Danny Beales MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak in this evening’s debate on the Armed Forces Bill, which shows that this Labour Government put our forces and veterans and their families first. In the light of recent international events and increasing global instability, we have an almost daily reminder, when we turn on our televisions screens, that our brave men and women are the first port of call and our last line of defence in times of conflict and instability, so it is entirely right that as we increase our investment in equipment and defence facilities, we also invest in our No. 1 military asset: our defence personnel. We should also be clear, in the light of the recent reprehensible comments from President Trump, that UK and other NATO country military personnel have always been there when called upon. They are the best and bravest among us, and they continue to put their lives on the line for our collective security in the west. I am proud of them and I know this House is proud of them. The Bill is part of our re-commitment to them not just in words, but in action. Uxbridge and South Ruislip has a proud and long military history and connection. It was a key base from which we fought and won the battle of Britain, and today it is part of our present and future armed forces capabilities. It is home to RAF Northolt and the nearby Northwood Headquarters military base, and it has a significant military community. I welcome the creation of a new, publicly owned Defence Housing Service, backed by a £9 billion armed forces housing strategy to build, renew and repair thousands of military homes. In Uxbridge and South Ruislip we have 518 military family homes, which is the fifth-largest military housing stock of any UK constituency. Having spoken to many families over recent years, and having seen at first hand the conditions they have to live in, I find it shocking that their experience of military housing often falls far below what we in this House would all expect for our own homes. Damp, mould, disrepair, cracks in walls big enough to put your hands in—it is truly shameful. I am therefore particularly pleased that through this Bill the Government are delivering on their commitment to reverse decades of under-investment and to end the scandal of poor-quality military housing. Although there is light at the end of the tunnel for military families living in forces accommodation, it is deeply shameful that we ever got to this place. The Conservatives left defence housing in an absolute mess. In 2023, satisfaction with service family accommodation hit a record low, with one in five service personnel satisfied with repairs and maintenance. Only now, under a Labour Government and with a deal negotiated in the first six months of office, have nearly 36 forces family homes been bought back into public ownership and we are rightly improving their condition. As a result, nine in 10 military homes will be modernised and upgraded with new higher standards, lifting the living standards of hundreds of families in my constituency. We saw that change start to bear fruit towards the end of last year, and I was pleased to welcome the Secretary of State to view 100 properties being modernised in my constituency, with new doors, windows, decoration, kitchens and other improvements. It was an absolute privilege to see that work take effect. I hope that the new housing service will have a broader remit than just bricks and mortar; I hope it will also be about investing in the places where these homes exist, in play facilities for children and in utilities, such as fibre-optic broadband, which are often missing in our defence personnel housing. I welcome the Bill and the improvement to existing homes, as well as the commitment to better use under-utilised land to generate capital receipts to reinvest and provide much-needed homes for local people. I hope the Minister will confirm that the new housing that is delivered will also be given as first preference to military and former military personnel. Our cadets, reservists, and armed forces personnel and their families are absolutely vital to our national security. I strongly support the progress of the Bill, so that we honour our commitment to them that they will have the pay, conditions, homes and equipment that they need to continue to perform their vital role.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Wealdstone FC is a fantastic, fan-led club in my constituency, but it is again facing an uncertain future because of protracted negotiations over the lease of their current ground. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that the landowner engages in good faith with the club, and will she meet me to discuss how we can give the club the stability and security off the pitch that they need to succeed on it?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I am just a bit confused. The hon. Member suggests that drop-off charges are the responsibility of this Government. At Heathrow, the charge is £7, but it was £6 during the 14 years of the last Government, so proportionally—following his argument—90%, or whatever the maths says it is, of the cost came from the last Government and only 10% from this Government. I do not exactly follow the logic of his argument.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate for airport communities. Residents in my constituency know very well the impacts of airports, with Heathrow on our doorstep. The recent decision to increase the drop-off charge at Heathrow from £6 to £7 has been met with increasing frustration. Another issue mentioned in respect of the impact of airports on nearby villages is displacement. All too often, significant numbers of vehicles park in and around the Heathrow drop-off zone. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were here, he would vividly describe the impact on Heathrow villages of the antisocial parking of people who are avoiding drop-off charges. In my constituency, given the nearby bus routes and the Elizabeth line connection at West Drayton, people are clearly getting around drop-off charges by parking in and around airport communities, causing a huge amount of frustration and nuisance. That has led to local authorities, such as Hillingdon and many others, introducing controlled parking zones, which charge residents significant amounts to park in their own streets to avoid the impacts. Even then, CPZs are only as good as the enforcement. We have a massive issue with parking enforcement, particularly out of hours, at evenings and weekends. People park in streets and neighbourhoods, often blocking residents’ drives, and there is no enforcement activity. There is also a significant increase in unregulated car parks popping up on private land, where people sell parking at competitive and preferential rates, leading to significant impacts on local communities. I agree that airport charges could support alternatives that discourage people from driving to the airport, along with the related impacts, but all too often we do not see the investment following the charges. In Heathrow’s case, the transport funds that the airport hold are unspent, and a large amount of investment has not been put back into improving local bus routes. Bus connections from my community to Heathrow are incredibly poor, both for airport visitors and for staff, who have to take indirect routes to get there by bus, on infrequent services and undercapacity routes. The smaller, infrequent buses make it difficult for people with luggage to travel. With the introduction of the Elizabeth line, we have seen a really positive improvement in transport connections, but it is ultimately the taxpayer who has led investment on that route. There is concern and frustration that as Heathrow potentially expands—a lot more will be said on that should proposals come forward—it will again be the taxpayer who continues to fund public transport options, rather than Heathrow airport making an adequate contribution. As has been said, self-employed people who work for Uber, and other app-based drivers to the airport, have reported feeling increasingly squeezed by the increasing charges. They are struggling to make ends meet given the cost of living crisis and the increasing charges that they and their customers have to bear. They feel under-engaged and under-consulted by the airports; as important stakeholders, they clearly should be engaged and consulted. I hope that the Minister, in considering the many issues raised today, will also consider the role that could be played by better guidance and regulation on charges. In particular, will he look at the options for making it clear that the funds raised through such mechanisms must be spent on alternatives to driving to the airport? There has to be transparency about the funds raised and how they are spent because, as many Members have said, it is very hard to get that information out of the airports. There should be a duty and responsibility on airport authorities to collaborate on issues like transport displacement with the local authorities in which they are based. Lastly, there should be real clarity in the design and communication of any measures. Like others, I recently drove to the airport to pick up a friend who had missed the last train and drop him off at a different tube line. It was incredibly difficult to work out exactly what is and is not within the drop-off charge zone, and where the ANPR cameras are and where they are not. The signage and communication are incredibly poor, both before and after the journey to the airport. I hope the Minister will consider those points and ensure that if drop-off charges are to continue, they work for local residents and the surrounding communities.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  Last week was the seven-year anniversary of the death of one of my constituents’ sons, Kieran Patel. Unfortunately, the House has not given me time to do justice to his story. His mother Manjo was in touch with me last week and shared the horrific experience of the loss of her much-loved and talented son, who was a medical student at Southampton University. We have heard many horrific stories of potential that has been cut short today. Manjo and other family members left behind would like to know that the action that the Minister is outlining will take place with urgency. The Minister has pointed to a number of previous reviews, debates and discussions. Can he confirm that the Government are seriously looking at a statutory duty and all possible levers to ensure that no parent has to experience a tragic loss like Manjo’s again?