Danny Beales
MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip · Labour · United Kingdom
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
538 held · 463 searchable for Danny Beales. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“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?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Having been a cabinet member responsible for council house building in Camden for seven years, and building 1,000 homes, I can say that it is a challenge when council homes can quickly leave our stock through right to buy. Having built them at great public expense, and having borrowed on a 30-year basis to deliver them, the possibility of losing that asset at a discount without recouping the investment is a material consideration. Does the Minister agree that authorities that do not build council homes but rely on housing associations might not see this as a problem, as housing associations are not included in right to buy in the same way?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It therefore seems quite sensible not to tie up councils that are trying to build new homes, which is quite a complicated and time-consuming process, in consultations and discussions, but to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to work with local authorities, to give them more receipts, to increase the period within which receipts can be used or to reallocate them to schemes and councils that can build within an acceptable period. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. My experience is that local councils that are seeking to deliver new council homes have been calling for right-to-buy receipt reform for a long time. The previous Government had an overly restrictive approach to right-to-buy receipts. Councils were only allowed to keep a third of them for three years, and if they could not spend them within that time, they had to return them to the Treasury with interest. As a result, many decided not to take their receipts at all.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The written ministerial statement commits to hearing the voice of shared owners in the phase 2 review; will the Minister in his summing up elaborate a bit on how exactly he envisages shared owners will be involved in sharing their experience to shape its work? If he could outline the timeline for phase 2 a bit more, that would be very welcome.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In particular on the Union Park development in my constituency, many shared owners are trapped at the moment with Home Group as their landlord, unable to get buy-backs unless they are in extreme financial distress and unable to sell, because the market value is now not there, with millions of pounds of repairs to cladding and heating systems due. Their lives change, as all our lives change, but when the need to move happens, they are unable to do so. I welcome the commitment to a comprehensive review of buy-backs and consideration of the challenges of staircasing. We would all envisage that shared ownership is initially a stake that we hope grows in future, but many find that that is not the lived reality of shared ownership. It becomes difficult to staircase and difficult to sell out of it.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With much of the Government’s agenda on reforming leasehold or improving the rights of tenants, many shared owners feel that they fall between the gaps with their specific and unique form of tenure. That is why when the Bill was first discussed, many colleagues were interested in the potential for review as a means to address some of those concerns and issues. I have been heartened by the Minister’s response and the written ministerial statement, which I think specifically commits to review those areas of concern. I have heard from my constituents about the challenges of buy-backs or when major repairs are needed.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak briefly to the challenges of shared ownership, building on what the Minister has outlined in the Government response and the written ministerial statement. This issue was raised in the main Chamber when the Bill was discussed recently. Many of us passed on our constituents’ stories of shared ownership, the hopes of a first step on the ladder quickly turning into a nightmare—trapped, unable to staircase and facing all the responsibilities of ownerships, but none of the rights to decide about major works. They have to shoulder all the costs of major works, with mortgage increases and rent increases. They feel lost and unable to have a voice.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for referencing our previous debate on this topic. I welcome the Government’s action in developing guidance. I have seen worrying cases in my constituency of rent arrears being a barrier to victims of domestic violence getting a tenancy. There is concern that, even though rules have already been changed about local connection tests, they may not always be applied effectively, and local connection tests may still be used as a route to block victims of domestic violence. I welcome the development of guidance, but will the Minister commit to collecting evidence about the effectiveness of the guidance and whether further measures might be needed?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I completely agree that there is a desperate need for social homes in this country after decades of under-delivery, which this Government are starting to turn the tide on. It is interesting that earlier in Committee, Opposition Members were proposing amendments to support the further loss of council homes through allowing extensive right-to-buy provisions. The arguments do not seem to be compatible. Does the shadow Minister have any reflections on that? Does he not think that the threat of a review and potentially losing a council home if a person earns a bit more money might dampen their aspiration of trying to progress in life and get a better job?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the point about specific bodies, can the Minister clarify whether this provision would extend to hospital trusts and prisons within the criminal justice system? I am sure he knows that one of the most significant routes on to the street is from both of those public sector institutions. Unfortunately, hospitals rarely if ever count those who are likely to sleep rough on discharge or are currently doing so. Positively, the Government’s rough sleeping strategy is committed to ending discharge to street from hospitals, but getting that engagement from the NHS and trusts as well as the asylum system and prisons will be crucial to making that happen. Will this new clause be a step forward in that regard?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a tough time for motorists, which is why it is particularly galling that tonight Hillingdon council will meet to decide whether to increase parking charges by more than 70%. It is the second rise in just a year. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is bad for motorists and for businesses? Can we have a debate in this House to discuss what more we can all do to support motorists at this difficult time?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Perhaps Heathrow does not want to hear questions because, as we have seen time and again, it does not have the answer to meeting the four tests. We must take our time and think fully about the implications of expansion. We must have access to proper data that is thought through. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in calling for a proper national strategy about our aviation needs, which thinks holistically about every region and every aspect of our nation’s aviation needs. We must think again on Heathrow expansion.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For many of us, Heathrow expansion is a perennial issue that should be dealt with, so we do not have to keep on talking about it. For residents in Hillingdon and London, the impacts will be profound, with the case as shaky now as it has ever been. That has been compounded by what can only be described as an incredibly poor consultation process, which failed to engage properly with the strength of feeling on the issue, with consultations taking place in August, despite many stakeholders, including me, outlining the difficulty of securing proper engagement over the summer. Heathrow’s own consultation that is taking place as we speak, with have no events in my constituency, despite its neighbouring the airport.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Climate Change Committee’s work, published last month, found that aviation emissions had more than doubled since 1990, and that Heathrow currently accounted for half of all UK aviation emissions. It concluded there is no credible pathway for Heathrow expansion to be compatible with the UK’s vital climate commitments under current policies. Meanwhile, on air pollution, serious concerns remain over the reliability of modelling and whether the impact of the latest expansion proposals has been sufficiently assessed. Frankly, there is no point standing on a commitment to these four tests as criteria for shaping the future of Heathrow, if the moment they are not met, we abandon them. It is not something I can do while looking my constituents squarely in the face.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although rail expansion and capacity are undoubtedly needed in the country, we pushed ahead with a project that was poorly scoped, poorly costed and poorly specced, and it led to decades of underperformance and cost inflation. As Members have said, the evidence falls flat on the other tests too. On the noise impact, a huge number of people will be pulled into increased noise and disruption across London, although the flight paths are still uncertain, so we cannot be sure about the exact scope and extent. The costs of mitigating noise impacts, with secondary glazing or replacement housing, are potentially exponential, and we still do not know how they will be paid or who will pay for them.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Time and again, we see taxpayers in London and elsewhere in the UK pick up the price for Heathrow-related travel. The new Elizabeth line trains, which are being built and will be rolled out soon, will not serve West Drayton, my constituents or constituents between Reading and Maidenhead, because the capacity is going to serve Heathrow, but the airport is providing no money. The headlines about expansion tell us one thing, but Heathrow bosses admit to another. We risk pressing ahead with an incredibly expensive and financially dubious infrastructure project not because it offers a credible path to growth but because it has become a symbol of whether we are committed to growth in an abstract form. We saw that with HS2.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I share the new Government’s ethos of delivering growth in every postcode, but the analysis shows that Heathrow would not be a silver bullet. Modelling suggests that between 72% and 92% of the benefits of the expansion would be concentrated in London and the south-east, and research by the New Economics Foundation suggests that up to 15,000 jobs could be displaced from regions outside London and the south-east, harming regional airport capacity. Many Members are rightly fighting for such growth in their regions. It was previously claimed that expansion could be funded entirely from private investment, but that is simply not the case. There are real concerns about burdens on taxpayers. Just last week, Heathrow told the Transport Committee that it does not intend to cover the full cost of rail infrastructure.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In addition, the Department’s modelling suggests that, once monetised costs and benefits are considered, expansion could impose greater costs than benefits over 60 years, with a negative net present value of between £20 billion and £60 billion to the economy. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that there would potentially be benefits to consumers, but projections suggest that ticket prices could rise by £60 to £65, or £250 for a family of four, as the higher airline charges to fund the development will be passed on to passengers. Rather than extend air travel to more, it could price out ordinary families from travelling from Heathrow. That is why major airlines themselves are concerned about the proposals. Many Members have heard from them.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have been explicit time and again about their commitment to the four tests, which I share. Does Heathrow expansion deliver economic growth in every region? Is it consistent with our climate change commitments? Will it undermine air quality progress? Will the plans properly manage, limit and mitigate the noise impact? If the expansion fails to meet those tests, it should not be allowed to go ahead. That was always my starting point, and to this day I have been consistent about that when looking at the proposals. To be frank, the numbers that we have seen are not reassuring. According to the Government’s own modelling, the impact on GDP is predicted to be just 0.03% to 0.05% by 2056—a reduction in the economic benefit set out in earlier estimates by a factor of 10.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this timely and important debate. She set out very well the issues that we are concerned about and grappling with. Heathrow expansion raises significant concerns among my constituents, given that my constituency neighbours the airport. As has been said, this is not a new issue. I was going to say that it has been going on since the ’90s, but apparently it was in 1983—before I was born at Hillingdon hospital—that the people took up the mantle and battled expansion. That explains why people are incredibly frustrated and jaded: the same questions are being asked yet again, but we are getting no answers to these decades-long problems.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman has presented the clarity in the Opposition’s position, but my understanding is that the Conservative party is quite divided on this matter. The local Conservative-led council in Hillingdon opposes it, as do many MPs. The position that he put forward had quite a big “if” caveat: they would support it “if” there were no costs and additional measures. Those measures are not clear. As many have said, the costs are not being covered. The taxpayer would have to foot the bill for significant transport improvements and mitigation measures, which are not being funded. What price are the Opposition willing to have taxpayers pay for Heathrow to go ahead?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T2. I am proud that my constituency is home to one of the largest numbers of military family housing in the country, and that last year, this Labour Government improved 100 of those homes. Does the Minister agree that we must go further and give all our military heroes the good homes that they deserve, and when I have the findings of my military housing survey, will he meet me to hear what they would like to improve?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We should look to reinvest tobacco duty revenue directly into stop smoking services. I support the calls that have been made for a specific levy on the profits of tobacco companies that is targeted and reinvested into stop smoking services. The public health case and the economic case are clear, and I hope the moral case is clear. We have to do more. We have to become the first country in the world to become smoke-free.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“ASH data shows that smoking has pushed just under half a million households into poverty, including 137,000 children. I have seen in my constituency that those in that last 10% often have complex lives; they may experience deprivation, mental health issues, and drug and alcohol issues alongside smoking. We need targeted and specific outreach to support those people to quit smoking. I have met the fantastic women who run the Hillingdon stop smoking service. They have talked passionately about the work they do to provide incentives, support, nicotine products, vapes and other alternatives that are now on the market. However, that outreach is ever more expensive the closer we get to eliminating smoking in this country. In the limited time I have left, let me make a pitch to the Minister.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Within two to 12 weeks, circulation improves; in three to nine months, coughing and wheezing problems fade and lung function increases by 10%; in five years, the risk of having a heart attack falls to about half compared with a person who is still smoking; and in 10 years, the risk of lung cancer falls to half of that of a smoker and the risk of a heart attacks falls to the same level as someone who has never smoked. Those powerful figures show it is never too late to stop smoking and see the health benefits. We have to sustain the progress we have made. The last 10% of people smoking are fundamentally harder and more expensive to reach than the first 10%. As has been said, there is also a social justice element to this campaign; it goes beyond finance and public health.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have to recognise that, positively, for some time, this has largely been a cross-party mission. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), when he was Prime Minister, led the campaign and proposed ambitious legislation. But there is a risk we will see that cross-party consensus evaporate. Reform UK’s relationship with big tobacco has already been mentioned. Unfortunately, both that party and the Opposition have had free votes on this issue, and it has not been possible to get a consensus on the legislation. I hope that changes, because we all know the difference it can make. Within 20 minutes of stopping smoking, blood pressure resumes to normal levels, and within eight hours, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in the blood reduce by half and oxygen returns to normal.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am passionate that we must do all we can and continue to be a leader in smoking cessation. We know the evidence; it is clear. We have had clear marketing campaigns. We have had the horrific images on the front of cigarette packets for some time, but people have almost become numb to them and turn away from them. The power of those things alone is not enough to get us to where we want to be. Personal responsibility arguments are often used by people with libertarian or far-right perspectives—Reform UK has been mentioned today—but we know that is not enough. Throughout the historical crusade to end smoking, public health measures have proved the doubters wrong time and again. The ONS data shows that we have achieved the historic milestone of falling below 10% prevalence; for the first time, fewer than one in 10 people in the UK smokes.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That was probably a good, rebellious side to have, compared with the other options available. Based on my experience and what I saw around me, I was an anti-smoker from day one. I saw the power of addiction and how difficult it was for so many of my family members, including my mother, to quit smoking, despite their best efforts and despite knowing that it was the right thing to do and that it was harming them, those around them and even their children. Smoking is incredible in its power to keep people addicted. My grandfather, who was a smoker for much of his life, passed away from lung cancer and my mum, who is fortunately still with us, has suffered from various forms of cancer throughout her life, potentially caused by smoking, among other issues.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is an honour, Ms Vaz, to serve under your chairmanship. Like colleagues, I thank the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for their excellent introductions to the debate. They superbly put across the points about the impact of smoking, and the importance of our ambition for a smoke-free generation and a smoke-free country. Like many other Members, I approach this debate with my personal perspective of smoking and my experience of growing up in a smoking household. Most of my family have smoked at various points, some of them for quite a long time—my mother did for more than 40 years. Smoking was always present in my childhood and adolescence, so my rebellion was to not smoke.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for Employment for joining me to mark the opening of the Uxbridge job hub a few weeks ago, and I am sure he will join me in thanking the college, the jobcentre, the chamber of commerce and the many others who made it a reality. One group who still experience the biggest employment gap are young people with special educational needs. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the job hubs, and the youth guarantee offer more broadly, are inclusive of young people with SEND and that they also see the benefits?”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Instead, they are having to battle the system to get what they are owed. What out of pocket expenses will be covered? People are having to pay extra for legal support and to get extra documents reprinted and sourced, as well as getting by day to day. At what point do we draw a line and say, “Enough is enough,” end this contract, and bring it back in house or give it to another supplier that can actually provide what it is paid for?”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Time and again this issue is raised in the House, whether at business questions or in questions to Ministers, and we are assured that the situation can and will get better. We are given deadlines and meetings. My constituent Mark’s case was even taken off the tracker, and my office was assured by Capita that the case was solved. Then, last week, we found out that it still had not been resolved and he still did not have the pension he was due. Barbara had to fight six months for her late husband’s pension. She dealt not only with the grief of losing a husband, but with not being able to get the pension that was owed. Frankly, it is disgraceful that we are treating anyone like this, let alone public servants who have served for many years and deserve a peaceful retirement.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T6. Vulnerable victims and witnesses of crime deserve full and proactive support from the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. Yet one of my constituents struggled to get clarity about what protections would be put in place should they give evidence in court, and also whether their victim personal statement was even properly considered during the sentencing stage of the trial. Will the Minister outline what is being done to better support victims, particularly vulnerable witnesses, to ensure they get proper advocacy in the court system?”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Every year, millions of people travel through Hillingdon, to visit the country or the city of London or go to Heathrow, and stay at hotels near the airport. That creates real costs for local communities—policing, street cleaning and transport impacts—and addressing those threats to the tourist economy requires funding. As such, I support this measure, but can the Minister assure me that those issues that are often locally driven and funded will also get support in a mayoral-led system?”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Committee for its work and for the report. I completely agree with the Chair’s presentation of the level of mistrust among graduates and learners when it comes to the broken system. Does she agree with me that this is not simply a communications issue? It is not about telling people more clearly how bad a deal they have. Fundamentally, this is a broken system—a bad deal that is having massive intergenerational impacts. Does she agree that we need a full and thorough review of the student finance and loans system?”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗