Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, at the Dispatch Box, but it was curious that this Question was not answered by the Tourism Minister in another place and is not being answered by any of the now three Ministers at DCMS in your Lordships’ House. Will she, on behalf of the Government, answer a question that was not addressed when this was taken on Tuesday? This new holiday tax will apply to all domestic stays. Does the Minister think it is fair to charge people who are staying in a hotel to attend the funeral of a loved one, visit somebody in hospital or undergo specialist medical attention in places far away from home?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, if that was the intention behind the levy, I would have something to say. I am delighted to tell the noble Lord that there will be exemptions. For example, we have many places that have big hospitals where parents or relatives have to stay, so there will be sensitivity at local level. It will be for the local level to decide where those exemptions apply so that it is done in the fairest possible way to protect people who have legitimate reasons and needs to be in a particular area.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that this should not be seen as a way of boosting income for normal expenditure but as a bonus on top? It should be set locally. What happens in Bath, for instance, will probably not be applicable in Barnsley. We should make sure that we do something that is appropriate for people in local communities and that it is a bonus for communities that make something out of tourism.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. It is about putting trust in local areas to work with their local partners and business community to make sure that the benefit comes back into those areas to help promote tourism. We are committed to supporting the tourism industry. I reassure the noble Lord that there will be non-statutory guidance and it will be taken very seriously. We look forward to looking at the plans from local areas that will be coming forward in due course, building on plans that are already in place. A levy is already in place in parts of this country, not to mention around Europe and the world. There are some positive examples to look to in bringing enormous benefits to wider local communities.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a key proposal of the Cultural Policy Unit is a city tourism charge that would be ring-fenced for cultural infrastructure, including theatres, museums and heritage sites, which would in a cyclic way help the hospitality sector through encouraging tourism and redressing regional inequalities. However, that will not happen if this charge is squandered in other ways.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

There is no intention for the funds raised to be squandered, but a ring-fenced approach smacks of centralism. It is critical that local areas can determine their needs. I come from an area that has benefited enormously from investment in cultural and sporting events that have brought huge benefits, not least round-the-clock coverage from an aerial perspective of the beautiful sights of Yorkshire, for example. There are so many ways that this can be done. We are not ring-fencing because it would not be in the spirit of devolution, but we are very mindful of the comments that the noble Earl has made.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, Italy raises €1.3 billion per year from tourist taxes, with more than 1,400 municipalities implementing the tax. They have a different approach. They earmark the funds to support local tourism, protect cultural heritage and manage the environment. Given that tourists who visit the UK benefit greatly from our cultural offerings, including free entry to our museums, does my noble friend agree with my hope that mayors and strategic authorities—it is right that they should decide these things—will channel the funds for culture as well as other support for tourism?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a point on a similar theme. From my experience of working with the business rates retention pilot back in the day, I know that the most important thing is that we get the right partners around the table in those localities. The businesses and enterprises that my noble friend refers to need to have a voice around that table. It is critical that events and opportunities that attract more visitors have full representation and encourage investment that will make visitors feel welcome, looked after, safe and all those things that matter on a wider perspective.

[Lord Houchen of High Leven (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the mayors who is going to receive the power to implement the overnight levy. Let me put on record and be extremely clear that, for as long as I continue to be Mayor of the Tees Valley, there will be no overnight levy implemented within my region, specifically because it has a significant impact on relatively socioeconomically poor families who decide to holiday within the UK. It is an additional tax on holidays, but it is also a tax on business. We have contractors, white van men and businesses who rely on overnight stays up and down this country. It is an additional tax on business. Devolution seems to be a one-way street with this Administration. Devolution means an ability to increase taxes. Can the Minister tell me where we might be able to see devolution of the ability to decrease taxes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I have worked together on many occasions in the past. That is entirely in his remit, and that is why this is not being imposed. It will be a devolved matter. Local mayors and strategic authorities can make their own decisions. That is the fundamental point of why we are doing it this way. Evidence from around the world does not support the noble Lord’s thesis, but of course there is concern. We need to make sure that everything is analysed and addressed and that we have a full picture of the impact as we go on.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Will care be taken to study the levy in Edinburgh, where it has been in force for quite some time, as to both its administration and the effect on businesses and the wider effects across the city?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My understanding is that the Edinburgh scheme is relatively new. It was introduced this summer and the estimate is that it has raised £50 million. We will be looking carefully at Edinburgh’s experience. It has not reported any decrease in visitor numbers, and we expect a positive programme of how it is going to invest that money. Edinburgh is home to many artists over the summer; I am sure it would want to make it clear that they are very welcome to go to Edinburgh and will be supported.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Merseyside mayor’s proposals to lever in private sector money using this levy for some exciting schemes that will create wealth, growth and jobs? Does she not think that the mayor of Merseyside will know more about generation than the Tory party, which abandoned lots of these areas for a long time?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am absolutely convinced that Mayor Rotheram knows what is best for his local area. He is a passionate advocate of everything to do with Liverpool. Liverpool and Manchester have already introduced a flat-rate levy at the behest of the business community in their areas. It is the businesses that have worked with the leaders to bring forward those levies. I am pretty sure that I will be in Liverpool fairly shortly, so I look forward very much to finding out more about it.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, UKHospitality has calculated that this tax will cost 33,000 jobs, raise £1.6 billion and reduce GDP by £2.2 billion. That is its assessment. What assessment have the Government made of the financial impacts of this proposal and will they publish it?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

It is fair to say that we do not recognise the figures that UKHospitality has put out. We have been working with it incredibly closely through the consultation and will continue to do so. This is a vital part of our economy and we are here to give the support that is needed to make sure that these areas thrive. The conversation is ongoing, but I suggest the noble Lord looks at the wider evidence from around the world of how successful such a levy can be.

Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill [HL]

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing this Private Member’s Bill to the House on all these important issues, and I thank all those who have contributed for their very thoughtful and sensitive contributions. The tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 72 lives, was a profound failure that should never have happened, and we must ensure that the lessons of Grenfell are learned. It is right that all those affected are at the forefront of our thoughts while dealing with the issues before us.

I start by being completely open and honest. I share completely the concerns of noble Lords about the ongoing cladding safety crisis. As we have heard, over 4,000 buildings have been identified as requiring remediation, and too many residents still face uncertainty about their homes and their finances as a result. This crisis continues to leave people stuck in unsuitable homes, while some of those responsible have yet to contribute towards the costs, as we have heard throughout these discussions.

That is why the Government committed in our manifesto to accelerating remediation, making those responsible pay and better protecting leaseholders from costs through the remediation acceleration plan. While the Government share the noble Baroness’s objectives, the question before us is not one of intent but of whether the mechanisms proposed in this Bill are the right means of achieving those objectives. The Government’s position is that they are not.

Some proposals in the Bill could create worse outcomes for people affected. For example, the noble Baroness’s Bill, in Clauses 1 to 5, seeks to prevent leaseholders from contributing towards remediation costs in all circumstances. Although this is an understandable ambition, it risks creating significant legal and practical challenges. A blanket prohibition is likely to give rise to delays due to concerns around property rights, and it risks greater uncertainty over how remediation will be financed. The proposal also overlaps with existing leaseholder protections established by the Building Safety Act 2022, creating uncertainty about how the different statutory schemes interact. So, while the Government share the objective of further protecting leaseholders from costs, we do not believe that the blanket approach is appropriate. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Government are considering how we can go further to protect leaseholders from current and future building safety issues, particularly groups not covered by existing protections.

There are proposals in the Bill that have already been delivered through changes made since the Grenfell Tower tragedy; for example, we share the noble Baroness’s ambition, proposed in Clause 11, that developers should be strongly incentivised to remediate. The previous Government—full credit to them—introduced the responsible actors scheme in the Building Safety Act, which led 53 developers to sign a contract with the Government to remediate, or to pay to remediate, over 2,600 buildings at a cost to themselves of around £4.2 billion. Any developer that has signed that contract and fails to meet its remediation obligations faces severe commercial consequences.

We are also concerned that Clause 11 could have significant unintended consequences. In practice, it could prevent developers with outstanding remediation liabilities from building new homes until defects have been remediated or funded. As outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Sanderson, that risks reducing housing supply and undermining the resources available to support remediation itself.

The Government also recognise the proposals to strengthen enforcement in Clauses 7, 8 and 17. We strongly agree with all those who raised the point, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that construction product manufacturers should play their part in meeting the costs of remediating unsafe buildings where their products have played a part in making buildings unsafe, as highlighted in Clause 12. Although we share these objectives, we do not consider that those approaches would most effectively achieve her desired outcomes.

That brings me to the forthcoming remediation Bill. The Government will seek to address these issues through legislation and wider work within the department, which will happen—in response to the noble Lord, Lord Young—when parliamentary time allows. The objectives of that Bill are fourfold.

First, we will create certainty over which buildings require cladding remediation and the standard to which that remediation must be completed. Secondly, the Bill will give regulators the powers they need to hold blockers to account, ensuring that those responsible for addressing failures do so more quickly. Thirdly, we will strengthen the law so that construction products manufacturers can, as I have said, be held to account and those who have paid for remediation have a clearer route to recover their costs. Finally, the Bill will ensure that all residents have a route for cladding remediation, even where responsible entities fail, disappear or refuse to act. So, while I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing attention to so many important matters, our focus is on delivering solutions through the existing framework and the remediation Bill.

I turn briefly to other points raised. There is enormous concern from across the House about buildings under 11 metres. I want to reassure the House that we have launched new funding, delivered through an extension of the cladding safety scheme, providing access to funding through remediation of unsafe cladding on a number of multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres in England. This will be prioritised towards high-risk buildings, focusing on those with the most serious cladding and fire defects.

On leasehold protections, those responsible for historic building safety defects must pay for them. Again, we are very mindful of the regime established by the Building Safety Act and we have to make sure that we strike a careful balance between the rights of all parties. We have to recognise that some freeholders have no connection to the original defects.

On internal defects, all leaseholders can access support for cladding remediation. Most leaseholders cannot be charged for internal building safety defects through their service charge beyond specified annual caps.

Obviously, enormous concern has been expressed about the wider leaseholder system reform. I do not have time to go into that, but it will of course be an issue that we pick up very seriously as we go forward.

I cannot emphasise enough the need for construction products manufacturers’ redress. So far, I do not think there has been a single contribution from that avenue towards the work.

My time is coming to an end. I stress to the noble Baroness—we have had a conversation about this—that we share her ambitions and concerns but we are determined to find the most deliverable way of delivering on the objectives. I am very grateful for the opportunity to begin discussing this with noble Lords. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the Government are unable to support the Bill but, respectfully, I look forward to engaging with noble Lords from across the House as we take these important measures forward, particularly when the remediation Bill is published.

Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September

Motion agreed.

Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England is a priority for this Government. Nine years on from the Grenfell tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Helping residents to feel safe in their homes and move on from this issue is crucial work.

The Government are committing £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money to the cost of remediation and the building safety levy is an essential part of the remediation funding package, which will protect leaseholders from costs and ensure that taxpayers are not further burdened. We estimate that the levy needs to raise £3.4 billion, likely over a 10-year period. The revenue target may be adjusted in accordance with the number of buildings requiring remediation and the costs of works.

The levy regulations were made in November 2025 and will come into force on 1 October 2026. The draft amending regulations before the Committee today clarify how the levy will work and are intended to come into force on 1 October. The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floor space in England. It is important to note that developers have known about the levy since February 2021 and its rates since March 2025, providing a significant lead-in period to plan for and incorporate these costs into their projects. It will start being charged on new applications from 1 October 2026.

The 2025 regulations allow for development on previously developed land, often referred to as brownfield land, to benefit from a 50% discount levy rate. This recognises the higher costs of building on this type of land and therefore protects the viability of development on these brownfield sites. My officials received feedback that the definition of previously developed land was not clear. In particular, stakeholders noted that it was not clear whether car parks and other areas of hard standing that would appear previously developed would actually qualify for the discount. Our intention has always been to support development of sites having these kinds of features, so these regulations amend the definition to make it clear where areas of hard standing can qualify. This will better reflect the original policy intention and, hopefully, make it easier for local authorities and developers to understand which sites qualify for the discount, reducing costly and time-consuming disputes. These regulations and the updated guidance provide more information about how this change works.

We also have a small number of minor technical amendments and corrections included in the instrument, including setting clearer time periods for spot checks, clarifying levy information requirements, amending how levy update notices are constituted and clarifying processes for revised levy determinations, refunds, reviews and appeals. We will keep the rates and processes under review and we will report at least every three years. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, first, I wish to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, to her new role. I look forward to working with her; I am sure that we will agree on some occasions, maybe more than most. Let me say right from the beginning that we Liberal Democrats accept the technical changes in this SI, because in effect that is what they are. The amendments are sensible, practical and entirely necessary to prevent any chaos following the levy’s coming into force in October.

The positive changes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has referred are important to remove the loophole of previously developed land. Developers are very good at finding loopholes, so that is important. The spot check and having a strict notification period are also important, as well as separating purpose-built student accommodation from being classed alongside residential. That is positive and we support it.

The Government have set a target of raising £3.4 billion, which is good. However, they are planning to raise this over 10 years. In the first year, the levy raises zero. In the second year, it raises—these are estimates I found from, I think, the Office for Budget Responsibility—just £55 million. By the fifth year, so in 2030-31, it will raise £395 million a year, so over the first five years it will raise just £1 billion of the £3.4 billion that it is estimated to raise. I guess there will be reasons for that, but it is unlikely to raise significant sums in the first couple of years.

Once you have in mind that that is how the funding is going to be and that it will be five years before anything significant comes into the coffers to support remediation, you say to yourself that the Grenfell Tower tragedy was nearly 10 years ago and the Government are still having to find ways of raising sufficient funds to pay for remediation on top of the £5.1 billion, I think, that they have put aside. About 50 major developers have signed up to a scheme to fund it. The Minister has just said that there is no justification for buildings to remain unsafe, but 46% of buildings have not even had work started on them.

Although the levy is important, and I accept the positive changes that are being made, the lack of urgency in all this is worrying, especially if you live as a leaseholder in one of those blighted apartments. I say “blighted” because, if you are a leaseholder waiting for flammable cladding to be removed or safety defects to be remedied, you are stuck in that flat because you cannot sell or remortgage. You are stuck. That is 10 long years, more so when this levy is coming to light.

I have some questions for the Minister. Considering that only £1 billion will be raised in the first five years, who will then fund any of the schemes that would be funded under this levy? How will they be funded? Presumably, nobody is going to say, “You can’t get on and do it because we haven’t got the money coming into the coffers just yet”. Is there any way that the Government could find to accelerate the scheme so that more funding comes in in the first five years? That would give leaseholders some hope. My next question is also about leaseholders. Despite the Government’s best efforts, which I support, some of them are still finding that freeholders and management companies are putting some of the costs on to service charges. How can the Government get the message out to leaseholders that that is not right and that they can go to First-tier Tribunals to challenge it?

I have said all along in this terrible situation that the one group of people who are completely innocent is the leaseholders. They do not even own the bricks and mortar; they lease the space in between the bricks and mortar. They should not be paying anything. Anything that the Government can do to protect them further would be welcome. Having said that, I support what is in the statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government are on track to build fewer homes than the previous Conservative Government, despite their election promise of 1.5 million homes. We do not want additional taxes and regulations on developments to the extent that they slow down development on brownfield land by making sites unviable. I appreciate that this is a balancing act, but it is a concern that we have. I would appreciate the Minister’s response on that balance.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their very kind and welcoming comments. It is interesting to reflect on how long we have been working together. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I go back, I think, to the last century.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes, probably.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to be in this position, and I very much look forward to working with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I stress “with” rather than “against”, because I think we come from a strong, shared commitment to all things local government—in particular, serving the people in our communities that we have variously represented. There are some tough times ahead, but I will do my best to address the concerns raised today. Dialogue will be ongoing, of course, particularly given the different legislation that is proposed; that will give us a real opportunity to go into much greater detail than we can probably do today.

Let me respond to the concerns from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about the money, which is, of course, a crucial issue. To reiterate, the Government are committed to remediating buildings as quickly as possible. I have to say that the launch of the levy, which will come in in October, will not affect the pace of remediation. The Treasury has agreed that the necessary expenditure can be made in advance of receipts from the building safety levy rather than slowing remediation to match the profile of the levy receipts. Of course, the Government will report on levy receipts and remediation expenditure in the annual trust statement. I hope that gives the reassurance that the noble Baroness has been looking for.

The remediation of unsafe cladding Bill will deliver on the manifesto commitments to address the pace of the remediation work. Most importantly, it will ensure that those responsible for the building safety crisis pay towards fixing the problem they have caused. We all know that there is further work to do on this. I am grateful for the collaboration that we have had so far from some developers, but I also recognise that there are other avenues to pursue, as encouraged by those developers. We have to make sure that we take on the most reluctant landlords; in particular, we must make sure that they take action and that, if they do not, they face severe sanctions.

I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. This is interesting because I first started working on this when I was in Opposition, going back to 2022, and some of the comments that were brought up today have been a feature throughout. I reassure the noble Lord that we have worked closely with stakeholders and industry to minimise the impact on housing supply. The building industry as a whole is balancing the need to raise the revenue required to make homes safe, and those responsible show a clear recognition that this is an important dynamic on which we need to keep moving to achieve our manifesto commitments. As the noble Lord said, they are ambitious, but there is the will to do it, and the Secretary of State is committed to working on all fronts to move this forward.

The NPPF definition is specifically designed to inform planning policy, whereas the levy regulations set out criteria for developments and local authorities to apply on a site-by-site basis to ascertain qualification for a tax discount. We need to make sure that we do not merge these facts together. The 75% is designed to approximate the NPPF definition for tax purposes. All these matters have been looked at and that will continue to be the case as we move forward. We have a strong ambition around affordable housing running alongside our ambition around remediation. I hope both noble Lords will welcome the importance that we are giving this issue to help take us forward.

To recap, the building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of historic building safety issues, particularly without further burdening residents and leaseholders. The amending regulations laid before the Committee are designed to support this work and make the levy work more efficiently and in accordance with our initial intention to support the redevelopment of existing sites. They are intended to correct drafting and to improve the clarity and consistency of process for developers and local authorities, rather than to alter the underlying policy design of the levy.

To further reassure the noble Lord, consultation with local authorities has been intense. We have made sure that the extra duties funding is in place, helping them to come forward. I am very pleased with the response so far from local authorities, as it is critical that we have that relationship with them so that they can fulfil their responsibilities in this space. As well as the government contribution to funding, we all accept that the development industry must contribute to our work to make buildings safe for those who live in them.

To repeat, the Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes this Parliament to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and unlock growth. This must work in parallel with our commitment to remedying the building safety features of the past. I repeat that we expect developers to make a full contribution to the overall costs of making buildings safe, reflecting the wider benefit they derive from a well-functioning market and the substantial funding and support the Government have already provided and continue to provide for the housing market. With those comments, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we start debate on the first group, I rise to remind the House of the rules on declaring interests. Noble Lords should declare any relevant financial interest the first time they speak at each stage of a Bill. This means that, in Committee, relevant financial interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. Thereafter, the declaration does not need to be repeated in Committee. Declarations should be specific and brief. Members should briefly indicate the nature of their financial interest and not simply refer to their entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.

Amendment 1

Moved by

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, this week Transparency International published its global index on corruption. The UK has dropped to its lowest ever score and now is more corrupt than Estonia, Hong Kong, Uruguay, Japan, Ireland and Australia. The main reason is that political parties and too many legislators are available for hire to corporations and the super-rich. Of course, corporations and the super-rich do not donate; they invest and expect a return. The grateful politicians oblige by organising threatening issues off the political agenda, feather-duster regulatory systems, tax perks to the rich, crony contracts, VIP lanes, honours and even peerages. This skulduggery happens behind a wall of organised secrecy.

In the 2023 OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index, the UK was ranked 25th. It is now less open and transparent than Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden—what a state of affairs. In the year before the 2024 general election, companies handed £42 million to political parties and individual legislators. The Conservatives accepted £15 million from Phoenix Partnership, which is wholly owned by Frank Hester, even though he said that MP Diane Abbott made him “want to hate all black women” and that she “should be shot”. Since 2016, Hester’s company has received £591 million from public contracts. Labour received £4.7 million from Quadrature Capital, a company controlled from the Cayman Islands. Not so long ago, Elon Musk promised £100 million to Reform UK to secure his ideological objectives.

The Electoral Commission does not know the origins of money used as political donations. Any person on the electoral register can pass money, whether from Elon Musk or the Mafia, as political donations. No one knows where foreign-resident UK voters get their money from. Even if the Electoral Commission could investigate, it will not get access to foreign bank accounts and cannot follow the money trail, so there is no way of stopping any foreign money. Companies registered in the UK can hand money to parties, but this does not have to come from their trade or profits in the UK. Even if that requirement were introduced, it could not be effectively implemented. Profits can be manufactured through intragroup transactions and aggressive accounting. In any case, small companies that frequently front these donations on behalf of the rich do not publish meaningful accounts because of the obsession with deregulation.

Greater transparency is considered to be good, but that alone will not end political corruption because political parties remain for sale to the highest bidder. The biggest casualty of political donations and corruption is confidence in the institutions of government. In the 2024 general election, the voter turnout was 59.9%, and people say to me, “It doesn’t matter who we vote for. Corporations and the super-rich always win because they fund parties and legislators”. Policy-makers eagerly meeting donors rarely show the same enthusiasm for meeting the homeless, the hungry, the less fortunate and the poor, who seem to be written out of the system altogether.

Normal people cannot fund political parties or buy suits and glasses for Ministers and they are on the receiving end of some terrible policies. More than 120,000 people die every year from fuel poverty, but Governments do not curb profiteering or upset the interests of corporations and the rich. By design, the poorest 20% pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the richest 20%. Some 300,000 people die every year while awaiting a hospital appointment, sacrificed to the so-called fiscal rules.

Abraham Lincoln associated democracy with government of the people, by the people and for the people. Such an ideal cannot be achieved as long as big money can buy political parties and legislators and subvert public choices. We need to end the direct funding of political parties by corporations, trade unions and the rich. I have already argued that it is impossible to keep foreign money out of politics. Corporations can be used, and have been used, to circumvent constraints. Some want to put an upper limit on corporate and personal donations; of course, only corporations and the rich will still be able to fund parties and the corruption we suffer from will continue. Normal people cannot compete in this kind of arms race. In a country where 24 million people live below the minimum living standards, handing more of their income to political parties is simply not possible at all.

The press release issued last night on the Representation of the People Bill suggests that the Government will tweak the system, but that tweaking will not end the political corruption. It will not stop the rich and corporations buying the political system. We need a fundamental rethink. My proposal is this: no limits on political donations on any legal or natural person, but no political party may directly receive a penny from them. All the money should go into what I call a fund for democracy, then that money should be shared in accordance with political parties’ share of the vote and membership. Parties producing good policies will get a bigger share. On realising that they cannot buy the political system, corporations and the rich will inevitably stop political donations. At that point, we can discuss the alternatives, including possible state funding of parties.

Finally, we cannot not have government of and for the people without ending direct political donations. Will any party rise to the challenge and rid us of inbuilt political corruption?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, Members may have noticed that the clock is not working at the moment. I ask noble Lords to stick to their time limit of three minutes—I will wave when their time is up—because we need to make sure that we have time for the Minister’s response.

NHS Industrial Action

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effects of upcoming industrial action in the NHS.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, strikes are disruptive and costly. The strikes in July cost around £240 million. Thanks to the heroic efforts of other NHS staff during the recent November strikes, the NHS was able to maintain 95% of planned care, while still maintaining critical services. I urge the BMA to reconsider its plans for more damaging strikes before Christmas, and to work with the Government to improve the working lives of resident doctors and to rebuild the NHS in partnership.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and also pay tribute to those hard-working doctors who kept going, despite the feeling for industrial action by many in the BMA. The timing of the BMA’s announcement is surely no coincidence. Is it not the case that last week’s Budget, which displayed the Chancellor’s readiness to increase the burden on taxpayers in order to fund public spending, will have sent a clear signal to the BMA that there is scope for it to squeeze even more money out of the Treasury than it did last year, with the 29% pay rise that was awarded? Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm the Government’s position? Do they agree that a further massive pay rise for resident doctors at this time is completely unaffordable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Quite frankly, I do not think any Secretary of State could have been clearer in his repeated words that he cannot increase the pay of resident doctors. They have received an average pay rise of 28.9% compared with three years ago: the highest settlement in the public sector. His door is open to discuss conditions, deal with the bureaucracy that they face and improve the conditions for resident doctors. The Secretary of State could not have been any stronger than he has been about his intentions on this.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, in light of that, have the Government learned the lesson that giving resident doctors a nearly 30% increase in future, when pay increases come, should be linked to reform, not just a blank cheque?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The reform plan for change has been very clear from the outset of this Government. There has been a clear recognition that things need to change, which has driven the efforts to do everything possible to improve conditions both for the workforce and for those in receipt of care. It has not been good enough; we have a huge job to do to improve the NHS, to make it fit for purpose and to continue to deliver excellent care for people up and down the country.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, the fundamental issue here is that many previously professional organisations now seem intent on acting not as trade unions but as parodies of the trade unions of the 1950s. Underlying that are the appallingly low turnouts in the election for executives; they are normally in single figures. What are the Ministers in this department, and others, doing to try to win the battle for hearts and minds, to increase turnout to get more representative leadership?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I agree that it is essential that we move forward to modernise industrial relations, which is exactly what this Government are doing. We know that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay, but we have to move to a situation where there is more communication, negotiation and space for collaboration in order to deliver our objectives and take people with us.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, during the doctors’ strike in 2023, I was left to die, with untreated gallstones and sepsis, in an NHS hospital. The only thing they offered me during that time was, “Do not resuscitate”. I am here today only because my friends and family managed to get me transferred to a private hospital for emergency surgery, just in time. I thank all of them for everything they did. But I know that, sadly, many others would not be able to do that, so when will enough be enough and what will the Government do to ensure that doctors fulfil their duty to patients? They exist only to do that and to serve.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am very sorry to hear of the noble Baroness’s unfortunate experience and pleased to see her back on the Benches, fighting her corner. This is absolutely the backbone of what this Government intend to do. We knew when we came into government that standards had slipped. The pressures on medical staff have been enormous and it is our job to transform the service. That is what we have put in place.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to the excellent question from the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, but I was astounded by the Minister’s answer. I think I heard correctly that she talked about modernising the trade union regime. In the Employment Rights Bill, the Government are going to make it easier—less difficult—for trade unions to call strikes on a lower turnout. That is going to make the situation worse, not better.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We beg to differ completely with the noble Lord. We believe our Employment Rights Bill is the way forward. It will improve industrial relations and make sure that we have workplaces that are fit for purpose as we move forward through this century.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend tell us what proportion of resident doctors are taking action and what are the consequences for individuals when they do? You hear stories of individuals deciding to take a long weekend and in practice it is leave rather than anything else.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I have the figures in front of me. The data we have received reported an average of 17,200 resident doctors absent from work in each of the November rounds, which is slightly higher than the 16,200 average during the last set of strikes in July. Resident doctors make up about 50% of the workforce of around 150,000 NHS doctors in England. I think that gives a pretty clear sense. Of course, our sympathies go to all the other doctors, medical staff and other staff in hospitals who performed so admirably during those strikes. We will continue to support them and make sure that they can deliver for the patients in their care.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave an interesting report, repeated here, and we had a 40-minute debate. The Chancellor had four objectives, one of which was to reduce waiting lists, not to increase anybody’s pay. Doctors going on strike will increase waiting lists. What will the Government do, knowing that the Chancellor cannot, under her fiscal rules, spend unbudgeted expenditure? Who will persuade the doctors that theirs is a lost cause?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble and right reverend Lord is right that communication and talking are critical. That is why the Secretary of State has repeatedly made it clear that the door is open to have those conversations, recognising the challenges that doctors have faced, whether that is bottlenecks in training or money being taken out by compulsory payments for joining the Royal College of Physicians, and all those things. As we have heard, our absolute priority is to reduce waiting lists, putting the patient at the centre of the NHS. That is the mission we are on, and we are determined to deliver it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

As the Minister will be aware, pay is only one part of what I understand the resident doctors are looking for. As I understand it, they are actually quite senior doctors—registrars, one step below consultants—often in their late 20s or early 30s, looking to form relationships, start families and put down roots. Yet they are given security of tenure of only something like six to 10 months in each posting. That is not acceptable to give them a sense of permanency and value. The Government need to look at this as a matter of urgency. Will they?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness and I have discussed this in another forum in this House. It is critical that we work with those doctors to find out what their priorities are and how we can work with them to give them more security and to make sure that the training posts are available. I am pleased to say that consultation is on offer around all these points. We have to move forward; the door is open, and we want to discuss how we can make improvements to the contracts.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, obviously, it goes without saying that the industrial action just before Christmas is completely unacceptable, but I would be remiss not to observe that at the time that the 28.9% pay award was made, the Health Secretary attributed problems of industrial relations with resident doctors to the former Government, rather than recognising that it is an ongoing problem. That is a matter of record. I ask the Minister: what estimate is the department making of the impact on other aspects of the NHS, particularly elective operations and primary care, of this completely unreasonable and uncalled-for industrial action?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

As I said earlier, we have done some analysis of the strikes that took place in July, and we are working on the data for November. Obviously, we will take the learning from that through to how we deal with the strikes. I repeat that everyone in the health service has stepped up to the plate to make sure that the impact on patients is as low as possible. We will not shy away from the fact that we think strikes in the week running up to Christmas are completely unacceptable, and I am pleased to say that we have the leadership in the Department of Health from the Secretary of State, who has made his views on this exceptionally plain.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that under the last Government, the health service was wrecked, and doctors’ salaries were controlled to such a level that they fell behind previous years? We have made a substantial increase in pay; should that not mean that doctors think we are committed to the NHS and that they should help us to deliver our aims and objectives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My noble friend puts his finger right on it. The facts speak for themselves, and I make no apology for repeating that resident doctors have had the highest pay award of the entire public sector this year: an average of 28.9% compared with three years ago. That is an enormous commitment. It is a recognition of the work they have done and of the fact that their situation had slipped behind. We call upon them now to get round the table and work it out, recognising that there is not more pay on the table at the moment but that there are other ways we can work together to improve their conditions and to make sure that we can all start delivering at full strength.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, in response to the previous question from the Benches opposite, I refer the noble Lord, Lord Watts, to a programme on Radio 4 this morning, which made it clear that, since 2015, junior doctors have had sufficient pay rises compared with other parts of the public sector—whether or not that is fair is another matter. Can the Minister tell the House how much the Government have saved on pension contributions that we will not be making to pensions forgone by the strike, as well as on employers’ contributions in relation to holiday pay? If she does not have those figures to hand, I would be grateful if she could write to me and put a copy of the letter in the Library.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord has pre-empted my answer: I am very happy to write to him to give him the details he requested.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Like everyone else, I think that this strike is unacceptable. Nevertheless, instead of consultation, would it not be possible for the Government to organise extra jobs with the NHS? That is one of the problems that I gather the resident doctors are so concerned about.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The initial offer would have increased the number of training places by 1,000 over three years. The offer has since gone up to 2,000. We recognise that there are shortfalls—it is very patchy and there are differences between departments—which is why we need to have detailed consultations to make sure that the vacancies are in the places that need them. I absolutely agree that we need to increase the number of places available for those doctors.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

I just remind the Committee of the normal time limits for speaking.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

They are advisory only.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, taking this Bill through your Lordships’ House has been somewhat of a challenge, but I am delighted to see the finishing post coming up—for this House anyway—until it wends its way back to the Commons and the final hurdle under the sure guidance of the honourable Lady, the Member for Bath. I am grateful to everyone who has worked so hard to bring the Bill to this stage, which has necessitated a great deal of pragmatism and compromise on all sides, not least by the Minister.

The Bill will not return to the Commons as it was when it first arrived in your Lordships’ House but, in essence, it will still protect workers from sexual harassment and it will impose a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to ensure that their employees are protected. Sexual harassment and assault in the workplace, particularly on women at all levels—even, we learn today, on female surgeons—are rife. The Bill will go some way towards rectifying this. We need a change of workplace culture, and this Bill will make a good start.

I thank all Members who have participated in the Bill, including the Minister, the officers of the Government Equalities Office and my legislative adviser, Mohamed-Ali Souidi. The EHRC has also given us excellent advice and will be charged with enforcing the new duty and helping and advising employers. On behalf of the EHRC, I ask the Minister to ensure that the necessary resources are made available to enable it to do this work. An Act is just a piece of paper until and unless it is properly enforced—in this case, that will be no small job. I look forward with great relief to now waving the Bill goodbye for its final stages in the other place.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I express my sincere thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for all the work she has put in, and thank the Minister for her support in the passage of this Bill through the House. The Bill represents an excellent step in the right direction. Clearly, we still have much to do. I also echo the sentiments and hope that the Government will move forward on this and will provide the necessary resources to make sure that all the provisions can be fully implemented.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for her work in taking this important Bill through the House. The noble Baroness has been patient and has shown great pragmatism—I think we have used that word a few times—in the progression of this Bill to help tackle workplace harassment. It is an honour to be here to confirm the Government’s ongoing support. We believe it is important that everyone feels safe and able to thrive in the workplace.

The noble Baroness asked me how the EHRC will enforce the new duty—that is important. The EHRC’s regulatory approach for any new duty will include producing a statutory code of practice based on its current technical guidance in the area and a mechanism for employees and employee representatives to be able to notify the EHRC of breaches and potential breaches of the preventative duty. It will also be able to use powers under the Equality Act 2006 to undertake strategic litigation, investigation and enforcement activity to target systematic non-compliance with the preventative duty, in accordance with the litigation and enforcement policy. On how that will be funded, I will write to the noble Baroness.

The Bill will help the Government to deliver their commitment to introduce the employer duty as part of the violence against women and girls strategy. The employer duty will send a strong signal to employers that they need to take action to prioritise prevention of sexual harassment and, ultimately, to improve workplace practices and culture. I thank all noble Lords and organisations who raised important issues in the debates and discussions throughout the Bill’s progression through the House. I believe this Bill now strikes the right balance between protecting free speech and tackling harassment. While there has been much debate and amendments have been made to the Bill, I think we can all agree that workers should feel safe and be free from sexual harassment in the workplace. Therefore, I hope the Bill can progress with the full support of the House today.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for bringing this Private Member’s Bill to this place. I pay tribute to colleagues in the other place for their involvement, particularly in the debate that took place. I state from the outset our disappointment that the Bill is necessary at this moment in time. It reintroduces provisions made by the last Labour Government under the Equality Act 2010 that were removed by the coalition Government in 2013, who justified it by stating that the protections imposed an unnecessary burden on business. Surely, protecting people from harassment, especially in the workplace, should be seen never as a burden but as a responsibility. It is pleasing that, nine years later, there has been a change of heart by the Government, but concern remains about the length of time that has elapsed since 2019, when consultation on strengthening protections against harassment in the workplace was launched.

It is important to restate the scale of what we are facing. This needs to be listened to, heard and repeated on all occasions. Workplace sexual harassment is experienced by a minimum of 40% of women. Currently, the law on workplace sexual harassment is enforced only by individual women taking cases forward and there is no duty on employers to take preventive steps, but we know that this is not working. Some 79% of women do not report their experiences. The reforms in the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill ensure that more employees are protected and that more employers take responsible steps to prevent harassment.

At a minimum, as I said, 40% of women in the workforce experience sexual harassment over the course of their careers. Different women experience different rates and forms of harassment. Women and men of colour report even higher rates of sexual harassment. Seven in 10 disabled women and 68% of LGBTQ+ workers have experienced workplace harassment. Occupations where workers are exposed to male third parties—customers, clients or patients—also carry a higher risk for women who work in them. Some 56% of women working in the hospitality industry have experienced sexual harassment, as have 47% of those working in the services industries. In 2017 a survey showed that up to 18% of those who had experienced workplace sexual harassment said that the perpetrator was a client or customer.

Sexual harassment causes a variety of harms, including psychological, physical and economic. Morally and legally, employers should be required to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment occurring. Disrespectful and abusive workplaces also have lower performance and productivity, and increased staff turnover.

What do we need to change? It is highlighted in the Bill. We have mentioned third-party harassment; we are trying to seek ways to make sure that staff members who face these problems have legal protection. The extent to which women who work in client-facing roles are unprotected by current laws was highlighted, as we heard, in the highly publicised Presidents Club scandal. The women who faced violations of their dignity in that case would not have had recourse to the law as it currently stands.

As I said, this was briefly on the statute book from 2010 to 2013 but was removed because the Government at the time believed that protection was present elsewhere in the law. However, following a subsequent court case, the Government now accept that there is a gap in the law. As I think we have heard, data from the House of Commons Library using the Government’s own survey indicates that 1.5 million people experience sexual harassment from a third party each year.

On the preventive duty, as I said, despite the protections in existing law, workplace sexual harassment is widespread. It is underreported for many reasons, including fear of repercussion, lack of awareness regarding rights, and fear of not being taken seriously. I am afraid to say that those fears are well founded. The EHRC found that in nearly half the cases where employees made a report, the employer took no action, minimised the incident or placed the responsibility on the employee to avoid the harasser.

Our current laws on sexual harassment mean that employers are not required to be proactive and take action to drive the necessary change. This also leaves managers not knowing how to respond appropriately. Only 45% of managers feel supported by their organisation when reports are made to them. Most importantly, it leaves women who have encountered traumatic experiences unsupported. We can and surely must do better.

The law needs to shift focus from redress to prevention. Currently, the question of whether employers have taken adequate steps to prevent harassment arises as a defence only if an incident of sexual harassment has already occurred. This of course means that employers are not required to take actions that prevent sexual harassment occurring. In 2018 the EHRC found that only a minority of employers had effective processes to prevent and address sexual harassment.

Over the last few years we have seen the Government make various commitments to take action. In 2021 the Government’s response to a 2019 consultation on workplace sexual harassment led them to make commitments to introduce a new preventive duty for employers, introduce more explicit protection from harassment by third parties, and consider extending time limits for Equality Act claims in the employment tribunal from three to six months. Do those commitments remain government policy? It was perplexing for us all, having had these commitments, to find no reference to them in the Queen’s Speech last year. We hope that the Bill is the mechanism through which these changes can be enacted on to the statute book.

So we are looking for answers to the issue of employer liability for third-party sexual harassment and the standalone preventive duty. As we heard earlier, at Third Reading in the other place, the Government amended the Bill so that employers will not be liable for workplace harassment, other than sexual harassment, where it arises as a result of a protected conversation. It is questionable whether this amendment is necessary. However, the implementation of a preventive duty and third-party liability is indeed a big step forward and consequently, we continue to support the Bill.

I have some questions for the Minister today. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, in her request for information on how the amendment’s impact will be monitored and what remedial action will be taken if it does indeed interfere detrimentally with the spirit of the wider reforms. The Government have indicated their commitment to the reforms, but are they still committed to extending from three months to six months the time limit for bringing to the employment tribunal all claims made under the Equality Act? Many organisations support this extension, as the current three-month limit means that pregnant women have to bring a case in the first few months after birth, and sexual harassment victims when they are still incredibly traumatised.

It goes without saying that I look forward to the Minister’s response to the matters raised today. I particularly look forward to hearing that the Government are committed to supporting the Bill.