House Building: London

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr French]

I am going to make a bit of progress, because I have been up and down quite a lot, and I am not fit enough to keep doing it.

Under this Labour Government, more and more first-time buyers are unable to afford a home, and they are the primary market for new builds in London. Over 3,700 new homes are sitting unsold. This is not a market where developers will build more. The Labour Government were wrong to slash first-time buyers’ stamp duty relief, costing first-time buyers up to £11,250 more in taxes. That is why the Conservatives’ plan to abolish stamp duty is the right one, and the Labour Government must rule out further market-suppressing tax rises.

Developers also face excessive policy costs—section 106 payments, community infrastructure levy payments, mayoral community infrastructure levy payments, carbon offset levies, biodiversity net gain requirements and the new building safety levy. The collective cost of those demands makes it too expensive to build. To make matters worse, on top of the burdensome London plan, the well-intentioned post-Grenfell Building Safety Regulator is now delaying building in the capital. It has rejected 70% of building safety designs, and some completed projects have had to wait 18 months for approval before people can move in.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I have listened carefully to his analysis of the problem—I have waited to hear the full analysis—and I would be grateful for some reflection on why the deregulatory proposals he is making were not brought forward under the previous Government when there was clearly an opportunity to do so.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the argument the hon. Lady is trying to make, and I am about to come on to some suggestions to hopefully help the Government.

The mayor has had strategic planning powers in the capital for nine years, and he was awarded £9 billion of affordable homes money by the previous Government. We have to be clear about where blame in the capital lies.

[Rachel Blake]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s argument about strategic planning, but I believe every Member present, including myself, has substantial experience in bringing forward new genuinely affordable homes. We all know that it requires finance and real delivery focus, particularly in local authorities. Can the hon. Gentleman reflect on his time in local government and how many genuinely affordable council homes were brought forward in that period? Obviously, the ability to deliver from a council setting is a key part of solving this important challenge for London.

[Mr French]

Again, I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. I have already outlined the Bexley position in response to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), so I do not need to go back into that—Bexley has been delivering affordable homes.

What can be done now? I am afraid that the recent measures announced by the Government and the Mayor of London—without consulting London’s 32 boroughs—to unlock house building are too little, and potentially too late. They will give developers only temporary, targeted relief from the community infrastructure levy on brownfield sites, but not from the more expensive mayoral levy. The changes to the affordable homes targets do not go far enough; at 35%, demand is still placed on industrial and public land, acting as a blocker on these sites that could host thousands of homes. While a temporary fast-track route for homes that provide 20% affordable housing is welcome, it is a minor amendment to a system that has ultimately failed.

More concerning are the proposals to give the Mayor of London the power to call-in applications for 50 homes or more and for developments on green belt and metropolitan open land. It is undemocratic to withdraw planning powers from local communities. It will backfire, eroding the little remaining public trust in the Greater London Authority, and it will confirm to outer Londoners that Labour’s plan is not to unlock building on well-connected brownfield sites, but to concrete over our precious remaining countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I commend the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). Although we probably disagree on both the analysis and the solutions, I recognise his passion for his constituency and his concern about the issue in London.

In Cities of London and Westminster, which I am proud to represent, we recognise the appalling cost of temporary accommodation. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, it costs £5 million every day. The eye-watering average price of a home in my area is nearly £1 million. Given the average prices that the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about, we are looking at average private monthly rents of £3,221, so the housing crisis is felt acutely right here in the very centre of London.

We have heard powerful contributions about why this issue matters so much, but I want to reflect on the drivers of this debate: the green belt, greenfield land, the brown belt, the grey belt and brownfield land. Only 6.7% of the green belt is in an area that can be developed for housing. In fact, since 2013, just 0.2% of green-belt land has been brought forward. In London, 99.6% of development takes place on brownfield land. That reflects the London that we all know and love, and is one of the real positives of strategic planning in our great city.

However, we face challenging circumstances in converting planning applications into permissions, and permissions into starts on site. We have heard some really compelling contributions about that. We need to focus on stability in the sector, which is critical for ensuring development and delivery. We must recognise the important role of the £39 billion that the Government put into genuinely affordable homes. We need a stable rent-setting system that will enable councils and housing associations to plan, and a stable economy with interest rates going down so that people can have confidence that they will be able to get on to the housing ladder.

I will now focus my remarks on buy-backs. I welcome the contribution from my very respected hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) on how effective buy-backs can be in solving inner London’s very particular housing crisis. I commend Westminster city council for investing £20 million in buying back 45 former council flats earlier this year. This is something that we can do immediately. We have a short, medium and long-term challenge in recognising London’s and the UK’s housing crisis. Ifirmly believe that this Government, together with the Greater London Authority’s right to buy-back programme, can enable 1,200 homes to be brought into council ownership, and that will make a tangible difference to lives this week, this month and in the years going into the future.

The new programme brought forward by the Greater London Authority, the council homes acquisition programme, is aimed at helping local authorities to buy back 10,000 homes within just the next few years, and that can be supplemented with local authority housing funds. It is a really effective and immediate means of providing people with the home that they deserve and bringing down our temporary accommodation costs. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on the conversations he is having on that very topic, the immediate temporary accommodation crisis that we face in London, and how together we might move forward by investing in current council homes to tackle that issue.

Ending Homelessness

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for her tireless work on the APPG, and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his work on this topic. It was hard to disagree with much of what he said in his speech, which is testament to the cross-party commitment on this issue and the growing political consensus that ending homelessness really is possible.

It is a source of great shame that the centre of our capital is also the centre of homelessness. Last year, there were 2,612 people living on the streets in the City of Westminster, and 878 in the City of London. Last year, Westminster city council spent £95 million on temporary accommodation costs, and the City of Westminster’s costs have gone up by 50%.

I believe that we can tackle the causes of homelessness and that this Government are tackling the causes of homelessness. We are ending no-fault eviction and supporting vulnerable people, and I welcome the additional £2.35 million the Government have invested in homelessness services in Westminster, such as The Passage, St Mungo’s, King George’s Hostel, the Single Homeless Project and St Martin-in-the-Fields. We are bringing forward solutions, and we can prevent homelessness, but I ask the Minister to consider the impact of the local connection test and the cost for local authorities and homeless families.

Ending homelessness is the right thing to do. We cannot accept children living in hotels, we cannot accept vulnerable people living on the streets and we cannot accept the damage that homelessness does to families, communities and our economy. We can end homelessness, and we look forward to the cross-departmental homelessness strategy and its proposals.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling this important debate, and I welcome the spirit in which it has been conducted so far: the original purpose of debating indefinite leave to remain has been respected and we have risen above the appalling and divisive rhetoric that we have heard recently in relation to the role of migration and the lives of asylum seekers.

My constituency has a long track record of welcoming migrants and refugees. The historic neighbourhoods of the City of London, Soho, Fitzrovia and Pimlico are just some of the villages in the very centre of London that have a long track record of welcoming people. They continue to be proud of their diverse heritage. Indeed, our country prides itself on fairness and stability in our approach to the law and to migration and asylum policy. We are a place where people come to build and rebuild their lives, and to invest in their futures. I think we are all richer for that.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank the hon. Member for her thanks. Far away from London in the highlands of Scotland, the same is true: we have refugees who have fitted in and been greatly welcomed. May I make the point to the Minister that involving the devolved institutions, such as the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, will be hugely important if we are going to make all this work?

[Rachel Blake]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution.

I want to focus my remarks on those who have BNO visas and particularly on the importance of stability in that system. I first became particularly interested in the lives of people living in Hong Kong because of my constituent, Jimmy Lai, who is currently interred in Hong Kong because he stood up for freedom and democracy. That brought me to be profoundly concerned about the importance of BNO visas.

While it is absolutely right that we should be discussing how we appropriately balance the many benefits of migration with the concerns that some people have about the current system, I do think it important that we have stability in the system and recognise that the bar to securing indefinite leave to remain is already high. I will be focusing very closely on the Home Office proposals to ensure that we are standing by those principles and the values of fairness and stability.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I wonder whether she will allow me to register a concern on behalf of those from Hong Kong who live in Harrow, many of whom are making a very significant contribution to our community and are genuinely worried about these proposals.

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks about the concerns of his constituents in Harrow.

In any forthcoming consultation, I will focus on ensuring that we stick to those values of fairness and stability. There is already a high bar for those seeking indefinite leave to remain, who came to this country expecting to comply with particular rules and will be going forward with their applications in the very near future.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes the classic statistical error of assuming that his inbox is representative of all the people in the sector. Has it not occurred to him that people who are happy in their private rented accommodation do not tend to write to their MP, saying, “Apropos of nothing, I just want to let you know that I am happy”? I have it on good authority from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—my good friend and colleague—that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) is not doing a terribly good job of championing the social rented sector in his constituency. He seeks to deny the private rented sector, while simultaneously denying people the social rented sector. I am not sure where he thinks people in his constituency should live.

The point is that the Bill is a mishmash of incoherent proposals, which, instead of being designed to improve the private rented sector, are designed to keep angsty Back Benchers happy, but Front Benchers are already starting to learn that they cannot pay political Danegeld to their Back Benchers. I give the Front-Bench team due notice: their Back Benchers will be insatiable. They will take whatever red meat they are thrown, and they will ask for more. We have already seen this, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the proposed changes to social security and disability benefits. The Front Benchers had plans, but their Back Benchers had other plans, and guess who won? Those showing courageous leadership on the turbulent Back Benches. The Government will see the same again on this issue.

The Opposition understand that a good tenure mix is good for the UK. We took measures to improve the private rented sector, but we made sure that we did it in the right order. We made sure that the courts were ready.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the success of the private rented sector. If the sector is so successful and is working so well, why have the Opposition consistently held the position—both when they were in government and, I believe, going into the election—that they would go forward with ending no-fault evictions? I am confused. I would be grateful if he could explain.

[Sir James Cleverly]

It is interesting that on the one hand, we have voices on the Front Bench saying that we did not do anything in government, while at the same time, voices on the Labour Back Benches say that we were doing something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Sir James Cleverly]

No. Perhaps Labour Members should co-ordinate their criticism.

The previous Conservative Government understood that there is a need to reform the system, but that every part of the system needs to be ready. That is why we made sure that the justice system was ready first before we started making changes to the legal frameworks, giving tenants, landlords and courts the time to adjust. However, the Labour Government have abandoned that discipline. The changes put forward by their lordships came about through careful consideration of the provisions in the Bill and their implications in real-world scenarios, not the fantasy world of many Labour Back Benchers.

The Labour Government were defeated in the other place on several important amendments. There is a pattern to the Government’s defeats: time and again, Ministers accepted a principle but when it came to taking action to deal with the principle, they fell short. I will give some examples from amendments on Report in the other place. Amendments 87 and 88 in the name of Lord Keen would raise the standard of proof for financial penalties to “beyond reasonable doubt”. The principle is clear: setting serious penalties requires having serious evidence. The noble Lord Keen made the case powerfully in the other place, yet the Government still refuse to act. In doing so they are introducing a huge degree of uncertainty for both landlords and councils, and uncertainty is toxic to the provision of homes in the sector. Making these changes will reduce the housing supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 11 and on the wider issue of pet ownership, which many other Members have spoken about. Pet ownership in rented accommodation is an issue on which I have campaigned for many years in this House. Some Members will remember the Dogs and Domestic Animals (Accommodation and Protection) Bill, otherwise known as Jasmine’s law, that I introduced to the House in 2020. It supported the principle of a pet in every home.

The British people care deeply for the welfare of animals, especially in my Romford constituency. We all understand how important animals are to the lives of human beings. As the owner of two Staffordshire bull terriers, Buster and Spike, who are sadly no longer with us, I know just how important the companionship of pets is to so many people, especially those who live on their own. Owning a dog or cat, or any kind of household pet, improves both physical and mental health, provides vital companionship and helps to tackle loneliness. In fact, pet ownership is estimated to save our NHS around £2.5 billion a year by reducing the number of GP and hospital visits.

Despite those clear benefits, housing issues remain the second most common reason for animals to be relinquished to animal shelters and sanctuaries such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which I was privileged to visit only a few weeks ago. I have had many links to that charitable organisation over the years, particularly during my time as shadow Minister for animal welfare some years ago. With growing numbers of people renting, it is absolutely essential that the Bill works in support of responsible pet ownership in rented homes, rather than putting further barriers in the way. That is why I must express my opposition to amendment 11, and any clause that makes it harder for tenants to keep pets.

The introduction of large up-front deposits will only serve to price many people out from owning pets, especially in the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is absolutely wrong that someone should be prevented from owning an animal that they love and want to be with because of this situation. The law needs changing, as I have argued for many years, including with Ministers in the previous Government, whom I had to go and see before they eventually agreed that this policy was the right one. I hope that my shadow Front-Bench colleagues will reconsider their stance. I commend the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all their comments on this issue.

What should have been a Bill to unlock pet ownership for those in millions of homes now risks excluding them altogether, entrenching the idea that pet ownership is a privilege for homeowners only—that cannot be right. I do not believe that is what the Government intended.

Earlier proposals on pet insurance—I know issues to do with that have been raised today, but they can be overcome—provided a fairer balance between the concerns of landlords and the ability of tenants to meet the costs. Insurance spreads the expense more evenly across the year, and avoids the burden of large, one-off deposits. It is disappointing that that approach appears to have been set aside by the Lords amendment.

Finally, I urge His Majesty’s Government to work closely with animal welfare charities, and the animal welfare sector in general, when developing the guidance that will accompany the Bill. I speak as an honorary member of the Kennel Club—perhaps I should have declared that at the start—and a supporter of the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats home, and of course Cats Protection; it is important always to remember our cats. We need a clear definition of what constitutes unreasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse a tenant’s request for a pet. That clarity will help landlords and tenants alike, and avoid unnecessary disputes ending up before the ombudsman or courts. Jasmine’s law has always been about the simple belief that people should not have to choose between a home and a beloved companion. We must not let the Bill, through the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 11, undermine that vital principle.

[Rachel Blake]

I wish to speak against Lords amendments 58 to 62, which expand eviction grounds, and Lords amendment 27. I also wish briefly to revisit the core principles of the Bill, which are: ending no-fault eviction, and providing stability, not just for individuals but for the private rented sector; introducing a private renters’ database and an ombudsman, to restore rights to private renters, as well as transparency, so that they understand their tenancy in more detail; and to establish Awaab’s law in the sector. Those are vital interventions in the private rented sector, which we know is diverse, and it is important that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible. All of us, on both sides of the Chamber, will recognise the impact that uncertainty on the issue has had on the private rented sector for a number of years.

I have to say that it was pretty unedifying to listen to the Opposition reneging on their previous commitments to ending no-fault eviction. The first commitment from the Conservatives to ending no-fault evictions was in 2019—I think that was about four Conservative Prime Ministers ago, but I have given up counting. I understand that the shadow Housing Secretary might not remember the position that the previous Prime Minister took on the issue, but this provision cannot come into law soon enough. The number of private rented sector no-fault eviction notices that my constituents receive, and the instability that they cause in the sector, are causing real harm and distress to those who live in it.

Lords amendments 58 to 62 would expand possession ground 5C, and those completely unnecessary expansions provide yet more uncertainty in the sector. They open up the risk of further additional claims, and of introducing other grounds for eviction, which undermines the overall principles of the Bill. I support my colleagues who have spoken against Lords amendment 27, which would raise the evidence bar. It is completely unrealistic to think that it would be possible to do that, not only because bidding wars and contests often take place through verbal dialogue, but because of the lack of resources available to local authorities to investigate such cases. I do not believe that the amendment is practical, or was tabled in particularly good faith. We want renters’ rights restored, and a balance between renters and landlords. I cannot stress enough the urgent need to bring forward the Bill, to give confidence to renters, all those who rely on people living in private rented accommodation, and those living and working across the UK who need the sector to be successful. I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendments, and to support the Government in getting the Bill into statute.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s move to empower tenants. For too long in this country, owning property has been seen as a way to create additional wealth, rather than the intention being to provide a safe, secure and warm home for tenants. Not all landlords are bad, but there are some bad apples out there, and all those who are unable to get on to the housing ladder, or who actively choose to rent, deserve security of tenure, and confidence that they will not be evicted at the whim of a landlord, which often means being forced to move out of the area, and uprooting children from schools.

I declare an interest, because my younger daughter has spent four years renting in London, and for the last two, she has been living in horrific, mould-covered flats. She had to move out of the last one early, because the mould crawling up the walls was so bad that it was affecting the health, and ruining the belongings, of her and her flatmates. In 2025, that is simply not acceptable. For the thousands of people living in unsuitable accommodation, we must ensure that local authorities can take action against negligent landlords. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats do not support Lords amendment 26.

I support Lords amendment 39, which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for use as service family accommodation. In my constituency of South Devon, the prestigious Britainnia royal naval college brings a large number of military families to the town of Dartmouth, some of whom live in MOD housing. Those families, who commit to a life of service—the whole family is involved when one member serves our country—deserve, at the very least, a home that is safe, comfortable, warm, energy efficient and decent. I am not sure that I agree with the security argument offered by the Minister, given that much MOD housing is located outside military bases. It is not beyond possibility to find a way to ensure that local authorities can access that housing. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for decent homes for military families, who deserve exactly the same standards and legal protection as other renters, and I urge the House to support Lords amendment 39.

Turning to pets, a friend of mine recently failed to move back to Devon because she simply could not find rented accommodation in her price bracket, and her search was severely hampered by the fact that she has a much-loved family dog. Being told that she was not eligible even to look at properties because of the dog was discriminatory, and it made a difficult search impossible. We are in an area that is short of houses available to rent. If we take the average rent in the south-west of £1,181 per month, the proposal to allow landlords to request pet damage deposits of up to three weeks’ rent equates to an additional £817 up front, which is simply out of reach for most tenants. The current rental deposit cap of five weeks’ rent is sufficient to cover any potential pet-related damage, and nobody should be priced out of pet ownership simply because they do not own their own home. I therefore do not support Lords amendment 11.

Finally, I turn to agricultural workers. Agriculture is one of the largest industries and employers in South Devon, which is a predominantly rural constituency. Many of those working on farms as dairy workers, relief milkers and tractor drivers are required to live on site, as they have to work incredibly unsocial hours, and living on site makes the job slightly more manageable. I support measures in the Bill that allow repossession when a property is required to house agricultural workers, whether they are employed or self-employed. Farmers regularly tell me how difficult it is to find housing for farm workers, with many having to rely on caravans and cabins that are not suitable for long-term living. As it is increasingly common in farming for workers to be self-employed, we must ensure that they, too, are covered by the grounds for repossession, so I support Lords amendment 55.

Strategy for Elections

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party introduced a series of changes, including on voter ID and other checks as electors register to vote. I am all too aware of the areas that need particular focus. We have retained the protections on postal voting. The hon. Gentleman is aware of a number of issues around postal votes, but I reassure him that there are laws to ensure that forgery and personation do not happen. We will retain the appropriate checks and safeguards that were introduced in the past.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

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.

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work in this area. As I mentioned, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into our politics. We are ensuring that the Electoral Commission will have the appropriate powers to support political parties, making sure that they do “know your donor” checks. Where parties fail in this area, a fine of up to £500,000 can be applied. We will apply that fine proportionately in recognition of the resource issues of smaller parties.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I cannot accept the hon. Lady’s characterisation. If we look at the history of the 2010 to 2024 Government, we can see that the pressure on local authorities, which we have heard about from across the House, was so great that we saw trading standards wither on the vine across the country. In many places, they are down to single individuals, never mind numbers in single figures. We are clear that we are rebuilding local government, and hopefully we will see lots more brilliant enforcement like we have seen in Havering.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

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?

[Alex Norris]

I entirely share my hon. Friend’s view. We want to see thriving high streets. We want to see full shops, but we want to see them trading fairly, properly and in a quality way, working well with their staff and being a good part of the community. When that is not happening, it is really important that action is taken—she raises some high-profile examples—and we of course stand ready to support local authorities in whatever way we can.

London’s National Economic Contribution

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Powell]

I thank my neighbour for his intervention. We all welcome a fair funding settlement that recognises the huge levels of regional inequality in this country, but it is correct and fair for it to be based on accurate and up-to-date data and for that data to include the very high proportion of Londoners’ incomes spent on housing, which pushes up the poverty numbers. We have some of the most deprived communities in the country, often hidden within quite wealthy boroughs, so we also need to capture the geographical areas of deprivation. I also suggest that the Government include the daytime population, because lots of commuters come in and use council services but are not necessarily captured in the census.

Temporary accommodation, as we know, costs London councils £4 million a day. Obviously, the long-term solution is to build the houses that we need, but in the short term we should not hit everyday services that people need on the back of that budget.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

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?

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to keep interventions short.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

Of course I believe that farmers know how to make best use of their land, but this Government are taking power away from farmers, whether by increasing the power to issue compulsory purchase orders for land that farmers want to use to produce food, or by reducing the money that they will get from the CPOs that the Government are advocating for. Farmers see more and more agricultural land being taken out of use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill and the measures that the Minister is bringing forward, which undermine our farmers and stop them from being able to do the job that they want to do.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will move on to another clause, because Madam Deputy Speaker probably wants me to sit down soon, as might many other Members. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I knew I would get universal acclaim eventually.

New clause 43 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Villages across our country need to be protected, and the Bill simply does not do that. It eradicates the relevance of local plans and power of local people to make decisions to protect the strategic gaps around our villages. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause, which would provide villages with protections equivalent to those provided to towns under the national planning policy framework. It is a vital measure for protecting the character, identity and heritage of England’s villages before they are lost to unchecked sprawl.

For too long, planning policy has prioritised urban growth without giving equal attention to the unique pressures faced by rural communities. New clause 43 seeks to correct that imbalance by requiring the Secretary of State to issue or update guidance that grants villages equivalent protections to those afforded to towns under the NPPF in order to safeguard villages from being swallowed up by neighbouring developments, preserve green buffers between settlements, and protect the historic fabric and rural character that define these communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for her work in bringing about the amendment, following a truly baffling planning appeal decision on green belt in her constituency. That decision would result in the merging of two settlements with completely different characters and identities, simply because one was classed as a village and one was classed as a town. Many Members will have had such problems. The Minister needs to go away and look at the protection of villages and green belt in the Bill, because it is not delivering that.

A number of amendments have been tabled that Opposition Members think would make the Bill better. New clause 82, tabled by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), relates to play areas. Many developments are not delivered with play areas, and those should be brought forward. Amendment 69, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), would require environmental delivery plans to set out a timetable for, and to report on, conservation measures, and it would require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place.

We Opposition Members believe that there need to be changes to planning policy, but the Minister has squandered a chance. He has not listened to Members who genuinely want to strengthen the Bill by making planning policy faster, while protecting our environment and enhancing the role of our locally elected councillors. As a result, he has left us unable to strengthen the Bill by working together. This is a wasted opportunity. He will not deliver his housing numbers. He will take powers away from local communities and stifle the planning process. We Opposition Members will always stand up for our locally elected councillors. It is a shame that this Government simply have not done that.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister is not currently in his place, but I say to the Government that the Bill wholly lacks any suggested power to deal with that. I ask them to take on board the case of Lutterworth East and examine why the developer was allowed to renege wholly on its commitments in a way that totally excluded the local community. There was no public consultation, because it was not an application for planning permission; it was merely a change.

[Rachel Blake]

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?

[Alberto Costa]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and I would welcome more resources going into local planning teams, but what we have here is a problem, which she may well encounter in her own constituency. Hon. Members should be very careful indeed when developers promise X, Y and Z affordable, social and accessible homes, even with legally binding section 106 agreements, because those agreements can be changed at whim when a local planning authority is put under pressure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

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?

[Chris Curtis]

Hundreds of thousands of children will wake up tomorrow morning in temporary accommodation as a consequence of this, and millions of families will continue paying some of the highest energy bills in the western world. When Russian tanks rolled into Europe, we were dangerously reliant on foreign oil and gas because our planning system consistently blocked the clean, home-grown energy generation that we so desperately need. I see some Liberal Democrat Members laughing. I note that, in many cases, it was their councils that blocked that energy infrastructure from being built.

Local Government Finances: London

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for securing this important debate. I also thank our friends and colleagues from the London local government family who are here listening to the debate. Their tireless work, day in, day out, is not unappreciated, and we are really happy to see them here today.

It has been good to listen to the cross-party support for the debate, but I was a little disappointed not to hear a bit more reflection from Opposition Members on how we got here, despite our having much shared experience as local representatives. That includes the slashing of housing investment by the previous Conservative Government and the slashing of genuinely affordable homes by the previous Conservative mayor—where is he now? Let us not forget the failed fair funding review that the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) referenced, which hung over local government for years and prevented meaningful planning.

In the last 14 years, we have seen an 173% increase in rough sleeping and a 69% increase in temporary accommodation —that is shameful—as well as rising rents and falling investment. Let us not forget that the cause lies firmly with the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill tempts me to remind us what happened in 1997. Labour halved temporary accommodation, made record investment in the condition of homes through the decent homes programme, and introduced the historic 2008-11 programme of new, genuinely affordable homes, which benefits many families now.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Blake]

No.

Let us come to the matter at hand. I would like to talk about temporary accommodation costs, special educational needs and the specific challenges of managing the visitor economy in the very centre of London.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

On the specific challenges for central London, does my hon. Friend agree that Westminster council is making the right decision to make use of the new council tax powers to implement a premium for second home owners? Will she join me in encouraging Kensington and Chelsea council to look at doing the same? That could raise £11 million a year, but is not currently the council’s position.

[Rachel Blake]

I am delighted to celebrate the work that Westminster city council does on tackling the challenges we face as a visitor economy. I am not sure how much Kensington and Chelsea council would appreciate me joining my hon. Friend’s campaign, but I certainly will, because it is for the best for the very centre of London.

Last year, Westminster city council spent £95 million on temporary accommodation, and the City of London’s temporary accommodation costs increased 52% to £1.1 million. I am very proud of the investment that Westminster city council is choosing to make to insource temporary accommodation. It is a real pioneer in that. However, we are doing it in a very challenging environment in terms of overall costs. I acknowledge the challenges that my outer London colleagues face because of the number of families moving to that area. We very much want those families to stay in the centre of London, and I hope that some of the solutions we will put forward will make sure that that happens.

On special educational needs, the number of pupils on education, health and care plans increased by 37%—from 1,035 to 1,413—between 2018 and 2024. None of those children and families deserves to have to go through such a difficult approach to securing a special educational needs plan, and every single one of them deserves the security and certainty that investment in their education will continue in the future.

I turn to the specific challenges of the very centre of London. We have higher additional street-cleaning costs, and Westminster has just invested £2 million in tackling the additional antisocial behaviour that we face. What can we do about that? The Government have made great progress, with £2 billion announced today for 18,000 new genuinely affordable homes, core spending power up by 5.3%, and multi-year settlements, which will make such a big difference. However, we can go further. Let us bring forward the short-term lets registration scheme and pilot it in Cities of London and Westminster. Let us review the formula so that it does not have to be uncertain and complex, and let us tackle the temporary accommodation crisis for good. Imagine what that would do for those families. Imagine what it would do to life chances. Imagine what it would do to public finances when we are not pouring money into a poor-quality private rented sector, but building the genuinely affordable homes that our country and our city need.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

With a time limit of two minutes, I call Danny Beales.

Political Finance Rules

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week gave me two really clear reminders about why this issue matters. First, I spoke with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) at a rally to mark the illegal invasion of Ukraine. We saw a frank reminder of authoritarianism right on our doorstep. Then, on Thursday, the Labour party lost a by-election in Vincent Square. While I do not like that result one bit, I am very proud to live in a country where a community can come together and make a decision about who represents them. We currently see more of that sort of politics in this country, with people able to go out to the polling station, but sadly we are at real risk of seeing it decline.

We cannot ignore the fact that there are forces intent on weakening our voice, our vote and our rights in the media, in business and in politics, and that they are co-ordinating to replace democratically elected regimes with those that would do their bidding. These forces are spreading conspiracy theories, which have driven division and violence in our communities. They give a platform to those who would question fundamental British values, and they undermine the democratic process as they question free and fair elections around the world. This is not a question of competition within our democracy, but of democracy itself. We need to preserve a system where the voters are the ones choosing their leaders, not billionaire autocrats. Keeping their money out of our politics is becoming a difficult task. Our finance flows are becoming more elusive, with cryptocurrency enabling money laundering at scale, and our politics has a growing demand for more cash, with ever-growing competition for voters� attention. What Member has not had to struggle with an inscrutable Ring doorbell or security gates? Understandable changes to home security and design have real impacts on our political finance, as we spend more and more money trying to reach voters through online ads and direct mail.

However, getting this money out of our politics is more important than ever at a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low. Politicians must be effective natural communicators as well as thoughtful legislators, and even the suspicion that we might not be acting in our constituents� interests will further erode the trust that voters do have in their representatives. Fixing political finance is, therefore, an essential part of restoring faith in democracy. We have already heard that a tenth of the money in our politics comes from unknown or questionable sources and is donated through loopholes in existing law. Now, we have to come to the solutions.

Enforcement is made more difficult by loopholes and a weak enforcement system: Companies House reporting rules are too loose, while the Electoral Commission lacks the independence to investigate potential breaches swiftly and thoroughly. Reporting obligations for parties, elected officials and candidates require tightening up, as they allow some individual candidates to accept money without reporting. Meanwhile, the disincentives for bad behaviour, such as fines, are set well below the level that would impact bad actors.

We need to close the loopholes around unincorporated associations, open up political parties to greater transparency and give more power to enforcement entities. We cannot take for granted that voters will always be able to speak truth to power, and we need to fight to preserve a system where British elections are decided only by British voters. The forces of foreign interference are knocking at our door, and we need our Ring doorbell more than ever.