Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

Danny Beales Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and the members of her Committee for their excellent pre-legislative scrutiny work, which we have heard about today.

Since becoming an MP, one of the most common issues I hear from my constituents is the poor quality of service provided by managing agents to local leaseholders. When the boilers broke at Walsham Court and Hinds Court last November, residents tried to contact Anthem, but to no avail, and they were left without water for four weeks. Middlesex House residents were left without water for days, without extra support and supplies, until my office intervened. At Armstrong House, FirstPort has let the quality of communal areas deteriorate to a shockingly poor extent. I could go on for hours, but I have only three minutes to go. As Members have said, there are countless examples of service failure from managing agents.

I welcome the Minister’s actions to date, and the proposals in the draft Bill to cap exploitative ground rents, which will save thousands of pounds over the lifetime of leases, pushing for service charge reform and transparency, and pushing for commonhold as the default form of tenure. These are long overdue changes. However, having seen these cases at first hand, I know that more is needed. My ten-minute rule Bill in the last Session proposed the establishment of an independent regulator of managing agents, modelled on the excellent recommendations of Lord Best’s 2019 report. I understand that the Government are willing to move on mandatory qualifications for managing agents—again, that is welcome —but I am concerned that, without an independent regulator to enforce codes of conduct and ensure we can reap the benefits of those qualifications, that will be of little benefit to many leaseholders. Furthermore, without a dedicated regulator, the burden of enforcement will continue to fall on individual leaseholders—and, in future, commonholders—to take up lengthy and expensive legal action to hold their managing agents to account.

Three key benefits show why a managing agent regulator is desirable. First, good regulation is good for markets, and I think this will help growth, not hinder it. There are significant costs and financial waste in the current system, and the leasehold brand has been exceptionally damaged by the poor behaviour of managing agents. A regulator has the chance to restore confidence in leasehold and commonhold in the future. Secondly, introducing a regulator for managing agents would help ensure the success of the commonhold tenure. The need for managing agents will not go away with the introduction of commonhold. Thirdly, introducing a regulator for managing agents is strongly supported by those in the system, the customer—the leaseholder—and also the provider of services themselves.

As the Chair of the Select Committee has mentioned, leaseholders overwhelmingly responded to the survey that they want to see this change, and the Property Institute, RICS and even the managing directors of FirstPort and Rendall & Rittner are all supportive of the need for more effective regulation and a regulator of managing agents. Those in the industry understand that there is nothing to gain from the poor behaviour of some undermining the good behaviour of many more.

Yes, we need to take forward the existing important proposals in the draft Bill, but the time for the regulation of managing agents is now—in this Bill. It is vital that something is done and is clearly seen to be done before the next election for existing leaseholders struggling day in and day out with rogue managing agents. The establishment of a regulator would be a clear signal to existing leaseholders that we are serious about protecting them, as well as a signal to the property and construction sectors that this Government are focused on restoring stability to the housing market and, crucially, calling time on the poor practice of rogue managing agents, which are far too common in our system, finally fulfilling the promise of ending fleecehold for good.

Post Office Green Paper

Danny Beales Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Member for taking the time to meet me to make the case for post offices in his area, which he did with some passion. From conversations not just with him and other hon. Members, but with postmasters, I am left in no doubt about the importance of ensuring that the Post Office improves renumeration for post offices, because that is how we will ensure that the network thrives and survives. We are putting half a billion pounds into network transformation, so that all the businesses, including those in hon. Members’ constituencies, are sustainable.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement, and the Government’s response in the Green Paper, particularly the commitment to 11,500 branches—branches will be focused on high streets—and the focus on accessibility. In the light of that, does the Minister agree that it is ridiculous that the Uxbridge post office branch is set to close in May? Today, we found out that TG Jones, the current operator, has withdrawn from the contract for a future branch, and has ended its search for a replacement. Will he join me in urging Hillingdon council to pull its finger out, stop blaming others, and do all that it can to secure a new site, using its own assets if necessary, and in urging the Post Office to ensure that we maintain a post office in Uxbridge town centre?

[Blair McDougall]

I will perhaps use more parliamentary language than my hon. Friend did, but I absolutely would encourage everyone to work together to ensure that his constituents have access to postal services. I recognise that, while there is obviously good news today about maintaining the overall size of the post office network and the access criteria, that is little comfort for those in a community where there is such churn in post office services. I will very happily work with him on the issue that he raises.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Danny Beales Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate on this important petition. Fireworks have many positives, and we have heard a number of them already. Many of our earliest memories are related to the times that we come together: our first sparkler in the garden with friends and family; bringing in the new year with loved ones; and important cultural and religious events, which are often times for unity and for the community to come together. It is important that we do not lose sight of the positive role that fireworks can play in our society.

But as we have heard painfully often today, there are often serious consequences from firework misuse. For many, fireworks season is a time not of joy, but of fear and dread each year. Like many other hon. Members, I have heard from many people in my constituency who are concerned about the impact of fireworks on animals, loved ones, vulnerable people and veterans in our community. These are very serious and legitimate concerns, and I am pleased that we have the time here in Westminster Hall today to consider them fully. The strong interest in this issue demonstrated by Members shows how seriously we are taking it.

The current regulatory framework was designed to support people to enjoy fireworks while reducing the risks, dangers and disruption to pets, property and people. There is an open question about whether the existing firework regulations strike the right balance between enjoyment of fireworks and their negative effects, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to engage with businesses, consumer groups and charities to gather evidence on the issues with and impacts of fireworks; that has recently been outlined in a number of Government responses to parliamentary questions. I hope that commitment will lead to a more formal review of the fireworks policy and legislative framework to see whether it is still fit for purpose. As we have heard today, given the growth in online sales and in the size and decibel limit of firework use domestically, it seems the right time for a full review of regulations.

That said, regulations are an effective tool only if they are properly enforced. I have heard from many of my constituents that the existing rules on fireworks are already broken without consequence or punishment. It strikes me that although it is easy to regulate the fireworks sold in shops or online, it is much harder to enforce regulations once fireworks have been bought. I hope that, in the future, as well as changing regulations we give full and due consideration to how that issue can also be addressed, to ensure that enforcement can be fully self-funding through tougher fines for those breaching regulations.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I held a public meeting in my constituency of Rother Valley and we discussed a lot of the regulations that my hon. Friend and others have mentioned in this debate. However, does he agree that we can do more as a community? Perhaps in local villages such as Harthill, Kiveton Park, Dinnington and Maltby in my constituency, we could set aside weekends where we encourage people to enjoy fireworks, but the rest of the month could be set aside for those who perhaps do not enjoy fireworks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

It is almost as if my hon. Friend had a copy of my speech, because I am just about to turn to that point; I might speak to my researcher, in case he has been leaking my emails.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It must be said that the public displays of fireworks that many of us were used to are now often a thing of the past. In any village or town, people used to go to the green on important occasions and there would be a public display of fireworks, often led by the community and the local authority, and often free. Far too often now, those public displays are either not free—indeed, they are often very high-cost for a family—or, as is more common, not taking place at all.

I remember going to the Thames each year with my family, travelling from Uxbridge and South Ruislip to the centre of London to enjoy such displays. Now, they are heavily ticketed and heavily priced, so many people have now turned to having individual private displays in their gardens instead. I hope we will give consideration to my hon. Friend’s point about how we can encourage collective displays that are much better regulated and, as he said, much better communicated to local residents.

To conclude, it is time now for a full and detailed review of the fireworks regulatory framework, considering enforcement as well, so that we can balance the needs of those who have legitimate desires to celebrate, bringing their families and communities together, but also strike the right balance and preventing the significant issues of the misuse and overuse of fireworks.