Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

The Minister and the Secretary of State will both know that Salford has had a large number of buildings affected by the building safety crisis. That has meant years of worry about safety for residents, who have often faced eye-watering bills they cannot afford or been trapped in a home they cannot sell—all for a crisis that they did not cause.

Before I move on with my contribution, I place on record my thanks to two key organisations and individuals. The first is Salford council. In the early days after the horrors of Grenfell, it was one of the first local authorities to act fast and think later in removing dangerous cladding from its council properties. It faced years of legal wranglings trying to recoup the costs from the developers, but it did the right thing and made sure that residents’ safety came first.

Secondly, I place on record my special thanks to two special individuals: Darren Matthews and Mandy Sandhu. They were the first residents to come to me about the building safety crisis and a building called Transport House. They led an amazing campaign when they were faced with eye-watering bills of £97,000 each to pay for building safety remediation in their building. They secured the costs that they needed to carry out the remediations from the developers and the Building Safety Fund, and they acted as an inspiration to many other campaign organisations across Salford—and there were many.

It is welcome to see the Government seeking to fill many of the apparent gaps in the Building Safety Act 2022. However, I will mention a few points that I hope the Minister and the Government will take forward as the Bill progresses through the House. First, on continued delays at the Building Safety Regulator, I know that the Government have introduced a plan to speed up applications, but in many cases it is not yet working. One building in Salford, Quebec Building, has faced significant delays. One resident there told me:

“Our mortgage interest is now 8.9%. Our provider refuses us a new product until remediations are done. We cannot sell as ‘non qualifying leaseholders’ as the status carries on for new owners which might mean liability for payment for some remediations. I am 65 years old and wanting to enjoy retirement and my husband has uncurable cancer and the stress is not helping. We just cannot sustain all this.”

I implore the Minister and the Government to review, as a priority, what the blockages are at the Building Safety Regulator and ensure that it is properly staffed and resourced to tackle the backlog.

Secondly, Salford has had huge issues with non-cladding-related fire safety defects, from non-compliant wooden balconies all the way through to insufficient internal fire doors. Residents have been left wrangling with developers in a David and Goliath-style legal battle, with the cost of temporary fire safety provisions ramping up service charges year on year and huge insurance bills to boot. Many have ultimately been forced to foot the bill for remediation themselves, which is simply unjust. The issue had already been raised in 2025 by the National Fire Chiefs Council, but the Bill still excludes non-cladding fire safety defects, so that must be addressed. I welcome the comments made by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, as they suggest that the issue is on her radar. I look forward to seeing the details on that work going forward, and perhaps the Minister will divulge a little more detail in her summing up.

Thirdly, though the Bill places legal requirements on building owners and responsible entities, developers signed up to the developer remediation contract are exempt. I know why: because the Government assume that being part of the DRC is a sufficient carrot. Yet it is worrying, given that we know that the auditing of assessments at DRC buildings is very thin on the ground in practice, and as End Our Cladding Scandal notes, there is a raft of conclusions

“based on assumption rather than test evidence.”

Worse still, we know that enforcement is weak. Property Week has already stated:

“developer-led remediation continues to progress too slowly, with only 10% of projects complete and nearly 60% still awaiting agreed scopes of work.”

Put simply, ruling out developers from the new remediation duty in the Bill but imposing it on resident-controlled entities sadly highlights just how skewed and unfair the system still is. That is a crucial issue that I hope the Government will look at getting right.

It cannot be right to continue to place significant burdens on the shoulders of volunteer leaseholders, especially in buildings owned by leaseholders, which were ruled out of the leaseholder protections. The Bill makes no mention of protecting them at the moment, nor does it close gaps affecting non-qualifying leaseholders, shared owners and buildings below 11 metres. Those people are left fending for themselves. Again, the Secretary of State highlighted that she seeks to address those things, and I look forward to seeing the detail in due course.

I will briefly make a final point on the wider issue of the capacity of fire authorities to respond to high-rise blazes. In 2025, I wrote to the Government to highlight significant understaffing, often due to poor pay, which was having an impact on the recruitment and retention of firefighters. That has resulted in situations where vehicles are sometimes sent out without a full complement of five firefighters riding, where vehicles are deployed elsewhere to compensate for equipment or staffing gaps, or where vehicles simply cannot be deployed at all due to there not being enough staff to crew or repair them.

Salford’s firefighters and appliances are frequently directed to surrounding boroughs to tackle high-rise blazes because there are not enough fire vehicles available at that time. That results in fewer firefighters on the ground in the early stages of an incident in Salford, which greatly increases the risks for everyone involved. At this time of year, with bonfire night approaching, the situation becomes more acute.

I had three asks of Government in 2025, and I repeat them again today. First, they should co-ordinate with the Chancellor—we have the Budget tomorrow, so they will have to get in quick—to reverse the cuts and invest in the future of fire and rescue services with additional central Government funding. Secondly, they should urgently bring forward the plan to reintroduce national standards to remove the postcode lottery of incident responses and hold fire chiefs accountable. Lastly, they should give firefighters a fair say through a new advisory body that includes trade union representation, and powers and resourcing to investigate fires of special interest.

The Bill is very welcome, and it is definitely a good starting place for identifying the gaps, but there is a long way to go. I hope that we will now have a collective and collegiate conversation about how we can get the final version of the Bill spot on.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

In Salford, around 3,500 applicants are on the housing waiting list, with 1,335 children living in temporary accommodation. Across England, more than 1.3 million households are waiting for a social home, but at the current rate of delivery, Shelter estimates that it would take 119 years to clear the waiting lists.

The crisis did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable. We did not suddenly discover that council housing did not work; previous Governments sold it off. They stopped building it, cut the funding and hollowed out the housing departments that had given local government the skills, capacity and ability to build at scale. In their place, we became increasingly dependent on a private housing market whose primary purpose has always been to generate returns, so it is no surprise that the market did not deliver the social homes that we needed—it was never going to do that.

That is why I really welcome the measures in the Bill to protect existing social housing, particularly the reforms to right to buy, but it is only the first part of the story. We now need to build council houses at scale and to give councils the powers, funding and confidence to do it. We know it can be done, because in the greatest city on earth, Salford, we have already shown how to do it. In 2017, Paul Dennett and Salford city council established Dérive, a council-owned housing company that was created to develop land and increase the supply of council and genuinely affordable homes. The first homes were delivered in 2019, and 513 had been built by April this year, with another 700 in construction or development.

That is public ownership in practice, and it is particularly significant because much of this happened during austerity, when councils were on their knees. We used our land, our democratic mandate and our own housing company to rebuild the capacity that successive Governments had allowed to disappear, and we did it on a shoestring. Imagine what could be achieved with Government support! That is the lesson that I want the House to take from Salford: councils can acquire land, develop it and build high-quality, energy-efficient homes, but crucially, they can retain those homes as public assets for generations to come.

I very much welcome the Government’s ambition to put councils back at the heart of house building, including the £39 billion affordable housing programme and the commitment to a major expansion in council house building, but if we are serious about delivering that ambition, we need to see the detail that will make it real—not in 10 years’ time, but now. How many of those homes will actually be owned by councils? How much funding will go directly to local authorities? Will councils have the borrowing capacity that they need to deliver, and will grant rates make genuinely social rent homes financially viable?

Finally, we have to be honest about what we mean by affordable. A home does not become affordable simply because we put the word “affordable” in front of it. For a family on a low wage, 80% of an inflated market rent can still be completely unaffordable. Social rent has to be different, because it is designed for what people can genuinely afford. We have to invest in council house building and make that a central pillar of our industrial strategy. There has been lots of talk this week about crowding in private investment, but that will happen only if the Government set the strategic direction and put the funding on the table for councils to deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

Ending Homelessness

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I thank the co-sponsors of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We start from a position where we have lost more than 260,000 social rented homes in the last decade. Even now, most so-called affordable homes are out of reach for the people who need them most. Ultimately, if we are serious about ending homelessness, we must give local authorities the power, funding and freedom to build social homes at scale.

That starts with looking at the affordable homes programme, which is sadly not enough. It too often delivers homes at supposedly affordable rents that, in many places, are anything but. Councils need grant rates high enough to deliver homes at true social rent so that ordinary families can actually afford them. While we are at it, we must lift the shackles from council borrowing and address the issues that councils face in meeting borrowing rules. From cuts to budgets, maintenance backlogs, right-to-buy losses and falling rent yields as local housing allowance fails to meet housing spend, housing revenue accounts are in a state of crisis and that must be addressed to remove barriers to borrowing.

We must also fix the planning system and rebuild council capacity. Decades of cuts have gutted planning departments and valuable experience has been lost. We must also rebuild those local housing teams and council-owned development companies that can plan for the long term and with social purpose at their core. Salford city council has led the way on that with its own model, Dérive, and that could be replicated across the country.

I know that the Minister agrees with much of that, which is why I am hopeful about her response. When we truly invest in council housing, we do not just end homelessness; we create jobs, strengthen communities, cut carbon emissions and give people a stake in their own future.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his poignant opening remarks. The White Paper has caused huge fear among many of my constituents who work here, have built lives here and have families and friendships here. They pay tax towards our public services, they volunteer and they play a huge part in our local communities. Many of those workers came here to support our economy. They were invited by UK businesses to fill key skills gaps in defence, manufacturing, transport, aerospace, health, prisons and social care, to name just a few sectors.

The White Paper introduces preferential immigration routes for what it calls high-value contributors, including a shorter qualifying period for ILR and citizenship, but it fails to define what sectors or roles actually qualify and there has not been an impact assessment on the loss of these workers to each sector. Oxford Economics found that in defence alone, in just one north-west manufacturer—BAE Systems—each skilled migrant employee contributes over £84,000 per year to the UK economy. Moreover, as well as being economically valuable, they are integral to our national security and sovereign capability.

Will the Minister provide reassurance today and outline the sectors whose workers will qualify as high-value contributors, and which sectors will be provided with an exemption? The White Paper also fails to provide any transitional protections for current skilled migrants already working here on the five-year skilled worker visa pathway to ILR. That is causing anxiety to workers and businesses alike. Again, will the Minister reassure these workers today and confirm that there will be no attempt to make retrospective changes?

Social care is another sector that would collapse without the support of skilled migrant labour, but it has endemic low pay and exploitation. I have heard at first hand harrowing stories from workers who were brought here on skilled worker visas, and have been threatened, exploited and frequently underpaid—or not paid at all—but because they are reliant on visa support from their employer, they are often forced to keep silent about these abuses or face having their visa removed.

To protect those migrant workers, in addition to the retention of the five-year route to ILR and a commitment not to apply retrospective changes, I also ask the Minister to consider sector-wide visa schemes in social care, enabling them to challenge bad employers without the threat of dismissal and removal. This extends beyond social care; there must also be greater protection for migrant workers in all sectors from exploitation and the strengthening of access to trade union rights.

Finally, the second group of constituents who are most affected in Salford—and have contacted me in great fear—are those within the Hong Kong community. Salford is home to one of the largest Hongkonger communities in the UK, and I was proud to attend their community awards recently, which awarded members of the community for their efforts in doing good for the city of Salford, from litter picks to supporting those most in need. It was clear that all these people were dedicated to giving back to the society and economy that embraced them. Many came as part of the BNO visa scheme set up in recognition of the UK’s historic and moral commitments to the people of Hong Kong. Many were British citizens prior to 1997, and they maintain British nationality via the BNO passport.

I am sure the Minister will agree that the fear that is caused within this community is unnecessary. I hope that today he can finally provide reassurance that the BNO visa scheme will be exempt from the changes proposed, and provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on the other points that I have raised. I welcome him to his new position; I am sure he will do fantastically.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that we are putting significant amounts of investment into construction skills. In the spring statement, the Government announced a £600 million investment that will recruit an additional 60,000 construction workers by 2029. I am more than happy to recognise the contributions made by initiatives of the sort that she mentions in her constituency. We absolutely need skills across the built environment to meet our targets.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

9. If she will take steps through the spending review to increase social housing supply.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

In our first eight months in office, we have announced £800 million in new funding for the affordable homes programme and £2 billion as a down payment on future investment. The previous Government handed back precious cash for social and affordable homes. This Government will get those homes built. The Chancellor will set out details of new investment at the spending review.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to social and affordable housing. I know that she will be concerned by the new analysis by the National Housing Federation, which finds that local authorities in England with the most severe shortage of social housing now have waiting lists exceeding 100 years for a family-sized social home. With nearly 6,000 people on the waiting list in Salford alone, will she outline what support she will give local authorities and the social housing sector to deliver desperately needed social homes?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a housing crisis in this country, and it is felt particularly acutely by those who need social and council housing. That is why we have been absolutely clear that we want to deliver the biggest increase to social and affordable housing in a generation. We have already outlined a number of measures, including allowing councils to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts and making long-term funding settlements for rents. We have set out the investment that we have put into the sector, but we will say more at the spending review.

Disadvantaged Communities

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for her impassioned speech, which I very much associate myself with.

Salford is the 18th most deprived authority in England, and that deprivation is juxtaposed against immense growth: gleaming tower blocks, the highest productivity in Greater Manchester and 11,000 businesses—an 85% increase since 2010. So why is the growth that we have created not benefiting everyone? The Government should ask themselves that question.

Although many of the strategies the Government have outlined so far—from housing through to our employment rights programme and the neighbourhood plan—are all very welcome, the Government can take immediate measures now, while they are waiting to develop their anti-poverty strategy, to help to alleviate the suffering that many families in my constituency face. First, it is welcome that the Government have suggested they will look again at the cut to the winter fuel allowance, but the detail must be fleshed out urgently to avoid the anxiety that many pensioners face in my constituency.

On child poverty, only this week a report by Loughborough University showed that at least a quarter of children are in poverty in two thirds of areas across the UK. Experts found an extremely high correlation between child poverty and the two-child benefit limit. It is clear that the Government’s priority must be to scrap the two-child benefit cap and, ultimately, lift 470,000 children out of poverty overnight.

Thirdly, on disability poverty, although it is welcome to have programmes to assist people into work where it is possible, cutting people’s support is not the way to incentivise that. It will push 250,000 people into poverty, and I urge the Government to rethink their proposals.

Plan for Neighbourhoods

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

The elected body that will be the fundholder will be a local authority. As I have said, in only one case do the arrangements differ from those for the other councils, apart from parish and town councils. As for the boundaries, they reflect the human rather than the political geographies; there may or may not be points of alignment. The best models will have a local political as well as a local community say—I think that that balance can be found—but if there are concerns about boundaries, now is a very short moment in which that could be revisited. There is not much flexibility to change the scope completely, but if sensible tweaks can be made, we will of course have the necessary conversations.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

It is welcome that today’s plan finally delivers on the unmet promises made to communities through the last Government’s long-term plan for towns, but since the selection methodology in that plan was delivered, Pendleton in Salford has sadly lost its only leisure centre and pool to fire, which has left a community who were already starved of leisure facilities with nothing at all. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what help the Government can give Salford to ensure that this vital facility is rebuilt as a matter of urgency?

[Alex Norris]

I am very sad to hear about the fire, and I will of course be happy to have that meeting.

Local Government Finance

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and assure him that it is an issue we are acutely aware of. The disproportionate burden that drainage places on small district councils is quite a challenge. We met representatives from a number of district councils to talk about the internal drainage board levy system, and, as an interim measure—in the end, I think we do need a more fundamental review of how it is paid for—we have increased the levy grant by £2 million to £5 million, so we are beginning to get there. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely: we do need a long-term solution to that. He has my commitment that we will find a way through that as we begin the wider reforms later on.

As the Chancellor said last week, this plan will be achieved first and foremost through growth, which will be driven by empowered local leaders working in partnership with local communities and local businesses; those who have skin in the game are now on the playing field, not confined to the terraces as spectators. This new approach has to start with strong and empowered local government, because whether we are talking about raising living standards, delivering 1.5 million new homes and vital infrastructure, getting our NHS and social care system back on its feet or creating good jobs and strong communities, it all comes back to local councils delivering for local communities.

Indeed, we cannot deliver on the national renewal that working people deserve without grassroots government leading the charge, which means resetting our relationship with local leaders and rebuilding the foundations from scratch. It means ditching the slogans and gimmicks in favour of a determination to get the basics right, delivering decent local services that people can begin to rely on once more.

After 14 years of neglect and decline, that will be easier said than done, and, because of the scale of the challenge, it will take more than six months to fix. But be clear: we have changed course. The work has begun with determination and with pace. Councils of all political stripes are feeling the strain, and it will be a long, hard road to get them back to full fitness. This final settlement marks an important milestone on that journey, as we finally turn the page on chaos, austerity and 14 long years of managed decline.

In that spirit, the settlement addresses the financial crisis facing councils head on, moving away from bidding wars for wasteful competitive funding pots and towards core, stable multi-year financial settlements.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

The statement is extremely welcome. In Salford, our core spending for 2025-26 will increase by 8.7%. That is above the national average, but it is still less than the 14% we have had to increase our adult social care budget by to meet higher costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must move quickly on multi-year settlements and up-to-date assessments of councils’ funding needs?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and pay tribute to Salford for its leadership in the work it is doing in many areas of public sector reform in Salford and across Greater Manchester. In the end, if all we do is pay at the back end for a system that, frankly, is broken, we will be paying more and more every single year for a system that is delivering worse outcomes for service users. That is bad for service users and bad for taxpayers, so we must have a more fundamental response and we fully intend to do that.

The multi-year settlements are essential to ensure local leaders have the time and space to plan their budgets. But we will not stop there. We are introducing a fairer system to give councils the certainty and stability they need to go from costly crisis management to long-term prevention and the root-and-branch reform of local public services. Crucially, I can now confirm that core spending power for the sector will be more than £69 billion for 2025-26, a 6.8% cash terms increase on this year. I can confirm that, despite some very difficult choices—there have been choices and trade-offs to make, as there always are—this settlement will mean that no local authority will see a reduction in its core spending power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

14. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of section 21 evictions on levels of homelessness.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

23. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of section 21 evictions on levels of homelessness.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)]

The Department publishes official statistics on homelessness duties owed, including the number of households threatened with homelessness following service of a valid section 21 notice. We are committed to the abolition of section 21 through our landmark Renters (Reform) Bill, which will deliver a fairer private rented sector for both tenants and landlords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who I have heard campaigning on this issue a number of times. I am well aware of her concerns for her constituents. As I said, we are absolutely committed to abolishing section 21. We will bring forward the Bill as soon as we are able to do so. I would also say to her that the Mayor of London is not building enough homes. He is not building enough homes to meet the Government-assessed need for London. He is not even building homes to his own targets, so I encourage her to have a conversation with him as well.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

In Salford, from April to November last year, approximately 466 individuals presented to Salford City Council in crisis because of section 21 notices. Salford’s social housing waiting list is currently in the thousands. Private market rents are outstripping incomes and local housing allowance rates at a frighteningly exponential rate. There are no affordable homes to go to once someone is evicted from a property, so homelessness is now at acute levels in Salford. This is not just a housing crisis; this is a homelessness crisis in Salford. When are the Government going to bring back the Renters (Reform) Bill, with robust amendments finally banning section 21 evictions? What action will the Minister take to ensure that my constituents urgently have long-term secure tenancies?

[Jacob Young]

Again, I have heard the hon. Lady talk about this issue a number of times. We are absolutely committed to the abolition of section 21. I am personally committed to that. We will bring back the Bill as soon as we are able to do so.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Commons Chamber

For all those reasons, I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is now here, for the work that has been done on the Bill. It will be a big step forward in providing a much safer and more secure environment and the ability to remedy problems when they occur. Many tenants across the country would like to expect that as a right but sadly, in too many cases, it is still not provided by landlords, despite the fact that those landlords receive substantial amounts of money for the homes that they provide.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Greater Manchester and, indeed, the rest of the country was shocked and horrified by the tragic death of Awaab Ishak in Rochdale. His little lungs had been exposed to deadly damp and mould in the flat that he lived in with his family. They battled against it for a number of years, and even filed disrepair claims against the housing association. I think we are united in this House that, in one of the richest economies in the world, that should never have happened. I cannot imagine the pain and heartache that Awaab’s family must feel every single day. Today, we embark on the first step towards making sure that no family should ever have to experience what they have experienced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) cannot be with us in person owing to his ongoing treatment, but it should be noted that he has worked relentlessly with campaigners, with Government and with me and other colleagues across the House to ensure that the robust amendments needed to the legislation were made to honour Awaab’s name and ensure the health and safety of all social housing tenants.

I also thank the amazing organisations that have been the ultimate driving force of the Awaab’s law campaign: the Ishak family, their legal team, the Manchester Evening News and change.org for spearheading the campaign, and Shelter and Grenfell United for committing such energy, compassion and knowledge.

Very briefly, the campaign has four clear asks: to require social landlords to investigate the causes of damp and mould within 14 days of complaints being made, and report findings to tenants; to give social landlords seven days to begin work to repair a property where a medical professional has flagged a risk to health; to ensure bids for new social housing properties are treated as a high priority if a medical professional has recommended a move; and to mandate social landlords to provide all tenants with the information that they need, in simple English and other languages, on their rights, on how to make a complaint and on what standards they can expect.

I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and their team for speaking directly with the Ishak family, with campaigners and with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and me, and for tabling new clauses 1 and 4, which help towards those key goals. Indeed, new clause 1 provides that the Secretary of State “must make regulations” that ensure that landlords have to remedy hazards such as mould and damp in a timely fashion. Although I appreciate that the Government want to consult on the final form of those regulations, I cannot stress enough that they must include provisions, as the Awaab’s law campaign set out, to set clear minimum safety standards, clear minimum timeframes for remedying any hazards, and an urgent priority move if the property is found to be unsafe. I am confident the Secretary of State will agree those are not unreasonable requests, and I hope that he will work hard throughout the consultation process to ensure that they are reflected in the final regulations.

I also support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), which seek to strengthen new clause 1 by protecting tenants from repercussions when calling on the new obligations, and by expanding court powers. I welcome, too, that Government new clause 4 gives direction that registered social housing providers must provide their tenants with information about their rights in making complaints. That is good, but it does not specifically commit to ensuring wider language accessibility. I trust that the Secretary of State and the Minister will address that point in the regulations.

In complement to the Awaab’s law campaign, I also support new clause 6, which embodies Greater Manchester Law Centre’s calls to make social housing providers subject to freedom of information requests. Without that change, social housing providers can and have refused to be transparent about important elements of their business practices, even though they are receiving public money in rent and support.

I also support new clause 5 and Government amendment 47 which detail that social housing managers must gain professional qualifications to protect residents and raise standards in the sector. That is a commitment that many have wanted to see since the Grenfell tragedy. I also support new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for households in temporary accommodation. The new clause would enable the regulator to set standards for supported and temporary accommodation. I know that my hon. Friend will speak at length about that in due course, but it is an important change. I am a member of the all-party group, and research that the group commissioned, led by Justlife and the Shared Health Foundation, found widespread and horrific examples of the conditions in which temporary accommodation residents were forced to live. In many cases, their accommodation was not fit for human habitation but they were frightened to say anything about it because of the risk of being made homeless. That is unacceptable.

I hope that the House will support all those amendments today, continuing the productive cross-party ethos that has been embodied in the passage of the Bill. It is important to state, however, that this legislation is one small element in a national moment of reckoning on the state of rented housing in this country. Citizens Advice suggests that more than half of private renters in England are struggling with damp, mould, excessive cold or a combination of those factors. Some 1.6 million of those affected are children. Private renters do not have access to the housing ombudsman for their complaints to be investigated independently, so millions of suffering families have no voice. They are trapped in homes that will ultimately put their lives at risk. I ask the Government to urgently introduce an equivalent Awaab’s law for the private rented sector alongside an urgent, state-funded, national housing mission to build new social homes and bring existing ones up to a decent standard.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. First, I want to put on the record my role as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

New clause 7 would protect the tenancy rights of social housing tenants who have to make an emergency move from their home because they or a member of their household are threatened with violence. It would be a small change in the law, but it would make a big difference. Losing the right to a secure, affordable home is a price that no one should have to pay for being a victim of crime. Yet that is what happens to far too many people who have to make an emergency move because the police say that it is not safe for them to stay in their home.

It is what happened to my constituent Georgia, an NHS employee, who had been very happy living in her housing association home with her children for nine years. One day, neighbours told Georgia that while she was at work, there had been loud banging on her door at home. She eventually coaxed her teenage son into telling her that he had been threatened by gang members. Georgia reported that to the police who told her that the matter was extremely serious, that they thought her son’s life was now at risk and that she needed to leave her home immediately. So Georgia approached her local council who provided temporary accommodation in another borough. At that point, Georgia effectively joined the bottom of the housing waiting list.

The current priority needs system does not automatically award high priority for being a victim of a threat of violence. In the context of an intense shortage of social housing, that meant that Georgia effectively faced a wait of many years to be offered a new home comparable to the one she had been forced to leave. In the meantime, after she had been in temporary accommodation for six months, her housing association began the process of formally ending her tenancy.