Jeremy Hunt MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2026 · Public Sector Productivity · Hansard source

  More

  May I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to her new role? If she has any questions, may I recommend an excellent book by a former Chancellor, which has a number of tips? [ Laughter. ] The public sector is 20% of our national output, so it offers a major opportunity for the Government to improve our national productivity. Was it wise to give the ASLEF train drivers on the Avanti West Coast route an above-inflation pay rise without any apparent productivity quid pro quo? With the public finances so tight, should the rule not be that above-inflation increases must have productivity gains sitting alongside them?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Public Sector Productivity · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps he is taking to improve public sector productivity.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start by thanking the Minister for the emphasis that the Bill places on a single patient record. Despite many problems in NHS care, that is an area where the NHS is a world leader, but putting a single patient record on the right legal footing, making it possible to share data with proper governance, gives the NHS an opportunity to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, and it creates the opportunity to transform care for patients, so that has my full support. I speak in support of new clause 25. The biggest structural reform in this Bill is the abolition of NHS England, but my worry is that there are other structural reforms that are not in the Bill that would have a much bigger impact on patient care. New clause 25 is about continuity of care, particularly in general practice and maternity. It is now very clear to many people that the abolition of the old GP list system in the 2004 contract changes was a huge mistake. In fact, restoring the system so that GPs have their own patients was part of the Labour manifesto, so that is an issue that the Government understand, but it is not in the Bill. A study in Norway, published in the British Journal of General Practice in 2022, of over 4 million patients showed that patients who have their own doctor for more than 15 years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need hospital care and 25% less likely to die. Why is that? Because GPs who know their patients are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to give an accurate diagnosis and will better calibrate risk, as they will have situational awareness of a patient and their family. The experience of a patient is infinitely better when they are dealing with a GP whom they know. Instead of that, we have moved to a system in which many GP surgeries effectively operate like call centres. People will contact a GP and they may never see that GP again. It is exactly the same when someone calls 111, if you get put through to a clinician. Contacting a GP in the NHS should never be like calling an Uber driver who will never be seen again.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is speaking wisely. Of course, this is not just about massively improving care for patients—it is also about improving motivation for doctors and GPs, who are among the most demoralised groups in the NHS. There is a GP surgery in Horfield, in the Bristol area, that kept the old GP list system, as 10% of surgeries have done. When I chaired the Health and Social Care Committee, I interviewed Dr Lee from that surgery and he said that because around 60% of the patients they see every day are their own patients, they do not have any problem with GP retention. The GPs who go to work there are happy, because they are seeing people they know. That would be transformative for morale inside general practice. People might very reasonably say, “Well, you were in that job for rather a long time. Why didn’t you restore that system?”. I want to share a little secret with the House: I did actually try to do that. I changed the GP contract in 2015 so that every NHS patient in England has a named, accountable clinician. Unfortunately, I was outfoxed by the system. As a result of that change, on every electronic patient record, every one of us here will have a named accountable GP on the record. However, absolutely nothing else changed, and the NHS continued as it had done. The Bill offers a real opportunity to transform care, as well as transforming life for GPs and patients. The same principle applies to maternity care. We know from inquiry after inquiry that despite reams of recommendations, things have not been getting better. If every mum was told at the moment she knew that she was pregnant, “This is the team who will be responsible for the safe delivery of your baby, in antenatal, birthing and post-natal,” we would restore the personal connection to maternity care. That is one of the biggest issues coming from so many mothers; they say that they feel anonymous in the system, and not listened to. At its best, the NHS delivers absolutely incredible care—I have three wonderful children who exist because of amazing NHS care—but at its worst, it turns patients into numbers and human suffering into box-ticking. Lots of things are necessary to turn that around, but one of the biggest things is restoring continuity of care, so that every patient always knows who is the doctor responsible for their care. That is why I urge the Government to consider how to restore continuity of care in both general practice and maternity, if that is not going to be done through this Bill.

• 1 Sept 2026 · UK Financial Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I speak today as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for financial markets and services. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I accept speaking engagements from financial services companies. I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) not just for securing this debate, but for an excellent opening speech. He has a background in the City—in the stock exchange and working for the City of London corporation—which is probably unusual in his party. I thank him for deploying his expertise, because it is incredibly important for UK financial services that the world sees that there are experts in financial services on both sides of the House. I particularly welcome his comments today. I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury back to her role, which she carried out previously with great distinction. She has always engaged extremely constructively when it comes to the interests of the City and financial services. I know that her return to that post was widely welcomed. It is also a pleasure to speak alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—an old friend—who himself has a background in the London stock exchange. After the financial crisis in 2008, financial services had a pretty bad name. The Government had to put up around £1 trillion to support the sector. Chief executives of banks made very ill-judged decisions to continue paying themselves large bonuses at a time when the rest of the country was suffering, and the country suffered a longer and deeper recession at that time as a result of our exposure to the financial services sector, which was much greater than that of our peers. We learned many painful lessons in that period. As well as the financial crisis, the sector had to deal with the loss of passporting rights post-Brexit. Despite those body blows, the sector employs 2.5 million people—more than at the time of Brexit—and two thirds of the jobs are outside London. It is worth around 11% of our national output. It generates more than £110 billion in tax revenues, which is more than any other single sector. Put another way, it funds more than half the cost of running the NHS. Whatever one’s interest in financial services, from a fiscal perspective alone they simply cannot be ignored. The sector is also thriving today in very challenging circumstances. The City think-tank Z/Yen tracks the competitiveness of global financial service hubs. In 2020, London trailed New York. Now it has caught back up. It remains the world’s premier centre for foreign exchange and specialist insurance. It helps to make the UK the world’s second largest services exporter. When I was Chancellor, I introduced the Edinburgh and Mansion House reforms to support this important sector. Regulations, including listing rules, were simplified and the mighty task of making our pension fund industry fit for purpose was started. To their credit, this Government have built on those reforms with the Leeds reforms, the Pension Schemes Act 2026 and the forthcoming Financial Services and Markets Bill, all of which are extremely welcome. But, as the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley said, our competitors are not standing still. With smart policies, our financial services sector could do even more for growth in the UK. Easy access to finance, alongside having the most respected universities in the world outside the United States, has helped to create, for example, the world’s third-largest tech ecosystem. In artificial intelligence, the UK has the potential to be the world’s next silicon valley. If we get there, easy access to finance will have played a major role in making that possible. What needs to happen next? The first thing is to do no harm—in particular, to do no harm with additional taxes in October’s Budget that could potentially damage the sector. Uniquely, the UK already charges higher corporation tax to banks. Total bank taxes are about 45% here, compared with 32% in Dublin and 28% in New York. I totally understand the temptation—finances are extremely tight, and the banks have few friends—but international capital is mobile, and hiking taxes further will mean that the sector ultimately generates less tax revenue, not more, for the Chancellor. Secondly, we need to make regulation in UK financial services more proportionate. Consumer protection really matters, but we cannot eliminate all risk, which is what our regulators sometimes appear to be trying to do. Compliance now costs the sector more than £39 billion a year—about 13% of operating costs. We should aim to at least halve that using the new international competitiveness and growth objectives, which the Financial Conduct Authority should apply to authorisation, supervision and enforcement decisions.

• 1 Sept 2026 · UK Financial Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her role in helping to salvage Barings. I did not know that before. She is absolutely right to raise that issue. I do not say this in a party political way, because my party pretty much supported it at the time, but there is no doubt that, in the run-up to the financial crisis, regulation was not as tight as it needed to be. That is one of the reasons why we needed such expensive rescue missions for the banks. Since then, regulation has made the UK financial services sector much more secure. The Prudential Regulation Authority and the sector as a whole are very resilient. In one of my most difficult moments as Chancellor, one of the most reassuring things that happened was that the Governor of the Bank of England said to me, “This sector is solid. You don’t have to worry. We are in a much, much better state than we were in 2008.” But I do think that it has gone slightly too far in the other direction. Sometimes we can over-correct. Particularly when it comes to consumer risk, there is a danger that we restrict consumer choice by being over-restrictive about the products that banks and financial services companies can offer. That is not to say that we want a free-for-all but, in terms of competitiveness, we need to keep a weather eye on the relative burdens of our regulatory regime, compared with those in other places. I echo what the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley said about AI, tokenisation and digital identity. The UK legal system is widely respected, and this is an area where good regulation could attract a lot of investment. We really could be leaders in it. London should be the world’s most trusted centre for tokenised wholesale finance, with clear rules for tokenised securities, custody settlement, digital money and market infrastructure. We also need to speed up the consolidation of the pension industry, not least, as the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley said, to encourage more investment in UK infrastructure, equities and tech start-ups. If that was done in a sensible, controlled way and as part of a balanced investment strategy, the returns for pensioners would be much higher than they currently are. That would start to stem the tide of British unicorns, of which we have more than Tokyo, Paris and Berlin put together, but which invariably at the moment tend to go to New York when they want to IPO, rather than doing it in the UK. The fifth thing we could do is to encourage more saving. If we are going to transform the way this country grows, we need an investment-led growth strategy, not just a consumption-led growth strategy. Although it is painful for me to say this, scrapping our crazy system of giving people a new pension pot for every job, and instead copying the Aussies’ pension system—giving everyone one pension pot that follows them around for their whole lives, but with the freedom to change provider whenever they want—would make saving much simpler. It would mean people could go into an app on their phone and immediately see the value of their pension pot. It would encourage them to top up their pension pots if they were able, perhaps because of an inheritance or whatever. The impact of doing that in Australia has been that they save more, they get better returns, and there is much fiercer competition to attract those savings in the domestic pension fund industry. I know that everyone here today will agree with this, but I think it needs to be said: it is imperative, whatever the pressures, to keep Britain open to the world. Our advantage has always been our openness. We are at our strongest when we connect global capital, trusted law, deep markets and world-class professional services all together. That means the painful, often boring, but absolutely vital work of negotiating trade deals, securing digital market access, agreeing mutual recognition deals, and making sure we have proper mobility for talent. I am really grateful to the Minister for coming today, and would ask her to briefly address the following questions. When he is considering measures for the Budget, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer keep the competitiveness of the City and financial services central to his considerations? Will the Government undertake a review of the UK’s international tax competitiveness, particularly when it comes to financial services? Will she set out some specific steps that the FCA and PRA can take to deliver their competitiveness and growth objectives? What further reforms will the Government bring forward to help London to become the world’s leading centre for tokenised finance? What progress has been made in further unlocking pension fund investment into productive UK assets? What further action will the Government take to improve access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises and scale-ups, which has been a particular issue in the period since the financial crisis? Finally, does the Minister agree that maintaining the UK’s position as a leading global financial centre should be treated as a core element of the UK’s growth strategy? The prize, if it is, is absolutely enormous. TheCityUK says that we could add £53 billion to our additional annual output by 2035. That is the entire output of the life sciences sector, and would generate about £22 billion of extra tax revenues—around the entire budget for the police or the Department for Transport. The opportunity is huge. The question is whether we have the political will to get there by going further and faster.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to two amendments, but first, I pay tribute to the Hillsborough families, and to two people in particular, with whom I have dealt personally. The first is Margaret Aspinall. As a new Culture Secretary in 2010, I made some ill-chosen comments about the Hillsborough tragedy, and I met Margaret Aspinall afterwards. I apologised, and she graciously accepted that apology. I have always been struck by not just her tenacity, but her dignity and decency. Today has been a long journey, but if the Bill saves lives, as we all want it to, she will deserve more credit than any politician, as will every one of the families of the 97. I also want to mention Bishop James Jones, who was chair of the independent panel. He gave the world the phrase that summed up more than any other what went wrong: the patronising disposition of unaccountable power. What is remarkable about Bishop James is that he did not hang up his hat after publishing the report in 2012, but went on to advise successive Home Secretaries on how to implement his recommendations, and then chaired the Hillsborough families’ experiences review panel. I asked for his help in chairing the Gosport independent panel, and he went on to chair the Gosport family forum, from which he has just stepped down for health reasons. To me, he exemplifies Senator John McCain’s famous words about “the honor we earn and the love we give if at a moment in our lives we sacrifice for something greater than self-interest.” I know that the whole House will want to mark his public service. Let me turn to my new clause and amendment. New clause 11 addresses a profound failure in the way that the duty of candour works in the NHS. In 2014, I put in place the regulations that applied that duty to the NHS, and when I tell the House what those regulations require of the NHS, Members will immediately see why they are failing so badly. They state that if severe harm or death is caused to a patient, the hospital must tell the patient or their family promptly, or as soon as is practically reasonable. It must give a truthful account of what is known and what happened, and it must offer a sincere apology. As witnesses to countless subsequent inquiries affecting the constituents of many Members here have said, that simply does not happen. Families have to fight for years to find the truth about what happened to a loved one, and all too often, they find that mistakes are ignored or covered up. When a tragedy is covered up, it is then repeated time after time, which is precisely what those families are campaigning to stop. Why do those cover-ups happen? There are many reasons, but one in particular is that trust lawyers advise trusts not to say anything at all when there is a risk of legal action. Let me tell the House about baby Ben Condon, who died at eight weeks old in 2015, when I was Health Secretary, after delays in giving him antibiotics. His father Allyn says that consultants apologised to him privately, saying that they had got it wrong, and then said the exact opposite at an inquest a few months later. I believe that that was a breach of the duty of candour regulations that were already in place, and that lawyers, even today, are giving unlawful advice to clinicians and trusts. As a result, the duty of candour in the NHS is being widely bypassed, and that will continue until we deal with this loophole. New clause 11 requires the Department of Health and Social Care “to ensure that legal services provided to NHS bodies…are consistent with the statutory duty of candour and the principles of openness”. It requires the Department or designated body to ensure that those standards are met, and that the situation be dealt with appropriately when they are not. Amendment 150 does a different job. The Bill requires people working for public bodies to tell the truth to those conducting investigations or reviews, but it does not require them to tell the truth to families, who then have to wait, often for years, until the review is published. The amendment requires that information to be provided to a person or family who has, or may have been, harmed. I recognise that the House will not divide on either the new clause or the amendment, so neither will become law as part of this Bill. My request to Ministers is that they include them in the Health Bill; they would be in scope, and would have a dramatic impact in preventing the anger of NHS-bereaved families, which is absolutely the equal of the anger of the Hillsborough families that we are trying to address today. My reason for wanting to do that is straightforward. A Health Secretary can pass new laws, introduce new technology and bring down waiting lists, but the only real change that stands the test of time is culture change. Culture change means replacing cover-ups, buck-passing and a blame culture with openness, trust and learning, but there will not be trust if patients and families are not told the truth. We will never learn from mistakes if we cover them up. We need real change—culture change—to put that right.

• 14 Jul 2026 · NHS Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State knows of my concern about the lack of accountability to bereaved parents, because trust lawyers advise trusts to ignore their duty of candour when there is the prospect of legal action. I was hoping to get this addressed through an amendment to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, but it looks like that amendment will not be voted on. Will the Secretary of State address this issue in the Health Bill so that parents know that they can be sure that trusts will always tell the truth after a tragedy?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Patient Safety Review · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that one of the common themes in all the maternity scandals that we have been discussing in recent weeks, sadly, has been how a blame culture in the NHS makes it hard for NHS staff to speak openly about why tragedies have happened, and that that is why they welcome HSSIB, with its safe space protections? Is he worried that that could be undermined by putting HSSIB into the Care Quality Commission, which has a legal duty to act on information it receives, therefore creating the worry for people talking to HSSIB that the information that they give to it may no longer be protected in the same way?

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly agree with the comments of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), about the need for getting the culture right with accountability. When I was Secretary of State, we passed the duty of candour regulations. They were supposed to make it—well, they do make it—a criminal offence for trusts not to tell the truth to families when a tragedy has happened. Yet to this day, trust lawyers advise doctors, nurses and midwives not to be open about what has happened when there is the prospect of legal action further down the line. Does the Secretary of State—I know he is very committed to this—agree that we will clear up this anomaly in the Hillsborough law so that it is just not possible for trusts not to tell the truth and so that trust lawyers always advise their own doctors, nurses and midwives that they must tell families exactly what happened?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a matter of profound shame for all of us in the House that in a society that we call compassionate, a baby’s body could be disposed of as clinical waste. I add my thanks to the families and salute their courage, including the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), and particularly Jack and Sarah Hawkins, and all those families who have shown such courage in coming forward with these utterly appalling stories. I commissioned a number of maternity reviews, and I am afraid that today I feel a terrible sense of déjà-vu. I worry that a lot of the recommendations, and the things that I suspect the Government will end up doing, amount to central direction and central control, which we know usually does not work in the NHS. I was encouraged that the Secretary of State, in his thoughtful comments, used the word “accountability”, because the core problem is a lack of clinical accountability. For his solutions, will he consider a complete overhaul, so that every mother, the moment she knows she is pregnant, is given a small team, including a doctor and midwives, and is told, “This is the team, this is the person who is responsible for the safe birth of your child”, so that she always knows who to go to? That is where things are currently falling between the seams. Ensuring that people always know who is responsible and who to go to is the only way that we will stop these things happening time after time.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Social Media Disinformation · Hansard source

  More

  In 2017 there was appalling ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, and Facebook was used to recruit civilian death squads. Atrocities continue to this day. The UK holds the pen on Myanmar at the UN. At the General Assembly this year, will the Foreign Secretary hold a high-level meeting to look at this issue and shine a spotlight on the human rights abuses that continue to this day in Myanmar?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that the Minister has a difficult job to do in answering today, but has he not noticed that even though Labour has three times more MPs, there are nearly twice as many Conservatives present in the Chamber? Is that not because the Minister’s colleagues are voting with their feet and saying that the former Defence Secretary was right, and could not defend the indefensible?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Myanmar: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I will respond to that as soon as I have taken the final intervention that I am going to take.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Myanmar: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Myanmar. I have not spoken under your chairmanship before, Mr Twigg—it is an honour to do so. I thank the Minister for attending. We have had meetings with his colleague at the Foreign Office, and I know it is an issue of great interest to the Government. Ukraine, Iran and Sudan have captured the headlines, but Myanmar is the civil war the world has forgotten. I went as Foreign Secretary in 2018, deeply concerned about the genocide of the Rohingya that had happened a year earlier. I was fobbed off by the Tatmadaw, the Burmese army and the Myanmar authorities. But at least we thought the country was taking tentative steps towards democracy, and following extensive engagement, we did manage to get two Reuters journalists, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, released after they had reported on the genocide. Then things started going backwards. In 2021 we had a military coup. Aung San Suu Kyi was imprisoned, and since then we have had a vicious civil war with appalling human rights abuses by the military dictatorship. Some 7,000 to 8,000 people have been killed, 30,000 have been arbitrarily detained, 40 political parties have been banned, and there are now 14,000 political prisoners, including nearly all the pro-democracy candidates in past elections. There are daily airstrikes on homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, churches and other places of worship. There is arson, torture and sexual violence, and 4 million people displaced from homes.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Myanmar: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted what I was going to say, but I absolutely agree that we have to go further. In terms of the current situation, in nine days’ time, Aung San Suu Kyi will mark her 81st birthday. She has recently moved to house arrest but is still unable to contact her family. We must not forget that life under military rule means no freedom of expression, no free press, no free courts, internet restrictions, sham elections and total bloodshed as the Government conduct a vicious civil war with total impunity when it comes to civilian casualties.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Myanmar: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I have campaigned for many years on freedom of religion and belief, and I agree that what is happening to Christians in Myanmar is an absolute tragedy. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) that we have to do more when it comes to sanctions. I say to the Minister that I am very aware of the trade-offs and challenges in foreign policy, and that the environment we are in at the moment is far from benign when it comes to human rights. Tempting though it may be to say—although I know the Minister would not—that because the UK has its own problems, we should not get too involved in this, we matter when it comes to Myanmar. That is for a very simple, straightforward reason, which is that, on the Security Council, we hold the pen when it comes to Myanmar, so it is our responsibility to make sure that the UN is aware of what is happening there. Given what is happening, it is a special responsibility for us to galvanise the United Nations to do everything in its power to end the bloodshed and brutal oppression of the Burmese people. I recognise that sanctions are in place, and I know that the Minister cares deeply about human rights, but we can do more. One of the biggest things we can do is repeat what I did in 2018 and organise a high-level meeting on Myanmar, chaired by the Foreign Secretary, at the United Nations General Assembly in September to make sure that we draw the attention of everyone who attends that vital meeting in New York to what is happening and to the terrible suffering of the Burmese people. If it is the only thing we do—I do not believe it is the only thing we can do—at least the UK will have made sure that the world knows what is happening in Myanmar. Myanmar might not care too much about the UK as a country, but it cares about China, the country that is protecting it; it cares about the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which is sitting on the fence apart from the brave exception of the Philippines; and it cares about the UN, so this is a major moment where we must make sure that we do our duty. There are other things. We all know that the aid budget is being cut, but if the UK finds something to support humanitarian efforts—obviously, without channelling it through a corrupt and merciless Government—other countries will follow. And for the sake of posterity and of future victims, it is essential that we give full support to any efforts to assemble evidence of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, including referring the Arakan army to the International Court of Justice. Will the Minister commit to the Foreign Secretary chairing a high-level meeting at UNGA in September? Will the Government respond to the final report of the former UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Tom Andrews? Will the Government consider invoking article 14 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court to request an investigation into mass atrocity crimes in Myanmar? Will the UK sanction military-controlled banks in the way that other countries have? Sadly, the world’s most powerful democracy, the United States, is currently showing little interest in human rights across the world. Partly as a result, some autocrats are beginning to think that they can literally get away with murder, but the US is not the only democracy on the planet. There are us, European democracies, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea and many other countries that share our democratic values. Britain does not have to stand on the sidelines, Britain must not stand on the sidelines, and I hope that when we hear from the Minister, he will tell us that Britain will not stand on the sidelines.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Is not the root problem a profound failure of regulation over the last 25 years, for which Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all bear responsibility? We have regulated for lower prices and more investment, but we have not stopped companies from loading up their balance sheets with debt, which means higher prices and less investment. I am not a believer in nationalisation, because I know from having been Chancellor that the state will never find the £104 billion now promised by the private sector, but if we are to stick with private companies, do we not need to regulate differently so that we have lower prices and more investment?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely accept that. Again, in that spirit of being non-tribal, the hon. Gentleman will know the number of times that his party and other parties have talked about the 14 years in which we had opportunities to fix things that we did not fix, so he will appreciate that the Liberal Democrats in Waverley have had seven years to fix the issue and have failed to do so. That is why so many people from Waverley are looking at this debate carefully. But he is correct to say that all councils have to operate within the law. I want to move on to the Minister’s comments. First, I thank him for the interest that he has shown right from the start. I want to put on the record that the number of people affected is relatively small in the grander scheme of things, and it would have been easy for the Minister to decide there were other priorities. It is about 100 families—maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less—so the Minister could easily have decided to focus on other areas, but he has not. He has spent an enormous amount of time trying to address this. That is the right and proper thing for a Minister in a democracy to do; if there is an injustice that even affects one person, it is incredibly important that Ministers take note, and he has really done that. The Minister also clarified the problems with the 2014 exemptions introduced by the coalition Government, which were designed to ensure that householders were not caught up in these regulations, but did so through such a bureaucratic and cumbersome process that many inadvertently have been. The issue of particular complexity relates to householders’ immediate liability from the moment that building starts, which seems entirely reasonable for a professional developer, but entirely unreasonable for a homeowner who may not be aware of that element of the law. It is extremely welcome that the Government are going to consult on the CIL regulations. As a former Government Minister, I feel a tremendous amount of frustration and pain at the need for endless consultations. They can be of value, but they also slow things down. I recognise that the Minister wants to do this fast—I did groan when he said, “as soon as possible,” but then when he said, “before the summer break,” I took some encouragement. I think this is something that is moving forward. In the options that the Minister consults on—he cannot respond to this, but it is something to take away—could we find a way of removing homeowners from CIL liability altogether? That way we move away from a system that is purely based on the square meterage of a development, to one based on the type of person doing the development. Could we change the regulations so that homeowners can at least always apply for an exemption retrospectively if an error has been made? Not being able to do so offends natural justice, and was an unintended consequence of the complexity of the original regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for confronting head-on the fact that for many people, this is about getting justice for something that has happened, not ensuring that injustice does not continue to happen. He has been very open with me about the legal complexities involved, and I know from my time as Health Secretary how difficult it is to reopen retrospective cases. The Minister’s Department has enormous influence over local authorities, however, not least through setting their grants, so if the Department chose, it could find a way to put councils under pressure, where there are outstanding CIL cases and injustice, so that those cases get solved. I recognise that what I ask is not easy, but it is absolutely the case that local councils are extremely dependent on the Minister’s Department for large chunks of their financing. I ask him to consider what levers he has at his disposal to make this happen, while at the same time thanking him for his ongoing interest and determination to address the issue. The final thing I will say is that I know someone in the Public Gallery got up at 4 am to attend this debate. I thank that person and all the CIL Injustice Group for their tenacious campaigning to try to right a truly awful wrong.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the Community Infrastructure Levy on private homeowners. Thank you, Mr Turner, for presiding over this debate on an issue that is having profound life-changing consequences for ordinary families across the country. I also thank the Minister for his interest in the issue. Politics can be very tribal, but I have already met him twice to discuss it, both times with Councillor Jane Austin from my constituency—once in July last year and once in December last year, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). I know he wants to solve the issue. The community infrastructure levy, or CIL, was introduced for the best of reasons: to ensure that commercial developers contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure needed as a result of their developments. It was never intended as an extra tax on people doing home extensions, and certainly never as a retrospective tax that people are landed with unexpectedly after the event. Most councils understand that, but one or two have ruthlessly exploited loopholes that allow them to punish homeowners, including Lib Dem-run Waverley in my constituency, which charges over £550 per square metre, one of the highest in the country. But it is not just there. This morning, I heard about a case in Sevenoaks, where the district council pursued a stay-at-home mother relentlessly, in a case championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). For many families the consequences have been devastating. Some have been forced to sell or remortgage their homes, and the financial burden, alongside the stress and uncertainty, has been immense. Some have fought their councils for years, hitting brick walls at every turn. I am aware of 15 families in Waverley alone who faced unexpected charges, ranging from £26,000 to £235,000. There are now more than 100 known other cases across the country. Here are some examples: Steve Dally and his wife Caroline have been forced to remortgage their home to pay a £70,000 CIL charge on a home extension in Godalming. As they explained to me and local councillor Jane Austin, they are not developers; they simply extended their home. They hit a brick wall when they challenged Waverley and had to risk additional penalties and compounded interest in the process. Another Godalming couple were hit with a £70,000 bill because they were living in rented accommodation while their home was being renovated. In Milford in my constituency, a homeowner was forced to pay a £120,000 CIL bill when forced to submit a retrospective planning application because two walls of his existing home fell down. For failing to give notice of the walls falling down he was charged £2,500 in penalties because he had failed to submit a commencement notice, something he had never heard of. Enton resident Helen Grant reluctantly settled a £56,000 CIL charge on the family home, only to be sent a bill for a further £3,000 in interest charges when the council reviewed her case, which had already been closed. It is not just Waverley; I pay tribute to the CIL Injustice Group, which operates across the whole country. Many of its members are watching from the Gallery today, including people from Wokingham, Tonbridge and Devon.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right, and he is foreshadowing what I will propose as one of the solutions to this issue: that homeowners should be excluded from the potential ambit of CIL altogether, because that was not its intention. It is a loophole that is being exploited, and I hope to explain why some councils have been so keen to exploit that loophole. We need to remove the root cause if we are going to deal with this issue.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  That is quite an unusual thing to be told by the Chair, Mr Turner. I thank you for chairing this important debate and I thank all hon. Members present for some excellent contributions. I particularly want to thank my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for his tenacious campaigning on this issue on behalf of my former constituents in Farnham and Haslemere. He made an excellent contribution. I also want to thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who typically gave a very thoughtful and clear exposition of the issues we face. I also thank hon. Members from other parties who have spoken and intervened. Before I come on to the Minister’s comments, I want to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), because it was directly about my own local authority. He was right to say that a council cannot lawfully cancel a charge after it has become liable, but that does beg the question why there have been countless injustices in some councils, but not in others, and that is because there has been an element of choice in the way local authorities have decided to go about things. To make the point that I am not being party political here, Lib Dem West Berkshire has chosen to be reasonable, do the right thing and make sure there is justice for people unfairly caught in the CIL trap, but Lib Dem Waverley has not. It has been in power for seven years and Waverley residents, a number of whom are watching this debate, have suffered badly.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member; he always makes very thoughtful contributions. He makes two very important points. The first is that we do need developers to contribute towards infrastructure costs. The risk of the appalling injustice that I am drawing attention to today is that we lose social consent for very important contributions that enable much-needed infrastructure to be built. Secondly, he is absolutely right to say that not having CIL at all would be very bad. In my area in particular, there is constant concern about the lack of infrastructure to keep pace with new housing developments. I want to return to the CIL Injustice Group, because their accounts are extremely concerning. Some are nervous about dealing with their council because of the bad way they are treated. Others spend thousands of pounds on legal fees, often unsuccessfully. Part of the issue is that CIL is an extraordinarily complex process. Forms must be filled in in the correct order and are subject to strict timetables. Even professionals struggle. It is very unforgiving if someone gets it wrong. They have to pay within 90 days, under threat of seizure of assets and imprisonment, and if they do not comply, they get slammed with thousands of pounds in late charges and interest on top of that. There is effectively no right of appeal, and most importantly, there is no ability to correct errors. Ordinary homeowners inevitably do make errors, but there is no latitude in the system to allow them to correct those errors.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has much more experience of the housing sector than I do. He will know that countries like France—not very far away—that have been much more successful than us in building more houses also have a flourishing small builder sector. In this country, because of the enormous costs involved in the planning process and often the land, it is much harder for small builders to get involved. Of course, one of the other advantages of small builders is that they are more likely to get consent from local communities, because they are often from those local communities. I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely: that is one of the unintended consequences of the problems we have with the community infrastructure levy regime. CIL was drafted with very strong teeth to ensure that developers actually pay up, but for ordinary members of the public trying to do an extension, these Orwellian processes can be utterly terrifying. Some councils—not my own Waverley borough council, alas—recognise the inflexibility of the regulations and have taken a soft-touch approach to prevent homeowners from being captured. To its credit, West Berkshire, which as it happens is also a Lib Dem council, implemented a discretionary review and refunded £400,000 to affected householders. Others have not. I recognise that the difference in councils’ approaches makes the Minister’s job more difficult. So how should we fix the issue? First, we need to reform the highly complex CIL legislation to distinguish between commercial developers and householders. The problem with a system that is based entirely on the floor area of a project is that even a small increase in the size of a project—just a couple of extra metres on a patio—can suddenly mean that an ordinary homeowner is required to get planning permission, perhaps retrospectively, and can become liable, and they may not know it at the time. Homeowners should be outright excluded from the reach of the community infrastructure levy. Secondly, even in the absence of legislation, we need clear guidance from the Government to local councils so that no homeowners anywhere are charged for the community infrastructure levy. Thirdly, we need an effective mechanism for redress and the ability to correct genuine mistakes after a liability notice has been issued. Sadly, zero rating CIL liability does not work because a charge remains on the land, which may render the property unsaleable, so the Government need to find a way not just to avoid injustice but to secure justice for the hundreds of families who have been wronged to date by the problems in the system. Finally, we need to recognise that the root cause of the problem is that councils such as mine have been collecting the community infrastructure levy not just to build infrastructure but so that they can use the interest from unspent CIL as revenue. An estimated £9 billion is sitting in council accounts from unspent contributions by developers, of which an estimated £2.2 billion is unspent CIL. That means that some councils are effectively funding their core services from the human misery of their council tax payers. At a minimum, rules should specify that interest from unspent CIL should go back into the CIL account to avoid a perverse incentive for councils to do the wrong thing. British democracy rests on the principle of consent and fairness, both of which demand justice for those caught unfairly by the CIL system, which was never designed to capture them. All those people deserve clarity, and this should be prevented from happening again. I know the Minister and many other hon. Members here today want just that, and I look forward to hearing the Government plans.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Conflict in the Middle East: Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  Given that national debt is around 95% of GDP and debt interest costs are nearly 4% of GDP, does the Chancellor agree that it would be irresponsible to fund any cost of living support by increasing borrowing? That would further drive up borrowing costs, choke off growth and saddle future generations with totally unfair debt.