Rebecca Long Bailey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear today that the privatisation of water was one of the biggest cons in British history. We have seen water bills rise by 44% in real terms since privatisation, rivers polluted, infrastructure deteriorate and shareholders extract to the tune of £85 billion from our water industry. Regulation has failed to fix it; we have to be honest about that. Water companies have been fined millions of pounds, but that has demonstrably failed to change their behaviour. Chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and failures by Ofwat have meant that even the limited regulatory powers available have too often gone unenforced. I am pleased that the Prime Minister understands these issues, because it is time to bring water back into public ownership. There is an economic case for doing it: Professor David Hall’s research estimates that public ownership could reduce financing costs by between £3.2 billion and £5.8 billion a year. That is money that could be invested in repairing pipes, tackling leaks, improving sewerage infrastructure, protecting our rivers and keeping bills affordable. But I must stress that public ownership has to mean much more than putting a Government sign above the door. Public control cannot mean just some sort of franchise model with the pretence of overarching Government control, or the odd token councillor sitting on a water company board. That will solve nothing. We need regional publicly owned water companies with democratic accountability and meaningful representation for workers, customers and communities. The revenues from water bills should be used to operate and improve the service, not provide returns to shareholders; investment should be planned for the long term; and environmental protection has to be at the very heart of the industry. Of course, that has a cost—we have to be honest—but we already know from research that public ownership would pay for itself within around seven years, with savings thereafter. We do not need a referendum; we need to take water back into public ownership now.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for his pertinent opening comments. He said a lot of the things that I was going to say, so I will keep my comments as brief as possible. I very much welcome the Government’s intention to tackle misinformation, but a crucial question that follows is who will decide what is trustworthy. It cannot be Ministers, and it certainly cannot be the tech giants. First off, then, I ask this Minister to consider an independent accreditation scheme based on the Press Council of Ireland model, with an independent chair and representation from journalists, the industry and civil society—protected by legislation but, crucially, independent of Government. To be clear, trustworthy news has to mean more than public service broadcasting. That is a central pillar, of course, but it must include other outlets, independent publications and freelance journalists who meet recognised standards. The Government should support prominence for trustworthy news online, but that prominence must not become de-ranking by another name for journalists who challenge those in power. Alongside regulation, education is critical, so will the Minister commit to a nationwide, properly funded media literacy programme and restore the strategic priorities grant for journalism education, as urged by the National Council for the Training of Journalists? We must have stronger duties on the platforms themselves, as we have heard from colleagues today. One option, supported by the National Union of Journalists—I am a chair of its parliamentary group—is the Cairncross review’s proposed news quality obligation. Will the Minister consider introducing stronger obligations on those technology companies that are amplifying harmful and misleading content, and will he ensure that Ofcom’s standards apply to online content, including video on demand? We know that social media is dangerously fragmenting our information environment, so it is clear that public service broadcasting matters now more than ever. The BBC and other public service broadcasters provide journalism, investigation, culture and local coverage on crucial issues in the public interest, which commercial operators often do not consider profitable. Yet sadly, at the moment, the BBC is cutting hundreds of jobs and programmes. How can we honestly claim to be strengthening our information environment while we are allowing the capacity to produce trusted journalism to be cut away? I have some key questions on which I am pretty sure the Minister is already working. Will the Government use the charter renewal process to secure sustainable funding for the BBC? Will he intervene to protect the jobs and programmes now under threat? If the Government believe, as I do, that over-75s should receive free TV licences, will they fund those licences directly, rather than making the BBC pay? Crucially, at a time when disinformation crosses borders in seconds, will the Government restore full funding to the BBC World Service? We must also address media ownership. Will the Government strengthen ownership rules and invest in local public service journalism, as proposed in the NUJ’s news recovery plan? Finally—this case has been made articulately by hon. Members in this debate—we must protect access to television. We know that Freeview reaches 99% of the population and that a premature switch to internet protocol television risks excluding older people, disabled people and rural communities with poor connectivity. Will the Minister reject any Freeview switch-off timetable until free-to-air public service broadcasting is universally accessible and free at the point of distribution? I welcome this debate and hope that the Government can address the issues raised. Getting this right means truly creating an information environment that serves our communities and democracy, not a wild west that serves whoever has the biggest algorithm, the deepest pockets or the loudest voice.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s comments about regional growth and the active state are music to my ears, but rather than simply picking winners or de-risking private investment, how will she ensure that we get detailed local industrial strategies that build our domestic productive capacity and supply chains?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker—a fellow Virgo. I very much welcome the clarity in the Lord Chancellor’s statement, but on the issue of additional prison capacity, the Prison Officers’ Association has already raised extreme concerns about understaffing, under-resourcing, risk of extreme violence and overcrowding. What reassurances can he give today that additional resources will be provided to operate the extra spaces safely?

• 8 Jul 2026 · NHS Corridor Care · Hansard source

  More

  Let me first offer huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her brilliant speech, and for the work that she does most weeks and about which, in my opinion, she does not speak loudly enough. My mum has been rushed to A&E twice in the last two months, and I have been with her. The paramedics were amazing and the hospital staff were amazing, but nothing prepared me for what I witnessed: trolley after trolley backed up along corridors as hospital staff and family members visiting patients in A&E walked hurriedly up and down, trying to cause as little disruption as they possibly could. I saw staff trying to pull a curtain across halfway down the corridor to provide some semblance of dignity for vulnerable patients who were trying to use bedpans, but it was futile, given the number of people walking up and down. It was harrowing. I can only describe it as something that one would see in a war zone rather than in modern Britain. When I asked the staff, “Is it always like this?” they said, “Yes. It comes and goes when it gets busy. It gets worse at weekends. But ultimately we do not have enough beds, and we do not have enough staff to be able to cope with this level of pressure.” I heard similar stories from my constituents, but I will give the House just one today. An 80-year-old who attended A&E with his frail wife spent 15 hours there, eight in a wheelchair and the rest on a trolley in a corridor. This is not just a symptom of winter pressures; it is the visible sign of a healthcare system that has been stretched beyond breaking point by years of political decisions. For years we saw hospital beds disappear, staff vacancies grow, social care neglected, community health services hollowed out, and local authority budgets slashed, and the consequences were entirely predictable. Now we see patients who are well enough to leave hospital but have nowhere to go, emergency departments overflowing with wait times that no sick person should ever have to endure, and people being treated in places that were never designed to deliver healthcare. No one should pretend that this can be fixed overnight, but if we are honest, we know that we have to act fast. Emergency departments are still operating beyond safe capacity, and people remain stuck in hospital because social care, community services, mental health support and general practice still do not have the necessary capacity. If we want to end corridor care, we must deal with its root causes, not just the consequences, because it does not just begin when someone arrives at A&E; it begins when they cannot get a GP appointment, when mental health support is not there, when local authorities cannot provide a care package. It begins when care cannot happen at home. Community nurses who should be visiting vulnerable patients regularly cannot do so, because they are stretched beyond breaking point. There is a lot of talk about virtual wards providing hospital-grade care at home. That sounds brilliant, but the fact is that the system does not have the staff capacity to deliver it, so we need a properly funded long-term workforce plan that delivers fair pay, expands education and apprenticeships, improves retention, ensures that we have safe staffing standards, and gives frontline staff a real voice in how services are designed. It also means finally delivering a national care service that brings care back under public ownership and control, that delivers a universal entitlement to care based on need, not ability to pay, and that is publicly accountable, properly funded and built around people’s needs, not the fragmented marketised provision that we see at the moment. It also means investing in community nursing, neighbourhood health teams, rehabilitation services and mental health, so that fewer people reach crisis and more people can leave hospital safely when they are ready. It means taking prevention seriously too, because every £1 spent on improving housing, reducing child poverty, cleaning up our air, and supporting healthier communities strengthens public health and saves many more pounds further down the line. Our NHS was founded on a simple principle—healthcare should be based on need, not the ability to pay—and corridor care betrays that principle. We need to see our Government restore the promise that when someone is at their most vulnerable, our national health service will be there for them—not in a corridor or on a trolley, but with the compassion, privacy and care that every person deserves.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On the issue of nuclear testing veterans, the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), confirmed in March this year that in 2014 both the MOD and Government legal advisers were made aware of a previously undisclosed fallout report, showing radiation across inhabited areas of Christmas Island—crucially, in the main camp where British personnel lived and worked. Can the Minister confirm what work has been done to establish why that evidence was not disclosed in legal proceedings, and whether Ministers were informed at the time?