Ministerial Code

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

When did the Prime Minister realise that his preferred candidate to be the football regulator had donated to his leadership campaign? From whom did the Prime Minister seek advice when he learned that? What was the nature of the advice in response? In particular, what advice was the Prime Minister given regarding his continuing involvement in the process and his ability effectively to be judge and jury on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Notwithstanding what the Minister has rightly said on the status of the ministerial code, which is authored in and policed by Downing Street, is it not time, given the problems that successive Governments have had on these issues, for serious consideration to be given to bringing the ministerial code under the orbit and auspices of this place and not No. 10?

[Josh Simons]

On the independent football regulator appointment, the hon. Member may be aware that the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests, setting out in detail his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements that were in place. The Prime Minister acknowledged that, in retrospect, it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment, or confirmed that he was content with the appointment. He has expressed his sincere regret. I draw the House’s attention to the independent adviser’s conclusion that the disclosures made by the Prime Minister were an important demonstration of the Prime Minister’s

“commitment to transparency and to ensuring that mistakes are acknowledged and necessary steps taken to improve processes underpinning standards in public life.”

Official Secrets Act

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his remarks, as well as the work he has done in this area and his service on the Committee. As a former Committee member, he will understand that the Committee is fiercely independent of Government, and rightly so, but I happen to think it does an outstanding job. It is a great asset for Parliament.

As Security Minister, I will want to work incredibly closely with the Committee and co-operate with it whenever we can. It is clearly not for me to suggest particular matters that it may wish to investigate, but knowing the Chair and the deputy Chair as I do, I think it entirely likely that it may decide to look closely at this particular matter.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Minister is clearly not happy with the CPS’s decision, and therefore the Government are not, and the House is obviously not either. Because the two suspects did not face a trial, double jeopardy does not come into play. Will the Minister undertake to explore with the Attorney General the scope for him to bring a case against those two, if not under the Official Secrets Act to test the case with a jury, then under the new legislation, which clearly would present no problem in court terms?

[Dan Jarvis]

I certainly agree with the hon. Member in his assessment of my being not happy. The decision was communicated this morning. The points he raised were reasonable, constructive and helpful, so let me take them away and consider them with colleagues across Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We will ban fracking for good, and let us be absolutely clear that the biggest risk to energy prices is staying hooked on volatile international fossil fuel markets. In stark contrast, Reform is ignoring local communities, putting green jobs and investment at risk and committing to higher bills by warning renewable companies not to invest. That is shocking.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Q3. A few short weeks ago, a constituent of mine died in a tragic fire at the Lady Bailey residential park in Winterborne Whitechurch. The fire was attended by 50 Dorset and Wiltshire firefighters and others. This summer alone, 900 grassland, woodland and crop fires have equalled the busiest year on record for that fire service, and I extend my thanks to all of them for all that they do. The Prime Minister will be aware that rural funding is always an issue and that the delivery of rural services is always a challenge. Will he arrange for the relevant Minister at the Home Office to meet me and senior officials in that fire service to discuss the needs of our rural area to ensure that my constituents and those across the counties of Dorset and Wiltshire are kept as safe as they possibly can be?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the friends and family of the constituent that he referenced. Indeed, our thoughts are with all those affected, particularly farmers, and I want to join him in thanking our firefighters, who have worked tirelessly to keep people safe. We have provided Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue authority with an increased budget of almost £75 million, but I will ensure that he gets the meeting he has asked for to ensure that we can properly support our firefighters and protect our farmland.

Privilege

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That—

(1) There be laid before this House the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration proposed to be laid under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 concerning the steps taken by the Charity Commission to implement recommendations contained in two reports issued by the Commissioner in respect of “Miss A” and “Mr U”;

(2) The matter of the actions of the Charity Commission in bringing legal proceedings that would prevent the laying of a report before this House be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this request. The House will be delighted to know that on the first week back after a longish summer recess, the five hours allocated for this debate will not be taken up—I will only take four hours and 50 minutes. [Laughter.] No, do not worry. I know the House wants to get on to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

The motion before the House is, I hope, clear. I believe it will command support across all parties in the House, but I think it is important to put on the record why it has been tabled. We have too often allowed the privileges of this House and our parliamentary process to be slightly nibbled and chipped away at, and sometimes we have been reluctant to defend robustly those privileges, which are important for Parliament to function as our constituents expect. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who chairs both the Committee on Standards and the Committee of Privileges, is alongside me this afternoon.

The House of Commons’ role used to be described as the “grand inquest of the nation”. It meant that one of our great functions was to consider and debate everything that we thought mattered. In a famous case, one of the Law Lords recognised the key importance of

“the need to ensure that the legislature can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors, with access to all relevant information”.

This is a case about the ability of the House to receive information, which the House has always taken very seriously. “Erskine May” has an entire section on obstructing witnesses and others. It states boldly:

“Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.”

The circumstances here are slightly different, because this is about a prospective case against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I have tabled the motion for two reasons, which I shall set out briefly, but they are explained in the motion itself.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, also known as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, is technically an officer of the House—a Crown appointment appointed by resolution of the House. They have a duty to respond to complaints from all our constituents, where there is validity in doing so, in coming to reports, making observations and suggestions, and submitting those reports to Parliament.

As referenced in the motion, there is the case of “Miss A” and “Mr U”. I have no idea who Miss A and Mr U are, and I have no idea what complaints about the Charity Commission were set out before the commissioner, but the Charity Commission has clearly taken umbrage or offence at what the PHSO has been seeking to do. The Charity Commission is bringing legal proceedings deliberately to prevent the laying of two reports before this House. That completely undermines the linkage between the ombudsman and this place, and, as I said at the start, it undermines our opportunity and decisions to look at any information that we deem to be of importance, or that matters to us, in order to allow us to advance policy.

The motion is a very simple one. If approved, it will compel the commissioner to lay before the House the reports that they have undertaken with regard to the complaints of Miss A and Mr U. I have tabled the motion as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is responsible for the PHSO. We will look at those reports and advise accordingly, if necessary. I make no prior judgment of whether the PHSO or the Charity Commission has got it right in this instance, because we have not seen the reports. However, it fundamentally undermines the rights and privileges of this place, and all of us as Members, when we are prevented from seeing reports that have been produced following due diligence and proper investigation and inquiry by a statutory body and the ombudsman, who is a servant of the House. Because there is concern, which I share, that the Charity Commission has acted perversely in bringing legal proceedings that would prevent the laying of the reports, the second part of the motion seeks to refer that action to the Committee of Privileges so that it can take a look.

In the general scheme of things, this may seem a very small element of parliamentary life, but the courts have hitherto always taken the standpoint that Parliament can and should see what it wants and needs to see, and that the courts should take no role in interfering with or obstructing that channel of communication. We are all familiar with Mr Speaker giving advice from the Chair about the sub judice rule, for example, but it does not mean that we cannot talk about things. We do so knowing full well that privilege entails both rights and responsibilities.

I hope the House is with us on this matter, which is important. It is time for us to robustly reassert our rights under the idea of privilege and having access to information. I remain to be convinced that the Charity Commission has acted advisedly in bringing the action. Even yesterday, the commission tried to put pressure on me to withdraw the motion, believing still that it is in the right. I decided not to do so, and I think it is an abuse of the commission to ask us to do that.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will undertake an inquiry on arm’s length bodies, of which the commission is part, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House have privately raised with me concerns about decisions that the commission is taking. It is appearing to do so in a slightly abstract or perverse way, without any degree of accountability. That matter is separate from this motion, but it is important for all our arm’s length bodies, and particularly the Charity Commission, to understand that this House will not be bullied by arm’s length bodies seeking recourse to the courts to stop us doing our job properly, efficiently and professionally on behalf of all our constituents.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As the Leader of the House of Lords has set out in the other place, immediately this Bill is on the statute book a Select Committee will be created to look at those issues of retirement and participation. The hon. Gentleman is talking about politics as they stood in 1999. This Government were elected on a manifesto that delivered 411 MPs in 2024, and this Government are following that manifesto.

Across both this House and the other place, there has been broad consensus that the hereditary route to the House of Lords should end. I also make it clear, as Ministers have from this Dispatch Box and Labour peers have in the other place, that this is not a judgment on individuals. It is not a judgment on the work and contribution of individual hereditary peers; it is a judgment on the principle. Let me also say that there is no barrier to any hereditary peers—in the case of the Conservative party, through a party list—being nominated as life peers, should the Leader of the Opposition, for example, wish to do that.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned the very long period of time that his party has been anxious for and agitating about reform of the House of Lords. Is the creation of a future Select Committee really the sum of all that anger and agitation? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has said, we could have seen a full picture of a modernised, reformed and accountable House of Lords that works to deliver bicameral scrutiny, but we do not have that. The Minister is asking us to vest hope in the creation of a Select Committee, with no timeframe attached to when it would report and no promise of future legislation. Surely, he must be as disappointed and unhappy with that situation as I am.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is great to see that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that House of Lords reform is not going far enough. If he wants to talk about the 20th century and the length of time that his party was in power, I would say that it had every opportunity to bring about full reform of the House of Lords. Not only did the Conservatives bring about minimal reform, at best, but they blocked every attempt at major reform. It is difficult, therefore, to take their 2025 position seriously.

The point about the Select Committee is that we have had on the one hand accusations that the Government are acting in a party political way and, on the other, requests for the Government to do things cross-party. That is precisely what the Select Committee will do: it will give the opportunity to consider issues such as retirement age and participation. The debate in the upper House covered those matters across different parties. The Select Committee will be established within three months of Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman asked about deadlines, and I can tell him that the Committee will issue its findings by next summer.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I echo the Minister in thanking Rebecca Hilsenrath for the work she has done in stepping into an interim role and fulfilling that job with great distinction. I also thank the Prime Minister and the wider Cabinet Office for the speed with which they responded to the recommendation from the interview panel, which I had the great pleasure of sitting on as the representative of the House, as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

I want to bring two things to the attention of the House. Paula Sussex underwent a pre-appointment hearing by the Committee last week, and the Committee was very impressed with her. She reports to our Committee; we scrutinise the work of the ombudsman. I recused myself from that role for obvious reasons, but I want to assure the House—and this has been echoed by the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden)—that I am convinced we selected the standout candidate in a very competitive and well-qualified field. I think she will fulfil the job with great distinction, use the data available to drive improvements to public service and, as everybody recognises, represent and champion the interests and concerns of our constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said yesterday, overseas development is important, and I am proud of what we have done. It was not a decision that I took lightly or wanted to take, but it is important at this moment that we put defence spending and the defence and security of our country and Europe uppermost. We will, of course, make sure that we are able to fulfil our humanitarian obligations in relation to Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan and other vital work. I want to be clear: we do of course want to go back and increase that funding as soon as we are able to do so.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Q13.  I hope the Prime Minister knows that when he travels to Washington to meet the former leader of the free world, he does so with the hopes and prayers of this House and the country; probably no more serious a meeting could be taking place. While the subject of Ukraine will clearly dominate, will he undertake to raise with President Trump the fact that Canada is a valued, respected and much-loved member of both NATO and our Commonwealth? This childish nonsense of a 51st state should be called out by the Prime Minister for what it is.

Defence and Security

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Can I say to those who were late, please do not embarrass the Chair by standing?

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Almost on that point, Mr Speaker, what an abdication of responsibility and duty it is that not a single member of the Reform party is able to ask a question of the Prime Minister this afternoon on these precious issues of defence and security. They are treated with a very different level of seriousness by Members on the Conservative and Government Benches.

Many have asked the Prime Minister about the use of Russian frozen assets. Anybody who has studied the issue with regard to Libya will know just how complicated international law and convention has made the defrosting of frozen assets so that they can be put to proper use. In his discussions in Washington and with the other European leaders, can the Prime Minister press for urgent, collaborative and international reform of those rules, so that those frozen assets can be used to help the Ukrainians and their military to defeat Russian aggression?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is important. The process is very complicated, for reasons that he will understand. Obviously we have been able to use some of the interest on those frozen assets, which has proved valuable to Ukraine, but we need to work with our European colleagues and to collaborate on other legitimate, proper ways to raise further funding, and we will continue to do that with our allies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I am very sorry to hear about the distressing attack on the shopworker in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Everyone should be free to go to work without the fear of being attacked while doing their job. I am pleased to say that, under this Government, assaulting a shopworker will be made a separate criminal offence. My hon. Friend is right to say that, on top of that, we need to do more to ensure that our town centres are safe. Restoring community policing with the additional police officers and police community support officers that we plan will enable all our constituents to visit their town centres and go about their business with peace and confidence.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement on the judicial review proposals. The Government’s plan for change is an important endeavour, which will need not just Cabinet colleagues but civil servants to row in behind it. Is the Minister able to tell the House how he is marshalling and co-ordinating political and official activities to deliver that, and who will hold the circle to deliver across Government, rather than just in silos?

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as he points out an important problem. Siloing is a traditional and difficult issue in our system. This is a plan for the whole of Government—right across Government. The Prime Minister has been very clear with the Cabinet that the goals and aims set out in the plan for change are key things to deliver over the next few years. They require a whole-of-Government machine, crossing departmental boundaries and ensuring that we are focused on outcomes for the public rather than on the processes, which sometimes detain us.

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.