Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Beales Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

As this is topicals, I do not want to repeat the extensive conversation that the right hon. Member and I have had. He knows that we are making good-faith efforts to resolve the issue and to bring some redress forward for his resident freeholders.

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

Hillingdon council has applied for exceptional financial support due to years of underfunding under the previous Government and local financial mismanagement. Will the Minister assure me that, as part of our updated funding criteria, councils such as Hillingdon will get more of the funding that they need, and that there will also be improved accountability and management requirements on local councils?

[Alison McGovern]

I am considering the issues that Hillingdon is facing, which are really serious and important, and I will be in touch with my hon. Friend soon so that we can discuss them extensively.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Danny Beales Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking]

The council leader has fed that back to Government and the answer has been, “Tough—get on with it. This is what we are doing, and this is what we propose to happen. You have to come up with a proposal that you think works in your area, regardless of whether you want to do it.” I have spoken to many councils and council leaders across the country, and that is the message they have given us loud and clear, and that is the message I have received locally from my local council leader.

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

The hon. Member talks about people in his community not wanting the measures in the Bill. I do not know about his constituents, but my constituents often talk to me about the many abandoned shops on the high street, and there are measures to tackle that in this Bill through the community powers, right to buy and the rent review powers. My constituents are frustrated about the lack of economic growth over the last 14 years and the lack of house building over a number of years. Again, there are a number of measures in the Bill to tackle those issues. Is it not true that the issues that people care about are directly addressed by the additional powers that local areas will have from the Bill?

[Lewis Cocking]

I can take the hon. Member to my constituency if he wants to see a pro-growth local council that has delivered a local plan and delivered housing. What has held us back is the fact that we do not have the infrastructure in place because of that. We have been punished; we have been a good local council and met our housing targets, yet this Labour Government are forcing more housing on us with no powers to get the infrastructure that people need.

My constituency borders London, and when the Bill came out, my constituents said to me on the doorstep, “I do not want to be part of the Greater London area and to be under the Mayor of London”. We have seen the disastrous effect that devolution has had on London, and my constituents definitely do not want to be a part of that. I gently push back on the hon. Member that I do not agree with his analogy of the current state of play. If the Government really wanted to empower councils—I stray a tiny bit away from the topic—to help them improve town centres and create economic growth, they could give powers to the councils we already have. They could get on and do that tomorrow, rather than waiting for this Bill to go through the House, with all the amendments the Government put down, because this Bill is clearly not ready to receive Royal Assent. We tabled a number of amendments in Committee. It just shows that the Government have got this wrong and should go back to the drawing board.

[Danny Beales]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lewis Cocking]

One more time, and then I will make progress.

[Danny Beales]

I thank the hon. Member for his generosity and am happy to take him up on his offer to visit his constituency, have a drink and discuss local issues. He is welcome to come to my constituency, too.

I listened carefully to the 20-minute speech of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), but did not hear many proposals for the functions of devolution—the powers that could be given and the extra devolution empowerment that could take place. I heard a lot about the form of devolution—whether the county or regional mayor structures are right, for example. It is no wonder that we failed to grasp the issue of devolution and community empowerment in the previous 14 years, given that the Conservative party is still so obsessed by the form of devolution rather than by its function, which is to give away power and empower communities.

[Lewis Cocking]

I do not think that the Bill does that. It enables Ministers to force councils to reorganise. It keeps power in Whitehall. It does not devolve powers to councils. I have mentioned a number of times in questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that my council is crying out for more powers over the houses in multiple occupation that are affecting our town centre. As I said in Committee, a tiny part of the Bill is good and deals with the licensing of e-scooters. We all know what a scourge e-scooters represent across our constituencies up and down the country. That is the tiny good thing in the Bill, but the Government do not need a Bill to do that; they could legislate very quickly to give councils the powers to deal with that issue. Instead, we have to wait for months on end to solve a small issue through this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I signed his amendment, as that issue is important. It goes back to what I said at the beginning of this debate: the Bill is not ready to go any further. The Government should have thought about this. The amendment is logical and seeks to achieve what the Government want to achieve on, for example, buses; it seeks to achieve lots of the same things around other strategic transport and other active travel routes, so it should be in the Bill. It has cross-party support from both Members representing the Isle of Wight, and goes back to the cross-party working on the Bill Committee, where we put forward logical amendments that seek to benefit the strategic authority that the Government want to create in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The new mayor who is elected for that authority is going to have one hand tied behind their back, because he or she will not have the powers to join those communities together and really create the economic growth.

I am against the principle of what the Government are trying to do in this Bill; just because they have “community empowerment” written at the top of the Bill does not mean that it will empower local communities, and I urge the Government to think again.

[Danny Beales]

I welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that the House is considering again this evening. I must make a confession: I was not on the Bill Committee. It sounds like I missed out, according to some of the descriptions of the fun that was had. It is not the first time I have heard that a Bill Committee was such an enjoyable cross-party affair.

Many of us across the House had extensive experience in local government prior to entering this place—I had 10 years’ experience of local government in a London borough—and will all have seen the fantastic role that local government can play, connecting communities, responding to concerns, and understanding, often before national Government, emerging economic and social issues that require action and a response. However, as well as seeing that potential, those of us who served in local government will often have seen it held back and felt frustration at communities lacking powers and often funding to respond to social and economic challenges.

Our country differs greatly: local areas and communities are not all the same and they face different challenges. My Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency in Hillingdon in west London is very different from the constituencies of and challenges faced by many other hon. Members. It is right that cities, areas and regions of our country have the ability and the powers, and the funding when necessary, to respond to those issues.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend highlights the challenge. London is often described as a series of villages, yet we have one elected Mayor of London, whose post was created 25 years ago with the London Assembly. Does he agree that, being strategic, the mayor can serve both an inner-city London borough such as mine in Hackney and one such as his in outer London, through measures such as the Superloop? I am sure my hon. Friend has other examples of how a mayor can serve all communities while having a strategic view of the whole.

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and wholeheartedly agree. We should be guided by the principle of subsidiarity. Power should be given and exercised as locally as possible. Clearly, some powers have to be exercised in this place, at national level, and also at regional level it makes sense to act, and the mayor rightly has the ability to co-ordinate our transport system in London. We do not want multiple decisions about transport infrastructure such as our tube network.

[Dr Gardner]

I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), but he had on his feet for over 20 minutes and I decided to give him a break. However, I want to raise that issue now. Much has been made about the conflict of planning—local planning going right to the boundaries, creating issues for infrastructure planning, which often sits at the wider unitary level. Devolution and wider strategic authority oversight, including greater planning oversight, will help to address some of the challenges and stresses we can face. Is that something my hon. Friend sees in the London boroughs?

[Danny Beales]

That is almost certainly true. There are strategic issues that need to be considered, and whether they are strategic powers for planning or licensing, as we are discussing in some of the amendments, there is the need for a greater role for regional mayors and authorities. It is right that local communities can respond to local issues, but there is a need for guiding infrastructure decisions on things such as heating networks, energy networks and data centre networks, and co-ordinating them at regional level makes a great deal of sense. Despite the need for greater decision making at a local and regional level, we still live in one of the most centralised political systems in the western world.

Our communities must be able to meet the challenges that they face, and that is why I welcome the raft of new powers in the Bill and the Government amendments. They will drive growth and provide opportunities to respond to new local challenges, now and in the future.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Many of us agree with the concept of genuine devolution and bringing power to communities, but is the real problem not that the measures in the Bill will mean a power grab away from communities, and that Whitehall will be giving directions to local government? That basic contradiction at the heart of the Bill causes so much trouble.

[Danny Beales]

I respectfully disagree. One of the challenges of having one of the most centralised decision-making systems in the world is that we have to decide, in this House, how we give power away and devolve it. To be frank, while hopefully being respectful, we hear a lot from the Conservatives about the desire to empower communities, but their record speaks for itself. The last Labour Government set up the first mayoral authorities, including the Mayor of London and the London Assembly, and devolution to our nations, which has been built on over the years. With this Bill, we are taking another step forward on devolution. The Conservatives talk a good game on this issue, but they had 14 years to act.

[Lewis Cocking]

The last Labour Government, which was elected in 1997, established devolution and moved powers away from Westminster under the premise of a referendum result. However, this Labour Government are choosing not to undertake such a referendum. Which does the hon. Gentleman support: having a referendum or not having a referendum?

[Danny Beales]

The hon. Gentleman did not respond to my offer to come to his constituency for a drink, but he would be welcome in Uxbridge and South Ruislip at any time. It is a lovely place, with many fantastic options for drinks. I do not agree with the Conservatives that every structural change to local government requires a full referendum of current or potential constituents. As far as I am aware, no one voted for the establishment of the current London borough arrangements, or the county council arrangement. Apart from some less positive ones at a national level, I do not remember many referendums undertaken or proposed by the Conservatives about devolution or structural changes to our political system, so I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are different ways of consulting residents and engaging with communities.

[Lewis Cocking]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives did not have referendums on structural political changes, but we did have a referendum to change the voting system; I voted against a change. That is a prime example of the Conservatives seeking the consent of the British people for a political change.

[Danny Beales]

I also voted against, in the alternative vote referendum, so we are united in our agreement on that.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am a member of a new combined authority in the east midlands and there was no referendum on that. I do not believe that there was a referendum on the North Yorkshire combined authority either. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are different ways of engaging on this issue, and that putting councils with local representatives at the heart of that process is a good thing?

[Danny Beales]

I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend’s comment speaks for itself. We can look at the Conservatives’ record, and at what they now preach in opposition.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the powers that are being devolved to mayors, but does he accept that the mayors referred to in clause 38 and schedule 19 have different powers from the London Mayor? In effect, those mayors will become puppets of central Government, because their local growth plans will have to be signed off by the Secretary of State, whereas the London Mayor is not answerable to the Government. Is that a matter of great concern to him?

[Danny Beales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend from the Health and Social Care Committee, on which we have had many good and fruitful discussions, but I disagree with him on this point. There are significant steps forward in the Bill in devolving powers to communities at different levels—at individual and community level, as well as at regional and mayoral level. I would say that if we look at devolved regional arrangements, we see that the Mayor of London’s powers have not kept up. Arguably, greater progress has been made with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, given his range of powers and the number of areas in which he operates. There are different arrangements in different parts of the country, so I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation.

I speak in support of a number of amendments that will give local government, particularly in London and my constituency, new tools. These will improve the lives of residents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), to which I am a co-signatory, will allow mayors to implement a tourist levy on overnight stays. For many years, many councils have been calling for this change; during my time in local government, I remember calling for an overnight stay levy. There is a range of reasons why one might want such a levy, and I note the welcome support from Labour Mayors Sir Sadiq Khan and Steve Rotheram. Clearly, tourism has huge benefits for our communities, including jobs, the cultural enrichment of visitors coming to our cities, support for existing and new businesses, and the revenue that tourism brings to our country.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the overnight stay levy, but I would like it to go further. Cornwall relies a lot on our tourism trade, but it brings with it a whole series of costs that are not recognised in any local government settlement. Cornwall is very long and thin, but by geography, it is the largest unitary authority in the country, and it is a very stable unitary authority, having been established for 15 years or so. A lot of visitors come for not one night, but a few days. Does he agree that by restricting the levy to an overnight stay, we would lose the opportunity to build revenue from those tourists who are coming for longer?

[Danny Beales]

Communities in Cornwall, Dorset and Devon, in common with many in London, have experience of the overnight stay and tourist economy, and of the impact on local communities. They know about the powers, budgets and fiscal freedoms that councils and mayors have to respond to the issues. I agree that the levy should be charged per night of travel. One challenge that I have often heard is that if the levy were to apply to the hotel sector or formal visitor stay sector only, and not to the informal sector or the short-term let sector, that might disadvantage important businesses, jobs and institutions, and not tackle that more informal visitor economy that can pose challenges in London, and in places like that represented by my hon. Friend.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Talking of the informal economy, Airbnb is a big issue in London. The old-style Airbnb, in which you simply stayed with somebody, has been overtaken, and people are now purchasing flats just to let them out through Airbnb. I believe Airbnb is within the scope of the Bill, but does my hon. Friend have any thoughts about how this issue should be captured? There are whole developments near my constituency that have been bought just to be let through Airbnb, but we desperately need that housing. We want the levy, which could increase income for councils, but we also need the homes. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on that?

[Danny Beales]

I wholeheartedly agree that that is an issue. As my hon. Friend points out, the short-term let sector is included in the amendment, although I do not think that the amendment will be enough to regulate the short-term let sector more generally; that is a slightly separate matter. The previous Government’s deregulation in this area, with the 90-day rule, has not worked in practice. We all know that, and it has impacted our communities. Lots of data and evidence has been gathered by councils to show the loss of thousands of homes in our country, which were used by families and are now used as professional tourism accommodation. While that is good for the tourist economy, it is bad for our local housing system.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

In my constituency, as well as in Camden, Islington, Southwark and other inner-London boroughs, schools are closing, apparently partly because of short-term lets. This does not apply so much in my constituency, but in some areas, the homes are there, but people do not live in them full time, or sometimes at all. Families do not stay there. That has a detrimental impact on the ability of our schools to stay open.

[Danny Beales]

My hon. Friend describes perfectly the impacts that we see. Even in outer London and Hillingdon, we see the impact of the short-term let sector. We see it near Heathrow, which is very proximate to my constituency.

New clause 31 would enable differential charging. It does not mandate what the charges would be, or that one charge would apply to all sectors, so there would be the potential to charge the informal short-term let sector more per night or day than the formal stay sector.

[Dr Gardner]

I am quite interested in what my hon. Friend says about the differential approach. As a councillor, I know that Stoke-on-Trent is not necessarily known for its tourism industry, although that is absolutely a failure on the part of the country and of everybody, because we have great tourism attractions in Stoke. I have seen that when we have Airbnbs on family estates, and different people come and go, it creates an awful lot of unrest, antisocial behaviour and real concern about the revolving door of different people, which upsets local residents. [Interruption.] My apologies. Does he agree that the proposed approach would be of benefit?

[Danny Beales]

I certainly agree. The costs that result from the visitor economy are not adequately met by the tax revenue for local authorities or mayoral authorities.

[Joe Robertson]

My constituency is popular with tourists. In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), I invite him to visit my constituency; I think he missed our Health and Social Care Committee visit last year. Airbnbs are a big challenge, and are detrimental to the business of some small hoteliers, who are really struggling to keep their businesses going. Can the hon. Gentleman offer a small thought on that?

[Danny Beales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, another colleague from the Health and Social Care Committee, for his offer to come to the Isle of Wight; I would be very happy to do so. I could experience the ferry issue, which I am sure he will talk about. I agree with his comments.

Revenue derived from tourism often goes directly to the Treasury, rather than funding the local services needed to create and respond to the tourism economy. The tourism levy proposed in new clause 31 would be a relatively small charge on visitors to our cities, and would create a new source of revenue for local growth initiatives.

A tourist levy would not be unique to London; British tourists regularly pay a tourism levy when we visit other high-profile cities across the world, including Paris, Rome and Berlin, to name just a few. Many will not even have noticed the charge of a couple of euros a night on their bill, but this funding source makes a positive difference to those cities, so why not have one in our cities in the UK? The creation of a tourism levy in those places has had no significant impact on visitor numbers, and none of us would be put off from our trip to Paris, Barcelona or Rome because of it.

A tourist levy would also be fairer to the residents of London. We all know that mass tourism brings disadvantage and pressures, as well as many benefits and advantages. A tourism levy would ensure that visitors paid their fair share for the upkeep of our city, just as British tourists do when travelling abroad. With 38 million visits to the UK every year, half of which are to London, there is a clear opportunity to raise a substantial pot of revenue to improve the experience of residents and visitors alike in London. It could fund and support cultural activities, such as the Christmas and other light displays that we want to see around our city, but that have become more difficult to afford. It could pay for additional security for our town centres and high streets, whether it is Oxford Street or major town centres in our boroughs. It could pay for the much better public realm investment that we often clearly need, but that has not been delivered for many years.

Through this measure, which has been long discussed but which we have failed to deliver or grasp time and again, we could let areas decide whether to levy such a charge and enjoy the proceeds of that revenue.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The hon. Member cannot speak from where she is seated.

[Danny Beales]

If the Minister feels unable to accept new clause 31, I hope that they can provide a route that allows us to consider such a measure later in the Bill’s progress, at the Budget, or through future legislation.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about the length of time people have been lobbying for this power. I felt that when I was a councillor. Does he agree that the right to request in this Bill will help mayors to identify these issues, and provide a pathway for them to request such powers much more quickly?

[Danny Beales]

That is an excellent point well put. Far too often, we see these trends emerging at a local level. We see a new industry using new technology, and we will be tearing our hair out trying to respond with our limited and restricted powers. We try to come up with creative ways around the system to do that and traditionally bang on the door of Government to try to make changes to legislation—as we all know, that can take a long time—while communities struggle with the impacts. This right is an excellent provision in the Bill that will enable Government to work smarter, quicker and more collaboratively with local communities.

Let me turn to the issue of licensing reform, which is also proposed in the amendments before us. London’s hospitality and cultural life is at the very heart of our economy. It is a huge industry and has driven a great deal of creativity and growth throughout our history. Our hospitality, culture and nightlife sectors are critical to the capital’s success and national economic growth, with London’s hospitality industry alone generating £46 billion annually and accounting for one in 10 jobs in the city. Those jobs are right across all our constituencies, in London and the UK too. I have had offers to visit great pubs in the Isle of Wight and in other places, which I look forward to doing.

However, these vital industries are under increasing pressure from rising costs and outdated systems, including our licensing system, which can be inconsistent, lack transparency and be overly weighted towards objections. That is why I welcome Government new clause 44 and Government new schedule 2, which will allow the Mayor of London to set strategic licensing policy that local licensing authorities must take into account when making licensing decisions and setting their own policies.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does the hon. Member support my proposal that councils, particularly local district councils that currently have planning powers, need more powers over the licensing of houses in multiple occupation? They cause terrible antisocial behaviour issues and parking issues right across the country, and we need more powers to stop HMOs where they are not wanted. What are his views on giving local powers to councils to stop HMOs?

[Danny Beales]

HMOs are an increasing challenge in all our constituencies—certainly in my own—and they are a symptom of the broken housing market. The fact that people can make so much money from subdividing family homes and selling out rooms—they are even subdividing rooms and making thousands of pounds—is a symptom of 14 years of failure to deliver the homes we need.

I welcome the Government’s measures to address the root cause of the problem, but in immediately responding to those concerns I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that we must take more steps to regulate the HMO sector. Councils have some powers—my own council is reluctantly and eventually getting around to consulting on those proposals after many months—but we need to enable councils to go further and act faster and not have to consult as quickly, or at least to speed things up by allowing shadow licensing conditions before or while consulting.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I cannot help but note that earlier the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) was concerned about 21,000 new homes being built in Enfield, which is not in his constituency, but on the edge of it. He made some sensible points about infrastructure, but does my hon. Friend agree that we need new homes because individuals in houses in multiple occupation need their own homes? Does he also agree that there may be a contradiction in what the hon. Member for Broxbourne has just said?

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I do not want to get in the middle of a disagreement across the Chamber, but she has made her point expertly.

Greater strategic oversight of the licensing system is vital, and authorities must take strategic policies into account when making decisions. These amendments will not get rid of licensing decisions and powers at local level, but they will provide a better strategic framework. They will help to unlock the full potential of London’s hospitality, nightlife, culture and events economy, helping venues to stay open longer, expand and succeed where they are well managed. That is often the case, but they are held back by restrictive or outdated policies that have not been kept up to date. This approach will be good for business, good for the taxpayer and good for Londoners, helping to maintain London’s global reputation as a leading city for arts and culture. We also have to recognise that certain areas and sectors are often of strategic and cultural importance for our city and our nation, whether it is the music scene in certain parts of our cities, the live performance areas that have developed over many years, or areas such as Soho that are particularly important for the LGBTQ population. It is right that those areas have strategic oversight and protection, and that there are strategic policies to guide their futures.

I will also speak in support of the reforms on lane rental schemes, and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), who is now not in his place, for his contributions on this in Committee. Londoners, including my constituents, often express frustration—I am sure many of us hear it—about seemingly endless roadworks, with roadworks left unfinished while teams move on to the next place down the road and dig up another road before finishing what they have started. It often feels like there is a real lack of co-ordination and a lack of incentives in the system to work together, move quickly and resolve these issues. Lane rental schemes are a proven way of reducing such inconveniences to the bare minimum. Such schemes allow a highway authority to charge utility companies per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. They work because they reduce the amount of time that roadworks occupy the network and encourage companies to carry works out collaboratively, minimising disruption to road users.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member is speaking about an important issue—that of utility companies seemingly closing roads without due consideration. Indeed, Southern Water tried to close the main road into Bembridge in my constituency from 1 December to 21 December; it did not consult with the local community, and only backed down after I intervened in my role as a Member of Parliament. It is the same for Ventnor on the Isle of Wight, so the hon. Member is speaking about a very important issue that probably affects every constituency, or nearly every constituency.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I remind Members again to keep within the scope of the Bill and the amendments.

[Danny Beales]

I agree with the hon. Member, and recognise those examples. I hear many similar comments in my own constituency.

I welcome the Government’s new clause 43 and new schedule 1, which seek to devolve the power to approve lane rental schemes to mayors of strategic authorities. Locally, we have far too many examples of endless delays to works, such as the recent major road closure scheme on Cowley Road in my constituency, caused by Cadent gas works. That closure caused chaos for weeks on end—a work site left with no works taking place on evenings and weekends while a crucial part of the network was left closed, causing huge disruption. Companies must be held to account, and must be encouraged to carry out works as quickly as possible. Lane rental schemes would make it economically essential for them to conduct out-of-hours works and reduce delays. Armed with new powers, mayors will also be able to incentivise highway authorities to bring in additional lane rental schemes targeting high-priority areas. Crucially, revenue from lane rental schemes can be reinvested to benefit local road users—for instance, by improving the condition of roads and pavements, improvements that are much needed after more than a decade of decline under the Conservatives.

Lastly, as hon. Members will be pleased to hear, I support the new powers to issue mayoral development orders to boost house building. These measures are another step forward in enabling areas to get on, unblocking house building and sites, and to take a more strategic approach to fast-tracking development. In my own constituency, a number of key potential growth areas have stalled in recent years, whether in Uxbridge town centre, near Hillingdon station or in West Drayton. Hundreds if not thousands of homes are stalled at various stages of development, so a more strategic approach to development, enabled at mayoral and regional level, is vital.

I welcome this Bill. I hope the House will agree to the amendments I have spoken to, which will begin giving powers back to communities that will empower them to act and tackle the challenges we all face, now and in the future.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I am sure my hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that I will be making a very focused speech.

My new clauses 7, 8 and 9 address missed opportunities in the skills devolution elements of this Bill. Skills are the foundation of economic growth, which is supposedly this Government’s overriding mission. We have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, with too many others trapped in poverty, and we face a future that will require training and retraining throughout working life. Critically in the context of this Bill, local areas understand their skills needs better than Whitehall does. That is why skills devolution matters, and it is why the amendments I have tabled are essential to making it work.

In Committee, the Minister gave assurances that the Government “remain completely committed” to strengthening the role of strategic authorities in local skills improvement plans. After all, the White Paper promised “joint ownership”, but it is not in the Bill. Not to worry, the Minister said; new statutory guidance would deliver it. That guidance was published last Tuesday. I have read it carefully, as has the Local Government Association, and guess what? It does not deliver joint ownership. The guidance actually says that employer representative bodies retain “overall responsibility”, while strategic authorities merely set out

“sector skills priorities at the outset.”

That is not joint ownership—it is just a consultation. New clause 9, which is endorsed by the LGA, fixes this. It would require both the strategic authority and the employer representative body to agree before the Secretary of State can approve a local skills improvement plan. Elected mayors are accountable to constituents and responsible for delivering adult skills fund spending. Surely, democratic accountability should not be controversial when devolving substantial public funding.

New clause 7 would require strategic authorities to consider existing 16-to-19 and higher education provision when exercising adult skills functions. Again, the Minister said in Committee that schedule 10 already “allows” this, but allowing is not requiring. Without a statutory duty, we risk exactly the same fragmentation that this Bill should prevent: three parts of the education pipeline potentially working to three different plans, with no co-ordination mechanism. Employers need coherent pathways, and young people need clear progression routes from school through college to work. Making that happen should not be controversial, either.

Finally, new clause 8 would require strategic authorities to publish annual reports on their adult education functions—how funding is deployed, co-ordination with providers, and outcomes for learners and employers. Again, I emphasise that we are talking about substantial public funding with a significant local impact.

Without reporting requirements, how will we know if skills devolution is working? How will we know if employer needs are being met? How will we identify problems before they become failures? Unfortunately, the Minister offered zero response in Committee to such an amendment, so I remain somewhat in the dark about why the Government think that basic transparency and accountability are unnecessary.

The three amendments are precision fixes. They do not reorganise institutions, create bureaucracy or move funding; they would just ensure that elected officials have genuine joint leadership and not simply consultation rights, that the skills pipeline is co-ordinated, not fragmented, and that public funding is transparently accounted for. If we believe in effective devolution, we must give devolved institutions the frameworks to succeed. Warm words and non-statutory guidance are not sufficient when devolving substantial powers and public funding. The new clauses would deliver on key parts of what the Government promised in the White Paper. They would provide an accountability framework that any effective public policy requires, and I urge the Government to accept them.

House Building: London

Danny Beales Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this timely debate about Government support for house building in London.

House building is vital for growth, jobs and many businesses in our communities, big and small. However, it is much more than that, and we have heard from other hon. Members the testimony of constituents struggling with a broken housing system. When one in 50 Londoners is now in temporary accommodation, increasing to one in 21 children, that is a national scandal and requires urgent, emergency action.

I grew up in temporary accommodation—in bed and breakfasts and hotels—and know what that means. It is not just a statistic; it is not just a temporary house. It is a completely different life. The impacts for many can be quite scarring on their future. I welcome the Government’s sense of urgency in tackling this after 14 years of failure in the housing system.

[Emily Thornberry]

I did not know that about my hon. Friend, and I find it very interesting. Many of us who speak with passion about social housing do so because we grew up in social housing. I was saved because my family were made homeless and we were given a house by the council. My worry is that if a family made homeless come to see me now, their chance of getting a house from the council is vanishingly small.

[Danny Beales]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. It is true that many of my constituents tell me the story of turning up at the civic centre with a plastic bag of their belongings to be told there are no homes in Hillingdon. The best they can expect is temporary accommodation, often in communities far away, with no chance of returning.

The implications are significant: missed school opportunities, not being able to get to health appointments, and not keeping a job. Thousands of families are now being affected. There is also a financial impact on the local authorities in our constituencies: £5 million a day spent on temporary accommodation. The London boroughs’ homelessness budget was overspent by £330 million last year—double the previous year.

Let us be honest: the housing system in London isn’t working for anyone, whether a mortgage payer or a leaseholder. We have all heard the horror stories of increased mortgage payments since the Liz Truss mini-Budget, increased service charges and woes, first-time buyers locked out of the housing market, and private renters struggling with exponential rent increases.

I see social cohesion issues increasingly come to the fore in my borough. At the core, people feel that housing is increasingly inaccessible in the communities where they have grown up. That is not because anyone else is getting a council home, because they are not; it is because of a broken housing system that has not been fixed for decades. At the same time as increasing need, the rate of build-out with planning permissions has dropped to 10%. Thousands of homes are stalled; there were only 80 housing starts in Hillingdon in 2024-25. Whether it is the St Andrew’s site in Uxbridge, a concrete shell of a building laid derelict for two years, or the Morrison’s site in Yiewsley, also left derelict for years, with the council not determining the application, there is a need for urgency and action.

To move forward, investment is vital. We often talk about how expensive it is to act on housing. The truth is that we have spent a lot on housing but spent it in the wrong place. We have subsidised private landlords to the tune of many billions of pounds through housing benefit payments for years. It is right that the Government are shifting investment into the delivery of new homes. The record £39 billion investment, including £11 billion for London, is long overdue. When colleagues and I were building council homes, we were desperate to see such investment from the previous Government. Multi-year funding, stability and certainty on rent levels are also important steps forward.

I disagree that the mayor’s having powers on planning, and intervening in the local decision-making system, is wrong and to the detriment of house building. My borough —Tory-run Hillingdon—has one of the lowest levels of approval for housing delivery in the past 10 years: almost 50%, with one in two applications rejected. No wonder we have such a housing crisis in Hillingdon, when the local authority has not only failed to deliver itself but failed to support the private rented sector to deliver, too.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to reform the Building Safety Regulator, which was touched on quickly by Opposition Members. The introduction of the Building Safety Regulator and regime, although good in spirit, has been a disaster in practice. It has overwhelmingly clogged up the system of housing delivery. We had a debate here on that a couple of weeks ago, and I welcome the Government’s acceleration of reforms in that space.

To sum up, I fully support the Government going further and faster in their approach to delivering house building and unblocking the planning system. We need an interventionist approach from the Department where schemes—particularly large ones—are blocked and clogged up in the planning system. I would support the Department’s calling them in; referring them to the mayor or the Department; taking action to de-risk brownfield sites; and supporting developers to unlock blocked or half-delivered schemes. Londoners desperately need more genuinely affordable homes to buy or rent. I support the bold measures that the Minister and the Government have already taken. They have my full support in going further and faster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for providing that example of the impact on a specific project, which shows how difficult this will be for our councils.

The announced measures will quietly reduce the requirement for affordable homes from 35% to 20%, forcibly slash the community infrastructure levy money, and barely scratch the surface of the bigger and more profound structural barriers to getting green, affordable and safe housing built. The Government have triggered great uncertainty and more financial instability for local authorities while achieving very little in the shake-up, seemingly because they think that big, decisive action with very little prep work and no consultation is the way to get things done. The Housing Secretary is clearly taking more than just headwear inspiration from a certain world leader—which would make sense if it were not his own zone that he is flooding with a substance that the courtesies of this House do not allow me to name.

In all seriousness, the housing crisis in London deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction. There are 330,000 households stuck on social housing waiting lists—more than the total number of households in our two largest boroughs, Barnet and Croydon, combined. As we have heard, London boroughs are spending £5 million a day on temporary accommodation, although I have heard that figure for about a year, so it must be considerably more by now. According to London Councils, there is a £700 million shortfall in the housing revenue accounts that fund new house building.

The proposed measures will simply make that worse, for two main reasons. First, the Government will facilitate the right kind of house building not by dropping the regulations that developers face, but by amending them and fixing the structural issues within the Building Safety Regulator. Secondly, the measures actively—and inexcusably—disrupt the already stretched financial picture for local authorities. I will take them in turn.

First, granting the right to reduce the level of affordable housing per project fails to recognise that the proliferation of a particular kind of luxury, unaffordable housing in London means that it is unlikely that new building accelerated under the scheme will ease upward pressures on house prices in the capital. Giving the mayor new powers to call in decisions and accelerate them almost on a whim does nothing to address the concerns that local authorities and local residents will have about their ability to object to new housing that will not contribute to solving the crisis. The measures seem to be imposed in an imagined battle against the nimbys, when most in London have lived experience of housing instability—either their own or that of younger family members, co-workers or friends—and, as such, are in favour of the kind of house building that actually addresses the crisis.

[Danny Beales]

I share the hon. Member’s view of the general public’s opinion on the issue, but as a cabinet member during seven years of planning and redevelopment in Camden, I rarely heard those voices in planning committees. Unfortunately, the voices that are heard are often disproportionately against development and do not represent the people on housing waiting lists. I just challenge the presentation of the public view through the planning system. Is it not true, too, that many local authorities take far too long to determine applications? In my borough—I have just had an email—it has taken six months to draft a section 106 heads of terms document, two years since the planning was approved. Is that not unacceptable?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Taylor, you have taken two lengthy interventions. I am afraid that they will not be in addition to your time.

Building Safety Regulator

Danny Beales Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this important debate.

The housing crisis is one of the defining challenges of our generation. We clearly face a series of overlapping problems: a crisis of poor quality and unsafe homes, affordability and now also housing delivery. I hear about the impact of that in Uxbridge and South Ruislip every day at my surgeries and via my inbox. It is clear that this problem is chipping away at our growth potential, health and educational outcomes, and even public confidence in our political system. The Government have rightly set an ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament to address those issues. We must do everything we can and leave no stone unturned in meeting that challenge.

I am concerned that the BSR, in its current form, is now acting as a barrier to delivering new homes at the pace required, particularly taller buildings, which disproportionately affects house building in urban areas such as my west London constituency. As hon. Members have expertly set out already, the BSR requires all prospective high-rise buildings to pass through three stages of approval, and at each stage, developers are seeing significant delays and setbacks.

Applications are routinely spending 25 to 40 weeks at gateway 2, and some developers I have spoken to have even seen applications take over a year, compared with a 12-week target. Approximately 70% of gateway 2 applications were rejected or invalidated, and only seven out of 40 applications at gateway 3—which is supposed to be a post-construction formality—were approved last year.

Some rejections will always be necessary and may be critical to ensure the safety of developments. The Grenfell inquiry revealed systematic safety failures in the construction industry, but we have to get the balance right and the system has to be effective and fair. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North said, we have to look at safety holistically. Safety is one form of risk and impact, but if we are not remediating homes or building homes, we are not moving people out of damp or mould, homelessness or temporary accommodation, which has immense safety implications for our population.

Over the summer, I wrote to the BSR to raise my concerns about its efficiency. In reply it highlighted a high volume of non-compliant applications. My response is to ask, what is it doing to ensure compliance? The BSR should work collaboratively with the sector. Major developers have cited contradictory communications from the BSR about safety standards, which have been exacerbated by a high turnover of staff and have led to unnecessary delays in projects.

A large developer hoping to build 6,000 homes near my constituency in west London described the issues with the BSR as an “existential” threat to its business, and said that in one current application, the BSR team were not even appointed to work on the application until week 15 of what should be a 12-week process. Those issues are having a significant impact on housing delivery, especially in urban and high-density areas, and we have seen massive falls in new housing starts in London in the first quarter of 2025.

Unpredictable and unreliable regulatory processes weaken the attractiveness of investment in British housing developments, leading to delays in projects progressing and causing costs to spiral. We all know that the construction sector is under serious strain—17% of all insolvencies in May 2025 being construction companies—and that this emergency requires an emergency response.

There are many reasons for the construction sector and housing delivery to be weakening, some of which—such as international issues and construction material costs—are out of the Government’s control, but this reason is not out of their control. It appears that an overly adversarial culture has been allowed to develop between industry and the Government over recent years. Although we must look seriously at who was to blame for the failures that led to the horrific scenes at Grenfell, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), it is important to work collaboratively to solve those issues.

Markets work best when there is a genuine partnership between industry and the Government, and where builders and regulators work together to achieve shared goals. I am pleased, therefore, that the Government announced plans this summer to start moving forward on those issues with a more collaborative model of regulation, and that they have listened to and acted on industry concerns about the capacity of the BSR by hiring 100 new members of staff. I also welcome the new fast-track process being developed and a number of measures that the Government have taken.

We need up-front guidance about expectations, so that everyone understands what is required and expected. I was a cabinet member for planning in a London borough for seven years, and we would have clear planning guidance documents, a pre-application process to discuss applications, and dialogue about applications—not a yes/no, binary, approve-or-reject approach. The view was that the role of planners and regulators should be to resolve issues, approve sustainable development and ultimately support growth. We now need that approach at the BSR.

The BSR needs to focus on crucial safety issues and avoid mission creep. I have heard stories of prolonged discussions and disagreements over the colour of the paint in internal hallways—clearly, the system has not been working. The BSR can and should play a role in restoring the public’s confidence in construction post Grenfell. It should be a vital safety backstop, but it cannot be allowed to become a roadblock to all development. If the BSR loses the trust of industry, loses us investment as housing stalls, and loses the public’s confidence as they are unable to live in new, safe and affordable homes, that would be a regressive step.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North for securing the debate. I hope the Minister will agree that the BSR must be reformed further and faster if we are to meet our target of 1.5 million new homes.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Danny Beales Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly]

Well, he deserves to be the right hon. Gentleman. He has been doing the hard yards; he has done loads of work on this Bill. I am sure he was disappointed that he did not get to lead the Department—congratulations to the new Secretary of State—but I have no doubt that the opportunity will come in the near future. I would just say: be patient for the moment.

While I have no doubt that the Bill is full of good intentions, it is poorly though through and counterproductive. In fact, I am assuming it is poorly thought through, but it is entirely feasible that the measures within it are well though through, and are designed to undermine the private rented sector. It is inept, either by accident or on purpose—I will go with inept by accident, because that is more in keeping with the Government’s actions in this Department.

The Bill is clearly a mishmash of measures on issues that are Back-Bench hobby horses—issues that those on the Front Bench do not have the authority or the courage to put to bed. It is entirely counterproductive, as has been recognised and highlighted by their lordships in the other place. The Bill risks driving private landlords out of the sector, reducing the supply of private rented accommodation and pushing up rents for those in the private rented sector. Limiting the supply of such accommodation means limiting the options for tenants in the private rented sector, and leaving them worse off.

We do not need to look very far to see what happens when Governments get this wrong. In Scotland, fixed-term tenancies were abolished, rent controls imposed and regulations tightened, and what was the result? Fewer landlords, shrinking supply and the fastest rises in rents in the UK, with Edinburgh and Glasgow facing steeper rent rises than ineptly Labour-run London. The Labour Government in Westminster are about to make the same mistake, because Government Back Benchers are, for whatever reason, obsessed with “fixing” an already highly successful sector. The private rented sector has the highest satisfaction levels of any tenure type—higher than levels in the social rented sector or among owner-occupiers.

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

I do not know what correspondence the right hon. Gentleman is looking at, but the correspondence I receive from my constituents in Hillingdon does not tell a story of a sector that is secure and safe; instead, my constituents tell me that they are battling damp and mould, and have had 35% rent increases in recent years. Is that success, in the Opposition’s view?

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes the classic statistical error of assuming that his inbox is representative of all the people in the sector. Has it not occurred to him that people who are happy in their private rented accommodation do not tend to write to their MP, saying, “Apropos of nothing, I just want to let you know that I am happy”? I have it on good authority from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—my good friend and colleague—that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) is not doing a terribly good job of championing the social rented sector in his constituency. He seeks to deny the private rented sector, while simultaneously denying people the social rented sector. I am not sure where he thinks people in his constituency should live.

The point is that the Bill is a mishmash of incoherent proposals, which, instead of being designed to improve the private rented sector, are designed to keep angsty Back Benchers happy, but Front Benchers are already starting to learn that they cannot pay political Danegeld to their Back Benchers. I give the Front-Bench team due notice: their Back Benchers will be insatiable. They will take whatever red meat they are thrown, and they will ask for more. We have already seen this, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the proposed changes to social security and disability benefits. The Front Benchers had plans, but their Back Benchers had other plans, and guess who won? Those showing courageous leadership on the turbulent Back Benches. The Government will see the same again on this issue.

The Opposition understand that a good tenure mix is good for the UK. We took measures to improve the private rented sector, but we made sure that we did it in the right order. We made sure that the courts were ready.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

Any opportunity to give our service people decent homes, beginning with England, should be taken. I am surprised that the Minister has not grasped it with both hands. The Minister and the Government are in the position, with a large majority, to legislate for this in whichever way they choose, but it needs to be on the face of the legislation. That is what our military deserve. Warm words about things improving are not enough; we have heard them before. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire gained a categoric assurance from the last Government’s Housing Minister at the Dispatch Box that that Government would legislate. They did not.

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

The hon. Gentleman says nothing has changed, yet again, but does he not welcome—as I do, as a constituency MP with a significant amount of military housing around RAF Northolt—the significant £1 billion-plus investment into military housing and the insourcing back into public ownership of thousands of MOD homes, after the previous Government’s botched privatisation deal, which cost taxpayers huge amounts of public money?

[Gideon Amos]

I welcome the moves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, including the insourcing, but the responsibility for determining whether the homes meet the “decent homes plus” standard is down to contractors, who have a commercial interest in reporting that. The difference with the decent homes standard generally is that it is subject to independent inspection. That is a crucial difference. Surely there should be a robust and accountable regime set out in primary legislation to ensure that that investment continues and those standards are reached. That is the least that our service people should be able to expect.

As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was given categoric assurances that the Government would legislate in this regard, but they did not and neither have this Government. Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, reminded the Lords, speaking from experience, that this is not a new problem but one that Governments had failed to tackle for decades. He said:

“For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation…For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so…So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1759.]

That is the nub of the issue. Service families have heard promises for decades. Now, surely, is the time for action. Our military deserve the gold standard, and that means they deserve legislative provision for decent homes, however the Government wish to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

The Bill before us is one of the most important and impactful Bills currently before Parliament. I say that not as someone who has seen a few emails in my inbox, but as someone who has felt the impact of the sector, having experienced homelessness twice in my teenage years and having been evicted through a section 21 eviction. As a renter as an adult for many years in London, I know the worry that many go through when pushing for simple repairs to be made or for mould to be addressed, fearing that ultimately their reward for asserting their legal rights will be a section 21 eviction.

The private rented sector in this country is unbalanced and insecure, and the rights of tenants are far outweighed by the powers of the landlord in our legal system. Like many in this place, I am aware of countless cases of constituents who have experienced section 21 evictions and poor treatment right across the sector—treatment that the Bill will go a significant way to remedying. That is why I hope Members will support the Government in opposing the Lords amendments, which seek to weaken, neuter and undermine key provisions of the Bill. Specifically, I want to mention Lords amendments 26, 27, 11 and 18; I am pleased that the Minister has outlined that the Government will oppose them.

Lords amendments 26 and 27 would require local authorities to meet a criminal standard of proof to impose financial penalties for discrimination and rental bidding. That seems completely inappropriate for the offences, with a relatively small maximum penalty of £7,000. That is also completely out of kilter with other provisions that local authorities would enforce to a similar civil standard. It would be incredibly hard to meet that burden of proof for many of those offences. How would a tenant prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for instance, they had been discriminated against for being on benefits? Anyone in that situation would know quite clearly that that is incredibly difficult—if not impossible—to do. Clearly, the amendment would neuter the provisions of the Bill. Local authorities have incredibly limited resources, particularly for enforcement action, and such a high bar would be likely to deter them from pursuing those offences further.

Lords amendment 11, which would allow a landlord to require a pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent as a condition of consenting to a tenant keeping a pet in their property, is again disproportionate. First, it would hit the poorest hardest. I am pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has pets and has no problem with such a provision, but many people not on a parliamentary salary would struggle to pay three weeks’ extra deposit on top of the five weeks’ deposit already in place. The Minister mentioned an average cost of £900. In a constituency like mine in London, the cost would be even more than £900; for a rented three or four-bed family home, it would probably be several thousand pounds. That is a completely disproportionate charge for simply having a cat or dog at home.

Secondly, there is no evidence that such a pet deposit is required to protect a property. Recent research by the University of Hull found that three quarters of pet-owning tenancies result in absolutely no claim against the existing deposit levels, so I would argue that the five-week deposit is more than adequate to support pet-owning households. In fact, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home found that owning a pet increased the length of time someone stayed in a tenancy and reduced tenant turnover, benefiting the landlord financially, not harming them.

I am also significantly opposed to Lords amendment 18, which would reduce the period for which landlords could not re-let their property from 12 months to six months after they had evicted a tenant on the basis that they intended to sell their property. My concern is that this six-month reduction is not sufficient time to meaningfully disincentivise landlords from gaming the system and would reintroduce section 21 through the back door.

Take the London market, for instance, where average rents have increased by 32% over the last five years—the successful sector that Opposition Members have highlighted. Six months is not long enough to dissuade a landlord from benefiting from that sort of rental increase over short periods of time. The inconvenience that a 12-month time period would cause to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell is relatively minor compared with the potential harm caused to the many tenants who would be affected by such a loophole.

In conclusion, houses are homes, not just investments. This Bill was written to rebalance the relationship between the landlord and the tenant in the tenant’s favour, fixing a decades-long power imbalance that has deprioritised the rights of tenants to a safe, stable and affordable home. All the amendments have in common a shared motive to shift the balance back towards landlords to weaken this landmark legislation. That would save some good landlords a small inconvenience, but it would be at the expense of the rights and protections afforded to each and every tenant. That is not reasonable or justifiable, and that is why I will vote against the amendments. I hope that others will do the same and give renters the rights and security they deserve.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Renters have waited long enough: this Bill is overdue, and it is time to deliver. The Conservatives had their chance. They promised reform, then watered it down. The Renters (Reform) Bill gathered dust while tenants were left to suffer, so Liberal Democrats absolutely welcome this Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill. But let us be clear: this Bill must hold firm in protecting the rights of tenants. My inbox is overflowing with experiences that should shame us all: families sleeping on the floor, windows that whistle in the wind, homes riddled with damp and mould, and tenants harassed by landlords to intimidate them out of their homes. This is not just about comfort and health; it is about dignity, justice and fairness.

Energy efficiency must be front and centre. Too many renters are living in homes that make them sick and are paying through the nose to heat them. Fuel poverty is a national scandal, and the Bill has a role to play in ending that. While the spotlight is on private renters, we must not forget those in social housing or in homes owned by institutions. They deserve the same rights, protections and standards.

I want to talk to Lords amendment 39 and Ministry of Defence housing. It is outrageous that the families of those who serve and who risk their lives for us are denied the legal protection that others will enjoy. These families are often uprooted, isolated and left behind while loved ones serve abroad or at sea. Yet they are told that they do not qualify for the same decent housing standards as everyone else. I have met families and service personnel around the country and even around the world through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and one of the issues most frequently cited by those thinking of leaving the armed forces is their housing. Too many of their homes are below par.

The Government say that most MOD homes already meet the standard—fine, then what is the harm in giving these families the legal right to decent housing? If the homes are good, the law will confirm it. If they are not, that is why we need the law. Let us be honest: many tenants, whether in military housing, Church estates or country manors, are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to challenge their landlord and lose their home. Rights must be for everyone, accessible without fear or favour.

The Government claim that councils cannot access the homes for security reasons, but I am sure the Minister will know, as do those of us who have military homes in our areas, that most family homes are not behind the wire. For those that are, there are solutions. We must find a solution and ensure that these families have the same rights. No one should be denied decent housing because of who they work for. I want to address the attempts to water down the Bill.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Danny Beales Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The vast majority of us want a more balanced and managed migration system built on the principles of contribution and fairness. That is what I hear from constituents in all walks of life in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. However, the question is: how do we get there? How do we get to a more managed level in a fair and just way? My constituents are concerned that the two matters we are debating today do not meet that fairness test.

I have heard from many constituents who are deeply concerned about what these proposals—the extension of the indefinite leave to remain to 10 years and, in particular, the retrospective nature of the application—might mean for them. Many who came to this country in good faith under the current system have planned their lives on the assumption that it will be in force.

Many skilled people from right across the world have the choice of where to come and be a nurse or start a business and contribute. I am concerned that applying the 10-year qualifying period retrospectively to people who already live in the UK, and who made the decision to do so a long time ago, would not be fair and would be deeply disruptive to their lives. I am also not convinced that the proposals, with their retrospective nature, would have any effect on our current migration levels.

This blanket policy, regardless of circumstance, contribution and needs, may also have significant and adverse equalities impacts, which I hope the Government will consider. I encourage them to think carefully and deeply about the implications of the decision in a variety of contexts, particularly for vulnerable migrants such as children or the elderly.

A constituent wrote to me today about the impact on child migrants and the accessibility of university education. Without ILR, prospective students would have to pay full international fees, which are extortionate. If this change comes into force, a child who moves to this country at 10 years old and completes secondary education in the UK would not qualify for UK-based higher education fees. They would potentially have to delay their education for a number of years or put it off indefinitely.

Last week, I happened to meet an individual who contacted me along with her mother, who is a neonatal care nurse at Hillingdon hospital. Her mother and father have always worked and paid taxes in the UK. They have contributed and been active in the community, as have so many of my constituents who now call the UK home and keep our public services running. As we seek to grow our economy, do we really want to restrict those who want to study engineering, maths or law, to work or study in the NHS or to set up a business? Do we want to deny them opportunities to get educated, put down longer-term roots and contribute further to our nation’s future?

I implore the Government to reflect deeply on the ILR changes and not to adopt a blanket approach, but to create a system that encourages contribution and community activity, that encourages people to work in our public services, and that supports education and skills being added to our communities, not taken away from them.

I also concur with colleagues who talked today about our responsibilities to BNO visa holders. I am very proud to represent the many BNO visa holders in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the seat that I represent, particularly in Hillingdon. One told me recently that this was a key pathway, “crucial” for their safety, and that it provided hope for many in their community

“following the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, which has severely undermined fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, protest, and press.”

Many BNO visa holders have made the UK their home, not through an easy choice but because of life-changing circumstances and decisions. They hoped that after five years of residence and meeting the quite strenuous conditions—including the English requirements and the “Life in the UK” test—they would have the chance to apply for indefinite leave to remain and, one year later, for citizenship. I encourage the Minister to carefully consider the cases of those with BNO visas.

We can and must reduce migration to a sustainable level. We can restore public confidence and ensure that the system is managed well. However, we can also ensure that it is fair and just, that it encourages migration that works for our country, and that it works for people who come here and call our country home.

Many of my constituents are deeply worried about the narrative in Hillingdon and nationally, which seeks to divide communities and to other members of our community. At this time, we must stand together, celebrate our diversity and encourage people to reflect on the importance of difference to a successful and sustainable economy, society and country. I hope that we will not forget that as we reform our migration system, and that we will design reforms that work not only for our country, but for those who call it home.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Beales Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I do not think it is any secret that I, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing Minister are very hard on all our partners, including the public sector, in order to make sure that they do their job. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important concern, and the Housing Minister will write to him on it.

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

3. What steps her Department is taking to increase housing delivery.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government’s plan for change includes a hugely ambitious target of building 1.5 million new homes in England in this Parliament. In the 12 months we have been in office, we have taken decisive steps to boost housing supply, including overhauling the national planning policy framework and introducing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will further streamline the delivery of new homes, as well as critical infrastructure.

[Danny Beales]

It is welcome to once again have a Government who believe in house building. I thank the Minister for his comments. When I speak to house builders, one of the issues they raise with me is the performance of the Building Safety Regulator. Shovel-ready projects that have planning permission are delayed at gateway 2, and checks that should take a matter of weeks are taking months, if not years. What is the Department doing to manage the performance of the regulator, ensure it has the resources it needs, and hold it to account, so that we get spades in the ground as soon as possible?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the operation of the Building Safety Regulator, which, while essential to upholding building safety standards, is causing delays in handling applications for building projects, and is having an impact on new supply in London. I hope he will take comfort not only from the £2 million the Government allocated to the BSR in February, but from the targeted package of reforms we announced last month, including the establishment of a new fast-track process to reduce delays and strengthen leadership and governance.

London’s National Economic Contribution

Danny Beales Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I too thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this important and timely debate.

Often, when people think about London’s economy, they think about the City banker at the Bank of England or the towers at Canary Wharf, but London’s economy is so much more than that. The value of London’s economy is dynamic and diverse, and it is visible in outer as well as inner-London boroughs such as Hillingdon, which my constituency lies in.

Uxbridge and South Ruislip is central to London’s economy and our industrial landscape. We are home to major manufacturers such as Coca-Cola Europe and General Mills, which makes everyday products that hon. Members might know, such as Green Giant sweetcorn, Old El Paso and many other good—but perhaps not good for the waistline—products. They are key contributors to the UK’s food sector, which the Government are rightly elevating in their new national food strategy. We are also home to key transport and logistics businesses, with two airports—Heathrow and RAF Northolt—and major freight routes linking up the rest of the country.

We are home to key life sciences organisations and institutions. I recently had the privilege of meeting AAH Pharmaceuticals, which distributes huge amounts of pharmaceutical products just in time to local community pharmacies across the country. There is also our contribution to the defence sector, which the Government are rightly backing with increasing proportions of GDP to rebuild our armed forces. We are home to armed forces industry businesses making parts for our submarines and frigates, our RAF Northolt base, and our service personnel and other associated contractors. The care and health sector also features prominently in our borough, and provides jobs for thousands of residents. The economic case for the role of care is clear, and it is a key growth sector for our economy in London, as well as the country more broadly.

In Uxbridge and South Ruislip we are not just delivering today’s jobs, but tomorrow’s economy. I have had the privilege of meeting with Brunel University, a national leader in engineering and life sciences with a recently opened new medical college. Uxbridge college, our further education institution, has just agreed a partnership with MIT in the United States on engineering, which shows the future-facing nature of our education sector, underpinning the UK’s goal to become an innovation superpower. It is vital that we invest in further and higher education and our skills sector if we are to grow.

London’s economy contributes £500 billion annually to the UK economy. That is both central and outer London. Although we do not agree on much, I am sure the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) would agree that industrial clusters in outer-London boroughs such as Hillingdon are important in their own right, and are exactly the sort of regional engines of growth that our industrial strategy should back. The strategy talks clearly about supporting city regions and clusters with key industries, and Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and Hillingdon more broadly, are perfectly fitted to that model.

There is a growing view that London should take a back seat in investment compared with other parts of the economy, but that is a false economy. When London grows, other regions grow too. The links between regions and nations in the United Kingdom are clear in terms of jobs, tax revenues, exports and supply chains. I remember being the cabinet member for the economy and regeneration in Camden for seven years, when I was involved, to my pleasure, in the knowledge quarter developing around life sciences, tech and AI, with huge multinational businesses, spin-outs and start-ups. It was not just a story about the growth of London and King’s Cross; businesses there were connected to the Cambridge and Oxfordshire arc, and places such as Leeds and other northern cities. Growth in the knowledge quarter benefited the whole UK economy. That is true of so many of London’s economic growth clusters.

Growth in London is not automatic, and it cannot be taken for granted. It needs fostering and investment. That has not always happened effectively over the last 14 years. Issues such as energy grid constraints, particularly in west London, are holding back growth, house building and the expansion of key institutions and organisations. It is vital that we deal with grid connectivity if we are to support London’s growth. Transport investments are key to growth not just in central London, but outer London too. Freight infrastructure needs investing in and we need to support workforce mobility. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) when she praises the value of the Elizabeth line, and not just because I take it to work four days a week here in Parliament; it has generally transformed so many parts of our city and other growth towns along the way to Reading and Maidenhead too.

I recently visited the CLIP project, the Central line improvement programme, and it talked directly about how new trains for the Piccadilly line were being built in places such as Derbyshire. There were huge links with jobs, skills and growth through the investment that TfL is making. We need to go further and faster to keep our city moving. The Elizabeth line, particularly the Maidenhead and Reading branch which serves West Drayton, is nearing capacity due to its success. It needs extra trains quickly, and I hope the new stock that this Government have supported financially will serve the Reading and Maidenhead branch. We also need investment. It is a shame, having completed Crossrail 1, that Crossrail 2 is still just an idea and there is not a spade in the ground. Ideally, spades would have continued to move and the digging machines would have moved forward in building Crossrail 2, and we would now be planning Crossrail 3 and 4 to meet the city’s needs and unlock growth potential for the UK economy.

As hon. Members have mentioned, policing and crime is not just a safety issue; it is an economic issue too. Business growth and confidence depend on public safety and people being able to invest, open businesses and go to businesses and high streets with the confidence that they will be free from crime and disorder. Policing in London performs two roles—a local policing role, and vital central and national roles too. That was not always considered when funding was allocated. As hon. Members have mentioned, we vitally need investment in the Met to ensure that it can do both those things to the best of its ability.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend, and almost constituency neighbour, for giving way. Does he agree that it is important that we have more police on the ground in London, which I believe this Government are ensuring, but also important that those police have powers —which has not happened over the last 14 years? Therefore, would my hon. Friend welcome this Government’s new Crime and Policing Bill, which will bring in respect orders and will also ensure that police can take action against shoplifters who were getting away scot-free under the last Government?

[Danny Beales]

I completely concur. I have recently been visiting shops, including Sainsbury’s, in my constituency, and have been told of the awful situation over the last 14 years, with theft and shoplifting skyrocketing, and people having a licence to shoplift with the £200 rule under the last Government. Staff in those shops welcomed the news when I told them about the protections for shop workers and the scrapping of the £200 rule. Lots of other measures in the Crime and Policing Bill are strongly needed and much overdue. I completely concur with that point.

Housing has also been mentioned and is vital. I welcome this Government’s record commitment and investment into housing. I believe around £11 billion of that investment will come to London; that is crucial. We have huge amounts of stalled sites, some half-built, in Hillingdon. In Uxbridge, at the St Andrew’s site, the concrete core is up, but the cranes went a number of years ago due to the Liz Truss mini-Budget chaos. A number of other sites, including at the former Master Brewer, have planning permission for hundreds of homes which could make a vital contribution to solving our housing and temporary accommodation crisis. They need bridging capital, investment, loans and investment in affordable housing. I welcome the Government’s commitment to move forward on that agenda.

The industrial strategy is clear that the UK’s prosperity depends on long-term strategic investment in the places and sectors that deliver. Uxbridge, South Ruislip and Hillingdon are among those places that are delivering in food, logistics, care, science, innovation and skills. If we want Britain to grow, we must back London—and Hillingdon—not just its banks, but its factories, freight depots, research hubs and colleges.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the official Opposition in this debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for having secured it.

Although there will always be a degree of party political difference—I am sure the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) achieved some cross-party consensus when he said “heaven forbid” the idea of a Liberal Democrat Government—what came across clearly in every Member’s contribution, including from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), was the sense of valuing the success of our capital city, and understanding the contribution it makes not just to the people who live here and choose to make it their home, but to our country as a whole. That is my starting point.

In preparing for this debate we will all have been sent a lot of information from many organisations that represent different aspects of life in our capital, but is clear that the contribution of London’s economy to the rest of the country is vital. It is vital because it is the biggest income earner for our country, because it makes a huge net contribution to tax receipts, which support public services across the whole country, and because it is the one genuine world city that places the United Kingdom in an internationally competitive economic league. That is why it has such an incredibly diverse population. In my constituency alone, which is not by any means one of the most diverse in London, well over 100 first languages are spoken by local residents, yet they all have in common the essential fact of being Londoners.

As we consider the decisions that the Government will have to make, and the policies they are considering, I would like to highlight a number of points that arise partly from the views brought forward local authorities and business organisations, but also from the day-to-day concerns we hear from Londoners.

A number of Members highlighted the challenges around housing, which is an important place to start. We recognise the nature of our city: housing remains in huge demand and, as several Members highlighted, is significantly more expensive than it is in the rest of the UK. In Greater London, 300,000 new homes already have planning permission. However, we have to acknowledge that there has been a 66% reduction in new home starts in the last two years, and in the last 12 months a 92% reduction in new home starts through our housing associations, which are the main provider of social housing. There has also been a 27% rise in the last 12 months in the number of people sleeping rough on the streets of our capital city. There is, then, a rapidly accelerating challenge around housing and, overall, a collapse in London’s delivery of house building in recent years, compared with the ambitions that the Government have set out and many London boroughs have enshrined in their housing targets.

We need to ensure that the aspiration the Government set out in their Planning and Infrastructure Bill is reflected in the actions that take place in the market. The very significant loading of that additional housing funding towards the tail end not of this Parliament, but of the Parliament after means that many of those London boroughs are asking when they can expect to see the additional resources that will help them to deliver that aspiration. Decisions that have been made, for example, to further ringfence the ability of local authorities to spend homelessness funding that they already have further constrains their ability in particular to address issues around rough sleeping.

We also need to recognise that, although many have made reference to the challenges of the local government funding formula, the NHS funding formula also creates very significant variations in the levels of funding, particularly within the capital. Just as, on the whole, inner London boroughs under governing parties of all colours have enjoyed significantly better per capita levels of funding than those in outer London—reflected in widely differing levels of council tax—we know that certain parts of our London NHS are significantly better funded.

The Minister will have been in the Chamber and heard many of his colleagues talk about their hope that the new 10-year plan for the NHS will see the further development of walk-in services and urgent care centres to keep people out of A&E. The NHS, because of its funding pressures, is looking to close those services at Mount Vernon Hospital in my constituency, creating further pressure on an already hugely pressured A&E in the constituency of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), who will be aware of this already, as the hospital is under the same NHS trust.

We need to make sure that not only local government, but the national health service are thinking about how they can deploy their resources in the interest of Londoners across the capital. We also need to reflect on the diversity of London’s economy. As a number of Members have mentioned, when we talk about London we tend to think of glass towers in the City inhabited by billionaire international bankers. However, 44% of the London borough of Havering is farmland, as is 23% of the London borough of Hillingdon and 35% of the London borough of Bromley. As well as attracting international capital and the cutting-edge technology industries, London also remains significant through the contribution that agriculture makes to the life of people in our capital.

Those of us in outer London, where most of those farms are located, will have heard loudly and clearly from local farmers—whose land is often not just farmland, but often a crucial part of the green belt, which maintains and supports the environment of our city—how concerned they are about the impact of measures such as the family farm tax. The family farm tax has a disproportionately large impact on London, because that farmland is of significantly higher value than equivalent sites in other parts of the country, due to its location in Greater London.

[Danny Beales]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that, although the farmland and the farmers of London are deeply important, that is one crucial measure—alongside a number of others that the Opposition have not supported—that will raise billions of pounds to invest in our NHS? Hillingdon hospital now has £1.4 billion, after only getting £70 million from the last Government, to be actually built after 14 years. Is it not the case that every constituent in Hillingdon will benefit from that and every constituent in London will benefit from billions of pounds more in our NHS and in education?

[David Simmonds]

I am glad to hear my neighbour express his strong, vocal support for the family farms tax. I am sure his constituents at Goulds Green farm, Maygoods farm and other such places will be listening attentively to the position he takes as they reflect on the impact that will have on their businesses and the contribution they make to the local authority.

Given the wealth it generates and the contribution that it makes, London needs to have those world-class services funded correctly. The hon. Member will know, as he was a by-election candidate before becoming a Member of Parliament, that Governments of all parties, broadly speaking, have made commitments. We need to make sure those are delivered and that some of the changes made, particularly on London’s fringes, do not have a detrimental impact. I suggest to the Minister that it is worth having a consultation going across Government on what the impact of some of those decisions around the London fringes will have on the provision of NHS services in the capital.

The fact that London is not immune to those worldwide trends means that issues around crime and personal safety remain very significant, and particularly salient in their impact on our tourist industry. All of us work in this city and will be very aware that, in the good weather as the summer holidays get going, our public transport is full of people from all over the world coming to stay in London hotels, spend money in London restaurants, go shopping, and take their children to see London museums. Making sure that we live in a capital city that is safe, and where the traditional reputation of the United Kingdom as a safe reputation is maintained, is incredibly important. I pay tribute to the work that one of my local councillors, Susan Hall, the Conservative leader at the GLA, has been doing to make sure that those issues remain active and at the forefront of mayoral thinking.

We know that Mayor Khan was the only police and crime commissioner in the whole country to give back to the previous Government the money that he was given for extra police officers in the capital, because he chose not to spend it on that. That has left a deficit in our police numbers across the city. We need to ensure that our police have not just the resources but the connections with other local public services that enable them to do an effective job of cracking down on crime. That is a process of long-term change. In the past, many retailers asked for and were granted additional powers, via the Security Industry Authority, to enable their in-house staff to, for example, carry out arrests of people who are shoplifting. The cost of insuring those staff has run well above what any of those businesses contemplated. We must recognise that we are therefore facing a new policing paradigm, around shoplifting in particular.

In conclusion, although this is not just about the Minister’s Department, we need to hear from him that the Government are sighted on the value that London adds to this country. There has sometimes been a sense, particularly in the debate about the local government funding formula, that any formula that does not extract significant resources from London and redeploy them elsewhere will not find favour with this Government. I appreciate that the Minister is under pressure from colleagues across the country who want the deployment of additional resources, but a 27% rise in rough sleeping in the capital and the collapse in the delivery of social housing under this mayor is putting acute pressure on London’s local authorities. The levels of deprivation in some parts of this city are especially acute, given that London’s median income is around £10,000 a year higher than that of the rest of the United Kingdom, which means the dynamic around housing costs is particularly powerful.

We need to ensure that this city can continue, from its thriving economy, to contribute 22%—although the figures are debated, and it depends which lobby group you ask, it is between a fifth and a quarter—of our country’s GDP, or around £12 billion net, after public expenditure, to the wider Exchequer of the United Kingdom. That is £64,000 a year GDP per capita against a UK average of £37,000 a year. That economic competitiveness is living proof of the effectiveness of trickle-down economics. We know that, from the international billionaire who decides to build a new business headquarters in the city, to the trades, the workers who deliver it and maintain it, everybody benefits from the success of London. This is, and must remain, a city where people from all over the world and all over our country want to come to live and work, to study, to make a home or to raise a family. As this debate has showed, we all recognise the stake that we have; for all of us, as Members of Parliament, London is not just a place where some of us choose to live, but the place where all of us spend our working lives.

Local Government Finances: London

Danny Beales Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Last, but not least. It is a pleasure—less of a pleasure now, but it was a pleasure—to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I echo the points my colleagues have made about the unprecedented financial pressures on London councils. While we need to tackle temporary accommodation, the SEND crisis and much more—that is as true in Hillingdon as in any other borough—we also need to ensure the very best financial governance for local authorities.

Unfortunately, in Hillingdon, on top of those long-term pressures, we have seen short-termism and poor governance. A salami-slice approach to budgeting—taking off an extra per cent each year—and the failure to transform services and build the financial base of the council long term have all come home to roost, with the council now in financial crisis. We have seen that if we do not invest in new homes, we get temporary accommodation pressures. If we do not invest in early years and youth services, and close them instead, we get more pressures later in the education system. That is what has happened in Hillingdon.

We have the lowest reserves among our nearest neighbours. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy reported that we ran them down from £62 million in 2021 to £20 million in 2025.

[Dan Tomlinson]

In Barnet, we have around 85 care homes. Inner London boroughs such as Camden and Islington have around 20, yet the grant that inner London boroughs receive is around £3 million, whereas Barnet council and other outer London boroughs only get around £2 million. Does my hon. Friend think that that injustice in the funding formula is also causing issues for councils such as the one in the area he represents?

[Danny Beales]

I do—we have to consider the costs that outer London boroughs face, as well as London more generally. As has been said excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), London is special; it is different, and it faces extra costs and pressures. That is the case right across London.

This very year, Hillingdon’s own financial officer wrote a damning cover report to the council’s budget, making it clear that the road is fast running out. They pointed to governance issues within the council and an inability to meet its own, less ambitious savings targets in previous years, compared with the projected future targets. My constituents have paid the price for that mismanagement—they are paying substantially more every single year, with fees and charges going up exponentially, and getting fewer services as a result.

I welcome the calls for extra long-term financial support for local government, which is much needed; however, we have to ensure as a Government that when we agree that extra long-term financial settlement, which hopefully we will, governance improvements are in place. This money should not be used to fix the cracks in the short term again, but should be used to fundamentally transform services, including the SEND system, the housing system, the social care system and many others. In some authorities, when times were slightly easier than they are today, that did not happen.

To sum up and echo my colleagues’ points, London councils are on their knees financially. As a Government, it is vital that we intervene, because local government is key—it is everyone’s front door to government and their community. We need to invest and we need long-term reform of services, including our education and housing systems, to provide the mixed, successful and financially sustainable communities we all want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) on securing, with cross-party support, a very wide-ranging debate. My starting point, having served 12 years as a London councillor under the last Labour Government and then 12 years as a London councillor under the previous coalition and Conservative Government, is that he should be careful what he wishes for when he has a debate on this subject.

We can already see a pattern beginning to reassert itself in the finances of our local authorities in London and in local government generally. What sound like significant increases are announced, but while one hand gives, the other takes away. Extra funding that has been announced, for the most part comprises maximum possible rises in council tax, very large increases in business rates, and an assumption that local authorities will raise the maximum possible fees and charges from their residents, which is then deducted from any central Government support. We can see the imposition of that in decisions large and small. On the smaller side, we have had representations from London Councils about the impact of ringfenced grant funding to tackle homelessness, which reduces the freedom and flexibility of local authorities in the capital to deploy those resources to keep people off the streets. On a much more macro scale, we have the national insurance contributions rise, which, after additional Government support, leaves local authorities in England over £1 billion net worse off than before the Budget was announced.

Many of us will have served through many years when there were announcements, such as significant rises in the single regeneration budget, and the establishment of the dedicated schools grant under the last Labour Government. However, as Members who experienced those announcements will know, that approach of starting with a standard spending assessment and then damping any increase that it could give rise to, especially impacting on outer London boroughs with a very significant level of social need, has had a significant long-term impact. If there is an apology to be made from the Opposition about our approach to finances in local government, it is that we did not go as far as we would have wished to, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), in redressing some of those imbalances.

The very first council meeting I attended as a member of the public was the last one at which a Labour council ever set a budget in Hillingdon. An 18% council tax rise hit local residents, and the council made £40 million—then around 10% of its budget—in unspecified savings. Let us not succumb to any fiction that somehow we are entering a gilded age for the local authorities of our capital city. And of course, it comes at a time when we know that the pressures on local authorities are rising sharply. According to the charity St Mungo’s, there has been a 29% increase in rough sleeping in the capital compared with the equivalent period under the last Conservative Government. A huge impact on our economy—not just the business rate rises, but the loss of confidence and the lack of investment.

Many Members have spoken eloquently about the pressures around homelessness—the shortage of housing. We have all been ambitious about that, but it is very striking if we look simply at the numbers. The serving Mayor, Sir Sadiq, was set a target by the last Government of around 100,000 new affordable homes. He set himself a target of 52,000—around half what central Government said he should be able to deliver. He actually delivered 35,000 new affordable homes. In total, in equivalent periods, the current Mayor has delivered 65,000 affordable homes, compared with 90,000 under his Conservative predecessor.

Although we all share the ambition, we need the shared starting point as well, of recognising the challenges, including the impact of damping and the inner/outer London inequality. Those things have existed in our funding formula for a very long time, and they are part of a complex set of interactions that arise from not just the current Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport and the Home Office. Many, many London local authorities are supporting significant numbers of asylum seekers. Hillingdon has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the whole country—a cost not currently funded at all by central Government, but contributing very significantly to the numbers of people needing to be housed and children to be cared for. That complex picture needs to be taken into account when we debate this issue.

I have some asks and some requests to put to the Minister. Like others, I thank London Councils for its excellent work to consider not just the big picture of the quantum of financing, but the things that could be done, such as removing some of the ringfences that the Government have imposed on how those resources are deployed. The first ask is that, as the Government proceed with their processes on devolution, we look at a true shared decision-making arrangement. There is a risk that the devolution settlement will leave London as the only major devolved area with no formal agreement between the Mayor and the boroughs on shared decision making. We see much of that tension around housing.

I ask the Government once again to look at a process around fairer funding, which has been worked on in the past, to begin to address the inequality of funding between inner and outer London. We know the origins of that lie in assumptions that are made about deprivation, but it manifests in almost every area of local government finance in London.

We still see relatively very large amounts of grant going into inner-London local authorities with low-level council tax, which are also often the ones that are most able to raise revenue in other ways. If we compare parking revenue accounts, for example, London borough of Bexley raises £6 million a year and Hillingdon raises £3.8 million a year, all of which can contribute, to a limited extent, to things such as environmental and road improvements. The London borough of Westminster raises £70 million a year—a net contribution of over £40 million just for environmental projects alone. The capacity of local authorities in London to raise revenue is hugely variable, and not just about the costs imposed by the demographics. We need to make sure that we take that fully into account.

I know that the Minister has been asked for this before on the Floor of the House, so I want to ask him to reconsider the position around national insurance contributions. We have just had an emergency Budget, and have been through a period of six months where it has become clear that the sums do not add up, but its impact—driving up the cost of children’s and adult’s social care, as well as every other part of public service in the capital—has been absolutely enormous. We have had representations from every single London borough about the impact of that. There were promises made that that would be mitigated, and we need to see them fulfilled.

Let me finish with an important point. It seems to me that all Members here, on a cross-party basis, have done their best to speak up from east to west, from inner to outer, for the interests of residents in the capital. We know that those challenges will be significant. I say gently to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the rises in charges are 5%, not exponential.

[Danny Beales]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the significant uplift in public health funding from this Government? Or the fact that there is a third more homelessness funding, a significant and additional uplift in local government funding and millions more to be spent on potholes, one of the biggest levels in London? I could go on. That is a significant increase compared with what happened under the last Government, of which he was part. At the same time, our council is increasing council tax for many people, introducing a garden tax and making significant increases in fees and charges, as well as cutting council tax support to many. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an acceptable record?

[David Simmonds]

I think I will probably avoid descending too much into parochial politics, but it is important to recognise that I will have to pay the garden tax—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will—because I live in the London borough of Hillingdon.

All our local authorities are facing elements of those challenges, and are addressing them as best they can. London local authorities have demonstrated probably the greatest financial resilience of any group of local authorities in the country. We have seen a considerable increase in balances held by local authorities across the capital, but that masks significant variations. In particular, significant financial pressures are being created in outer London, partly because of the significant numbers of unfunded costs around things such as asylum and the long-term impact of the very rapid rise in rough sleeping. Set that alongside the fact that the long-standing structural underfunding leaves them less able to deal with the impact of a massive increase in national insurance contributions and the devastating impact of the Budget on the local economy and its ability to pay those taxes, all of which support local services. Let us take all those things into account, and come out of this with a new funding settlement for London. I ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that this will not be one of those settlements where a Government simply give with one hand and take with the other.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Beales Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is as helpful as ever. I always look at the experience of other nations on planning reform. I recently met the Housing Minister from the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, and I will happily contact him about this specific point to see what lessons we can learn.

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

13. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on reducing levels of furniture poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

We regularly discuss a wide range of topics with ministerial colleagues, including the important matter of tackling poverty, and we also have the ministerial child poverty taskforce. The lack of furniture and other goods is an issue for many people in our country and it contributes to poor outcomes. We are absolutely committed to tackling poverty and inequality, and the household support fund for local authorities, administered by the Department for Work and Pensions, provides considerable support towards that.

[Danny Beales]

I welcome that response. Eight per cent of families in this country are in deep furniture poverty. I have seen at first hand the impact of that: people are unable to have a hot meal without a microwave or a cooker and are unable to have a decent night’s sleep without a bed—they sleep on the floor with a mattress or a duvet. Will my hon. Friend meet me and the End Furniture Poverty campaign to discuss what more we can do as a Government locally and nationally to tackle this issue?

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend makes important points about the impact of the lack of these essential items through poverty, and I am happy to meet him and the End Furniture Poverty campaign.