Danny Beales

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (4 Jul 2024 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 228

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

   Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

   I am slightly worried to say that I agree with an Opposition Member, but I share the hon. Member’s frustration at the fact that there are many homes, often on brownfield sites, that have permission but have not been built. I see that in my constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. However, from my experience of speaking to landowners and developers, the reason why those homes have not been built is that the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the financial models of those schemes, and that the Building Safety Regulator and the roll-out of new regulations, including second staircase rules, under the last Government stymied and slowed down development and changed the viability. Fundamentally, in the hon. Member’s patch and mine, Conservative councils are taking far too long to approve development on brownfield sites, if they ever do. Again, that is pushing against viability. This Government have taken measures on all the things I mentioned. Does the hon. Member not agree that it is slightly rich for the Opposition to claim that this Government are somehow responsible for those homes not being built out more quickly?<span id="108" class="column-number" data-column-number="108"></span>

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

   Social Housing Bill (Third sitting)

   Perhaps I am going to get in trouble, but once again I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Member says. It is frustrating that the future benefits of infrastructure have not often been realised because of the funding models in place. Local leaders and local mayors have said, “The case is clear for this infrastructure: it will unleash housing and growth,” but to get that capital they have to go to the Treasury to make a business case, with begging bowl in hand. It takes too long. This Government are changing that. The Budget yesterday gave significant new powers to mayors: in London and around my patch, they include the tax increment financing scheme for Euston, the Bakerloo extension and a number of other projects. The Government are looking to give mayors a greater share of business rates and taxation to invest up front in infrastructure and the benefits of growth to come. Are the Government not doing exactly what the right hon. Member is saying should happen?

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I will probably put this in less eloquent terms, so it might be easier to understand. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the situation we have got to is ludicrous? A huge amount of council stock has been sold privately, and much of it is now rented back privately as subsidised housing through the housing benefit system. Is it not ludicrous that, rather than seeing people benefit from subsidised rents through social housing, we are publicly subsidising higher rents through the PRS system? A huge amount of that stock is now run by buy-to-let landlords. Even more ludicrously, we now have councils buying back that stock with public subsidy to use as affordable housing. Is this not the opposite of a virtuous cycle? It is a cycle of decline, with more and more public subsidy being wasted, rather than the stock being kept for use as affordable housing. Is that not worth seeking to end?

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I echo what the Minister is saying. I have dealt with real issues affecting victims of domestic violence, who often have to move from places where they have spent many years, and we have been talking to the Department about the application of local connection tests, as well as rent arrears requirements, and their disproportionate impact. Many other groups can be affected, such as veterans, rough sleepers, and victims involved in gang-related crime who have to leave their area. Using purely a local connection test really does have worrying impacts on homelessness and housing. Taken to the extreme, in Hillingdon we have a local connection test that requires 10 consecutive years’ residency. Someone waiting for their situation to be assessed may end up sofa surfing with a neighbour just over the border in Harrow and suddenly forfeit their residency. They will have been there nine years, but lose out on the 10 consecutive years of waiting and therefore be deprioritised. Is it not right that we should be proportionate in how we apply these tests?

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I was not intending to speak to the new clause, but having heard Opposition Members, and considering my experience at the weekend in my constituency, I have a responsibility to do so. At the weekend, I attended the international mass at Our Lady of Lourdes and St Michael Catholic church in Uxbridge. It was standing room only, with 300 people—it had not been that busy for decades. It was full of people wearing football shirts from around the world and international dress. It was a congregation of Uxbridge residents from all over the world. The priest stood up in front of the packed church and proudly said that more than 50 nations were represented. He rightly considered them all to be part of our community, and he spoke about how the Irish community in Uxbridge had built the church, and now the congregation was building Uxbridge. I met social care workers, people from India who I already knew and who work at the hospital as nurses, people who are starting businesses—all those people are taxpayers, and many of them have indefinite leave to remain. Their children may have been born in Britain and be British citizens even if the parents are not. The new clause seeks to drive a wedge between our community and create second-class citizens and second-class residents in this country. It is not based on need. I take umbrage about the point that this is funded by the British taxpayer. The new clause is not talking about what is and is not funded by the taxpayer. Many people who have come here and made their home here are taxpayers. Many people who live in council homes and may not have been born in Britain are taxpayers.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   It is good. The new clause does not seek to distinguish between contribution and who is or is not a taxpayer; it is loaded with that language, but fundamentally it is an attack on people who were not born in Britain, which is deeply unfair.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   I do not think the hon. Gentleman has read the new clause and the comments about taxpayers. As far as I understand it, this is not a new clause that says, “You only qualify if you’ve paid tax.” It is not about that; it is about someone’s place of birth.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

   Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

   Again, as far as I am aware, the new clause does not suggest prioritising only people who have made a certain contribution towards housing, or in tax. That is the language that has been used by the Opposition, but let us be frank that it is not the nature of what they are talking about.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Danny Beales

    Social Housing Bill (Fourth sitting)

    Perhaps it is the Opposition’s naivety— I am sure it is not deliberate—but in reality, focusing on whether someone is a British citizen will obviously preclude only those not born here. There will be no people born in Britain who will suddenly be precluded. The new clause is not about whether someone has contributed a certain amount of money or whether they are a taxpayer. The Opposition are seeking to drive a wedge through our communities and somehow suggest that the reason we have not got council homes is that they have all been snapped up by recent arrivals on boats, not because millions were sold off under the Conservative party of old. I hoped for better from the Opposition. I hoped we could start a discussion about how we deliver more council homes—I thought that was what we were attempting to do. Instead, the nasty party is back, seeking to drive wedges through our community. Everyone I met in that church who contributes to Uxbridge deserves a fair shout at local housing if they need it.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site