Rachel Blake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  May I put on record my profound thanks to the Minister for her personal commitment to ensuring that we renew confidence in democracy? I warmly welcome proposals around moving away from the first-past-the-post system in regional elections and restoring that part of our democracy. Will she outline how she will tackle the illicit finance that is flowing into our democracy? I have real concerns about how foreign influence damaging our democracy and I would be grateful for more information on how this strategy will deliver for our country.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) about the terrible and desperate suffering of women and children. I thank the Minister for her update, in which she highlighted the outcome of the London Sudan conference and the urgent need for access for aid. When I speak to my constituents from the Sudanese diaspora community, they talk about their desperate sadness in the conversations they have with their friends and family who are still in the region. Will the Minister update the House on the consular arrangements for the friends and family of my constituents?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for HMRC to work with local authorities to take action on tax evasion by high street stores that do not act fairly, like the awful Harry Potter stores in my constituency? I am worried about the impact that they have on the high street and on our tax revenues.

• 14 Jul 2025 · High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  Not far from here, on Whitehall and on Oxford Street, we have seen the proliferation of Harry Potter shops. These are not welcoming for our tourists and we do not believe that they are trading fairly. Will the Minister support me in encouraging His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to work with Westminster city council, which is doing great work in shutting these shops down, to ensure that we create space for thriving high street businesses?

• 10 Jul 2025 · London’s National Economic Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. It is timely, both in terms of London’s potential and current contribution to growth and the fair funding review. He mentioned the £4 million per day that London local authorities spend on temporary accommodation. My own local authority, Westminster city council, spends £66 million over and above what it would be expected to spend on temporary accommodation. These costs are a function of the long-standing failure to build the genuinely affordable homes that we all know are so desperately needed. Does he agree that the additional temporary accommodation costs that London local authorities face should be recognised in funding settlements, and in the capital funding assessments of the affordable homes that are built? Does he also agree that the systemic problems that we have with homelessness in London need to be recognised in order for us to really fulfil our potential?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that it is because of these fiscal rules that this Government have been able to establish firm foundations for future growth? Will he explain to the House how the Budget stability rule supports the Government with confidence of investors and businesses?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Right to Manage and Leasehold · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the definition of qualifying tenants for the purposes of claiming a right to manage; to reduce the proportion of qualifying tenants required to give notice of a claim to acquire a right to manage; to establish a duty on freeholders to assist a Right to Manage company in establishing contact with leaseholders within the freeholder’s property; to make provision about establishing a presumption in favour of a right to manage in certain circumstances before the First Tier Tribunal; to require the Secretary of State to review procedures for converting leasehold property into commonhold property; and for connected purposes. I rise to speak on a topic that matters dearly to all of us in this House: accountability and representation. As legislators, our job is to hold legislation to account and ensure that it represents our constituents’ interests. It is the role of our constituents, in turn, to hold us to account whenever elections arise. I would like to thank my constituents for joining us in the Gallery today. Accountability is at the heart of our consumer relationships, with standards and competition embedded into commercial law. It is also a key part of our social contract. When someone in a position of power does wrong, there needs to be a system of recourse. When it comes to housing, however, this too often goes out the window. Frequently, there is a stark gap between those who provide our housing and those who live in it, alongside an accountability deficit, whether in private renting, social housing or the sector that the Bill seeks to remedy: leasehold. My constituency has the highest proportion of leaseholders in the country. For too long they have had to endure a system that leaves them without full control over their homes and at the mercy of a wide range of bad actors. I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that promised to ban the sale of new leasehold properties and make commonhold the default tenure across the land. Since the election, the Government have acted with speed in this area: inheriting a rushed piece of legislation from their predecessor and untangling it with speed; setting out our plans for reform; publishing a White Paper on commonhold; and expediting moves that include the recent reforms to the right to manage. Those actions have already had a positive impact in the Cities of London and Westminster. Constituents have written to me saying that they submitted right to manage applications on 3 March, as the Government’s changes allowed them to do so. I join them in thanking this Government for acting so quickly in this area, and I look forward with interest to the publication of the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill later this year. One of the most visible consequences of the leasehold system is the scourge of unscrupulous managing agents. For the past six months, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and I have been co-ordinating action as co-chairs of Labour for leasehold, which is an alliance of 150 Labour party colleagues against some of the worst-performing actors in this sector. Many of the Members supporting this Bill have been tirelessly advocating in this campaign for leaseholders in their constituencies and nationwide, and I pay tribute to that work. In the course of our work, we have heard stories of residents suffering at the hands of managing agents as they fail to conduct essential repairs, engage in threatening and abusive behaviour towards residents and even run off with hundreds of thousands of pounds of leaseholders’ money—all while providing little justification for their service or the high fees that they charge. In this process I have also met the most dedicated leaseholders, organisers who have collected testimony from thousands of neighbours to highlight poor practice, accountants who have volunteered their time to scrutinise invoices and auditing processes, and lawyers who have provided free advice to other buildings going through the first-tier tribunal. However, without a legal system that supports them, the leaseholders remain unable to seek the accountability that they deserve from distant and disinterested managing agents. These leaseholders include my constituents in Neville House—shared owners who pay £5,000 a year in service charges for services that have not been delivered for 20 years, with reports of mould being ignored for months, and who are stuck between their social landlord, managing agent and a freeholder in a complex cladding case. They include the residents of Sheldon Square who have had managing agents ignore sewage leaking into their flats, have been billed for damage caused by contractors to their building, and have received threatening letters posted to individual leaseholders in flagrant breaches of data protection. These leaseholders also include the residents of Oxford and Cambridge Mansions, whose managing agent and freeholder have ignored reports of gross misconduct against building staff, failed to take action on leaks persisting for years, and ignored reports of damp and mould emerging from flats that they themselves owned and were using as storage rooms, all while complex major works loom with an opaque tendering process that may cost residents millions. Ultimately, the situation amounts to one of accountability and representation. In most cases, managing agents do not feel a need to represent leaseholders’ interests, and the only accountability they have is to the building’s freeholder, who far too often takes little interest in residents’ welfare. There are some ways out of this situation, and one is by acquiring the right to manage. That involves forming a right to manage association, recruiting half of the flats in a block to join, and submitting an application to the landlord, who can then accept it or drag leaseholders through the first-tier tribunal. There are multiple loopholes and hurdles obstructing leaseholders from achieving even this basic step. Properties cannot have over a certain percentage of square footage of commercial space, and sometimes even flowerbeds or communal car parks get included in that. Even when large numbers of residents are in favour of getting the right to manage, and no one in the building is opposed, hitting the 50% threshold can be difficult. This is due to a number of reasons, from owners who do not reside in their properties to freeholders who retain a large number of flats in the building to let out privately or, as mentioned previously, to use as storage rooms. This Bill would go some way to rectifying this hurdle. First, it would lower the threshold required for a successful right to manage application from 50% of qualifying leaseholders to 35%. As many campaigners have pointed out, this alone is not enough. That is why the Bill redefines qualifying tenants during a right to manage application as tenants who respond either positively or negatively when asked to vote. Put simply, it changes the threshold for a right to manage claim from, “Can you find a majority of the flat owners in your building?”, to, “Do enough of the actual leaseholders in your block want this to go ahead?”. The Bill addresses a number of other issues too. Most notably, it establishes a duty for freeholders to assist the right to manage company when it contacts their fellow leaseholders, and it establishes a presumption in favour of leaseholders on occasions when freeholders counter-claim at the first-tier tribunal. This Bill does not go all the way to fixing the right to manage, and a number of obstacles would remain, particularly in mixed-use developments. There are no quick fixes to the right to manage, commonhold or any other reforms. Managing blocks of flats will always remain challenging and will lead to difficult debates within buildings as to how to manage complex and expensive works. What matters is that the companies who manage the buildings are accountable and represent fairly the people who live in the buildings. Through reinvigorating the right to manage, we can achieve this. Leaseholders across the country are ready to take this step to hold their managing agents to account. All they need is for the law to be on their side. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Rachel Blake, Lizzi Collinge, Dr Beccy Cooper, Deirdre Costigan, Emily Darlington, Marsha De Cordova, Anna Dixon, Amanda Hack, Jayne Kirkham, Uma Kumaran, Sarah Russell and Yuan Yang present the Bill. Rachel Blake accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 265).

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all the participants in the debate: the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising the case that he did; the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) for highlighting the injustice; my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for raising the case of Jagtar Singh Johal; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for talking about religious freedom; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for talking about his great work on the APPG; my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for talking about the diaspora; my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for highlighting, too, the cause of Jagtar Singh Johal; my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) for setting out the impact of detention on families; the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for talking about detained people and Alaa Abd el-Fattah; and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for setting out the Opposition’s determination on the release of Jimmy Lai. Jimmy Lai, Jagtar Singh Johal and others have all suffered grievous injustice against their human rights. That matters because it could be any one of us; it could be our mums, our dads, our sons or our daughters. It matters for democracy and for freedom of the press. I am really heartened by the Minister’s remarks. I am also heartened that, when I raised Jimmy Lai’s case with the Foreign Secretary, he referred to a “massive” international coalition to tackle it, and that the Chancellor raised it when she visited China. I will continue to fight for the freedom of my constituent, Jimmy Lai, in order to honour his family’s campaigning work and his own human rights. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the detention of Jimmy Lai and other political prisoners internationally.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention; later in my remarks, I will come on to using all possible levers to secure Mr Lai’s freedom. When Sebastien is at home, he is my constituent—a man deeply concerned about his father’s welfare. That is the position in which I speak to the Chamber today: as a Member of Parliament standing up for my constituents in the face of unbelievable, state-sanctioned cruelty. I am grateful for the work of this Government and Members across the House to secure Mr Lai’s freedom. Already, Sebastien has met people across Government, and it has been encouraging to see the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister call for Mr Lai’s immediate and unconditional release. We cannot stay silent while Mr Lai remains detained. The Government calls for his release are welcome, but I want to see those included urgently in any trade negotiations and international meetings that Ministers of all Departments conduct with their Chinese counterparts. I also support the calls for the Prime Minister to meet Sebastien to discuss his father’s case. We must use every lever at our disposal to make the case for Mr Lai’s safe return. The attention and time of our most senior politicians represent a clear signal from our Government that we will not let the international spotlight shift from Mr Lai’s arbitrary and illegal detention. Mr Lai is not the only British person to be detained politically overseas. He was not the first and he will not be the last, and this debate is about the wider issue of unlawful detention. We cannot forget Craig and Lindsay Foreman or Alaa Abd el-Fattah, British citizens who remain imprisoned in Iran and Egypt, respectively. The events of the past few weeks, months and years have shown that inter-state relations have significant potential to get more tense, not less, and with that comes the potential for more political imprisonment of British nationals. We need to ensure that all British citizens imprisoned overseas have the same support and advocacy that Jimmy Lai has had. Every day that my constituent Mr Lai remains in detention abroad is a day that the life and health of a British citizen is put at risk by a foreign state, and another day when democracy is undermined across the world. We must bring him home and we must bring him home now.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for our task today and for raising that important case. Despite Mr Lai’s being told that his trial would last only 80 days, today marks the 1,630th day of his detention. Every day that he is detained, his health deteriorates further and his family rightly worry about his chances of survival in prison. The detention of Mr Lai is a human tragedy that undermines the very principles of democracy, freedom and the rule of law on which our international order relies. The idea that a British citizen can be detained by a foreign Government for standing up and expressing the British values of democracy and freedom of speech is an affront to all of us in this House, and across the country, who hold those principles dear. Mr Lai’s son Sebastien has campaigned tirelessly and admirably for his father’s release; I know that many hon. Members here have had the honour of hearing directly from him and Mr Lai’s legal counsel. At this very moment, Sebastien is addressing the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and recently he has been in the United States and Canada to meet senior officials and lawmakers in both countries. Next week, he travels to Brussels to meet European parliamentarians and the European External Action Service.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the detention of Jimmy Lai and other political prisoners internationally. It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I speak today on behalf of my constituent Jimmy Lai, who has been detained abroad since December 2020. Mr Lai was on trial for alleged offences against national security and alleged sedition through his work as a newspaper publisher. The offence has been ruled unlawful and arbitrary by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention. I called for this debate to draw attention to what Mr Lai has suffered over the course of his detention and to bring together parliamentarians from across the House to speak with one voice on the matter of his detention and the detention of other political prisoners abroad. Mr Lai is a much-loved father and grandfather, and a British citizen. He is 77 years of age, and is being held in solitary confinement in the blistering Hong Kong heat. This will be his fourth summer suffering temperatures that regularly reach 40°.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest: I am a member of the House of Commons Commission, which has nominated me as a member of the independent complaints and grievance scheme advisory group, so I am a member of the group that we are discussing. When I was first elected, I attended the training on the ICGS, along with my colleagues from the 2024 parliamentary intake, and I was deeply sobered by some of the appalling behaviour I heard about—examples of why the ICGS had to be brought in. I am very grateful that the ICGS is in place, and I know that my staff and other members of the parliamentary community are also grateful for this independent process through which people can raise their complaints and grievances. I fundamentally disagree with the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), in his characterisation of the scheme, and I disagree with the way that the powers of the advisory group have been characterised. At no point does the advisory group have a chance to make any particular judgments about individuals. As the Leader of the House set out, the advisory board governs the procedures that establish how the scheme should operate, through its independent investigators. Without an independent complaints and grievance scheme for this parliamentary community, we would be far poorer. In this day and age, when trust and confidence in politicians is at an all-time low, it is vital that we are open to scrutiny, and that we attract all possible talent into the parliamentary community. That will happen only if people feel safe to work here. We must have confidence that an independent scheme is available to everybody who chooses to work here, so that they can safely do their jobs. I hope that everybody supports this motion—I understand that there will not be a Division—and I welcome this opportunity to celebrate the positive work done in this area by the Leader of the House. It is regrettable that all the work she has put into trying to encourage cross-party support for this measure was not recognised by the shadow Leader of the House. His characterisation of that discussion was not representative of what actually took place, but I look forward to there being more support for the motion from other Members of this House, perhaps from other parties, who recognise how vital this independent scheme is for the whole parliamentary community.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The spending review says that there will be a report from the Office for Value for Money on temporary accommodation and the terrible waste of money going into poorly procured temporary accommodation. Some 90,000 children live in temporary accommodation in London. Does the Chancellor agree that the £39 billion for new, genuinely affordable homes, combined with that review of the cost of temporary accommodation, is really positive for all children living in London who, sadly, do not have a permanent home into the future, and does she agree that this will make a transformational change in London?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am really moved by what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Many of us will have had similar experiences. We have been hearing so much about the importance of local decision making. I cannot help but think if only there had been the necessary investment in skills in the planning team who made the decision and determination, and that they had had a planning committee behind them who, by all accounts, could have said, “You need to bring the application back in.” Does he agree that we need to invest in local planning teams so that they can resist such totally inappropriate applications from developers?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend said we have not confronted how the planning system is broken. Does he agree that we have not heard enough about how many children are homeless this evening and will be in the months ahead because we are not grappling with the housing crisis, and that we cannot do that until we address the infrastructure crisis?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 22 May 2025 · Leasehold: Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to ensure value for money for leaseholders.

• 22 May 2025 · Leasehold: Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for the time she spent with me and my constituents of the Hyde Park estate to discuss tackling some of the high service charges they are facing. Does she agree that it is vital that the Government continue to make progress on the regulation of managing agents so that these high costs are clamped down on and there is more accountability for leaseholders?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has a wonderful time on his holidays. I will be spending much of the upcoming recess in the UK at the seaside, and I hope that other people who want to take their holidays in other places will be able to benefit from the EU summit. I am sure that businesses in the UK tourism and hospitality industry will strongly welcome the benefits from tackling the red tape in that sector. I will probably unite the whole room when I say that I look forward to more detail on the youth experience scheme. I want to know how our young constituents across the country will be able to go to places in Europe to learn about their culture, economy and history as part of their own education. It is important to see some detail on that scheme. I also want to hear more in future summits about how cabotage and carnet will be made easier—which, again, will help the haulage industry. I hope that they will be discussed at future summits, to secure the vitality of our touring orchestras, many of which are based in my constituency, and to ensure that touring artists get over to Europe and that the west end remains a thriving centre of culture in the UK. I am grateful for the chance to reflect on the summit. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, who secured the debate, on how we might move forward.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I have spent quite a lot of time in Spalding and Skegness, and I would be very happy to knock on thousands of doors there, but that is not what I wanted to ask about. Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely certain that there is nobody in his constituency who would like to take up the opportunity of having an experience in the European Union?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested in the hon. Member’s economic analysis. Does he really think that the economic consequences of Brexit could only have started in 2021, at the moment when we actually left the European Union, and not when the decision was made?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing this debate. I welcome this chance to move on and let it go, and to test and reflect on the outcome of the EU-UK summit. That foundation is also a chance to look to the future. The Opposition have done their best to make me rack my brain back to the 1990s and the last but one time the Conservatives tore themselves apart over Europe, when they were fighting over whether we were rule makers or rule takers. But I will spend a tiny bit of time talking about the 2016 referendum, and how it uncovered and exacerbated division in our country. It is fundamentally regrettable that the Opposition have used such divisive language: “surrender,” “stupidity,” “hate,” “suckers” and “dangerous.” That really is not a sensible way to talk about how best to work with our partners in the European Union, which is our largest trading partner. In stark contrast, the EU-UK summit that finished earlier this week was grounded in a pragmatic approach to moving forward. It reached out across our country to do the very best for the whole UK. In terms of testing and reflecting on the outcome of the summit, the first question for me is whether it sticks to our red lines. In response to the most recent remarks from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), the outcome absolutely sticks to those red lines. There is no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. Does it support this Government’s missions, which were clearly voted for by the country in an election called a year ago today? Our missions are to secure growth, to support opportunity, to get our country healthy, to tackle climate change and to make our country safer. It addresses each and every one of those missions. Does the EU-UK summit agreement work for the whole of the UK? Looking around the Chamber, I am proud of how many nations and regions of the UK are represented on the Government Benches, and every single one of us has been able to talk about how the EU-UK summit has benefited our own constituencies. I have been thinking about why the summit is so important for me: I represent an area with a vast number of small businesses that rely on the impact of the summit to reduce the cost of energy and the cost of working in the hospitality sector. That is significant for my constituency, one of the great engines of the UK economy. As I look across the Chamber, there are ways in which the summit will help the constituents of all Members present. I would like to know whether there is really nobody in Spalding or Skegness who will benefit. Are there really no businesses—haulage businesses, for example—that will see the opportunity for reduced red tape as a result of the summit? I strongly doubt that. The next test for me is whether the agreement fixes the foundations for the future. Has it put us in a good place to build on for some of the other businesses and areas where we need to see a bit more movement? I think it does; it is a strong first step. Does it make sure that we can get ourselves and our pets on holiday faster? Yes, it absolutely does. I have spent several minutes on the past and on the present, and now I will look to the future. In another area of important vitality— [ Interruption. ] Is there an intervention?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Also known as the hon. Member who wants to go back to Skegness seaside at some point to remember her childhood. The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question: is he certain that there is nobody in his constituency who could benefit from a youth experience scheme, even though that could actually enhance their employment opportunities when they come back to the UK?

• 22 May 2025 · UK Artists Touring the EU · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his encouraging remarks about the progress of the UK-EU deal. Does he agree that the changes that we are making will support the vitality of London’s west end, and provide a strong foundation for tackling the issue of carnets in our future negotiations with the EU, so that we can continue this great work?