House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I will endeavour to be brief. I think that the Bill is to be welcomed. It is many things, but it is not, I fear, what the Government have tried to dress it up as. It is the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment, but one that was made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made clear, back in 1997. Blair blinked because my friend Robert Salisbury did what all Cecils have done since their appointment by Queen Elizabeth: he did a bit of deal-making and they found a solution.

If you are very quiet and listen, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can hear the voices of Labour radicals of the past muttering to themselves, “Is that it? Is that what all the intervening years since 1997 and the 14 years of Labour navel-gazing in opposition, as it contemplated its radical programme for government, have produced—removing 92 people who would have been removed in any event had Blair not blinked? No democratisation at all of the House of Lords? What a wasted opportunity.” What a wasted period of opposition that was—something I hope and know that our Front Benchers will not replicate. This timid church mouse of a Bill says, “We will take away some people who we would have taken away more than a quarter of a century ago.”

The Paymaster General, who I always consider to be one of the stars of the Treasury Bench and who is a good friend, told us that the principal motivation behind the Bill is for young constituents of Torfaen to say, “Ah, a glass ceiling has been removed,” as if they have sat there thinking, “You know, I would love to get involved in public life, if it wasn’t for this roadblock to my advancement”—namely, the 92 hereditary peers. With the greatest of respect to those on Treasury Bench, I think that a greater percentage of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—and constituents of all Labour Members—are probably asking themselves when the Labour party will crash the glass ceiling of having either a person of colour or a woman lead it.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

I must say, I regret that the Conservatives did not win a mandate in July for the kind of wholesale reform that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. As I say, the Liberal Democrat policy has always been for an elected second Chamber. That is not what the Bill delivers, but we are looking for the Government to go further—far further than the Conservatives did in the previous 14 years. [Interruption.] I find it so extraordinary that Conservative Members are suddenly all converts to the cause of Lords reform when they have done nothing about it for a decade and a half—it is insane. I say to both right hon. Gentlemen who have intervened on me that Liberal Democrat policy is for an elected upper Chamber, but getting rid of the hereditary peers is a welcome first step, and that is why we will support the legislation.

We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics after the chaos of the last Conservative Government. By removing this unelected and undemocratic aspect of our Parliament, we will move closer to that goal.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s argument would hold far more water if the Liberal Democrats adopted the position of not nominating anybody for the upper House until it was wholly elected. However, every single council leader up and down the land who has led a Liberal Democrat-Conservative group—sometimes of only three people—has suddenly found themselves draped in ermine and voting in the upper House. Her principle and her party’s actions are very wide apart.

[Sarah Olney]

I want to be very clear: the Liberal Democrats support the idea of a second Chamber. Under the current system, it is an appointed and elected Chamber; we are here today to support the principle of an elected second Chamber, and we are supporting the first step in that direction. We support the principle of an upper Chamber, and are very glad that there is Liberal Democrat representation within it, but that does not mean that we do not support the idea of changing the way in which people are introduced to the upper House. That is the principle that we are here to support.

Honestly, I am finding it difficult to work out what the Conservative argument is here. Do they want to abolish the House of Lords, do they want it to be elected, or do they want to keep everything exactly as it is? We support the Bill because it is a welcome first step towards a broader range of reforms that we have supported since 1911—which, as I have said, pre-dates many of the hereditary peerages that Conservative Members seem so keen to maintain.

Not only is the concept of inherited privilege one of fundamental, antiquated inequality, it exacerbates the distinct gender imbalance of the second Chamber, with not a single woman among the current hereditary peers. Removing the right of those peers to sit in the other place would make that gender imbalance slightly less severe, moving from 70% of peers being men to 67%. Parliament should be a body that represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. This legislation, which would remove the last remaining hereditary peers’ membership of the other place, is a significant step towards a more representative Parliament.

If successful, the Bill would have a significant impact on the size of the House. In 2017, we supported the findings of the Burns report, which recommended measures to manage the exponentially increasing membership of our second Chamber. By removing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the other place, we would see a significant reduction in the size of the House, moving it back towards a more sensible size. Liberal Democrats are supporters of that change and the move towards a smaller upper Chamber.

While we are grateful to the Government for the introduction of this Bill and intend to support its progress through the House, we also recognise and acknowledge the commitment, wisdom and contributions brought by some hereditary Members of the upper Chamber. We thank them for their work, yet hope they can agree that we can no longer ignore the entrenched inequality that the continuation of hereditary membership of their House brings. The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing commitment to reforming our second Chamber with a proper democratic mandate. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, both in this Chamber and the other place, are working together to push for broader reform as soon as possible. We are glad that the Government’s manifesto committed to other reforms, including changes to the appointment process, addressing the national and regional composition of the second Chamber, the introduction of a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement, and we ask the Minister to set out a timeline for those reforms.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently spoken out against the current system of prime ministerial appointments, which engrains patronage, reinforces the elitism of British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in our system. We would like the Government to reassure us that they will not be following in the footsteps of the former Conservative Government, who ignored the findings of the 2017 Burns report and presided over a House of Lords that has ballooned in size. There have been suggestions that the Government’s plans for reform of the other place include a requirement for any nomination for a peerage to be accompanied by an explanation of the candidate’s suitability. Will the Minister commit to that requirement, bringing the appointment of peers more in line with the process for other honours—such as knighthoods—with political parties providing an overview of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the candidate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Before I begin my remarks, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have a meeting with a Minister at the Department of Health a little later, so I will have to slip out for part of the debate.

I slightly hesitate to say this in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), because I would love to describe myself as a romantic old Tory who believes in the Peel dictum that we should keep the best of what we have and reform only where necessary. However, I am afraid that that ship has probably sailed and we are now full steam ahead into the 21st century, and there is much in what the Paymaster General said to support the principle that he seeks to advance. In a modern legislature, can we justify—beyond its being an attractive traditional anachronism—having 92 or whatever hereditary peers?

It is frankly nigh on impossible to make that argument, apart from as a romantic attachment, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) gave it his best shot. He made some very important points, particularly in quoting Burke. I have to say that I am distressed to hear that, when our leadership issues have been settled, he will be leaving the Front Bench—he was just starting to show such promise, and I am sure great things beckoned. He is a great mate, and he will be much missed.

I am afraid that the argument the Minister deployed is not the best one or what I was expecting to hear him say. He is an accomplished author: he has written a book on Nye Bevan, an award-winning book on Harold Wilson and a book about Attlee. He may possibly be able to hear those heroes of his spinning in their graves, because his approach to Lords reform would translate as Wilson having a “lukewarm heat of technology”, Attlee saying, “Well, I’ve created a little bit of a welfare state, and I think we’ll just pause there for 30 years and see how that goes, because some people may not like it”, or Nye Bevan saying, “Do you know, I’ve opened a cottage hospital in Cwmbran, and that’s quite enough: let’s just pause for a moment and see how that works.” If you are going to do it, do it!

I make this point with the greatest respect and politeness, because I admire the right hon. Gentleman enormously. After 14 years in opposition, decades since Harold Wilson and over a century since Lloyd George’s price list of viscountcies—and heaven knows what else when he was selling peerages to try to keep the old Liberal party in power—the right hon. Gentleman says, in a tantalising Lords reform version of the dance of the seven veils, “I want to show you this little bit of what we’re going to do, and there’s more to come after the interval, but we don’t how long the interval will be.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) is a former Chief Whip, so he knows full well the pressures on legislative time, and the Cabinet Office has done well to secure a legislative slot so early in the Parliament to deliver some constitutional change and reform. What a missed open goal to deliver the things that most of us—including, I think, the right hon. Gentleman—would like to see.

The right hon. Gentleman—I say this as a fellow boy from south Wales—told us that there is nothing better than when we see men and women of good will who wish to take part in our national life having the opportunity to do so. That is what we all want to see—a socially mobile, inclusive, engaged democracy—if for no other reason than that it means that, through that mechanism, we can destroy and put away those on the extremes, who only ever fill the vacuum when those women and men of good will do not step up to the plate.

Removing the 92 hereditary peers will still leave appointment to the Lords up to patronage—being a great mate of a party leader. Across the House we should be absolutely frank about how all party leaders all of the time have used the House of Lords as a way of getting rid of the awkward, the bed blockers or whoever. I have to say to Labour Members that, while we should all beware of Greeks bearing gifts—I can say that as somebody who is a quarter Greek—they should beware of a Labour Chief Whip offering them a peerage, because the Government will change the age qualification. It is the unkindest retirement present for Margaret Beckett, John Spellar and others. They said, “Please go to the House of Lords and make way for a new, young, able thruster,” and then, “Oh, we’re frightfully sorry, but you’re now too old to take your seat.”

[Shaun Davies]

To damage the street cred of us both, I am very fond of the hon. Member, as he knows—we go back a long way—but does he agree with me that perfection should not be the enemy of the good, and he should vote for this measure as a down payment on future reforms?

[Simon Hoare]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I nearly called my hon. Friend because he is a friend, that I am more than likely to vote for this Bill on Second Reading. I possibly should have told my Whip about that beforehand—there is my peerage gone. Notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) is one of my oldest and dearest friends, I must say that his reasoned amendment seems to have been written more because of the need to write something, rather than actually to make a case to persuade, which is entirely atypical of the way he usually works.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge made the important point—I do hope that those on the Treasury Bench and the Government Whips have listened—that this is an opportunity to consider proper amendments to make this a more material exercise.

We live, thank God—I say this as a Roman Catholic—in a multicultural, multi-religious society. We have an established church, and I do not think anybody would advocate for its disestablishment at this stage. However, it is surely an anachronism, just because of the sees to which they have been appointed, for the Archbishop of Canterbury and others to sit as part of the legislature. The only other country that has clerics in such a position by dint of office is Iran, which I suggest is not a country that we should seek to emulate very much. Let us have a faith Bench or faith Benches, but let those Benches be of mixed faiths and truly representative of the faith groups doing so much good in our country.

A number of the hereditary peers have been doing sterling work. I think, in particular, of my noble Friend The Earl Howe and His Grace the Duke of Wellington, whom Labour Members were praying in aid just a few months ago, of course, when His Grace was leading the campaign against the then Government to improve water quality and sewerage. I suggest that his expertise in and knowledge of water quality in chalk streams and so forth should not be lost.

I do take on board the sincerity that the Minister claims—this is not a personal thing or a class war; it is a matter of principle. I think the House gets him on that. I do not think he needs to make that point any more. But I do hope that there may be an opportunity for a supernumerary list outside the normal leaders’ nominations —birthday or new year honours—so that those hereditaries who wish to continue their service, and not all will, can have conferred upon them a life peerage. That would make good much of what the Minister has said with regard to his principal motivation and that this is not a personal thing.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Will my hon. Friend agree that if this legislation is to go through, there should be a provision to ensure that all the hereditary peers are offered a life peerage as part of the package?

[Simon Hoare]

One can make a perfectly reasonable argument to say it should be offered to all. One can make an equally good argument that it should be offered only to hereditary peers who are fulfilling a House of Lords duty—chairing a Committee perhaps, or if they are active on their party’s Front Bench. My right hon. Friend has made an important point and I am sure that the Minister will consider it. It would certainly be an act of good grace and it would be an act of charm, both of which I know are characteristics with which the Minister is fully imbued.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I do not wish to detain the House, but when I raised this point during the Minister’s remarks he indicated that it would be perfectly proper and possible for a leader of a party to put forward hereditary peers for life peerages, but that is not the point. The point is that there should be a separate list in this legislation to accommodate all of them.

[Simon Hoare]

I am going to stay mute on the “all” point, but my right hon. Friend echoes the point I was endeavouring to make, which is that a list of conversion, as it were, from hereditary to life should be considered by His Majesty’s Government, outwith leaving it to leaders of any party to nominate for a new year’s honour or a birthday honour, because that would clog up the system for those who are new to public life—echoing the point the Minister raised—where people want to make a contribution and may have caught the eye of the powers that be in order to secure a nomination.

I think there is a job of work that needs to be done. There are a number of ways in which one can land on the right solution, but it should not just be a case of, “Thank you so very much indeed for your service. Please return the ermine to the Lord Great Chamberlain. Your retirement party has been postponed because we could not find a room to have it in”, or whatever it may happen to be. I think there is a way which is elegant, which is kind, which is graceful and which has some democratic underpinning, because at least it will have gone through the appointments.

I close by saying that this is a missed opportunity, and the Labour Front Bench needs to consider that. I appreciate that they have the distorting effect of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who did take up a little Labour bandwidth. We all got constrained by delivering Brexit, or trying not to deliver Brexit. And then we all had the big national distortion of the pandemic. But to offer this dance of the seven veils, after 14 years of opposition, and on an issue that people in this place and outside have been talking about for over a century, suggests to me a lack of detailed preparedness by the Government in some policy areas. It cannot have been a shock to Labour that they won the election; it may have come as a pleasant surprise that they won so comprehensively, but it really cannot have come as a shock that they were likely to win the general election whenever it came, irrespective of how hard my colleagues and I were working to ensure that did not happen:

“There is a tide in the affairs of men

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune”,

or misfortune in my party’s case, but we are where we are.

I hope that amendments are forthcoming—I do not think it is too late to work cross-party on this—to buttress this proposal and deliver some of that democratisation of the House of Lords, and to make sure it is more regionally reflective. I listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) talking about the number of white men. I will be careful as he is helping me on a constituency issue, for which I am grateful and I want to put my thanks on the record, but my party has given the country three female Prime Ministers, the first Prime Minister of Jewish heritage and the first Prime Minister of the Hindu faith, so I am not entirely certain that we need to take lessons from the Labour party on how to bring people who are not necessarily used to public life into public life.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point quite succinctly for me. Yes, there were three female leaders of his party, but they were elected; none of them had the opportunity to take up one of the 92 seats in the House of Lords. That is the anomaly that needs to be resolved.

[Simon Hoare]

Labour were very keen to stop the Member for Stoke Newington being elected, and doubtless she would have been donning ermine at some point, so again I think the hon. Gentleman is on slightly thin ice. I say to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who is looking confused, that I am talking about the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I say to him, “Keep up, 007!” I do not know whether he noticed it during the election campaign, but there was quite a lot in the media about it. He should look it up—the House of Commons Library is frightfully helpful on these sorts of things.

So I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, with huge reluctance and sadness, that I am more than likely to sit this one out, as the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—and I am sure that the Committee will want to look at this in more detail when we are up and running. But the underlying principle that the Minister has set forward is a compelling one. It is a sadness, a disappointment and a surprise that he is not taking this opportunity, after 14 years preparing in opposition, and after a century of making the case from the centre-left of British politics, and with a massive Commons majority, and that this timid little church mouse of a Bill is the best that he can offer us this afternoon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Claire Hazelgrove to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves]

We said in our manifesto that removing the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the legislature was a first step towards achieving the reforms of the House of Lords that we wanted to see, and it is right that we do not delay that first step. The wording in our manifesto was clear: this would be an “immediate” first step, and that is what we are delivering in the Bill.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), among others, talked about our traditions. Any suggestion that the Government are somehow against traditions or the ceremonies of our past is nonsense. We value and respect our history, and its continued inclusion in our national life makes our country all the better, but the continued reservation of those 92 seats for people who are simply there because of the families they were born into cannot be justified any longer. That is an important matter of principle.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), wondered whether hereditary peers could be given life peerages. As my noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon said in the other place when the Bill was introduced, Members who leave as hereditary peers can return as life peers. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so if their party wishes to nominate them in the normal way.

[Simon Hoare]

That is all clear and understood. The point that I was making, along with other Members, was that it would be a gesture of graceful good will to make life peers of those who are currently hereditaries. Placing them on a separate list, outwith new year, birthday or party leader nominations, would be an act of generosity reflecting the work that they had done, and would underline the Minister’s point that there is nothing personal in this.

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and, indeed, for his contribution to the debate. That is not a commitment that we are in a position to make; it would be for the new Leader of the Opposition to nominate for peerages those whom he or she wished to nominate, in the normal way.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), talked about wider reform of the House of Lords. As set out in the Labour manifesto, the Government are committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. That would be a major change to the functioning of our Parliament and our constitution, so it is right that it should be preceded by a significant period of detailed consideration and consultation. The Government will set out further details of that process in due course, including how we will seek the British public’s input on how politics can best serve them. However, that should not prevent progress on other important and long-overdue reforms, including through this Bill and other initial reforms, to help deliver a smaller and more active second Chamber. The Government’s manifesto made it clear that the measures in the Bill would be introduced to implement immediate reform, which is what we are setting out to do.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), too, talked about wider reform. I thank her for taking the time to meet me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office to talk about her concerns and her ambitions for further reform; I am grateful for that engagement. I want to stress that this is a new Government with a fresh mandate and a set of manifesto pledges that we are committed to implement. This Bill delivers immediate reform. As my right hon. Friend mentioned in his opening speech, part of the reason why there has been no further progress over the last 25 years is the argument that nothing should be done until everything has been done. We firmly believe in taking this first step as a matter of priority, and it is right that we take time to consider how best to implement other manifesto commitments that the Government have previously set out. We will engage with peers and the public, where appropriate, over the course of this Parliament and update the House in due course.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a point about the commencement of the Bill. The Bill will remove the remaining hereditary peers at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. The timing of the Bill’s implementation ensures that the business of the House will not be undermined by the sudden departure of a number of hereditary peers in the middle of the Session. Subject to the timely progress of the Bill, we will give notice to existing hereditary peers to give valedictory speeches.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) raised some concerns about the balance in the House of Lords if this Bill is passed. It is important to point out that no political party has held an overall majority in the House of Lords in recent times, and this Bill will not change that. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and hold the Government to account in the context of the primacy of the House of Commons. The hon. Member is right to say that the Bill decreases the number of peers on the Opposition Benches, but the share of the Opposition’s seats in the Lords will reduce from around 34% to around 32%. Given that the Conservatives will remain the largest party in the second Chamber, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is hardly a power grab.

I very much look forward to engaging with the shadow spokespeople from the Opposition parties. I have welcomed discussing this matter with the hon. Member for Richmond Park and Members of other parties who made time to discuss the Bill at drop-in sessions last week. I look forward to further engagement with all those who attend the Committee of the whole House, especially given the important views that have been expressed today.

I stress again that this Bill is about finally removing an outdated and indefensible principle, and not about individuals. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office mentioned at the beginning of the debate, the current hereditary peers and their predecessors have made notable contributions to the other place, the merits of which we have heard in this House today. This is the first step in reform and not the last. The other reforms set out in our manifesto are more complex and it is right to take the time to properly consider their implementation. I know that the Leader of the House of Lords has outlined her commitment to meaningful dialogue with Members of the other place on further reforms to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber.

The Government remain committed in the long term to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions and of how the public can have politics best serve them. As the manifesto makes clear, it is right to start with this immediate reform, completing the work that we began 25 years ago. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 453.

[Division No. 19, 6.55 pm]

Question accordingly negatived.

[Division lists were not available at the time of publication.]

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Question agreed to.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree that the work is going too slowly; we need to push that work on, with clear timetables to ensure it is done. In response to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, the wording of the report, which says that the deaths were entirely “avoidable”, must be chilling for all the family members and the community at large.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their candour, and the tone that they adopted—it was pitch perfect. May I press the Prime Minister on a point made by Sir Max Hill KC in broadcast interviews this morning, about the urgent need for justice and for prosecutions to be brought? Colleagues across the House have raised the issue, and the Prime Minister has addressed it, but will he ensure that there is adequate resource in the policing arena and capacity in the court system to bring cases, where appropriate, as speedily as possible? Businesses are inclined to dissolve themselves and disappear into the ether very quickly. Will he make sure that there is capacity in both the investigation and prosecution arenas to ensure speed? We all recognise that people have been waiting far too long.

[The Prime Minister]

Sir Max Hill has personal experience of these sorts of cases, as have I. We need to ensure that resource is in place, and that we are clear about the speed of decision making. They are not straightforward decisions, but none the less they should be taken as swiftly as possible. We need to ensure that the courts are in a position to handle the cases as soon as they are ready to go to court, if there are cases to go to court.

Cyber-security and UK Democracy

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

These cyber-attacks occurred in 2021 and 2022, so we really must ask how it has taken the Government so long to make this statement. We should reflect on the Deputy Prime Minister saying that these actors

“gained access to the Electoral Commission’s email and file-sharing systems, which contain copies of the electoral register.”

This is an election year, and it should put fear into the hearts of all of us that the Chinese have access to the UK’s electoral register, at a time like this when we are already worried about bad actors, about cyber-attacks taking place and about the use of AI.

The Deputy Prime Minister talked about taking robust action—good grief: two individuals are being sanctioned. Reference has been made to what happened over Novichok, when we swiftly took action to expel diplomats from this country and around the world. I hope that when the Chinese ambassador meets the Deputy Prime Minister, he will be told that diplomats will be expelled. Will the Deputy Prime Minister come back to the House tomorrow and tell us about the robust action that he should be taking?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)]

You are confusing shouting with robustness.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will answer the question slightly less aggressively than how it was put; I will make my point in my own way. First, as the Electoral Commission said in its statement, the data contained in electoral registers is limited, and much of it is already in the public domain. The Electoral Commission had already declared the fact of the attack. What is different today is that, contrary to some speculation at the time, we are announcing that it was in relation to Chinese-related actors. That is what has changed. On our overall approach, I have set out a direction. These are grave threats, which we take seriously. We are taking proportionate action now, and we will continue to take steps as required.

Debate on the Address

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). As he will know, his is a part of the world that I know well, coming from the western part of the city, and having contested his seat back in the 2010 general election. I fought Cardiff South and Penarth, and Cardiff South and Penarth won! I was interested by the hon. Gentleman’s final remarks about the Greek Orthodox Church: my late maternal grandmother was married to a Greek so she knew that Church pretty well, and it was very nice to hear the hon. Gentleman mention it.

Let me begin by saying how much I agreed with the assessment of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) of the devastatingly sad situation in the middle east, and also with what was said by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) about the vital importance of maintaining domestic steel production. If we learned anything from the mad international scramble for personal protective equipment during the covid pandemic, it was the need for domestic production of materials that are often vital but are susceptible to fragilities in international supply chains. A country that cannot produce its own steel is not, I would suggest, an independent country in industrial terms. I should add that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—along with others, including the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin)—made some good points about forestry.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) made a telling observation about the sad moment it would have been for the Sovereign, who was delivering the King’s Speech only because his late mother the Queen had passed away. However, it is a pleasure for me to speak following the first Gracious Speech delivered by a male sovereign for 71 years. I always think that the key phrase in the Gracious Speech is

“Other measures will be laid before you.”

It is that great catch-all which means “Something on which we could not quite get agreement before it went to print can now be looked at.” It also means that people have suddenly said, “Well, we thought we did not have time to do this, but we find that we have”, and it means that when legislation is needed, opportunities can be addressed.

I would issue a caution about assessing a governmental programme, even at such a late stage in a Parliament, purely on the basis of the number of Bills involved. We are obsessed with quantity, deeming success to lie in having passed hundreds of Bills and thousands of statutory instruments, but we rarely think about quality. We rarely pause to ask ourselves whether stuff is on the statute book in any event but we are not drawing on it; we are always thinking that every problem is a new problem which requires new legislation.

Having said that, however, and without wishing to shoot my own argument down in flames if I go any further, I should emphasise that I was encouraged by what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the final session of Prime Minister’s Questions before Prorogation, when I raised with him the need to continue the process of review and reform of the funding formulae for a number of key service delivery agencies—the Environment Agency, policing, local government and education—in the context of rural areas. We inherited funding formulae devised by the Labour party, which were tilted principally towards the urban and metropolitan at the expense of the rural. I am not advocating a system in which Peter must pay Paul, but we need greater equity, and an understanding of the difficulties of delivering rural services, in the formulae that are deployed in the making of funding decisions. Progress has been made, particularly in education and certainly in respect of the rural sparsity fund, but I am hopeful that within those “other measures”—that great catch-all—we may well see more changes.

Anyone who has read as well as listened to the Gracious Speech, as I am sure many of us will have done, may have been struck by what I thought was the most important sentence in it:

“That is why my Government’s priority is to make the difficult but necessary long-term decisions to change this country for the better.”

What could be more Conservative, more traditionally Tory, than that? Taking difficult decisions, not for party advantage but in the national interest: that is a golden thread that runs through my strand of “one nation” moderate conservatism, and I applaud it warmly while also cautioning Labour Members, all of whose speeches have indicated a preference for party interests rather than public service. They say, “Let us have a general election now, because all this will change after it”, as if that would help to solve any problems in the short to medium term. We on this side of the House will continue to govern in the national interest, taking those long-term and difficult decisions.

I have little or no doubt that North Dorset residents will welcome the proposals for education, and will be interested in seeing the details of the advanced British standard, which will merge technical and academic routes into a single qualification. My area has excellent high schools—my three daughters attend one of them—but we are continually trying to motivate our young to access the excellent local colleges in Weymouth, Salisbury and Yeovil and grasp the opportunities that they present, while also saying to parents that apprenticeships and non-academic education are important as well. It is long overdue, but His Majesty’s Government are right to assess the utility of some degree courses. I do not wish to reduce education to a utilitarian equation, but a lot of people are spending a lot of money on a lot of degree courses that will never recoup the expenditure, and I think we are right to look at that in order to secure a better future for our young people.

A key theme in the speech was security, and it was defined in a number of key areas. It is perfectly sensible to focus on national energy security, just as it is perfectly sensible to support the production of domestic steel, as we have heard. It is bonkers to be reliant on foreign energy production and products when we can produce them here, with not only employment and tax benefits but environmental benefits: if we are to use these products, it is much better to reduce the number of miles for which they have to travel, and also to monitor our very high standards, as deployed by the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and, of course, others.

I shall be particularly interested, as will many people in North Dorset, to see the details of the reform of grid connections. The problem of grid capacity and access to it is clearly hampering economic growth, as I know only too well from the situation in my part of Dorset and, indeed, throughout the county. I think I am correct in saying that there is still not a single business park in the county of Dorset that could be developed to its full potential, not through lack of interest on the part of potential employers but merely because there would not be enough electricity to serve those employers’ needs. That, one would have thought, is a fairly basic issue: just as access to clean water or to sewerage is important, access to electricity is key to growing businesses and creating jobs.

There was a huge amount of emphasis in the Gracious Speech on physical security as we usually define it—our armed forces and security sources—in an ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world. The first duty of the state, as we know, is to keep her people safe, and that, I think, will be at the heart of any legislation that the Government introduce. As for financial security, the light appears to be at the end of the tunnel, but we are not at the end of the tunnel yet—we are not out of the woods—so we must try to deliver as much financial security as possible for individuals, families and businesses through calm, competent, rational common-sense Treasury and Government decisions.

I think that those who are saying that the King’s Speech should have been much more full of Bills, and far more exciting and all the rest of it, miss the point. I think the electorate are broadly exhausted and actually just want to see a few things being done supremely well, rather than lots of headline-chasers being done incredibly badly. They just want a sensible Tory Government, and I know that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will deliver that in spades.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) was right to reference the benefits of free trade to the world’s poorest and to our UK exporters. I agree with him on that, but I usually disagree with him on the issue of the race to the bottom with regard to standards and regulation. I do not detect a huge appetite in the House for a de minimis approach to regulation, particularly—I say this as one who represents a rural and farming constituency—with regard to agricultural standards. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assumed that important office last year, he made it clear that parity of standards and regulation—the level playing field on which I tabled amendments to the Agriculture Bill, as did the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—for our farmers on animal welfare, the use of chemicals and the like would be absolutely front and centre in future negotiations of free trade agreements, and I support that.

I speak as a Welshman who represents an English constituency and who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—confused, Mr Deputy Speaker? You will be; I sometimes am. We are the Conservative and Unionist party and it does not take a great constitutional expert to realise that some of the threads and fabrics of the rich tapestry of our United Kingdom are under great stress and strain. We have seen it in the phenomenon of the rise of Scottish nationalism; my native Wales is starting to see a little bit more of it, and we have a nationalist First Minister designate in Northern Ireland.

I always make the point, and I hope that the Government will make it during this legislative year, that to be a Unionist, you do not have to be uniform. The strength of our Union is in the differences of the four nations that make up our kingdom: cultural, historical, political, linguistic in some areas, and musical—the whole kit and caboodle. But what unites us and makes us stronger, as was clearly demonstrated in our united response to the horrors of Ukraine and the middle east, are our shared values: freedom of speech; the rule of law; an independent judiciary; the ability of our military and overseas aid workers to do good in some of the most difficult and challenging parts of the globe; and the soft power reach of our language, the BBC, our armed forces and our diplomatic corps. All these things are drawn from the riches of the four quarters of this kingdom. We should never, ever lose sight of that fact and we should never dodge the opportunity to stress that across the four parts of the United Kingdom.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is rightly passionate about the need to strengthen the Union, which was referenced in the King’s Speech. Does he agree that that has to be one of the founding principles of this Government as they take this legislative agenda forward?

[Simon Hoare]

I do agree, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

As a parent I hugely welcome the renewed focus on vaping and its dangers. I do not think it is readily understood by parents, by teachers or indeed by teenagers themselves. In Gillingham in my constituency, we have two vape shops that are far too close to the high school for comfort. We can understand where the marketing goes. Which of us has not lost a loved one or family member to a smoking-related disease? I am sure that there will be some who argue about libertarian principles and the infringement of civil liberties in response to the Government’s proposals, but when we know that a product can do such enormous harm and that it has such huge costs to public health and to the taxpayer, what Government would not act to improve public health? This will be the equivalent of the Clean Air Act 1956, and I welcome it and give it my full support.

This is an exciting King’s Speech. There is plenty in it and it will keep us busy. There is lots to do and I look forward to it playing an important part in showing that my party is alive and kicking, full of ideas, committed to our country and able to govern us, both this year and in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Simon Hoare.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Sorry—Keir Starmer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I said “Hoare,” not “More”.

[Simon Hoare]

Q5. That is the first time I have been confused with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

There have been many rumours about you.

[Simon Hoare]

And of all them are true, Mr Speaker.

Like me, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has the honour and privilege of representing a rural constituency. I am sure that he, like I, occasionally feels a certain degree of frustration that although progress has been made in this area, the rubric of funding formulae for things such as the Environment Agency, local government, the police and education still fails to adequately reflect the difficulties and challenges of delivering public services in rural areas. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the wider Government use the opportunities of the autumn statement and the forthcoming Budget to explore those issues further and make the delivery of services better for the Prime Minister’s constituents and mine?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue on behalf of his and my constituents. It is vital that we have the same high-quality services in rural areas as in our towns and cities. I am pleased to tell him that we are providing £95 million through the rural services delivery grant to help rural councils achieve exactly that. We are currently reviewing the police funding formula. I remember working with him to ensure that the national funding formula for schools takes account of the different characteristics of schools and their pupils. We will continue to keep all those things under review. I agree with him entirely: our rural communities must be given the same funding and public services as everyone else in our country.

List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman is a powerful advocate for the approach he has outlined. On his point about examples of declarations of interest that might be made to a permanent secretary that may not be relevant—[Interruption.] If he gives me a moment, I will come to an example. For example, a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may declare that their brother-in-law works in a company producing electric car parts in their declaration of interest form. That will be considered by the permanent secretary and the independent adviser. That may not be included in the published list, on the ground that it would be unlikely to present a conflict in relation to a DEFRA portfolio. It also would not be relevant to the register of the Minister’s parliamentary interests. If the Minister then moved to the Department for Transport, the Department for Business and Trade, or the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the interest would become more relevant and would be much more likely to be published in a list. I use that lengthy and exciting example to outline to the hon. Gentleman that the two things are not the same. The list and the register are different and are there for different reasons. They operate in different ways and consequently have different rules pertaining to them.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

If we are serious about supporting and defending the independence and sagacity of our senior civil servants—I certainly am and I know my hon. Friend is—their advice on whether something should be in the public domain or not should surely be enough. Otherwise, it is a direct challenge to the authority of those senior civil servants to whom a Minister is making a declaration. Does the Minister agree with that? Does he also agree that the clue is in the title—a blind trust is just that?

[Alex Burghart]

Absolutely. A blind trust must be a blind trust. On my hon. Friend’s point about the integrity of official advice to Ministers, absolutely, our system requires officials to be able to give advice candidly and freely, safe in the knowledge that it will not routinely be disclosed.

Civil Service Impartiality

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is considering proposals made by PACAC, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and Sir Nigel Boardman about how we could improve the business appointments process. There is a lot of sympathy with the idea that we should look at those rules, and we will report to the House about how they could be amended or improved. It is an irony, though, that the Opposition have consistently called for those rules to be tightened when they do not seem to be quite aware—or may not be fully aware—of what the rules are today.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The civil service’s response to this issue amplifies and underscores, to the comfort of all of us, the importance that it attaches to its impartiality in serving Ministers of the Crown, irrespective of the colour under which they stand for election.

I will echo the growing theme, led ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). For ACOBA to put the recommendation to the Prime Minister always puts the Prime Minister in an invidious position, but particularly in this case. If he says no, he looks churlish. If he says yes, he makes the civil service, which is already anxious about the attack on its impartiality, still more anxious. I urge the Minister to speed up the process of response to the suggestions that have been made about formalising the committee’s recommendations.

[Jeremy Quin]

I have said what I said about the Government considering how the procedures for business appointments could be improved. I have a lot of faith in the ACOBA process, and in Lord Pickles and his committee. We look forward to him looking through this process. Sue Gray will put through her application—if that is a confidential process, I presume that it is happening—and the committee will need to take a decision on that basis and then provide advice.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have strained every sinew these last weeks and months to arrive at today’s position. They are to be congratulated. The agreement demonstrates that, when committed minds do politics seriously, serious and beneficial outcomes can be delivered for the benefit of all in our country.

While agreeing entirely with my right hon. Friend that the parties, particularly those in Northern Ireland, need the time and space to study the detail and to work out all the implications for those in Northern Ireland, Northern Irish business wants and the good people of Northern Ireland most certainly deserve quick certainty. If there are to be votes in this place on any element of the Windsor framework, as announced today, will he commit to ensuring they take place speedily in order to ensure certainty and peace of mind for all who either live in Northern Ireland or who wish Northern Ireland well?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend knows this subject well, and he is rightly passionate about it. I thank him for all the valuable work that he and his colleagues have done over the years as we considered and concluded these negotiations.

As I said earlier, Parliament will of course have its say and there will be a vote, but we need to do that at the appropriate time in order to give people the time and space to consider the detail. My hon. Friend makes an important point that the benefit of this framework and agreement is that it can start to provide that certainty and those benefits to the people and communities of Northern Ireland very soon. That is why we have concluded these negotiations and want to start delivering the benefits for people on the ground as quickly as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Member raises a really important point, and we are doing everything we can to support those who may be reliant on food banks or otherwise struggling to make ends meet. He can see that with the £1,200 cost of living support that is going to the 8 million most vulnerable households, the energy price guarantee and further measures for pensioners. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out further measures tomorrow. Of course, as I have said before, the No. 1 priority is getting inflation down. We will not be able to do that if we follow the spending plans of the Labour party.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is also the Justice Secretary, and everybody in this House, irrespective of party, will know that for the reputation of this House standards are important. He has said that from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. However, in response to some of the points raised by Opposition Members, am I naive to still believe in that good British tradition that one is innocent until proven guilty?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have said I will co-operate fully with the independent investigation. In fact, I welcome the opportunity to address these complaints. I think, though, that it is important that we have zero tolerance for any bullying and hold the highest standards in public life, and it is important for all of us to adhere to those standards.