Rachel Blake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answer on the work the Government are doing with businesses to support people dealing with the consequences of the gig economy and road safety. Will she join with me in my work to ensure that the area around Baker Street is safer for residents, and will she work with me and residents around Baker Street to make the case to gig economy businesses that we need to do more on enforcement and on the regulation of these workers?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Since I last raised in this Chamber the negative impact of short-term lets in my constituency, Central London Forward has brought out new research estimating that 17,000 properties in my constituency are lost to short-term lets. It believes that a significant proportion of those is the result of individual owners owning up to 21 properties themselves. I thank the Leader of the House for her previous comments. Does she recognise the case I am making that the Cities of London and Westminster should be a pilot in the much-needed forthcoming Government registration scheme?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  No. Let us come to the matter at hand. I would like to talk about temporary accommodation costs, special educational needs and the specific challenges of managing the visitor economy in the very centre of London.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to celebrate the work that Westminster city council does on tackling the challenges we face as a visitor economy. I am not sure how much Kensington and Chelsea council would appreciate me joining my hon. Friend’s campaign, but I certainly will, because it is for the best for the very centre of London. Last year, Westminster city council spent £95 million on temporary accommodation, and the City of London’s temporary accommodation costs increased 52% to £1.1 million. I am very proud of the investment that Westminster city council is choosing to make to insource temporary accommodation. It is a real pioneer in that. However, we are doing it in a very challenging environment in terms of overall costs. I acknowledge the challenges that my outer London colleagues face because of the number of families moving to that area. We very much want those families to stay in the centre of London, and I hope that some of the solutions we will put forward will make sure that that happens. On special educational needs, the number of pupils on education, health and care plans increased by 37%—from 1,035 to 1,413—between 2018 and 2024. None of those children and families deserves to have to go through such a difficult approach to securing a special educational needs plan, and every single one of them deserves the security and certainty that investment in their education will continue in the future. I turn to the specific challenges of the very centre of London. We have higher additional street-cleaning costs, and Westminster has just invested £2 million in tackling the additional antisocial behaviour that we face. What can we do about that? The Government have made great progress, with £2 billion announced today for 18,000 new genuinely affordable homes, core spending power up by 5.3%, and multi-year settlements, which will make such a big difference. However, we can go further. Let us bring forward the short-term lets registration scheme and pilot it in Cities of London and Westminster. Let us review the formula so that it does not have to be uncertain and complex, and let us tackle the temporary accommodation crisis for good. Imagine what that would do for those families. Imagine what it would do to life chances. Imagine what it would do to public finances when we are not pouring money into a poor-quality private rented sector, but building the genuinely affordable homes that our country and our city need.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for securing this important debate. I also thank our friends and colleagues from the London local government family who are here listening to the debate. Their tireless work, day in, day out, is not unappreciated, and we are really happy to see them here today. It has been good to listen to the cross-party support for the debate, but I was a little disappointed not to hear a bit more reflection from Opposition Members on how we got here, despite our having much shared experience as local representatives. That includes the slashing of housing investment by the previous Conservative Government and the slashing of genuinely affordable homes by the previous Conservative mayor—where is he now? Let us not forget the failed fair funding review that the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) referenced, which hung over local government for years and prevented meaningful planning. In the last 14 years, we have seen an 173% increase in rough sleeping and a 69% increase in temporary accommodation —that is shameful—as well as rising rents and falling investment. Let us not forget that the cause lies firmly with the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill tempts me to remind us what happened in 1997. Labour halved temporary accommodation, made record investment in the condition of homes through the decent homes programme, and introduced the historic 2008-11 programme of new, genuinely affordable homes, which benefits many families now.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way. Jobs data is already publicly available that will enable everybody to analyse the impact of this policy, and there has been a detailed assessment of it by HMRC. I firmly believe that this amendment will not deliver on the objectives that our country needs.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I listened carefully to your answer to the Minister’s question about what you would cut if this change were to be reversed. You have not been clear about whether you would reverse it, but I listened carefully to the answer, and what I heard you say— [ Interruption. ] I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister referred to GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund. Will he clarify whether he is really saying that he wants to reverse record levels of investment in energy infrastructure and innovation jobs, and in jobs across this country, to stabilise our economy into the future?

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Lords amendment 21 calls for a review of this policy. I will come to the practical reasons for my opposition to it shortly, but first I want to focus on the cause of the problem and the cause of today’s debate. The last Government presided over economic chaos, scaring businesses away from long-term investment. The last Government failed to invest in the skills that are required in the vital sectors about which we have been hearing today. The last Government left the NHS on its knees, in desperate need of long-term investment. It will be hard to take the serious steps that will put the country back on its feet, but I believe that the measures we are debating today are necessary. What a contrast we see now: a Government laser-focused on economic stability, a Government determined to invest in skills for the future, a Government who are already reducing the NHS waiting list thanks to a £23 billion investment. That is the outcome of this policy, which is part of a package of measures to stabilise our economy and enable us to invest in public services. I have to admit that I have been struck by the passion and commitment of Members on both sides of the House who have spoken about important public services. I talk to representatives of those services regularly myself, and I firmly believe that the investment that this Government will be able to make in childcare, in early years, in breakfast clubs, in the NHS and back into local government, where it needs to be, will in the round create the more sustainable public services that we so desperately need. On the practical reasons why I oppose Lords amendment 21, the OBR has already considered the implications of this policy—

• 6 Mar 2025 · Political Finance Rules · Hansard source

  More

  Last week gave me two really clear reminders about why this issue matters. First, I spoke with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) at a rally to mark the illegal invasion of Ukraine. We saw a frank reminder of authoritarianism right on our doorstep. Then, on Thursday, the Labour party lost a by-election in Vincent Square. While I do not like that result one bit, I am very proud to live in a country where a community can come together and make a decision about who represents them. We currently see more of that sort of politics in this country, with people able to go out to the polling station, but sadly we are at real risk of seeing it decline. We cannot ignore the fact that there are forces intent on weakening our voice, our vote and our rights in the media, in business and in politics, and that they are co-ordinating to replace democratically elected regimes with those that would do their bidding. These forces are spreading conspiracy theories, which have driven division and violence in our communities. They give a platform to those who would question fundamental British values, and they undermine the democratic process as they question free and fair elections around the world. This is not a question of competition within our democracy, but of democracy itself. We need to preserve a system where the voters are the ones choosing their leaders, not billionaire autocrats. Keeping their money out of our politics is becoming a difficult task. Our finance flows are becoming more elusive, with cryptocurrency enabling money laundering at scale, and our politics has a growing demand for more cash, with ever-growing competition for voters’ attention. What Member has not had to struggle with an inscrutable Ring doorbell or security gates? Understandable changes to home security and design have real impacts on our political finance, as we spend more and more money trying to reach voters through online ads and direct mail. However, getting this money out of our politics is more important than ever at a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low. Politicians must be effective natural communicators as well as thoughtful legislators, and even the suspicion that we might not be acting in our constituents’ interests will further erode the trust that voters do have in their representatives. Fixing political finance is, therefore, an essential part of restoring faith in democracy. We have already heard that a tenth of the money in our politics comes from unknown or questionable sources and is donated through loopholes in existing law. Now, we have to come to the solutions. Enforcement is made more difficult by loopholes and a weak enforcement system: Companies House reporting rules are too loose, while the Electoral Commission lacks the independence to investigate potential breaches swiftly and thoroughly. Reporting obligations for parties, elected officials and candidates require tightening up, as they allow some individual candidates to accept money without reporting. Meanwhile, the disincentives for bad behaviour, such as fines, are set well below the level that would impact bad actors. We need to close the loopholes around unincorporated associations, open up political parties to greater transparency and give more power to enforcement entities. We cannot take for granted that voters will always be able to speak truth to power, and we need to fight to preserve a system where British elections are decided only by British voters. The forces of foreign interference are knocking at our door, and we need our Ring doorbell more than ever.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Government on announcing the greatest level of financial sanctions last week. Does the Chancellor agree that keeping dirty money out of the City of London and homes and communities across our country is vital for our national security, as well as our economic stability?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Cultural and community institutions in the heart of central London face an uncertain future. The Jubilee Hall gym, Central YMCA and the Prince Charles cinema all have uncertain futures because of the complex property ownership structures in which they exist. Central YMCA faces closures tomorrow, so will the Leader of the House support me with my call to meet the landlord, so we can come together to discuss a sustainable, long-term future for that institution?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Overseas Territories: Tax Transparency · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this debate. I have joked in previous debates that I could be known as the Member of Parliament for frozen assets; nothing could be truer today, as that is the topic at hand. At least £5.9 billion in suspect funds has entered the UK property market via shell companies registered in the overseas territories. Over half of that money can be found in my constituency of Cities of London and Westminster. These forces blight our communities, driving out residents and local businesses and replacing them with empty shells of buildings owned by empty shells of companies. Over the past few months, key pillars of the City and Westminster communities have been at risk of closure, including the Jubilee Hall gym and the Prince Charles cinema. Most notably, the central London YMCA, the oldest YMCA in the world, will close its doors this week. These institutions have always had to compete against the great and the good of London’s residential and business community, but they are increasingly being crowded out. They are bidding in a rental market against shadowy owners with nigh unlimited funds. Individuals who have frequently made their wealth from corruption and the abuse of power, by skimming money from state procurement contracts or directly acquiring assets, are funnelling the proceeds of this ill-gotten wealth into our property market. They include Alexander Zakharov, the creator of the deadly Lancet drone being used to terrorise the people of Ukraine, whose family own a £1.5 million flat overlooking Big Ben; Daim Zainuddin, a former Malaysian Minister of Finance accused of extraordinary misappropriation of public funds, who owns a £28.6 million office in the City of London; and Mikhail Gutseriev, a major backer of the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko, whose son Said owns a £160 million portfolio of properties across the Cities of London and Westminster. The immense level of money laundering in London corrodes our communities, damages democracy around the world and blocks the growth prospects of our capital’s economy. We have already heard why it is so important for the overseas territories, particularly the British Virgin Islands, to implement public registers of beneficial owners. Knowledge about property ownership is a vital tool for protecting our country from kleptocrats. Stonewalling by the authorities in the BVI leaves those who work tirelessly to expose cases of corruption fighting with one hand tied behind their back. Currently, only those in law enforcement can access information about beneficial ownership, and they have to apply for it on a case-by-case basis. The move to fully public registers of beneficial owners is sorely needed and long overdue. Public registers were first meant to be implemented by the end of 2020, which was 1,497 days ago, or 30 Liz Truss premierships. The BVI has now, finally, suggested an approach, but it is simply not good enough. It will require applicants to identify the beneficial owner when requesting corporate data; essentially, it asks them to know the precise information that they are after. Under the draft policy, applicants could get hold of company ownership information only if they were involved in regulatory or legal proceedings about financial crime or a criminal case in which a court has determined that the data could help to solve the investigation. Most alarmingly, the BVI registrar would be required to tip off beneficial owners within five days of an application being made, allowing beneficial owners to liquidate or move assets. At this stage, we really need to ask whose side are the BVI authorities on. Do they stand with local communities like mine, with Parliament and with my constituents in the fight against corruption, or do they stand with the kleptocrats who are using the property market as a rainy-day fund? I am pleased to see that this is a priority for our Government and our relations with the overseas territories. This Government are pushing for greater transparency from them. I wholeheartedly support the Government in those efforts. I look forward to further updates and further opportunities to speak about the issue.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about investment and growth. Does he agree with me about the role that new towns will play in tackling our country’s housing crisis and how important it is that, alongside the homes in the new towns, we see the delivery of new social infrastructure? Can he outline how those plans will work?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am confused as to why a party that brought in the proposals is now arguing so vehemently against them—perhaps it is still attached to its chaotic approach to government. What I am not following in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks is the argument that the equalisation of the taxation could have negative consequences. Has the hon. Gentleman interrogated the evidence that has been brought forward by those people who are letting out their holiday lets, and does he really think that there would not be an economic benefit to supporting a change in use of those homes?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Relations with the EU · Hansard source

  More

  The end of this month will mark the anniversary of Brexit. Will the Minister assure me that we will not return to the appalling divisions of the past, and does he agree that the forthcoming summit and reset negotiations are a vital opportunity to discuss growth, not just for the diverse communities and businesses in my constituency, but for our nation?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Relations with the EU · Hansard source

  More

  19. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Hyde Park Estate · Hansard source

  More

  I have been working for months with residents of the Quadrangle, the Water Gardens and Connaught Village on the scale of their service charges. They have managed to reduce their service charges by 10%. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating them on their hard work and agree that they should not have had to work that hard? Will she join me in a meeting with the Church Commissioners to improve the transparency and monitoring of service charge levels?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Hyde Park Estate · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps the Church is taking to improve the maintenance of the Hyde Park Estate.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to some of the incredible work that advice agencies do in my constituency. Funding will need to be met with an active approach by local authorities to recruit the right individuals with the appropriate skills to act as inspectors for the regime. Additional funding may be needed for the immediate recruitment and upskilling of inspectors, and to deal with a backlog of cases related to enforcing existing regulations. Most importantly, landlords must have as many points of potential accountability as possible. That means that reporting on enforcement activity should be published publicly, with the naming and shaming of poor-performing landlords. The Bill marks not just an era of rights for the millions of private renters across the country, but a step change in the necessary enforcement activity by councils and by renters themselves. The campaigning groups and advice agencies that have stood up for renters for years, including Generation Rent and also Z2K, which operates in my constituency, deserve a mountain of praise for their work in keeping this issue on the agenda of parties and actors across the political spectrum, and I pay tribute to them for their work. The scale of support that this Bill has from Members on the Government Benches demonstrates the significance of this issue. It is important that we work together across Government and civil society to enforce this new rights framework and provide renters with their long-overdue protections.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I must declare an interest: my husband works for an organisation that funds the Renters’ Reform Coalition, which has been referred to today. It is a privilege to speak in this debate after serving on the Bill Committee, which took a thorough approach to each element of the Bill. This topic is of great importance to me, I having worked in housing for my entire working life and representing 27,000 private renters in the Cities of London and Westminster. I speak today thinking of those constituents and their experiences. One landlord revoked a promise to provide free heating for their tenant’s home, leading to it becoming infested with mould. The landlord later refused to respond to repeated reports of pests in the property, before subsequently charging that tenant £1,500 to fumigate the house. I also bear in mind my constituents who were evicted under a section 21 notice, are now living in temporary accommodation with three children and have been on the social housing waiting list for nearly 15 years. After being let down by dither and delay from the Members on the Conservative Benches when they were in Government, renters such as my constituents have been denied the crucial powers to hold their landlords to account in even the most basic fashion. If those Members had delivered on their promise and tackled the dissenters in their midst, renters would already have the protections that we are introducing in this legislation. Yet the Opposition have the audacity to claim that the legislation and principles that they had tried to introduce when they were in power will, mysteriously, not work now. On the amendments, the Opposition claim that the legislation will lead to landlords exiting the market, but they repeatedly fail to suggest where the homes owned by landlords would go. Even in his case for new clause 20, the shadow Minister started talking about where the homes might go, so I take the opportunity to ask him directly whether he thinks the homes would disappear. Would he have rather let a home lie vacant than let it out or sell it if it were unprofitable? And if a sale took place, would the mysterious buyers not live there? I will happily give way if he wants to answer—okay, he does not. To continue on to my main point, I want to focus on the parts of the Bill that consider local authority enforcement and the new clauses that address that. Current regulations in the private rented sector have suffered from a lack of enforcement by local authorities due to a lack of knowledge about private rented stock, limited enforcement capacity and the range and complexity of laws relevant to enforcement. The legislation goes a long way towards addressing those issues. The Bill puts local authorities clearly in the driving seat in enforcing regulation, cleaning up the confusion of the past regime. It expands the range of civil penalties that can be used by local authorities to crack down on poor behaviour. Importantly, it introduces mandatory reporting for local authorities’ enforcement activity, ensuring that councils are accountable to their constituents and to central Government. The introduction of the private rented sector database will also fill a key gap in the existing regime: a lack of knowledge of the location and nature of private rented properties. The remaining gap in the regime will be funding, and it is essential that fees for the private rented sector database are sufficient to fund the enforcement measures in the Bill. It is therefore encouraging to see that recognised by Government amendment 40, which I am happy to support.

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  May I thank the Chancellor for raising the case of my constituent, Jimmy Lai? I know it will mean a lot to him and his family. Does she agree that it is because of the profound differences that it is vital we maintain this strategic engagement?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this debate. I speak today as the constituency Member of Parliament for many of the assets we are discussing. It is easy to throw around the many billions of Russian-owned wealth across the country; for that reason, when referencing the luxurious wealth of Putin’s cronies, all of my calculations today are going to be in the unit of Storm Shadow missiles, each of which costs £800,000. These are the weapons of war that we talk about when we discuss funding the conflict in Ukraine. In total, 28,375 Storm Shadows’ worth of Russian wealth is sanctioned, with profits from that wealth used to repay the extraordinary revenue acceleration funding the UK’s support of Ukraine. To put that in perspective, the UK’s total stock of Storm Shadows was estimated in 2023 to sit between 700 and 1,000. In Westminster alone, according to research by Transparency International, 537 Storm Shadows’ worth of property is owned by Russians accused of corruption or with links to the Kremlin, property that stretches from Belgravia to St James’s and St John’s Wood. Indeed, the most valuable home in the UK, Hanover Lodge, was sold last year for 141 Storm Shadows by Andrey Goncharenko, a former Gazprom executive with ties to the Kremlin. A great deal of that property is owned by or connected to sanctioned individuals, including former Deputy Prime Ministers Igor Shuvalov and Vladimir Potanin. The existence of this property is not just an economic issue; its impact also reaches into the very hearts of our communities. Our buildings and neighbourhoods are weakened when they are used for profit rather than purpose. A strong community is one in which neighbours can be the ones who look after your kids when you have a job interview. It is those communities that are undermined when we let towers of vacant investment properties propagate and turn a blind eye to foreign wealth emptying out British homes. Most recently, these communities have opened their arms to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians fleeing from Putin’s illegal invasion. I am the constituency Member for a number of those refugees, and it is thinking of them that gives the overwhelming majority of us in this House the resolve to use every tool at our disposal. That brings us to today’s topic: the seizure of sanctioned assets. As we heard earlier, the significance of this step and the precedent it would set should not escape us as legislators. The first ever permanent seizure of frozen assets occurred only last year, when the National Crime Agency confiscated the assets of Petr Aven for suspected evasion of sanctions. To set out an intentional policy of seizing those assets would be a bold step, and one that would doubtless lead to legal challenge. However, it must be worth us considering every option available for sanctioned assets, particularly when there is a clear argument that it would be justified to use them in supporting the Ukrainian people. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is in complete contravention of international law and violates the sovereignty and self-determination of the Ukrainian people. Furthermore, as has been confirmed by the UN’s independent international commission of inquiry on Ukraine, it has enabled a string of other war crimes, including indiscriminate attacks, violations of personal integrity, including executions, torture and ill treatment, and sexual and gender-based violence. As was made clear during the application of the original sanctions, the sanctioned individuals are playing a direct part in this war. They range from propagandists spreading disinformation about the conflict to garner public support, domestically and across the globe, to industrialists manufacturing the chemicals used in Russian weapons, and military and security personnel directly contributing to the invasion. When the war in Ukraine is over, questions will remain about what we do with the 28,000 Storm Shadows of sanctioned wealth belonging to those who funded, championed, and even fought in Putin’s illegal invasion. We must take this opportunity to consider what sort of country we want to be when it comes to that dirty money, and to ensure that we do not let our economy be complicit in the forces that fund evil across the world.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Listening to Members speaking to the amendments has caused me to reflect on the challenges at the heart of this debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendments that are trying to unpick a holistic approach to fixing the foundations of our public finances entirely miss the point, first of the challenge that this Government face in re-establishing confidence in public finances, and secondly of our approach to long-term investment in public services that are so desperately needed? I believe that all the amendments—

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Member. I came here today because of the harm that the botched Brexit deal has done to my communities, and because of my fear for what this Bill would do to those communities and the economies in the centre of London. He talks about the frustrating delays in implementing some of the solutions that he believes could make a difference, but I am confused about why he and the Bill’s supporters think that going back so many years, as the Bill proposes, would actually help to make progress on the many issues that I think all Members—even on the Labour Benches—still believe need to be fixed. The right hon. Gentleman supports the Bill, so will he explain why going back might help us to move forward on some of the areas where we think there needs to be progress?

• 3 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard a lot this afternoon about investment in the public sector and what the proposals will do to small businesses, but we have not heard the Opposition recognise that this country needs a healthy workforce. The Bill proposes a sustainable and manageable approach to funding that healthy workforce. Will the hon. Gentleman describe to the House how damaging the previous Government’s treatment of the workforce was, and the long-standing and growing number of people claiming out-of-work benefits? Does he not see that the Bill will make a sustainable contribution?