Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Debate between Janet Daby and Angela Rayner

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is right to highlight the devastating impact on communities. The Bill will I hope go some way towards doing the things he wants to see for his constituents. Anyone who has deliberately failed to mitigate or remediate buildings that are over 11 metres will face tougher consequences as a result of the Bill, including fines of up to £500,000 and, where needed, criminal prosecution.

Since we launched the national identification drive to understand the scale of the problem, over 200,000 building records have been reviewed. That is significantly improving our understanding of the affected building stock and enabling remediation activity to be targeted more effectively. To drive the pace of remediation work, we also gave social housing providers equal access to Government funding schemes for the first time.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the work she has been doing on dangerous cladding remediation. Some constituents of mine have been able to benefit from the remediation work for buildings under 11 metres, but could she say a bit more about when funding will become available? My constituents are still waiting on the release of funding for work that needs to take place.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Hopefully, as we go through the Bill she will see how we are changing the emphasis in particular to ensure that the buildings most at risk will be remediated first. As I said, we have given social housing providers access to Government funding schemes for the first time, investing over £1 billion to ensure that the most vulnerable residents have safe homes. We have also ended the binary approach to remediation funding based on building height.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

We are trying to ensure that those who are responsible will be part of that. We know that manufacturers and so on have been using routes to try to get out of paying their fair share and doing what they need to do. This remediation Bill is about closing some of the gaps we see. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as the Bill goes through the House.

We have also ensured that social housing providers have ambitious targets for the completion of all remediation work for which they are responsible. The data is clear that the action is working: since we published the remediation acceleration plan, remediation has been reported to be completed on over 470 more buildings. That is about 35,000 more residents who can at least feel safer in their homes.

[Janet Daby]

May I press the Secretary of State a little further? In my constituency, there is a block of flats under 11 metres that has already been recognised as a priority, but the challenge is the release of that funding. Will she arrange to meet me or agree to look at that further?

[Angela Rayner]

My officials will have heard that call, and I or the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who is in her place, will be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) about residents paying for costly waking watch patrols, we have provided an additional £62 million for fire alarms in buildings with defects. That will keep residents safe until remediation work is completed and save leaseholders about £280 a month.

We are also taking action on insurance. We will introduce secondary legislation to do two things: strengthen transparency and bring the insurance commissions ban into force. The ban will stop people—including freeholders and property managing agents—from passing those commissions on to leaseholders. That will end the incentive for unscrupulous landlords and agents to seek out unearned profits and simply pass the cost on to innocent leaseholders.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Janet Daby and Angela Rayner

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member makes a crucial point, which I was trying to make to the Minister: on non-strike days, minimum service levels do not apply at the moment. Many of the people providing our public services are absolutely screaming at the Government, “We need more people working in those services. We are having record vacancies. We are having people leave the profession because of the mismanagement by this Conservative Government.” Take our fire and rescue services: how does the closure of 80 fire stations across the UK keep the public and our brave firefighters safe? Take our precious NHS: how does having 7.3 million patients left on waiting lists keep people safe? And take our overstretched schools: how do record teacher vacancies keep our children safe?

[Janet Daby]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion, published on 21 February, red-rated the Government’s impact assessment for the Bill as “not fit for purpose”? Does she agree that, in fact, it is the Government who are not fit to govern?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. How will threatening key workers with the sack in the middle of an unprecedented recruitment and retention crisis do anything to provide the level of services that the public deserve?

We will also hear tonight that the Bill brings us into line with international standards, but what does the Minister have to say to the ILO’s director general who slammed down the Bill in January? The Minister did not effectively answer the questions that were put to him during his opening statement. What does he say to President Biden’s labour Secretary, who also raised concerns?

We are going to hear that the Bill is the only way to bring strikes to a close. We are now in May and there is no end in sight to the current wave of industrial action, harming the public, small businesses and, not to mention, the workers who lose a day’s pay. Might I give the Minister some friendly advice? Strikes are ended by getting round the table, not by insulting the very workers who kept the country going during the depths of the pandemic.

The Bill is one of the most sinister attacks on working people I have seen, and I speak as a trade unionist, an employer and a Member of this House. It gives Ministers the power to threaten every nurse, firefighter, health worker, rail worker or paramedic with the sack. Other Government Members wanted even more people to be in scope. I do not think they want anybody anywhere to have trade union rights in this country. This is being done at their whim. They have literally gone from clapping nurses to sacking nurses.

In the words of my noble Friend Baroness O’Grady, Lords amendment 4 is about

“the individual freedoms, dignity and livelihoods of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 2023; Vol. 829, c. 1242.]

Labour is proud to support that amendment. We ask any Government Member—there are not many of them here—who believes in the right to protection from unfair dismissal to vote with us tonight.

We also stand by the provision in Lords amendment 4 to require employers to serve work notices and to prove that individuals have received them. The Government’s proposal not only threatens workers, but burdens employers, including our overstretched public services and small businesses. That only goes to show the Bill’s complete unworkability and proves the point of all employers who have condemned it.

The Bill also represents an almighty attack on trade unions—unions made up of ordinary working men and women. We are all grown up enough to acknowledge the integral role they play in our economy and our democracy. I think we can all agree that attempts to attack their ability to represent their members is morally, economically and democratically wrong. In its original form, the Bill would require them to take “reasonable steps” to ensure compliance work with notices, without any clarity on what that means. The Government have effectively conceded the flaws in their drafting of the Bill in their concession on Lords amendment 3. That is welcome, but not enough. The Minister asks us to vote tonight for vague and unclear wording that gives us no idea of what they actually require trade unions to do. So we will vote to keep Lords amendment 5 and by extension, Lords amendments 6 and 7.

Standards in Public Life

Debate between Janet Daby and Angela Rayner

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. I have heard Ministers talking in the media in the past 24 hours about how we must draw a line and we must move on, but many people in this country cannot draw a line and cannot move on while this Prime Minister is in office, because it triggers what they experienced and the trauma that their families faced during the crisis.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech. Does she agree that the Prime Minister’s rule breaking is absolutely despicable and that he should be tendering his resignation instead of weakening the ministerial code?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. There is an important point here, because I have heard Ministers in the media saying that we have to move on and that there are important issues that we have to face. But while the Labour party has been putting forward proposals for dealing with the cost of living crisis, bringing down NHS waiting lists, as Labour did in government, and looking at the transport chaos in which this Government have left us, the Government have not been dealing with the issues that matter to the people. They have been running around the Prime Minister trying save his neck and justify an unjustifiable example of lawbreaking.

Education Funding

Debate between Janet Daby and Angela Rayner

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The current projections are that 71 of 73 schools in Lewisham face cuts, losing £8.8 million from 2015 to 2020. That equates to a loss of £257 per pupil. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is appalling?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Fantastic work is going on in our schools to educate our children, but I am sure hon. Members from across the House cannot go into a school in England today without being told that the cuts have had a detrimental effect on the work they are doing. They are doing tremendously good work, but they are facing real-terms cuts. It is important that the Secretary of State recognises the pressure his Department and the Treasury are placing on our schools.