Growing the UK Economy

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Select Committee member Rachel Blake.

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

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

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend. As I informed the House recently, our infrastructure strategy, which will be published in June, will for the first time align social infrastructure plans for schools, GP surgeries and other public service facilities with those for housing and economic infrastructure. For the first time, we will be making strategic decisions about the places where people live.

On the house building target—I met tenants who will be moving into new social homes in Erewash last week—we talk about 1.5 million homes and about economic growth, but in every one of those buildings is someone’s life, their opportunities and the dreams they want to fulfil. This Government are delivering on economic growth, and we are doing so because the people at the heart of all these decisions are the people we need to get the economy moving and Britain doing well in the future.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Davies]

Oh, so it was more of a heckle than an intervention, but that is very welcome too; it makes it a bit more lively for the very large audience we have today.

I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the policy of this Labour Government. Do they support holiday lets? The Environment Secretary clearly supports them and wants farmers to diversify into them, while at the same time the Treasury—yes, we announced the policy in March—clearly wants to tighten up the rules on taxation. It would be great to hear the Minister clarify that, but it seems that the answer depends on which Minister one talks to on any given day. Let us see what the answer is in this Committee, from this Minister, today.

Clause 25 also touches on a long-standing issue of whether letting constitutes a trading activity or a property business. The FHL regime created a clear distinction by deeming a letting business to be considered a trade for certain purposes. Some organisations, such as the excellent Chartered Institute of Taxation, are concerned that removing the regime removes this distinction and could open up a whole can of worms, leading to costly disputes for both the taxpayer and HMRC. Can the Minister clarify what defines a letting as a trading activity in the absence of the FHL regime, or at least commit to the publication of updated, clearer guidance for the industry on that subject? The Chartered Institute of Taxation is also seeking confirmation on the following points—

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

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

[Gareth Davies]

These sittings are long, but I did say at the beginning of my speech that we announced in March 2024 that we would bring in this same measure and that we will support it today.

I am not saying that we are against it, but I am saying two things. First, as I was saying at the beginning of my speech, the context in which the measure is being introduced is very different from the context in March 2024. The context today is that hospitality businesses across the country, but particularly in rural communities, are being hit by a series of taxes that they did not ask for, did not vote for and were told would not happen. That is the context in which we find ourselves.

Secondly, His Majesty’s official Opposition have a duty to communicate the concerns of the British public and the sectors that will be directly impacted by this measure. It is vital that His Majesty’s Opposition scrutinise whatever policies are put in front of us, with a forward look at how that will economically damage or benefit communities. As you can tell, Mr Mundell, and as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster can tell, I take a constructive tone. When we do support measures, we will say so, and when we do not, or we feel that additional scrutiny is needed, Members better believe that I will be there. That is what I am doing today. I hope that addresses the intervention from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster.

In the interests of scrutiny on behalf of the many thousands of people that will be impacted by the measure and in a context of a wider hammering through the tax system by this Labour Government, let me continue my questions on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Taxation.

First of all, I seek confirmation from the Minister that an FHL disposal must be made before 6 April 2025 in order for a qualifying replacement asset to be eligible for roll-over relief, even though the replacement asset itself can be purchased up to three years after FHL disposal. Secondly, I seek confirmation that lettings must cease altogether before 6 April 2025—not just furnished holiday lettings, but even unfurnished long-term rentals—for an FHL disposal to qualify for business asset disposal relief. Thirdly, I seek confirmation that married couples or civil partners who jointly own an FHL must make an election if they are to continue to split the income unequally, rather than reverting to the normal 50:50 rule, and make a declaration to HMRC before 6 April 2025 if this is to have effect in the 2025-26 tax year. I ask those questions constructively, on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, and if the Exchequer Secretary is not able to answer them, of course I will take a written answer by way of letter following this sitting.

In addition to the confirmation on those three points, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide reassurance that HMRC guidance has been specifically and sufficiently clear on these points, so that those affected are aware of the implications of the changes. It is important to remember that when the Government make changes and when we made changes, we were very conscious—I am sure he is too—that the public are aware. He should take all measures possible to ensure that people are aware of these changes, but I appreciate his guidance on what measures are being taken.

Finally, on the case of joint ownership—

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I am slightly confused by the hon. Lady’s response. The Liberal Democrats opposed every decision we made to get the public finances under control at the Budget, and now they say that we need to spend more on public services. Well, I am afraid they cannot have it both ways. The only way there is more money for our public services is by raising it, as we did in the Budget—decisions that the Liberal Democrats apparently oppose.

The hon. Lady says that £600 million is not worth it. That is £600 million of tangible benefits for British businesses trading overseas. I would have thought she would welcome enhanced trade and investment as a way to create more good jobs paying decent wages in St Albans and, indeed, in all our constituencies.

The hon. Lady says that we should not go to China because we need to raise difficult issues. I am not sure how she thinks we are going to raise difficult issues unless we engage with the second biggest economy in the world. Because I went to China, I was able to raise issues around human rights, forced labour, Hong Kong and Jimmy Lai and the sanctioning of parliamentarians. We cannot raise those issues unless we are in the room. I was in the room and therefore able to do just that.

Labour is the party that put £20 billion into the national health service at the Budget in October. We were able to do that because of the difficult decisions we took, including on taxation. The hon. Lady seems to want the additional money for public services but without finding any way to pay for them. That is the way the Conservative party got into its troubles. I am afraid the Liberal Democrats are going down exactly the same path.

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

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

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for what she has just said. On behalf of the whole House, I want to send our best wishes to the family of Jimmy Lai at this difficult time. I had the opportunity to raise this as well as other issues during my time in China, and it is incredibly important that at every opportunity we have, we raise some of the difficult issues and challenge the Chinese authorities in a way that is appropriate and consistent with our British values.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Joe Morris]

As the hon. Lady well knows, when one inherits a difficult context, one has to take decisions that one did not want to take. The public understand that the NICs rise was important and was needed because of the circumstances that we inherited and to repair the black hole that we found in the public finances. Spending the national overdraft three times and not telling anyone about it is what has fundamentally undermined public trust.

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

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. The hon. Lady has every opportunity to contribute to this debate if she so wishes. Interventions are getting longer and longer; they must be shorter.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Rachel Blake Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

There appears to be a glaring omission on the part of the Government: without a thriving private sector, there is no public sector to fund at all. I wish that Labour would acknowledge that much more vehemently and clearly than it appears to.

The Government talk a lot about public services and how the proposals they have put forward in the Budget will support a thriving public sector, but we do not hear about the public sector needing to deliver much more, in terms of productivity gains. If we keep throwing money into public services without a serious plan for structural reform, we fail every single stakeholder—the taxpayer, and, if we are talking about the NHS, the patient and the doctor.

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

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

[Bradley Thomas]

I think the hon. Lady misses the point that I am making. If we are to have a thriving, sustainable set of public services, it is not just a case of funding them; we need structural reform, so that we can deliver the best-quality services at the point of need. Take the NHS as an example. It is fundamentally different from how it was at its inception. People live longer and suffer from different illnesses. It is incumbent on Government, the whole of the public sector and this Parliament to focus on how money is spent to deliver value for money for everyone involved.

A few weeks ago, the Chancellor said that businesses that were concerned about the impact of proposals in this Budget should “cut their cloth accordingly”. Well, the same should apply to Government. Every single one of us should challenge Government to spend our money much more effectively. Once we do that, the tax burden will come down, and when that happens, we can pass on those savings. It is those savings that will ultimately underpin and provide the foundation for an economy that will grow and incentivise businesses across the board.

The Government talk a lot about the climate and the context that they inherited, but they repeatedly fail to acknowledge covid—one of the biggest public finance interventions this country has seen, which took place only a few years ago.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Greg Stafford) for describing his constituency so passionately. While we may strongly disagree on the need for growth and new development in this country, we may agree more on the future of our NHS, and I look forward to working together on that ambition.

I am a proud Londoner, and like many Londoners I was not actually born here; I am delighted to share with you that I was born in Manchester and my family comes from Lancashire. In fact, for most of my childhood I was aware of only one football team—the Bolton Wanderers—but for the last 42 years London has been my home, and the chance to represent my home city is truly a special honour. I put on record my thanks to the residents of the Cities of London and Westminster for placing their trust in me as their representative.

I start by thanking Nickie Aiken for her service. She is a pioneer, as the first woman to represent the Cities of London and Westminster, and is remembered fondly by many residents. She has shown me kindness and offered her advice, for which I am grateful. I know that here and across the constituency she will be remembered for her tireless work campaigning to regulate pedicabs, and her work to end the Vagrancy Act 1824 and deliver the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I also pay tribute to my good friend Karen Buck, who represented the St John’s Wood neighbourhood wards of Abbey Road and Regent’s Park, which joined the two Cities constituency in the recent boundary review. When walking through Westminster with Karen, it is hard to find anyone in her constituency who does not know her and has not been helped by her. Through her tireless casework for tens of thousands of constituents, and her Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, Karen has made an outstanding contribution to lives in Westminster and beyond. She is a fearless representative and campaigner and a kind and wise friend. I am so grateful for her advice, and will do my very best to live up to her high standards.

From 1977 to 2001, the two Cities were represented by Peter Brooke, who is remembered for his work as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and later as the Secretary of State for National Heritage. Finally, I also remember J. S. Mill, who represented the City of Westminster from 1865 to 1868, and who in 1866 became the first person in the history of Parliament to call for women to be given the right to vote. I hope that he would be happy to see Nickie, Karen and I delivering on his pioneering work for equality here in the two Cities.

Truly, when a woman is tired of London she is tired of life. The Cities of London and Westminster are home to great cultural institutions: the national gallery, the royal opera house, the commercial centres of Oxford Street and Edgware Road, innovative start-ups alongside major international corporations, the Government here in Westminster and Whitehall, the international financial centre of the City of London, the beautiful Hyde Park, Regent’s Park and St James’s Park alongside the residential squares of Belgravia and Marylebone, and yes, Buckingham Palace.

Many Members will know the neighbourhoods of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden as places to spend a night out. In fact, tens of thousands of people live here. We have St Bartholomew’s, one of London’s oldest churches, Bevis Marks, the oldest practising synagogue in the UK, and London Central Mosque. Just minutes away from Parliament we have the Peabody estates of Westminster, the pioneering and beautifully designed Churchill Gardens and Lillington and Longmore estates, the architectural delights of the Barbican, Golden Lane and the historic communities of Petticoat Square and the Guinness estate in Portsoken ward.

All those places are home to diverse communities living side by side, but also to inequality and injustice, and the struggle to find a stable, affordable and decent home is holding people in my constituency back from meeting their potential. That struggle is holding our city and our country back from meeting our potential. Tackling the housing crisis has brought me into politics, and this debate on the King’s Speech proposals for economic growth is an important time to highlight the situation that many of my constituents face. Nearly 20 years ago, I worked at the Treasury on the Barker review of planning. It is with sadness that I note that we are still not delivering the homes we need. I am determined that this Government will deliver on our promise to build more affordable homes.

Ending no-fault evictions will bring certainty and security for the approximately 40% of households in the Cities of London and Westminster who are renting privately. Our cross-Government strategy will put Britain back on track to ending homelessness, rough sleeping and temporary accommodation, which have been rising here for years and are harming so many. I am grateful to organisations such as The Passage and The Connection here in the two Cities for doing so much to support vulnerable people. The Cities of London and Westminster has one of the highest proportions of leasehold homes in the country. Residential leasehold is trapping tenants with unaccountable landlords, and I am pleased the Government have pledged a leasehold and commonhold reform Bill.

It is characteristic of such an international place that global patterns affect our local communities. The rise of short-term letting and the risk of dirty money in property are contributing to a loss of homes for Londoners, and as their representative here I am determined to tackle that. I will be standing up for our local hospital and St Mary’s in Paddington, and continuing our campaign to secure funding for the redevelopment of London’s major trauma centre.

The story of the two Cities is one that is optimistic, outward-looking, hard-working and driven. I hope to continue to represent this place in that fashion. I am the first Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament to ever represent this historic constituency, and I join colleagues in closing with a pledge to approach this new Parliament with a renewed commitment to respectful debate and disagreement. Elections are a time to make a choice. Now that a decision has been made, it is time to move forward with a relentless focus on public service and delivery.