Welfare

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have told the hon. Lady about the announcement that the British Retail Consortium has made. Hospitality employers also want young people to have opportunities in their businesses, and I think we will be hearing more about that before too long.

We have youth hubs being set up in every community to offer wraparound health, housing and employment support. I visited mine in Newham last week, hosted by West Ham United Community Foundation at the Foundry in Beckton. It was full of activity and optimism for the young people who were there. For long-term unemployed young people, there is a guaranteed job fully subsidised by the Government for six months, which from next April we will fast-track for young disabled people after just three months.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can I just say to him very politely—he knows the House respects the work he has done on this issue and his understanding of the broad picture—that none of those interventions would be required were it not as a direct result of Treasury policy? Change Treasury policy and employers will employ people of all abilities and all ages across the country. He is destroying job creation and then expecting plaudits for providing additional taxpayer money to subsidise people to create jobs that his Government are destroying.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his politeness, but the NEETs figure rocketed in the last three years of the Tory Government and that was not caused by a national insurance change. We are increasing the employment rate, making progress and tackling the terrible problems left behind by the previous Government. I will give way one final time and then I really must make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I am a progressive. I believe in a social safety net to help people in their moment of need. That might be to manage a health condition or to deal with a moment of crisis, or it could be to support people through the natural ebbs and flows of employment, which I think we will see more of with the advent of AI. There is a challenge, however, in getting that support to work for people. It requires a safety net, which needs to be the right size. It needs to be wide enough to catch people when they fall, but not so wide that people cannot escape it. The modern safety net should not simply break someone’s fall; it should support them to get back into work.

The benefits of work are many, and those benefits can bring so much to an individual: self-esteem, money, mental health, physical health, resilience, routine, friendship, socialising and demonstrating to yourself and others that you can make a difference. I believe that the benefits are endless, which is why it is so heartbreaking when we see just how many young people do not have them.

One million young people are not benefiting from a job or not expanding their opportunities through education or training. Why? The Conservatives created the broken system that led to the outcomes we see today. They do not like to hear it, but it is true. Their system pushed people further away from the job market. They scrapped the Work and Health Programme, shut down Work Choice and left Access to Work in chaos. They made support so difficult that people were pushed towards the health component of universal credit to simply deal with the cost of living crisis.

What was the consequence of that? There was no requirement for those people to look for work, apply for jobs or do any work-related activity. The Conservatives’ system both cost more and pushed people further away from work. Their system told people that they cannot. We need a system that helps people see that they can. Members will forgive me if I do not look to the Tory party for a route to achieving that.

[Simon Hoare]

Does the hon. Member not kick himself that, in the 14 years that Labour sat quietly on the Opposition Benches, with think-tanks and everything else, it did zero planning for welfare reform? We are two-and-a-bit years into this Government. We await the Timms review; we await the Milburn review. Labour should have had a plan ready to go from day one, should it not? That is a missed opportunity, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

From 2010 to 2024, every reform was opposed and every initiative was rebuffed by people who sat on the Opposition Benches. Labour Members remind me of St Augustine, because they try to tell us that they are now serious about welfare reform. Their prayer is “Make me a welfare reformer, but not yet”, because when they had the opportunity to introduce some reform, they rebelled. Keir Starmer blinked, the rebels got their way, and the reform agenda was kiboshed. The Prime Minister lost his authority, and the rest, as they say, is history. Do not take my word for it; the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the whole world. He said that “Every meeting I have” with Labour MPs—not some, not the majority, but every meeting—

“is ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’”.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Going back to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), when she was the Minister of State for Employment, I was her Parliamentary Private Secretary. We would sit through many a Westminster Hall debate secured by the Opposition, who are now the Government, complaining that we just were not spending enough. They said about every reform we brought forward, “Not good enough. You need to spend more.” There was never any attempt to reduce the welfare bill.

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend is right. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), the Government had 14 years to plan for this great reform and modernisation of welfare, and they did nothing with it. They arrive in government, and precious little happens.

[Sean Woodcock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

It gives me another minute, so why not?

[Sean Woodcock]

Is the hon. Gentleman’s position seriously that it is Labour’s fault that the welfare bill went up under the Conservatives?

[Simon Hoare]

No, that would be an asinine interpretation of what I have just said. The point I am making is that every time the Conservative party came up with a reform or a modernisation when in government, the gut reaction of the Labour party was to oppose it.

I happen to think that the welfare state is one of our crowning glories. It was brought in to address a number of deeply systemic societal problems, and it has been a tremendous force for good and transformation in our country. However, it is always intended to be a safety net, a permanent safety net for those who—as a result of disability, for example—find themselves unable to enter the workplace. It removes pressure and anxiety, and it gives people the dignity to live that they quite legitimately deserve, but it should never have been allowed under successive Administrations to become a cocoon. It has ceased to be a safety net; it has become a trap with perverse, Kafkaesque incentives, where the cumulative benefits an individual can receive are greater than anything they could hope to aspire to when getting into a job for the first time. I hope the House can agree that there is nothing kind or caring about trapping people in that sort of environment.

We all know—as various right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned in their speech—the fundamental importance and transformative nature of work for individuals, their families and their communities. It promotes a sense of self-respect, self-reliance, and being able to do things for yourself.

[Dr Mullan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will not. The benefits of work are clear and unquestionable, yet we are trapping people through perverse incentives; if they earn an extra pound here or there, they suddenly lose a great slew of benefits. Surely—I say this to Members on the Treasury Bench—we will have to be far more imaginative and far more bespoke in how we approach welfare. We should be using digital and the raft of opportunities it offers to provide a far more bespoke, personally tailored network of support to get people back into work, rather than trapping them.

I want to say one thing about disability, as I had the honour of chairing the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis in the last Parliament. We will get more disabled people back into work because they want to stay in work—for all the reasons I have set out—if they have the confidence that they can ask their employer for reasonable adjustments, and if their employer has the confidence to ask what the employee might need in order to stay in work. Let us not have a slanging match across the two Dispatch Boxes; let us try to work cross-party. It will be good for the economy and good for our people up and down the land, and it will generate greater tax receipts to pay for the social services, defence and other areas that we want to see expenditure in. However, the status quo cannot be defended.

Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Let me say at the outset what a pleasure it is to see my good friend, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), in her place replying to this debate. The whole House was delighted to see her promotion in the recent reshuffle. It was long overdue, and I look forward to how she replies to this debate to work out the benchmark for her appearances on future occasions.

The weight of documentation that I hold in my hands will give the House some indication of the weight of the problem that the organisation of retirement property management companies presents to many of our constituents across the country. My remarks are principally motivated by the lamentable behaviour of a company called Cognatum Estates, which runs three facilities in North Dorset: Home Farm in Iwerne Minster, Castle Gardens in Shaftesbury and Walpole Court in Puddletown. I have had constituents from those three facilities come to see me on many occasions, as well as write and email, with a growing list of concerns that seem to go absolutely ignored.

Those constituents should not take it particularly personally, because Cognatum has been presenting problems in other constituencies too. The hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and I met Cognatum representatives some little while ago to talk through the concerns that our constituents were sharing with us. They met, they listened and then they wrote to us to say, “Thank you very much indeed. We will never meet you again. Everything in the garden is rosy. We don’t recognise the evidence that you have given us.” There is a real problem here, and the Government need to act.

Unfortunately, I think I may be correct in highlighting a point raised by my constituent Jean Wilkinson, a resident of one of the Cognatum properties. She wrote to me as follows:

“It is also important to highlight that a significant number of residents are elderly and in poor health. As a result, many do not feel able to raise concerns or advocate for themselves. This creates a situation where important issues risk being overlooked and where residents feel they do not have a sufficient voice.”

I have had a number of emails from across the country and from other constituents that effectively mirror and echo that point. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you too have had issues in your constituency, albeit with a different company—we were talking about it earlier in the day.

Too many property management companies view their residents as elderly cash cows. They are people who have worked and saved hard, want to be independent in their older years, and do not want a huge amount of fuss and bother—they just want a quiet, peaceful, dignified, sensible, grown-up sort of a life. As one gets older, I am certain that one becomes a little less bullish in challenging and questioning authority. Anything for a quiet life: “If the service or management charges go up and I am not given a particularly clear explanation or cogent argument to support it, well, I’ll just write the cheque and pay, because it is the line of least resistance.” I am absolutely convinced that that is now a deep-set and ingrained way in which a lot of those companies operate.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is setting out a compelling case for how providers of retirement homes and accommodation are letting people down, and the absence of redress that a lot of residents have. Does he agree that this is an area in which we desperately need more regulation and oversight, and that the Government need to take action to that effect?

[Simon Hoare]

I agree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to that matter in a moment, because there are two very specific areas that I think require attention.

Cognatum does not get off scot-free because of one doggedly determined constituent, Peter Wintle, who lives in Home Farm of Iwerne Minster. He has cogently and sensibly asked questions over the years of Cognatum, only to be met with very little in reply. The issues that Peter has raised with me on behalf of those residents, which are echoed by others, is the absence of management transparency—a key and important thing—and accountability of the companies involved, as well as a lack of clear communication that sets out in easily digestible form information that residents require and openness on finance, explaining why service charges go up and why repairs or maintenance are being done in a certain way. There is a lackadaisical and tardy attitude in responding to issues and complaints raised by residents—all things that should not be expected. The complaints system is not worthy of the name. In the case of Cognatum, because of the way it organises itself, there are also unaudited accounts, which make it incredibly hard for anybody to follow the line on the balance sheet.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, without whom no Adjournment debate would be complete.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Vulnerable retirees in Strangford are facing experiences and anxieties that mirror those he has referred to. While we do have the Ground Rents Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, it lacks a statutory cap on ground rents and it is not possible to regulate the runaway management and event fees levied by private firms. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our elderly population, including elderly constituents in Strangford, deserve uniform financial protections and safety from predatory management practices, regardless of which corner of the United Kingdom they reside in?

[Simon Hoare]

I agree. That goes back to the point I made a moment ago that too many of these companies see their residents as a soft or easy touch. They think that their residents will just suck it up and simply write the cheque.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again and for securing this Adjournment debate. Does he agree that there is a particularly predatory aspect upon the death of a resident who has occupied one of these properties? I would like to use this moment to pay tribute to Alex Roll, a constituent of mine whose mother’s estate has been crawled all over by predatory management companies that have seen an opportunity to effectively seize the assets of someone who worked tirelessly through their life. This system urgently needs reform—it is desperate for it.

[Simon Hoare]

I agree with my hon. Friend and with his constituent, Alex Roll, who has been in contact with me via Facebook. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes on her behalf, and that she makes on behalf of countless others, which is that these companies are inclined to effectively hunt with the hounds and run with the hare at the same time. When somebody dies and the property then goes up for sale—sometimes, because of the restrictive covenants, the resale can be a slow and difficult business—not only do these companies receive a fairly significant clawback at the point of sale, but they demand service charges to be paid while the property is vacant or while probate is awaited. They really are trying to milk it from both ends, and I just do not think that stacks up in the court of public opinion as being fair or justifiable. One should be able to say, “This property is vacant. We will not levy the service charge, as that will effectively be included in the clawback that we get at the point of sale,” because there is clearly no resident in that property using those services.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just wanted to highlight a case of exactly that. I have a constituent whose property has been on the market since 2022. The landlord chooses who the new owner will be. The adult members of the family, who are struggling to get on to the property ladder, cannot move in because they are not over 55, and the landlord will not allow the property to be rented out, even though it rents its properties out on the same site. They are absolutely banjaxed. There is an exit fee as well. It is catastrophic. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is just opportunistic profiteering at the expense of people who are vulnerable, and actually, when people have died, the families really are catastrophically affected.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady expresses it very well, and I agree with her assessment entirely. It is the age and vulnerability of many—the “anything for the quiet life” factor—that is being exploited to the max.

I want to mention specifically the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—although in this campaign he is very much my hon. Friend. We have been working together very closely on issues relating to Cognatum. He has Mytchett Heath in his constituency, and the issues being raised by his residents mirror those being raised by mine, and it is not a pretty picture.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

I, too, am very much aware of this issue. In my constituency I have a property called Williamson Court, which is run by McCarthy & Stone, and everything that colleagues are saying sounds very familiar. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any sense of the scale of this issue right across the country, because it strikes me that we represent very different parts of the UK?

[Simon Hoare]

I think it manifests itself in all quarters of the United Kingdom, but not all companies are culpable. My other campaign is on the regulation of the funeral sector; it is the rotten apples in the barrel that give the whole sector a bad name. It is on them that attention should be focused.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because we want to hear from the Minister.

I am told that Cognatum and its subsidiaries claim small companies exemptions, meaning that there are no independent audits and the directors control the financial disclosures. Inconsistent and exceptional accounting items suggest financial irregularities. The company operates on a “going concern” basis, despite significant inter-company debts, and the auditors do not sign the reported financial statements, raising accountability concerns. That suggests, as the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and others have suggested, the need for regulation.

I have two asks of the Minister. The first is to have a thorough assessment of the effectiveness and independence—or rather, the lack thereof—of the Association of Retirement Housing Managers. They are populated in the main by current operators. Effectively, colleagues are being asked to mark other colleagues’ homework. I do not think that is sustainable or desirable, and it needs looking at.

A number of my constituents believe that there is a rather lackadaisical approach to following the requirements of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. I know that the Government have been doing some work on that, so it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.

In closing, I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who have supported me in this endeavour. I pay tribute again to the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Honiton and Sidmouth for the work that the three of us have been doing with regard to Cognatum. We did say that there would be an Adjournment debate if Cognatum was not prepared to engage and try to pull up its socks and improve the operation and service that they give to their residents, so this is a debate literally of their own making.

This sector has grown up quite quickly; it is still quite novel in this country. People are still finding their way, and I think we are probably only on the first or second generation of residents experiencing the pitfalls of both resale and clawback issues and the lack of accountability that exists in the management and maintenance of many of these places where people live.

These people have chosen to live there. They have invested a significant sum of their money so that they can live a retired life in dignity.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is somewhat analogous to what we see with park homes, for which there is a requirement for a fit and proper person test, with regulation from the local authority. Might that suit the situation he outlines?

[Simon Hoare]

That is a good suggestion. Anything has to be better than the status quo, which is neither defensible nor indeed desirable.

[Warinder Juss]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman has been frightfully patient. I will give way to him.

[Warinder Juss]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I have a 92-year-old constituent, Freda Quinton, who has been unable to live in her retirement property since April because persistent and unresolved leaks have not been repaired, despite repeated assurances that they would be. She therefore cannot live independently. She now has health concerns, emotional distress and financial pressures. Does the hon. Member agree that that is no way to treat older residents and that a problem exists not only with the management company that he has referred to, but with others?

[Simon Hoare]

I agree. There is a common theme coming through, which is the age, the vulnerability, the “anything for the quiet life,” the “We’re not empowered to ask questions,” and maybe not being digitally alert. Some bigwig from a company comes along and attends a meeting. In the case of Cognatum, they tell us, “Don’t worry, Mr Hoare, Dr Pinkerton and Mr Foord, because we have a tenant representative on the board.” How is that tenant representative chosen? They are chosen by the board of Cognatum—they are not elected by fellow residents at all—so a poacher chooses potentially another poacher to mark their own homework.

There is this vulnerability: this “anything for a quiet life”; this “are we empowered to ask questions?” Indeed, the tipping point for me was when one of my constituents, who was asking perfectly legitimate questions in a perfectly civil way, found on his doormat a letter from Cognatum’s solicitors saying, “We think you are being vexatious and we are considering your lease arrangements.” Effectively, they were saying, “Ask any more questions, sunshine, and you’re out on your ear.” That gentleman is over 80. I do not think that is the right and proper way to treat anybody.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) raised a distressing case, obviously causing concern to him, to his constituents and to their friends and family. I hope that the comments and observations made in the debate have convinced the Minister that the status quo cannot continue. While we all call for a lighter regulatory approach and so on, this is a particular area of operation that has grown swiftly and autonomously, and is now crying out for reform. Reform of the association and rigorous enforcement of the section of the Act that I quoted would be a good starting point.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As a former elections policy Minister and member of the defending democracy taskforce, may I thank the Secretary of State for launching this inquiry? I also thank Philip Rycroft for his work; it was a pleasure to give evidence to him during that process.

I welcome the spirit in which the Secretary of State has brought forward with urgency the changes that are so demonstrably required. May I ask him two direct questions? If amendments to reflect the Rycroft report are not to be tabled at Committee stage but on Report, will he ensure through the usual channels that the length of time devoted to Report stage reflects the fact that the House will be debating for the first time amendments to the legislation, which were not included on Second Reading? That speaks to the process point made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).

If these important new rules are to be policed effectively and properly, there will clearly be additional demands on the Electoral Commission both in terms of power and resource. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those needs and how will they be delivered in speedy time to mirror the urgency that is required?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for his support, for his work with the defending democracy taskforce and for contributing to Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. He is quite right that we want to make sure that there is adequate time on Report for Members to make their points, and I am sure that the business managers will ensure that that happens. Regarding resources for the Electoral Commission, we will need to ensure that the resources are adequate to meet any new demands placed on them or other regulators. That will be part of the process of ensuring that the legislation goes through and can be followed through on.

Local Government Finance

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend, who chairs the Education Committee, will know that it is not just the cost of temporary accommodation to councils; it is also the cost of children’s schooling. Last week I set out our strategy to counteract that terrible phenomenon and I will talk in detail to councils in the weeks and months to come to do exactly as she asks.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I thank the Minister and her officials for their work—it is the most painful task to have to pull all this together and they are all to be commended. I agree with her that multi-year settlements should lead to smarter commissioning, which should then deliver greater return on the money. She will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is higher—everyone across the House recognises that—so can she say what this proposed settlement will do specifically to address that and allow equity of opportunity in access to services, whether one is an urban or rural resident?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight how we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we have tried to take account of that need. That is why we are including a journey times adjustment in our assessment of cost for all services. We are also increasing the cap in the home-to-school transport formula from 20 miles to 50 miles, in recognition of the fact that the original distance cap would penalise local authorities that have no choice but to place children further from home. We are also including a remoteness adjustment in the adult social care formula to address the point that he mentions. Overall, the point cannot be made enough that we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we all need to take account of that.

Electoral Resilience

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

Yes, that is correct. What my hon. Friend has just described are foreign financial attempts to influence our democracy, and that will be in scope for the review.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As a former elections Minister, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I wonder if he would reflect on two points, together with his hon. Friend the Security Minister, with regard to the defending democracy taskforce. First, the Electoral Commission has plenty of influence, but it possibly needs more financial resource and sharper teeth that it can deploy more quickly. Would he reflect on that and ask Sir Philip to advise on that point? Secondly, the response of our police across the country is, at best, patchy when it comes to their interpretation of their key and pivotal role in defending democracy and ensuring that it works fairly and well for all of us. Through the taskforce, can he ensure that there is a more uniform approach from the police on this issue?

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the hon. Member’s question; he makes important observations. The role, resources and powers of the Electoral Commission will be in scope for the review, as will the role and enforcement powers of other agencies, including the police, if the reviewer sees fit to pursue that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are clear that where a mayoral development order is being put in place, there will be processes and procedures that the mayor will have to set out so that people can make direct representation. Ultimately, I come back to the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. Therefore, the need to consult will be critical, whether that is with their constituent authorities in order to deliver or, importantly, with their community, who can vote them in or out. We have set out and designed this measure to allow that representation and that consultation. Ultimately, there is a democratic lock if a mayor does not abide with that engagement.

Amendments to schedule 12 remove the need for the mayor to secure the local planning authority’s approval before making, revising or revoking a mayoral development order. I reiterate, however—this is important—that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities. Mayors will still have to bring those authorities along, as they will be crucial for delivering these orders. If mayors cannot build the consent and support of the local planning authority, it will be much more difficult to deliver the development and ensure that consents and approvals go through. The Bill is about empowering mayors, because we believe that they have a democratic mandate to provide that strategic leadership. Critically, they must and will do that in lockstep with their constituent authorities.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Can the Minister say a word or two about her expectations for this new arrangement that she is creating—it will have some plus points and some minus points, because no system is perfect—and the timeliness of decision making? Investors and others want timely decisions so that they can move things forward, and not get lost in the weeds of officialdom, strategies, papers, consultations and so on. If we are to power growth, time is of the essence.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. We want pace in planning and pace in development. One of the frustrations for us on the Government Benches is that we inherited a system where the development and the house building that should have happened did not happen under the last Government. We are trying to grip that, and through these mayoral development orders, we think we can deliver pace and strategic clarity so that our mayors can designate strategically important sites that are critical for investment in infrastructure and ensure that they happen, working alongside their constituent authorities.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Minister knows that, across this House and the other place, there is wide recognition of how unique and precious our chalk streams are. He clearly recognises that, as well. Given their importance and the fact that most of them are in the UK, why have the Government not yet brought forward an amendment to reflect the cross-party concerns expressed in both Houses? I know him to be a serious and sincere man, but the Minister is, in effect, asking the House to rely on his good will to do something at some point, and we have no idea what it is.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think that is a slightly unfair précis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments I make from this Dispatch Box. I have committed, in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, to include in proposed changes to national planning policy explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated. The full details will be open to consultation. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We could have a much wider debate about policy versus statute, but we think that in the planning system there are very good reasons to put things in policy, where they can be amended or updated if necessary, rather than in statute. Chalk streams are a good example of where that argument applies.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case for many of the things we are doing outside planning policy to safeguard chalk streams. There are mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry, under which water companies plan to spend more than £2 billion over the next five years to develop targeted actions on chalk streams; through biodiversity net gain, which requires like-for-like compensation or enhancement where development impacts on these areas; and through the system we intend to introduce of environmental outcomes reports, which specifically reference these bodies of water.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The flag is something that we must reclaim, and reclaim proudly. We know that in some communities flags are being used to intimidate and divide, and we are working with local authorities throughout the country to ensure that they have the support that they need to make those judgment calls, but I return to the fact that the flag is ours, we need to reclaim it, and we need to stand up against those who want to divide our communities across the country.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was never intended to be used by local authorities as an addendum to planning enforcement. The Secretary of State may well have seen recent media reports about this issue. Will he undertake to look into it and to issue guidance to local authorities, explaining that while they have many tools at their disposal, the Proceeds of Crime Act is not one of them?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and I am happy to arrange a meeting with the appropriate Minister so that he can share his concerns and we can come to a resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley has heard those diligent representations. It is true that many parts of our country have talent and potential that are not being met by opportunity. This fund is about making sure that every area has seed investment to begin to rebuild, supported by fair funding for the local authority. We cannot underestimate the effect of the 14 years of constant hits and attacks from the previous Government. There is a reason why many communities have the resilience to stand up for themselves regardless of all that: the power of their unity. Finally, they now have a Government on their side.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is often harder to see because it is more sparsely spread across larger rural areas, but I remind the Minister of what I know he knows: deprivation exists in our rural areas. Can I urge him to ensure that this does not become an issue of north versus south or urban versus rural, but that the Government use taxes to address deprivation wherever and whenever it arises, including in my constituency?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the former Minister for those representations. On the point about fair funding and unpicking where money is needed, there is a lot of commonality on this issue in the Chamber. We absolutely accept that in rural areas the cost of service delivery is higher in some cases, such as for refuse collection and adult social care. It is common sense that if people have to travel further to pick up bins or make a home care visit, it will cost more money as a result.

However, that is not the only thing we need to take into account. We must take into account deprivation and the ability of a council to raise money at a local level. Daytime visitor numbers are also a factor, where a council is not getting a tax take from those visitors but there is a public service take on the other side. Importantly, we must consider the ability of a local authority to raise tax at a local level to meet the demand. It is the Government’s job to act as an equaliser in the system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend will know that in the Bill we have taken a “polluter pays” approach. Local authorities will be able to levy fines on landlords to raise revenue, but—my hon. Friend can check the transcript on this point—we did commit ourselves to “new burdens” funding as appropriate.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Given the environmental importance and scarcity of chalk streams, may I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and her team to support amendments to this afternoon’s legislation that would protect those streams? They are vital, and they need as much protection as we can give them.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, chalk streams already have protections in national planning policy, but I am sure that we will continue this discussion on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill later today.