party in this place that actually suggested a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the European Union. That is something often missed off Liberal Democrat leaflets—maybe they are too busy “winning here” to remind themselves of that. The hon.”
“Although I remain convinced that there are ways of delivering the guardrails that the Treasury needs without the OBR, I know that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor are not persuaded of that argument. However, might the Chief Secretary be persuaded that the resignation of the chair of the OBR and the recruitment process that is now under way presents an opportunity for the Treasury and the permanent secretary to reflect on what they need the OBR to be doing for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years? What skills does the OBR need, what shape does it need to be, and what does it actually need to do to get the economy right? Will they be availing themselves of this opportunity to recast the OBR and reflect on its roles and responsibilities?”
“I think it should be recognised that events such as these allow Ministers and the wider Government to reflect on current circumstances. I am not seeking to scapegoat the OBR, but it is not the messiah—sometimes, it can be a very naughty boy—and it does have to revise its predictions at all times. Is it too traditional to suggest to this Government that the Treasury should be the office of budget responsibility, and that there are good brains in the Bank that could be tapped into? Is now not a good opportunity to reflect on what advice the Government need, whether the OBR is fit for purpose, and whether it should be disbanded?”
“My right hon. Friend is making a characteristically excellent speech. Would he agree that we are at a tipping point at which the welfare state is ceasing to be what we have always wanted it to be—a safety net below which nobody can fall—and is instead becoming a cocoon that will trap a whole generation in dependency, and kill off aspiration and social mobility?”
“Oh, it is nothing as contemporary as covid—don’t worry about that. I just wondered how much money the right hon. Member left in the coffers when he was Chief Secretary in 2010.”
“When did the Prime Minister realise that his preferred candidate to be the football regulator had donated to his leadership campaign? From whom did the Prime Minister seek advice when he learned that? What was the nature of the advice in response? In particular, what advice was the Prime Minister given regarding his continuing involvement in the process and his ability effectively to be judge and jury on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Notwithstanding what the Minister has rightly said on the status of the ministerial code, which is authored in and policed by Downing Street, is it not time, given the problems that successive Governments have had on these issues, for serious consideration to be given to bringing the ministerial code under the orbit and auspices of this place and not No. 10?”
“Can the Minister say a word or two about her expectations for this new arrangement that she is creating—it will have some plus points and some minus points, because no system is perfect—and the timeliness of decision making? Investors and others want timely decisions so that they can move things forward, and not get lost in the weeds of officialdom, strategies, papers, consultations and so on. If we are to power growth, time is of the essence.”
“Will she say a little more about to whom the chief constable would actually be accountable in terms of hiring, firing and delivering on the priorities of local communities?”
“May I put it on the record, on behalf of my constituents, that both Martyn Underhill, the initial Dorset police and crime commissioner, and the current PCC, David Sidwick, have done sterling work with their teams to protect and look after my constituents over the years that they have served? Following up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I urge the Minister to use the savings that she believes she has made in making this announcement today to support rural police funding where there is a differential between rural and urban. The early part of her statement noted that the police and crime commissioner model was created to increase accountability. She talks about oversight with the new arrangement in non-mayoral authorities.”
“The Minister knows that, across this House and the other place, there is wide recognition of how unique and precious our chalk streams are. He clearly recognises that, as well. Given their importance and the fact that most of them are in the UK, why have the Government not yet brought forward an amendment to reflect the cross-party concerns expressed in both Houses? I know him to be a serious and sincere man, but the Minister is, in effect, asking the House to rely on his good will to do something at some point, and we have no idea what it is.”
“I share the hon. Gentleman’s view on European co-operation. Does he agree that it would be more than helpful—particularly in the face of Russian aggression, and of the American retraction from European defence that he mentions—if the French Government took another look at how the United Kingdom could be involved in a shared European defence approach? Instead, they are trying to blackmail His Majesty’s Government, for a large pay-off, as we seek to participate in something that is designed to protect all European citizens.”
“The Justice Secretary will know that police operational independence, free from political interference, is crucial and is enshrined in the police protocol. Yet, on page three of the statement which the Secretary of State just gave, he told us—I checked against delivery—that over the weekend he “chaired three operational meetings with the police”. What has changed?”
“Given the fact that it is an important anniversary, and given that the Government have pulled together a whole variety of propriety and ethics under one body, might it now be appropriate for the authorities of this place to reissue those principles to all Members, and to re-emphasise that they are as enduring and relevant today as they were when Lord Nolan first penned them and that if we all abided by them fully all the time, political and public life might be a little better?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the Nolan principles of public life. Keeping a weather eye on those principles falls within the auspices of my Select Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and of course this year is an important anniversary of the Nolan principles.”
“Those three organisations, together with the Co-op, represent somewhere between 75% and 85% of funeral operators in this country. They are all desperate for either a licensing regime or an inspection regime. Society is effectively saying to the trade bodies, which have a bit of muscle but no teeth, that they should impose standards of operation across the whole of the sector. I think the country at large would welcome regulation and inspection, and the trade bodies, which represent between three quarters and 85% of operators, are also clamouring for that.”
“When one considers all the retail outlets and others—be they tattoo parlours, nail bars, cafés, burger bars, hairdressers, beauty salons and the like—that are regulated and inspected, it does seem strange that the funeral sector is effectively left to its own devices. I know that sometimes Government and Members of Parliament press for licensing, regulation or binding codes of conduct very much against the will of the sector and find themselves in this great tussle. But the Association of Green Funeral Directors, the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors and the National Association of Funeral Directors—I just want to pause to pay warm and fulsome tribute to the latter two for how they helped Mike Freer and me when we were Ministers trying to grapple with this when the situation was boiling up.”
“I asked the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), on 22 January what changes were being proposed to licensing, or to bring in licensing, in the funeral home sector. The reply was—let me put it this way—benign. His written reply said it was a “complex and sensitive matter that demands careful consideration to ensure a response that effectively safeguards the public.” On the latter bit, we can all agree. It being a “complex and sensitive matter” is true. I would argue that it has already had that “careful consideration”.”
“I am not suggesting that Governments have shied away from this, pretending to turn a blind eye, as it were, but probably in the general scheme of things, until some recent high-profile incidents, they have not really thought to think about it, in the presumption that everything works well and as we would expect. We will all remember the Fuller inquiry and the interim report that came out from that. When I was the Local Government Minister, the then junior Minister at the Ministry of Justice, Mike Freer, and I worked closely on this. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), with whom I worked closely some months back on a constituency case of hers. I am delighted to see her in her place, knowing the keen interest she has taken on behalf of her constituents.”
“There are many issues that will divide this House and many issues that will divide society, but one thing that probably unites all of us, and indeed society, is that we have a legitimate expectation of decent and respectful treatment for our dead. I do not think that is asking too much. The vast majority of funeral directors, crematoria and hospital morgues treat the deceased with the decency and respect that we would expect and hope for ourselves. Most of the apples operating in the funeral barrels, if I can put it like that, are good ones, but we all know that there are rotten apples in every barrel. It has long been recognised that this is a sector that operates in good faith and on a belief—often misplaced—that our expectations of the decency and respect to be shown to the deceased will prevail in all circumstances.”
“I do agree. In many respects, the only bit of legislation on which we can rest a serious prosecution is the Burial Act 1857, which deals with the corpse post internment. It is silent on the corpse’s treatment from the point of death through to the point of either internment or cremation. There is an enormous vacuum in the rules and regulations that I think most fair-minded people would say needs to be filled.”
“I fundamentally agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, as would the lion’s share of operators, because they are acutely aware of a crisis of public confidence in the sector’s ability to deliver.”
“Funerals have become very expensive, when done well, because funeral directors have costs that need to be met, which is why we have seen this great rash of adverts. Anyone who watches any daytime commercial television will know that those over 55 are well insured—I qualify by a year. I am told there are plenty of machines for those who have difficulty getting out of a chair or a bed, and they can press a button and spring up and out like Zebedee. And there are 101 different funeral plan providers who will meet people’s needs very cheaply indeed. There is little or no doubt that the lion’s share of operators are legit, above board, doing their best and doing it well, but the absence of regulation means that, if we so wished, the Minister and I could set up a funeral directors. We do not need a licence.”
“I am very sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman has relayed; I know that the whole House will send prayers, thoughts and sympathies to his constituents. What a terrible thing to be dealing with in what are already tragically sad circumstances. He is right to urge the Minister to give a turbocharged and energised response. As a society, our relationship with funerals is changing. We have become, as we know, a more secular society, so we are looking for other ways to deal with funeral services, rather than the traditional church service and so on. The covid pandemic certainly expedited the—I do not necessarily use this term in a disparaging sense—cheaper, faster and more streamlined approach to dealing with the deceased.”
“Let me just continue. The Minister and I would not need a licence and we would not be inspected; all we would have to do is put up a sign saying “Funeral Directors” with the hours of operation on it. That cannot be right. It cannot be right that when a funeral director is running out of credit with their local crematorium they can transport a corpse from one end of the country to the other without any paperwork. If my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and others involved in livestock farming wanted to move one of their sheep from A to B, they know as well as I do about the vast amount of paperwork the Ministry requires to allow that to happen, and that is because we want traceability—that is what we need, and we need traceability in this sector as well.”
“So there is all this opt-in, opt-out, and of course the best will always join the professional bodies that give them the imprimatur of quality, whereas it is the dodgy geezers—the people trying to do it on the fly—who will not, and they will always be part of the bottom end of the market.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a great strength to be a member of the trade association, because it gives an imprimatur of quality to the families choosing a funeral director, just as customers would choose a CORGI-registered boiler fitter or FENSA for windows. As the trade associations themselves have made clear, however, they can only exhort. They can help people by advising on what best practice looks and feels like, what a good customer experience is and so forth, but people can still trade as a funeral director without being a member of the trade association, and if the trade association kicks them out, they can still trade as a funeral director, because being a funeral director is not concomitant on being a member of the trade association.”
“That would be a deeply worrying situation for anybody, and that is why the trade bodies are pushing so hard and so energetically to deploy their expertise as best they can in the current circumstances, but also to push Government to agree.”
“I entirely agree, and I make this point again for the Minister’s benefit: he will not be trying to push water uphill in pushing for a regulatory and/or licensing regime. The good guys and girls want it to happen because it would give certainty. I can share with the House—I hope it is not breaching a confidence—that when I was dealing with a high-profile incident, which I cannot reference per se as it is sub judice, one of the concerns we wrestled with was what would happen if public confidence collapsed so much that our hospital morgues became effectively logjammed. People would not be prepared to release their loved one to a funeral director because they had lost all faith in the sector as a whole.”
“I agree fundamentally; it would be “the rising tide that floats all ships” argument. I will give way briefly to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), and then I have a couple of suggestions for the Minister.”
“I agree. In so many choices that we make, the consumer now rightly demands the highest of standards. People want to ensure that the departure of their loved one from the world is as dignified, graceful, calm and respectful as it possibly can be.”
“Member to talk to any of their constituents, at a surgery or an event, and ask, “The funeral sector is regulated, isn’t it?” They will answer, “Of course it is.” “It’s licensed, isn’t it?” “Yes, of course it is.” When you tell them it is not, there is a look of total and utter astonishment. That situation cannot continue. I suggest that the Minister could bring forward whatever legislation he needs, and it would probably pass this House in a couple of weeks. As the Minister has heard from across the House, this is now an urgent and pressing issue. I look forward to his reply, but more importantly, I look forward to seeing any legislation that he brings forward in order to enact a remedy that is long overdue.”
“Apart from taxes, we know that there is only one other certain thing in this life: we have a span on this Earth, and it is not an infinite resource. We are all going to have to use one of these services at some point, so it is in the interests of the whole country to get this right. The Minister is jolly lucky, because the trade bodies and others are willing him on. They want to see this happen and are ready to act in quick lockstep in order to deliver it. As the House has reflected in this evening’s debate, and as I hope the Minister will have picked up on, doing nothing and hoping for the best—hoping that somehow or another, by a process of osmosis, the bad actors disappear and the good actors rise to the fore and are the sole operators within this sphere—is, I am afraid, for the birds. I urge any right hon. or hon.”
“There is also the Ministry of Justice as the sponsoring Department for death—not necessarily the best thing to put on a ministerial strapline, but the Minister is the Minister for death, as far as the MOJ is concerned. Who takes the lead? Who pushes it forward? Who convenes? Who gets it right? This issue cannot be ignored. I say with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who I am privileged enough to count as a friend, that this is a complex and sensitive issue, and we are going to need to take our time. The canon of evidence on the need for progress is very clear and compelling. I suggest that the time for consultation and consideration has passed. The time is now for joined-up Government, energetic thinking and speedy delivery, which will give comfort and confidence to each and every constituent.”