Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

That is an excellent question from my hon. Friend. Why has the Prime Minister not come to the House to correct the record at the earliest opportunity on multiple occasions? What is there to hide? We are hearing evidence to Committees that conflicts with what is being said on the Floor of the House. I will be interested, by the way, to hear whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, when he responds, will be happy to repeat the Prime Minister’s words at the Dispatch Box that there was no pressure whatsoever. Will he repeat that statement? Let us see how brave he is.

This is absolutely critical: this cannot just be a debate about the Labour party, or a division between those who are in the inner circle and those who are on the outside. Again and again, we have seen the children of the chosen ones—people who had never been in Parliament before—getting all the best jobs. We now have the sacked chief of staff Morgan McSweeney’s wife, who is a Whip, telling people to vote for a cover-up. That is not right. [Interruption.] She has been notified. I know that Labour Members do not like it, but have I said something that is not true? No. I am speaking the truth. I know it hurts, but someone has to point it out. Those people are hanging everyone else out to dry and I cannot believe that Labour MPs are letting it happen again.

I know that a lot of them are expecting a reshuffle after the May election. Let me tell them: it is not worth it. I say directly to those Labour MPs hoping to be Ministers after 7 May that they will condemn themselves to being sent out on the morning round to repeat things that they know are not true, that they do not believe in and that they know will end in disaster. They will end in disaster, as everything the Prime Minister touches does.

This vote should not be about loyalty to the Prime Minister, but about standards. Why should Labour MPs ruin their reputations to save a man who has never shown loyalty to them? He has shown that he will throw everybody under a bus: Sue Gray, Morgan McSweeney, Sir Chris Wormald, Sir Olly Robbins. Do Labour MPs really think that if this goes wrong he will not throw all of them under a bus? Some are walking around Parliament telling everyone that they are going to be one-term MPs and so it does not matter. It does matter, because when they leave this place no one will remember what their Whips told them to do. People will only remember that they voted for a cover-up. That is what will follow them around like a bad smell until the end of their careers. That is what will be in their Wikipedia entries.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this issue will be resolved in one or two places? It will either be resolved in the court of public opinion or in front of the Privileges Committee. It is actually in the Prime Minister’s interests to have it resolved by a cross-party Committee of this House, which would give confidence to the public that the truth had been found, that the case had been made or not, and that they would have confidence going forward. The public will make up their own mind without the Privileges Committee.

[Mrs Badenoch]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I trust the Privileges Committee to do the right thing, as I always have.

I have some advice for Labour MPs: there is nothing wrong with giving their party leader the benefit of the doubt. As a Minister four years ago, I gave my party—[Laughter.] I do not know why they are laughing; I have not got to the punchline yet. Hang on; wait for it! As a Minister four years ago, I gave my party leader the benefit of the doubt, but I trusted the Privileges Committee to do the right thing, even when it was led by a former leader of the Labour party. We did not block the Privileges Committee from looking into things, and the minute that I was asked to go out and say something that was not true, I resigned. None of the Labour Members wants to do that. I will always be able to hold my head up high because I did the right thing.

I do not understand why Labour MPs are quite happy to repeat things that are not true. We have all seen Hansard. That is the difference between them and us. When we get things wrong, we put our hands up and say so; they pretend that the wrong thing is actually the right thing. They pretend that the bad thing is actually a good thing because it is Labour MPs who are doing it. That is what they are being whipped to do today. It is the same way the Mandelson appointment happened—they thought that because they were appointing him, it must be a good thing—and that is what is happening again today. They are being whipped to do the wrong thing.

If Labour MPs are telling the entire country that nothing matters except avoiding scrutiny of this Prime Minister, who will not answer questions at the Dispatch Box, they are telling people that the Labour party is not worth voting for. It does not exist. This is not the Labour party of Attlee, Bevan and Wilson. That Labour party no longer exists because they would never do this. They would never vote for someone who had stood at the Dispatch Box less than a week ago and read out doctored statements from the head of the Foreign Office, like the Prime Minister did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

There has been a common theme in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome)—it is a pleasure to follow her—and the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell). I do not really know what wings of the Labour party they are on, or what complexion of Labour they are, but I do know that the three of them are Labour people, and part of the Labour family to their very fingertips. The emotional difficulty that they felt in giving their powerful speeches was certainly tangible to Opposition Members. I hope that their right hon. and hon. Friends felt it, too.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and one or two others have mentioned, one of the hardest things in this place is when your instincts and your judgment are to go against the herd—against what your family, or the Whip, is telling you to do. Politics is a tribal thing. We stand together or we hang together, so we are told; but it was Lord Nolan, in the principles that he set out some years ago, who reminded us all that the exercise of our judgment as individual Members of Parliament is so important. It was depressing to hear the hon. Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) say, slightly tongue in cheek, “I’m just a humble Back Bencher. It is not for me to say what the whipping should be.” We are all capable of forming our own rational judgment, informed by all sorts of imperatives.

One or two Labour Members have prayed in aid, as a reason why the motion should not be carried, the Humble Address. I remind colleagues from across the House, but particularly Government Members, that when we started the debate on the Humble Address motion, Government Members were being whipped to vote it down. It was only when the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House—two right hon. Gentlemen for whom I have the highest esteem and regard—and the Paymaster General listened to the debate and read the mood of not the House but Labour Members, that they realised that imposing the Whip was wrong, and that they needed to meet somewhere in the middle. Now, all of this could go away, of course, were the Prime Minister to refer himself.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend and I could never have been described as the greatest fans of Boris Johnson. When the question of his going before the Privileges Committee came forward, the Conservatives decided that the Committee was the right body to decide whether he had misled Parliament. Nobody was calling for his resignation until its report came out; after that report, this party moved, and he went. Is it not the flip side of the coin that once the Privileges Committee has cleared the Prime Minister, as many Labour MPs believe will happen, his strength will grow? Is it not true that he has nothing to fear?

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend has many skills; one that I have just learned of is that he is able to read the left-handed scrawl of my notes, even when he is sitting next to me, because that is the point that I am just about to come to. The hon. Member for South Shields wondered, as have one or two other Members, whether this motion is a trap set by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Members. I do not think it is, but if it were, the Government whipping operation today has baited that trap. It is the wrong thing to do. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) suggests, it makes the Prime Minister look uncertain and weak. He is not using a large parliamentary majority in this place to deliver change for the country; instead, he is turning his MPs into a human shield for himself.

I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East: I think the Prime Minister takes his training and experience as a lawyer very seriously. I think he takes the integrity of politics very seriously. I sometimes think the Prime Minister can be naive in presuming that everybody else takes a similarly elevated view of these things, and I think that can feed into some of his problems. One has to ask: what would the Prime Minister—an experienced lawyer—have to fear from having his name cleared and his reputation strengthened by going through a cross-party, informal process of this House? He would have nothing to fear. He would feel stronger.

We understand that Labour Whips and loyal Ministers have been picking up the telephones, and accidentally on purpose bumping into people in the Lobby and elsewhere, and asking them to vote this motion down. For what it is worth, may I give some thoughts on how I would respond, were a Whip from my party to ask me to do the same?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Keep it clean.

[Simon Hoare]

Don’t worry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have checked what is parliamentary language and what is not.

The first point I would make is one that has already been made. I was never a fan of Boris Johnson. We first met in the late 1990s; I never got him then, and he never got me, and nothing ever changed, but not even Boris Johnson thought to apply a Whip on a privileges motion. The question I would be asking the Whips, if I was the hon. Member for Smethwick or any other Labour MP, is this: does Labour really want to let Boris Johnson look like the good guy, when it comes to referrals to the Privileges Committee? That is bad politics, as far as the Labour party is concerned.

The second point I would make is that the Privileges Committee can be a fulcrum, the place where this boil is lanced. It will do that dispassionately, and do it well, without fear or favour. That is what it is taught to do. It has done that in the past; it could do so now; and it will doubtless do so in the future. There is nothing to be afraid of. This is not a kangaroo court, or a Committee composed solely of people who really cannot stand the Prime Minister. It is a Committee of this House.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is, as usual, making an excellent speech. He is talking about the composition of the Privileges Committee. Is it right to say that a majority of its members are Labour Members? The Prime Minister would be asking his own colleagues, among others, to judge him.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right. The same was true, of course, when the Privileges Committee looked at Boris Johnson’s behaviour; the majority of MPs on the Committee were Tory, and the Committee was still able to come to a judgment on the facts and the evidence.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

Would my right hon. Friend forgive me if I do not? A lot of Members want to speak, so I want to make a little progress.

The third compelling point is that Labour Whips and Ministers will have deployed an argument about the local elections, and elections in Wales and Scotland; they will say, “This will not do Labour any good at all.” Well, what would give a whole lot more confidence to party canvassers would be the ability to say, if this subject was raised on the doorstep, “My leader has nothing to fear. He has referred himself to the Privileges Committee—or has sought not to hinder a motion that referred him.” If Labour Members follow the advice—that might be the gentlest way of describing it—of Government Whips today, they will be creating the largest albatross to hang around their neck in these closing days before polling day. They will be asked, “Why did you vote to cover up for the Prime Minister? Why did you not do the right thing? What has the Prime Minister got to hide? Why is the Prime Minister running scared?”. It would be far better to be able to say to the floating voter, or the person havering over where to put their cross, “What confidence my party leader has! The Prime Minister is happy for this to happen. He is absolutely clear in his own mind that his integrity is unimpeachable and his honesty is unquestionable. He has not misled the House.” They would be off to the races! But this is another trap that the Labour party seems to be keen to fall into. We are all familiar, I would say to the Whips, with the idea that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the Privileges Committee be that sunlight.

I can well remember the whipped vote in the previous Parliament. Thirteen of us Government Members rebelled. It was a hard and tricky vote. We came under pressure during it, and most certainly after it. However, within 24 hours, the position of the Government had changed, and they found themselves pointing in the direction of those of us who had rebelled, rather than those who had been loyal.

This may be a slightly old-fashioned question to ask ourselves, but when we leave this place—either by our own choice, or by the choice of our electorate—we all want, I think, to sit back and ask ourselves: when those crunch votes came, did we do the right and honourable thing? Did we do something that left our soul and spirit feeling peaceful, or in a state of turmoil? Possibly more importantly for today and tomorrow, could we, without blushing or crossing our fingers, or trying to find some weasel words, say truthfully why anybody would vote against this motion, if we were asked that in the supermarket queue this weekend, or at the butcher’s, the fishmonger’s or wherever?

If there is nothing to hide, let that absence of something to hide be shown to the Privileges Committee. The Prime Minister will be strengthened, the integrity of this place enhanced, and the honesty of politics burnished. The referral is the right thing to do. In their hearts, Labour Members know that. They should have the courage of the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East, for Nottingham East and for South Shields; they will be in jolly good company.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, I think. I am sorry that he is offended by my handwriting, but there are probably more important things to discuss.

[Simon Hoare]

A moment ago, while the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister had popped out of the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman was saying something rather nice and complimentary about him. I just wanted to give him the opportunity to repeat it, now that he is back.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a far better intervention. The comment I made about the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister while he had popped out was that, as he is aware, I have contributed many times when he has spoken about the Humble Address, and have asked him a number of questions about the vetting process, as well as the impact that this ongoing issue obviously has—

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I simply must thoroughly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our national security and that of our allies has been paramount in putting forward this treaty and this deal to secure the Diego Garcia base not only for us, but for our allies and our Five Eyes partners. That is why they all welcomed it. It is why the treaty has gone through extensive processes in this country, in the United States and with other partners. I will not apologise for that. The duty of this Government is to protect the people of this country, our partners and our allies. That is exactly why we have proceeded on this basis and why this treaty is needed.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I have two questions to the Minister, if I may. I welcome the retreat from this Bill and this deal, which ill served the taxpayer and our national interest. First, are the Government now officially withdrawing the Bill, rather than merely pausing its passage through Parliament? Secondly, the Minister was very clear earlier that no payment would be made under the treaty to Mauritius. Can he confirm that no goodwill payment, ex gratia payment or any other payment will be made to Mauritius outside of the treaty as a way of saying sorry? Frankly, we have nothing to say sorry for.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have affection, understands the procedures of this place. He understands that the Bill is going to time out because of the upcoming Prorogation and that it cannot be carried over because of the progress that it has made during this Session; he will understand the procedures around that. It is disappointing that we saw so much game-playing around the Bill, particularly from the other place. That is the position. I have also set out the position on the costs.

Middle East

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been monitoring and assessing the impacts, particularly of the restrictions on the strait of Hormuz and the restrictions around oil and fertiliser. We have been looking at the impacts that that can have, not just on the UK but on some of the most fragile and vulnerable countries across the world. We are monitoring that and looking at how we work with other countries to address that, and I would be happy to provide my hon. Friend with more information, because we have been considering this.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

In June last year, Mr Trump told the world that the Iranian nuclear sites had been “completely destroyed”, but the last few weeks prove that he did not believe that to be true. Last week, the President told the world that the war was nearly completely won and that he needed no help. He has said in recent months that NATO is useless. He now appears to need both help and NATO. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me—and, I believe, with many in the House—that the President himself is becoming an increasingly unreliable and erratic ally and partner, and that the UK is therefore right to be strategically questioning and sceptical about his pronouncements and his motives? I also echo the view of many people across the House that our remaining sceptical and questioning should not be an excuse for sitting idly by, wringing our hands and offering earnest words but no action in support of humanitarian aid to safeguard the lives of ordinary Lebanese and Palestinians and those in the west bank, because to sit and do nothing would make us as culpable as the guilty.

[Yvette Cooper]

Our relationship with the US on security and the economy is deep and long-standing. I was first briefed on our security co-operation as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee more than 25 years ago, and it has strengthened and deepened since then. Our focus needs to be on the substance of that relationship and the real issues, not on rhetoric or statements. That is immensely important, and it is because we take seriously the humanitarian issues that we are now providing £15 million of humanitarian support for Lebanon and talking to the Lebanese Prime Minister. We are raising the issue of Lebanon not just with the Israeli Government but with the US, with European partners and with other Gulf partners.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I will make progress and then I will take some interventions—certainly from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell).

The UK will never compromise on our national security, and as we have repeatedly made clear, the agreement we struck is vital for protecting it; it guarantees the long-term future of a base that is vital for the United Kingdom and the United States and our allies, and which had been under threat. Crucially, the deal secures the operations of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has been publicly welcomed by key allies, including our Five Eyes partners, and key international partners including India, Japan and South Korea.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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?

[Stephen Doughty]

We engage with the United States—our closest defence and security partner—on a range of issues, including this one, every single day, and we continue to do so. The hon. Member asks an important question. The United States and President Trump welcomed this deal in the spring, and when we discussed in detail why the agreement was needed, the strong protections that it includes and the vital security it provides for Diego Garcia, the Administration endorsed the agreement as a “monumental achievement” following a thorough inter-agency process in the United States. The hon. Member will know how serious that is.

In May the United States Secretary of State said,

“The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.

We will of course have discussions with the Administration in the coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal and how it secures the base for the United Kingdom and the United States. We will continue those discussions on many levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

Let me remind my right hon. Friend exactly what the President of the United States said. He has said that this is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that

“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”

The previous Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, is on the record as saying:

“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward… they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal”,

so why has Labour continued to press this Bill?

In the light of the President’s comments, can the Minister tell us what will happen to the status of the 1966 exchange of notes between the UK and the United States, which states clearly that the British Indian Ocean Territory

“shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”?

What is the impact on that agreement? Is it being changed?

[Simon Hoare]

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”.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Opposition are completely against this deal, and the President of the United States has said that it is going ahead “for no reason whatsoever”. It seems to me that the Government are still on hold to the President of the United States.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This treaty has been through the interagency process in America and has support across the system. Colleagues may have mentioned the President changing his position, but the US system is much wider than that, and I do not think we should we should base our long-term strategic and security interests on Truth Social posts.

This House should reject Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6, support the Government’s sensible procedural amendment 4, and pass this Bill in a way that protects national security, rather than gambling with it.

[Simon Hoare]

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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Hoare, I am worried that the longer you speak, the longer you will disappoint other colleagues who are hoping to contribute later in the debate, and I would not want to ruin your reputation on that front. This feels like a continuation of the debate. The Minister may or may not wish to respond to that point during his closing speech, but my job is to make sure that as many Members as possible who have sat through this debate get to put their voice on the record.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Arctic Security

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been very clear, both to the US and more widely, about the importance of countries working together to strengthen security. That is exactly what Denmark has been seeking to do—to strengthen the security of Greenland as part of strengthening Arctic security against the Russian threat. Where countries come together to do so, that should be recognised as important and valuable, because Arctic security is a multilateral issue, not a unilateral one. It will only be strengthened by countries working together, so this is about our interests in that shared, collective security, but also our values of defending sovereignty and territorial integrity.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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.

[Yvette Cooper]

We heard from the Prime Minister this morning the approach he is taking. The approach that our Prime Minister and this Government have taken has already led to very big changes in the United States’ initial proposals on tariffs, which were substantially reduced and changed as a result of that engagement. As a result of our engagement we have also seen big changes in the US approach to Ukraine: considerable work has now been done to secure agreements around security guarantees that have been immensely important. That is the result of continued engagement, not just by the Prime Minister but by others more widely. We are clear about the importance of working in the UK’s national interests and pursuing different issues to make sure that we protect UK businesses and UK prosperity, as well as our shared values, including sovereignty.

Venezuela

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will know the constraints in the ministerial code regarding discussing legal advice. As I have said, it is for the US to set out publicly its legal basis for the actions that it has taken. We have raised the issue of international law—I have directly raised it with the US Secretary of State—and set out our views and concerns and the importance of urging all partners to abide by international law.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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?

Budget Resolutions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The problem with that analysis is that many people on the same street will think to themselves, “I chose not to have another child because I could not afford to have another, but my neighbour is now able to have more children, paid for by the taxman through welfare.” That is the fundamental unfairness at the heart of this Budget announcement.

Worse than that, this failure to grasp welfare reform risks neglecting a whole generation. Already, young workers’ prospects are under threat from artificial intelligence, and employment prospects are being hit by Labour’s jobs tax and labour market regulation, which is discouraging hiring. Now the message seems to emerge from the Government: “Don’t worry: abandon ambition. There is ever-higher welfare spending under Labour. That is the reason why you should vote for us.”

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

As ever, my hon. Friend is totally correct. Of course the welfare state should be there for those people in temporary difficulty, but it cannot be a lifestyle, which is what ends up happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I do not know what Budget the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) was reading, but it was not the Budget that was put on the table this afternoon. I think the Chancellor got the judgment exactly right today. She had a difficult inheritance, a difficult hand and difficult decisions to take, but she got the calls absolutely right. Under the Budget, growth this year and business investment over the course of this Parliament are forecast to rise, and inflation is coming down. Forecast interest rates are coming down, energy bills for our constituents are coming down, and child poverty is set to collapse. That means that 8,900 people in my constituency will be better off because of this Budget—a Labour Budget delivered by a Labour Chancellor this afternoon.

I have been in this House for 21 years. I have sat on both Front Benches and on both sets of Back Benches, and over the years I have seen the selective amnesia that bedevils debate in this place, and the problem of unreliable narrators, but I have to say that I have never seen amnesia on as epic a scale as I did from the Leader of the Opposition today. It is quite well established that back in 2010, I thought the numbers were a little bit tight. I thought difficult decisions were going to be needed, which is why we left a judiciously balanced Budget—two thirds spending cuts, one third taxes rises—that would have halved the deficit in four years and brought debt borrowing down by 2016. That, of course, was not the strategy pursued by the last Government, and what difference did that make? The Conservatives saddled this country with an extraordinary £1 trillion of debt more than the situation we left. That is why we are paying £1 in every £10 in interest rates today—it is because they more than doubled the national debt.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Liam Byrne]

Before we hear any nonsense about covid, let us remember that 80% to 90% of the increase in debt that the Conservatives saddled us with came before the covid lockdowns began.

[Simon Hoare]

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.

[Liam Byrne]

I can tell the hon. Member. I do not know what his facility with maths is like, or if he realises that a trillion has 12 noughts, but we left the national debt £1 trillion lower than it is today—£2.7 trillion. That is how much this country is now borrowing.

The great tragedy is that if the previous Government had borrowed money at low interest costs and invested it in something that enhanced productivity, we would be in a better position today and the Chancellor would not have had to deliver the Budget she had to deliver today. Don’t take my word for it; the International Monetary Fund was clear in its report on 25 July that our productivity growth under the Conservatives collapsed by a third compared with the good old new Labour years. Our productivity divergence with the United States is so serious. Our productivity growth has been half that of the United States, and the OBR is clear today that the downgrade on growth that it has baked into its numbers is entirely due to the productivity collapse because the Conservatives wasted the money during their 14 years in office.

I should just say, by the bye, that because the Conservatives are the Conservatives, they managed to put £1 trillion on the debt and to collapse the productivity numbers, and still to put inequality through the roof. That is why we have all had food bank queues in our constituencies that we will never forget. I will never forget for as long as I live the phenomenon of collecting food in inner-city Birmingham because our food banks had run out of food. I will never forget the children at Adderley school who were literally helping restock our food banks by taking Penguin bars out of their lunch boxes to put them in food collection crates so their classmates did not go hungry at lunch time. That is the reality of the child poverty legacy the Conservatives left us with, and that is the legacy that the Chancellor got to grips with today.

The Business and Trade Committee looks forward to scrutinising the proposals that have been laid out today. We have been travelling the country over the last couple of weeks talking to businesses about what they wanted out of this Budget, and three things were clear. These are isles of wonder. We now stand on the threshold of an extraordinary new era of innovation. This is an extraordinary and inventive country; we have been since the industrial revolution started in Birmingham back in 1761, but that will be nothing compared to what is about to unfold in this country. We are at the front of the grid in the race for the 21st century, but we need to mobilise capital on a completely new scale. That is why certainty, certainty, certainty for business was so important. I welcome the fact that the headroom has been put up to £22 billion today.

I welcome the fact that the Chancellor is ending the biannual circus of fiscal speculation by having one forecast a year. I have to say to the House that I seriously think that Mr Hughes needs to consider his position. The fact that we had a leak of the OBR forecast before this House got to debate the Budget is appalling, and this uncertainty has bedevilled us. Alongside that, we have to step up the mobilisation of capital on a completely different scale.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about my reappointment. I recognise the force of what he has said about Israeli politics; it is not appropriate for one Foreign Minister to comment on the internal politics of another country, but from the sanctions I announced from this Dispatch Box in June, the House can see the strength of this Government’s feeling about—for example—the rhetoric of Mr Smotrich and that of Mr Ben-Gvir. It has been deeply disheartening to see that rhetoric repeated over the course of the summer, but where we can, we demonstrate in the strongest possible way the strength of our feeling on these questions.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The events that took place earlier this week in Jerusalem, and yesterday, prove that the two extremes in this conflict have no interest in peace. Hamas benefits from the violence, and the right wing of the Israeli Government also profits as it seeks to expand Israel’s territory and subject the Palestinian people. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and amplify the points that he made.

Following yesterday’s events, Trump and the American Administration appear to be as annoyed with Israel as the rest of the world are, so is it now time to call Israel’s bluff through the United Nations? Is it not time to seek the engagement of blue helmets or some similar force, to enable us to say, “We, as an international community, have people on the ground. Don’t you dare fire into that area. Let us now trigger peace talks.” Without that catalyst, those two extremes will just continue, along with the performative merry-go-round of “Here we go again”, condemnation, and another statement or urgent question. I fear that in three or four years’ time, there will be rubble in Gaza, the Israeli Government will be even more of a rogue Government, and we will be no further forward.

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the risks in Gaza—we have seen that rubble grow. The British Government would support international forces going into Gaza with the agreement of the parties. In response to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I spoke about my own experience of the limitations on peacekeeping forces where there is no peace to enforce. We are depressingly clear-eyed about the continuing intent on both sides to continue conducting violence, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman has described.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend describes the heartbreaking case of her constituent’s family member, which she has raised with me on a number of occasions. Members from across the House have done the same, and I am usually not in a position to discuss such cases on the Floor of the House. Where constituents and their families are affected, we will do everything that we can to try to support them. We have heard a great deal about the restrictions on aid, and it is candidly not easy to support people to leave Gaza, but where there is a UK connection, I am always keen to do what I can to try to secure people’s safety.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s statement and the sanctions, but I fear that those who have just been sanctioned will either shrug their shoulders and say, “So what?”, or, worse, wear them as a badge of honour among their cohort.

Casting forward to next week’s conference, is the Minister alert to and seized of what is a very significant development in this place, which is the near-unanimous support for a positive declaration from His Majesty’s Government on moving towards a two-state solution and the recognition of Palestine? That would be a very big step forward, and I hope the nuance of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary is not lost on the Minister. He will know that my right hon. and hon. Friends from across the spectrum of the Conservative party have written twice to the Prime Minister to urge that course of action, and to pledge that we will give wholehearted and full-throated support to such an initiative. I just hope the Minister knows that when he and officials go to the conference, he is armed with the good will of this place to give some dynamism and impetus to the process, to recognise Palestine, to show leadership, and to use our good offices among our allies in the region to bring this utter torture to an end as quickly as possible.

[Mr Falconer]

I am a proud son of the Labour party and I have mostly attended to developments in my own party, but the many forceful interventions from the Opposition Benches on these questions have not escaped me. The many powerful speeches, particularly from those who previously held other views, are important contributions. I know they are watched widely by our friends and allies across the world, and indeed by many in Israel, and I take full and sober note of them.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to finish, if I may, because other people want to speak.

Amendment 14, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah)—another outstanding member of the Committee—states:

“A person who would not otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (1) shall not be considered to meet those requirements solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking.”

I suspect the amendment has been put forward as a result of the lengthy discussions in Committee regarding whether people with anorexia would be eligible for an assisted death under the Bill. In my previous career before becoming an MP, I worked with a number of people with eating disorders. I am very aware of the hugely sensitive and complex issues surrounding disordered eating, particularly anorexia. I also know that this is a personal issue for a number of colleagues across the House, as a result of their own experiences. Eating disorders cause huge distress for individuals, their families and loved ones, but with care and the right treatment, it is possible for people to recover and to go back to leading a full and fulfilling life.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right on the matter of eating disorders, but my understanding of the amendment is that it relates to those who effectively starve themselves into a position of becoming terminally ill without having an eating disorder—that is the thrust of the amendment. Does she see that, and how does she intend to respond to it?

--- Later in debate ---

I tabled my amendments because I believe it is important, on Report, to accept that the Bill may become law and to make it the best law we can make it. This particular phase of the process can only be a safeguard if we enable the panel to do its job properly. The Bill’s provisions are currently defective in that respect and it is extraordinarily important that we make them effective in order for the panel to do its job properly.

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to be flippant or to test the patience of the House, but we have just heard an important speech from a former Attorney General on some key legal points. This is still a private Member’s proposal. How can the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), respond to whether to accept amendments to her proposed legislation if she is not in the Chamber to hear the arguments? Is it not a discourtesy to the House and those who have spent some considerable time working on amendments, on both sides of the argument, for her not to be here to hear what they are advocating?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, but he will know that that is not a matter for the Chair.

I remind the House that although there is no formal time limit, many Members wish to contribute in this very important debate and it would be helpful if Members could keep their remarks to within the eight minutes that was suggested.