Rachel Blake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  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 interned 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.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. I share the anguish and profound distress of my constituents over the conflict in Gaza. Many of them have friends and family in the region; they are living with that torment every day. The Minister will have seen hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens marching for a release of the hostages and for a ceasefire. What are the UK Government doing to support those citizens and the Opposition parties in Israel, who are being so let down?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Yuille, in terms of your analysis of why there is a higher rate of investment in the UK from international funds than UK funds, do you think that the direction of the Bill will address those causes? Rob Yuille: I am not sure there is, first of all. Canadian and Australian schemes have a big presence here, but I am not sure that they invest more, especially compared with our bigger schemes or in percentage terms. But will the Bill help that? Yes, it will. Driving scale and consolidation, which was happening anyway but which the Bill will accelerate, will open up different types of investment opportunities for those firms. They will be more likely to have in-house asset capability and bargaining power to invest in those kinds of assets. One caveat, however, is that they will be able to invest globally—the same as Canadians and Australians—so it is not a given that they will invest more in the UK. The UK still needs to work hard to be an attractive place to invest.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can I follow up, then?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, so that is the one specific measure. Jack Jones: Yes, that is the one specific one. More generally, I think there should be guidance that makes it clear to trustees that they have to weigh up the benefits to members, or to make sure that any kind of surplus extraction benefits members through improved benefits, rather than just through improving the company or returning money to the sponsor in some way, which they may or may not then use to do things that would give the member more security in various ways as an employee. Those are the two areas.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I also wish to declare such an interest.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to go back to member and trustee transparency around surplus flexibility. Could you be more specific on what preparations and possible changes would be needed to give that confidence to trustees and members about any surplus flexibility? Jack Jones: Like I said, I think the one specific measure is not allowing surplus extraction where you have a sole corporate trustee.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My understanding is that there is broad industry support. You have alluded to it in terms of recognising the direction and the purpose of the mandate. So there does not seem to be that much difference between those years, is my observation. Zoe Alexander: I think the trustees we have spoken to, of the schemes in our membership, would disagree. It is a significant point to them, which they have asked us to pass on.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to probe the suggestion that the mandation sunset clause should come back from 2035. You alluded to your rationale for that, but can you expand on the argument about what difference that could make? Zoe Alexander: If you put yourself in the position of pension scheme trustees, having the presence of the reserve power, which may or may not be exercised, to direct the way that you invest does not necessarily feel like a comfortable position to be in. We understand why the Government are taking that power. We understand the imperative to get more investment in the UK and we support that. Clearly, the longer the power abides on the statute book, the longer there is that risk hanging over those trustees. They may be required to invest in particular ways. We do not know where we will be politically in 2035. We do not know what Government will be in place. It pushes us potentially into another Government, another Parliament—it is the unpredictability. So we did talk with many of our members about this, and had lively debates about whether it should be 2030, 2032 or 2035. There was a really strong consensus around bringing it forward to 2032. We do not want it too early because it might pre-empt a decision that need not be taken. But 2035 felt too far away.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you foresee any risks or additional challenges to the regulator in overseeing some of those decisions that might be made by trustees on surplus flexibility? Jack Jones: It sounds plausible, but we have not really looked at that yet. However, that is certainly something that we can do, and we will look at including that in our written submission.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you very much for your evidence and your considered responses. There has been a discussion about the £12 billion surplus. Have you done any research on what you estimate would be the extent of the cost of RIPA—the scheme that you have promoted? Roger Sainsbury: That is a very timely question, because for the past couple of years, we have been working on the basis that the RIPA scheme would cost £5.5 billion. That was the estimate given to us by the PPF. Now—I might almost say hallelujah!—about three days ago, the PPF notified us that they had redone the calculation using a much superior methodology. I think it is a phenomenally difficult calculation to do, but they have redone it, and the answer now is not £5.5 billion, but £3.9 billion, or possibly a bit less. Whereas for two years we have been arguing that £5.5 billion is eminently affordable, £3.5 billion, for example, is obviously even more affordable. We do not get that much good news, but that was definitely a bit of good news we recently received. I am pleased to be able to share it with you, if you did not know it.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I used to be on a local government pensions committee, so I bring some of that experience to this question. The Bill talks about the merging of funds and what benefits that could have for savers and members, but it does not talk that much about administration. What impacts do you think that might have on local government pension administration—either positive benefits, or what risks you foresee that perhaps the Committee should consider? Rachel Elwell: The primary focus of the Bill is the consolidation of the assets in pools, but there are provisions, particularly when we see some of the wider things that are happening in policy such as local government reorganisation, where that might lead to closer working between funds and potentially merger. I am fortunate enough—I think Roger Phillips mentioned this earlier—that Tyne and Wear and Northumberland are part of the Border to Coast pool, so I was there and living that experience with them personally. They were working very hard together, with very joined-up thinking and close relationships, and it was still fairly hard work. I suppose from that perspective, like any merger of entities, it comes down to relationships and people. Administration in the LGPS is complex, and many funds have been facing recruitment challenges. What we are seeing already is funds working closely together. For example, again within Border to Coast, Tyne and Wear has recently taken on the administration for Teesside, bringing it in-house. It was previously an outsourced arrangement. There are benefits from that, but it needs to be done very carefully and thoughtfully—it is not something we should rush at.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You said that it is a very complicated calculation. How much confidence is there in that calculation? What input has there been from your members and part of your group on the confidence of that calculation? Roger Sainsbury: We would not have any ability to do that calculation at all. It all depends on the statistics held by the PPF of the age of all the members, the amount they have all been receiving and so on. It is way beyond us to make that calculation. Terry Monk: I worked with FAS before FAS even came about—at the conception, rather than the birth, of FAS. The PPF and I have worked closely with them for over 20 years. I have immense trust and faith in what they do, how they do it, and what they deliver. Whenever we ask them for help, they give it to us as far as they are able. Roger Sainsbury: I would support that. The PPF have been very helpful and I have had a good working relationship with them. I have to say, that was not always so—about three years ago, it looked as if we would be fighting a continual battle against them, but over time we have got to a really good working relationship, and they have been very helpful. In a question of challenging or doubting their ability to do this sort of calculation, when you look at the asset returns that they are getting, boy, they have got some people that know how to handle numbers, haven’t they?

• 17 Jul 2025 · RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this important debate. Last November, I visited war memorials across the Cities of London and Westminster. From Paddington and Marylebone stations to St Paul’s cathedral, we honoured all those who fought and made such great sacrifices during both world wars. I am honoured to meet veterans regularly in my constituency and to talk with them about their service. Now is a good time to reflect on the importance of memorials. I am a descendant of two second world war veterans. One of my grandfathers fought in the artillery in Burma and the other was part of the Italian army. They fought, made huge physical, mental and emotional sacrifices, and suffered for our freedom. This debate is an opportunity to think about those who put themselves in a different kind of danger—those in the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. Others have spoken eloquently this afternoon about the huge risks that they took in their expeditions. I want to pay particular tribute to Flight Officer James Downie, born on St George Street in Mayfair, who died on a mission to the Romagne region of France and is commemorated there with a memorial constructed by local residents; Sergeant James Jacobs, who was killed in a propeller accident at just 21 years old; Flight Lieutenant Basil Allen, from Hanover Square; Wing Commander Denis Bennett, born near Hanover Square; Flight Lieutenant Frederick Effort; Flight Officer Noel Henkel; Flight Lieutenant Anthony Oldworth; Squadron Leader John Saffery; Flight Lieutenant Denis Speares; Flight Lieutenant David Wycliffe; Sergeant Robin Vigiers; Flight Sergeant Malcolm Westcott; and Flight Lieutenant Ian Barraclough, all of whom served in the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. I am really proud to represent so many people who have such an important connection to the unit. I am proud to support the memorial by St James’s Park and I am grateful that it has the Government’s support.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

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

• 16 Jul 2025 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

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

• 14 Jul 2025 · High Streets · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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