Sir Jeremy Hunt
MP for Godalming and Ash · Conservative · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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?”
“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 n…”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,495 lines we hold for Sir Jeremy Hunt, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 150.
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“There is arson, torture and sexual violence, and 4 million people displaced from homes.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”