Danny Beales MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I would say you have saved the best to last, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you can be the judge of that. My predecessor, when he was in this place, famously campaigned for a new fish and chip shop in Uxbridge. Now that he is the leader of the Conservative council, he seems to be closing the fish and chip shop that does exist in Hillingdon, along with the florist, the pharmacy, the hairdresser and the local convenience store. Local shops, whose landlord is the council, are facing a 100% rent increase, backdated for several years, all while repairs have not been done, sometimes for up to nine years. Does the Leader of the House agree that local businesses are the lifeblood of our communities and should be supported by councils? Can we have time for a debate in this place on the importance of local high streets?

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. I strongly support the provisions in the Bill to support victims of violence, who far too often have to be evicted or leave while the perpetrator stays with the tenancy, as the Minister said. Rent arrears also prevent victims from gaining a tenancy or moving out of temporary accommodation into settled accommodation. Requirements that prevent those with rent arrears from getting a new tenancy do not take into account whether someone has been a victim of domestic violence. I know that the Department is looking at consulting and guidance on that. Could the Bill be a key mechanism for changing that across the country?

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

  More

  As someone for whom a council house was a lifeline out of the cycle of homelessness, I strongly welcome this Bill and the Government’s actions outlined in it. I was homeless not because of someone born abroad, but because of decades of Government inaction, the mass sell-off of council homes without them being replaced, and the housing crisis that has developed in this country over decades. The comments made today by the Conservative party and by its spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), were absolutely shameful—people in temporary accommodation in my constituency will not be served better by the actions the Conservatives are proposing. They will be served better by the measures in this Bill. I strongly welcome the Government’s action to support victims of domestic violence. Many of us will have seen victims having to leave their accommodation instead of the perpetrators and the awful situations that result. I strongly welcome the measures on that in the Bill. As I said to the Minister earlier, I hope for action on rent arrears. Only about one fifth of local authorities specifically exclude the rent arrears provisions for victims of domestic violence. I welcome the guidance, but I encourage the Minister to outline the timeline for that guidance and how its effectiveness will be assessed. I support the measures to review shared ownership. I have been contacted by Fiona and David and so many other constituents who were sold a dream that turned into a nightmare. They have a percentage of ownership, but all the responsibility when things go wrong. I encourage the Government to make that review comprehensive and thorough. Finally, we have heard from a number of other Members about the trap of furniture poverty. I heard from Shannon, who was a victim of domestic abuse. She said: “At times, I considered returning to the abusive relationship so my daughter would have a bed to sleep in.” We have to end furniture poverty. It is not a luxury to have a bed or white goods; they are essential, and not having them traps people in a debt cycle and pushes them towards rent arrears and future homelessness. I encourage the Minister to meet me and other colleagues who are interested in ending furniture poverty to explore how the Bill could genuinely do that.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her opening remarks and for the measures in this Bill, which are broadly very welcome for passengers and for many in airport communities such as mine. To share the Secretary of State’s comments, my thoughts are also with those individuals and families who face significant disruption this week through the failure of NATS. It shows just how vital air travel is to people right across this country for business and for leisure, and the impact when it goes wrong. Although it is not directly related to the Bill, there has been lots of discussion in this debate about the incident and about the lessons that we can and should learn. At Heathrow, the major airport in my borough, we have now unfortunately got somewhat used to quite significant incidents. There was recently a grid power outage, which caused significant disruption, and there have been a number of other incidents. We clearly need to look at the resilience of our air travel system and at planning for such incidents, which are increasingly common and can cause significant and harmful disruption to businesses and individuals. I hope that there will be a thorough consideration of the issue, as the Secretary of State said there would be. The sector could learn lessons more broadly than from this instance and better resilience planning could be put into place. The Bill is welcome news for my constituents and the travellers who come through my home borough of Hillingdon. The borough has not just one airport but two: we are home to Heathrow and RAF Northolt, which has a significant and increasing civilian operation involving private flights that come under civil aviation. We are not shy of or ignorant of issues arising from civil aviation—flights, disruption and balancing some of the trade-offs and challenges that come with air travel. My constituency neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place, has already talked about some of the concerns about potential Heathrow expansion and the third runway; I am sure that the House will rightly turn its attention to those very soon. Those of us who believe in a better but not necessarily bigger Heathrow need to see measures to address the current challenges that Heathrow presents, regardless of expansion. That is why the Bill is particularly welcome. There will be much better consumer protections when things go wrong, as they sometimes inevitably will. The Bill also takes action to tackle some of the wild west behaviours and differences between the approaches of airlines and contractors; that has been mentioned when it comes to hand luggage, but there are also different, hard-to-navigate approaches when it comes to compensation and delay payments. Those who have experienced disruption will often remember having to hunt down air staff at 10 or 11 at night when the desk is closed. They have tried to find anyone who works for the airline concerned to find out what is going on and what compensation they may be able to get—only to get a £5 paper voucher for refreshments, which will buy about half a sandwich in an airport concession. I support comments from Members about looking at best practice and upping and standardising the quality of provision, as well as learning from other sectors such as rail; the automatic “delay repay” system has been mentioned. For my sins, I have recently travelled on Avanti and have had to use that quite frequently. It is a helpful tool, and there is a quick compensation turnaround. Notably, the compensation is a payment for the cash that the customer paid for the travel that they did not get. Unfortunately, far too often the disruption payments from airlines are an invitation to travel on the airline again. A voucher to travel again on easyJet when someone has not been able to travel the first time seems perverse.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Vaccination Rates: England · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered vaccination rates in England. It is an honour to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Barker. I am pleased to co-sponsor this debate alongside colleagues from the Health and Social Care Committee who are also here today. It is very easy, from the vantage point of the 21st century, to forget that about half of children used to die before the age of 15 from infection and disease. Thankfully, we now have vaccines and our routine vaccination schedule providing protection against 15 preventable infections across our lifetimes. For decades, our system was one of the best in the world. The childhood diseases that used to cause so much suffering—measles, polio and others—sound like things from history books. I am sure we all have memories of our early school-based vaccinations and flu jabs in the winter period, and the joy of the discovery of the covid-19 vaccine and the hope it brought of a return to normality. So why have this debate today? Because, despite a seemingly continued record of progress and innovation since 2012, our vaccination system has been sleepwalking into a crisis. The percentage of eligible people getting the major vaccines has been falling year on year, dropping below the 95% coverage recommended by the World Health Organisation to prevent onward transmission. We have now undoubtedly hit a crisis point. Across England as a whole, the 95% target is not being met for any routine childhood vaccination programme and many adult programmes. For example, in 2024-25, only 83.7% of five-year-olds in England had both doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. In my own constituency, the figure is even lower, at 74%. We are now seeing measles outbreaks in our cities and, shockingly, we have lost our measles elimination status nationally. Tragically, three children died this year from measles—a totally preventable illness. When questioned about these issues at the Health and Social Care Committee, officials assured us that actions were under way and the tide was turning, but the most recent vaccine stats, released at the end of August, unfortunately show a continued downward trend. The 6-in-1 vaccine dose three coverage is down, the meningitis B dose three coverage is down, and the rotavirus dose two coverage is also down. This is also a serious equalities issue. Children who grow up unprotected are disproportionately those living in poverty and from ethnic minority communities, and the gap in vaccination status is growing across the country. How has that been allowed to happen in modern Britain? The 2023 vaccination strategy under the last Government was intended to halt the decline, but it is clearly failing, with vaccination rates continuing to fall in the three years since. The WHO target of 95% coverage for all routine vaccination programmes was removed from NHS planning guidance in 2025-26, with the Secretary of State at the time saying, “If everything is a priority, then nothing is”, but the choice not to explicitly prioritise vaccinations is incredibly short-sighted. My colleagues and I on the Health and Social Care Committee held a short inquiry into vaccination rates earlier this year, and we were, to be frank, shocked by the apparent complacency of leading NHS officials. There was no understanding of when it is hoped rates will return to WHO levels, or of whether and when our elimination status will be reached again. There is no target. This debate must be a call to arms to prioritise rebuilding our vaccination system as a matter of utmost urgency and to restore vaccination rates to 95% as soon as possible. Developing an effective vaccination system is not rocket science. Much of the existing strategy is relevant and positive, but we must acknowledge that we are off track. The debate about what is wrong tends to focus on two key issues: access versus hesitancy. The access argument focuses on systemic, practical barriers that make it harder for people to get vaccinated, such as poor appointment availability, ineffective call and recall systems, lack of data linkage and fragmented health systems. On that argument, recent coverage decline is the sign of a system under strain, rather than a loss of confidence. Most patients and parents do trust vaccines: 85% of people polled by Ipsos in 2025 said that vaccines were safe. But people are busy—moving home, switching GPs—and they do not have endless time to navigate a confusing and increasingly fragmented NHS system. The gap between MMR 1 and MMR 2 uptake is stark evidence of this failure, with MMR 1 coverage at five years at 91% and MMR 2 coverage at only 83%. The loss of contact is a system failure. Missed appointments should be chased, and families should retain close contact with trusted health professionals to guide them through the childhood vaccination schedule.