Danny Beales
MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip · Labour · United Kingdom
“Several of my constituents have been failed by Capita; with the support of my team, they have been battling to get the pensions that they are owed and deserve. Frustratingly, for some the June milestone has come and gone. Just last Friday I met Barbara, whose husband passed away in January.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and the members of her Committee for their excellent pre-legislative scrutiny work, which we have heard about today.”
“As the Chair of the Select Committee has mentioned, leaseholders overwhelmingly responded to the survey that they want to see this change, and the Property Institute, RICS and even the managing directors of FirstPort and Rendall & Rittner are all supportive of the need for more effective regulation and a regulator of managing agents.”
“I understand that the Government are willing to move on mandatory qualifications for managing agents—again, that is welcome —but I am concerned that, without an independent regulator to enforce codes of conduct and ensure we can reap the benefits of those qualifications, that will be of little benefit to many leaseholders.”
“As Members have said, there are countless examples of service failure from managing agents. I welcome the Minister’s actions to date, and the proposals in the draft Bill to cap exploitative ground rents, which will save thousands of pounds over the lifetime of leases, pushing for service charge reform and transparency, and pushing for com…”
“There are significant costs and financial waste in the current system, and the leasehold brand has been exceptionally damaged by the poor behaviour of managing agents. A regulator has the chance to restore confidence in leasehold and commonhold in the future.”
The complete record
Every one of 413 lines we hold for Danny Beales, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“Let us be in no doubt: no one in this place believes that the use of hotels to house asylum seekers awaiting immigration decisions is acceptable. It is bad for the taxpayer, it is bad for our communities and, ultimately, it is bad for the asylum seekers themselves; we have heard terrible stories about the conditions that many asylum seekers face in accommodation. I am pleased, therefore, that the Government have rightly pledged to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament. The use of hotels is a symptom of a broader systematic failure of our migration system. Under the last Government, the asylum system descended into chaos. The backlog of asylum cases reached a historic high in the tens of thousands, and asylum hotels popped up in many communities, including in Hillingdon, to house asylum seekers waiting to be processed.”
“I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which we all hope will bring an end to two years of awful bloodshed. I visited Israel and Palestine one month before 7 October and met civil society organisations working on a cross-community basis. It struck me how vital they will be in building a potential future long-term peace, but they lack funding and they lack legitimacy and support in Israel and in Palestine. What thought and consideration has the Prime Minister given to the UK’s role in an international peace fund, similar to the Northern Ireland peace fund, which could fund civil society organisations working cross-community to support leaders of the future, to build peacemakers and to start to heal the rifts?”
“Will the Minister or his counterpart meet me and Celltrion to discuss the biosimilar sector and how we can support it to grow?”
“For transparency, I should declare that I was the director of the Knowledge Quarter partnership in King’s Cross and cabinet member responsible for negotiating the MSD headquarters deal. It is disappointing news today. Turning to my current constituency, I hear from a number of life sciences and pharmaceutical companies that they have concerns about the previous Government’s levy under VPAG—the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—and how it is working in practice, in particular that it is focused on revenue, not profit, and does not take into account the differential level of R&D needed. Celltrion, a South Korean company in my constituency, highlights that biosimilar medications require a lot more investment than other forms of pharmaceuticals.”
“In recent days I have been contacted by many residents concerned about increasing hate crime, racist graffiti, vandalism and even violence against police at protests. Will the Leader of the House join with me in the view that there is no place for hate in Hillingdon or anywhere in the UK, that our diversity is our strength, and that those coming to our community to work in our hospitals, in social care and to set up businesses are very welcome? Will he also make time in this place for a debate about a national cohesion strategy, and local strategies to follow?”
“I agree that the decision on Mount Vernon hospital is concerning, and I have raised those concerns with the trust’s executive leadership myself. Does he agree that there have been positive steps forward on those long-term issues and that we need to continue to work together to improve neighbourhood healthcare?”
“My constituency neighbour perfectly describes the very difficult situation in Hillingdon inherited by the trust leadership and this Government, such as the hotels opened under the Conservatives putting pressure on the local system. I am pleased that the Government have committed to close hotels across the country and deal with this issue and are reviewing the fair funding of local authorities. That is much overdue in Hillingdon. The hon. Gentleman describes the situation in Hillingdon hospital, with the need for a rebuild after 14 years with no funding. Again, I am pleased that the Minister, who knows Hillingdon very well—I am sure that did not influence the decision—finally provided the almost £1.4 billion that the hospital needs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those are positive steps forward?”
“Despite some of the heat in the debate, the misquoting of things that have been said and the unfortunate politicisation of this important local issue, about which there is general agreement among Members of all parties and in the community, the consensus that I hear is that people want more accessible services, more locally. There is a need for three hubs—the system wants that—and I am pleased that the Government have announced funding and prioritised Hillingdon. I have also heard that there is a potentially greater role for community pharmacies in providing urgent services and care. Does the Minister agree that more can be done by primary care providers across the board in Hillingdon and elsewhere?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing this important discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) rightly points out the survival challenge. We know that survival is improved with quick access to these vital devices. Many Members have described deserts of access to these devices in their constituencies. In my own constituency there are only four devices per 10,000 people, so 70% of people do not have access in the three to five-minute timescale that my hon. Friend recommended. Does he agree that to improve that stat, it is vital that we get more devices in the community and, fundamentally, that we make it cheaper to access these devices for community groups, local and national Government and the police forces that he mentions?”
“T5. Last week, I had the pleasure of hosting in Parliament the Outcomes First Group, a group of specialist SEND schools. They presented their proposals for fixing the broken SEND system, including supporting more children in mainstream education, supporting collaboration between schools and upskilling teachers. Does the Minister agree that those are exactly the sorts of changes that are needed to fix the SEND system, and will she meet me and the school in my constituency to learn more?”
“With this Bill, we can build defences through a proper regulatory framework, and by ensuring that companies are properly qualified and an accountability mechanism clearly exists. Those measures are all desperately needed. Question put and agreed to. Ordered , That Danny Beales, Joe Powell, Nesil Caliskan, Chris Bloore, Chris Curtis, Dr Rupa Huq, Sarah Russell, Rachel Blake, Andrew Cooper, James Naish, Daniel Francis and Cat Eccles present the Bill. Danny Beales accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the F irst time; to be read a S econd time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 287).”
“This Bill can help towards delivering security for leaseholders, who for far too long have been left in a cripplingly insecure and exploitative situation. The total failings of the leasehold system extend beyond that which can be fixed by one piece of legislation, but the Bill will be a vital step forward in the Government’s mission to deliver justice for all leaseholders. They say that your home is your castle, but for too long leaseholders have often felt that their home is a prison. They feel under attack by their management companies—the companies that are there to serve and protect them, and to whom they pay a significant sum in management fees for the pleasure.”
“Too many people have been ripped off for far too long, but after years that have been financially difficult for so many, this Government have a drive to make people better off and feel listened to, and when it comes to the plight of leaseholders, this Bill is a necessary step in doing just that. Since this Government were formed, we have rightly heard a lot about the housing crisis and how it is our responsibility to fix it. The crisis does not begin and end with bricks and mortar, although building 1.5 million homes is an absolute imperative. It also comes down to a deeper concept: security in our homes, for those in the private rented sector and in social housing, and for homeowners too.”
“The Bill will introduce an independent property regulator, grant licences to agents based on checks, including the fulfilment of legal obligations, and mandate qualifications to ensure minimum competency standards for agents and property managers. Without those provisions, leaseholders and the sector as a whole bear the financial burden of a lack of regulation. Research by the TPI shows that introducing an independent regulator would be largely cost-neutral, with the benefits of improved professionalism, accountability and consumer confidence offsetting any additional administrative costs. There is a significant cost of inaction: a human cost.”
“I recently conducted a survey of residents; a staggering 50% of respondents said that they had not received a response from FirstPort following attempts to communicate with the company. If I went to those residents and told them that, in just three months, their managing company had lost and then regained accreditation, I am sure they would question what had actually changed, and they would rightly ask what process had led to that decision. The readmission of FirstPort lays bare the limitations of the current system and the urgent need for a clear regulatory framework to define and enforce the standards expected of all managing agents.”
“Earlier this year, FirstPort had its TPI accreditation stripped due to breaches of membership rules. Yet just three months later, it was readmitted. I recently visited Sherleys Court, a retirement complex in Ruislip managed by FirstPort. I heard stories from residents who, after a lifetime of hard work, moved in expecting to enjoy the next chapter of their lives. Instead, they were met with extortionate service fees with little to no explanation or itemisation. Their serious concerns about how their money was being managed were falling on deaf ears, and their feedback on shoddy maintenance work was once again ignored. The story of the St Andrew’s Park development in Uxbridge—which is also managed by FirstPort—is just as dire. Residents report flooding, damp and mould issues that are not remedied.”
“However, when distressed leaseholders sit across from me at my advice surgeries, those are not the words they use to describe their managing companies. I commend the TPI for its work to stand up for leaseholders, and I welcome the supportive role it has played in the Government’s consultation on leasehold reform. However, a voluntary accreditation system in place of regulation exposes serious failures in the current framework. Relying on good faith actors to seek accreditation voluntarily means, by definition, that bad faith managing companies continue to operate freely in this country. We cannot accept that. For every managing company failing in its duty, there are multiple leaseholders being ripped off. The facts are clear, and inaction is not an option.”
“In leasehold blocks, managing companies hold substantial sums of leaseholders’ hard-earned money. The current system—or lack thereof—not only allows but empowers unqualified and incompetent managing agents. The Bill is not about extending red tape for red tape’s sake; it is about protecting hard-working people and their money. Let me be clear: I am not attempting to tarnish all managing agents with the same brush. I know that some leaseholders have had positive experiences. The Property Institute—the professional body representing 7,000 property managers and over 360 managing agent firms—seeks to deliver safe, secure and well-managed homes. Members of the TPI are required to obtain accreditation and follow a consumer charter that demands honesty, fairness, openness and transparency.”
“Friends to advocate for leaseholders in our constituencies and put pressure on managing companies to do better. We need a clear and robust legislative and regulatory framework, such as the one suggested by Lord Best and proposed in this Bill. Of course, the leasehold system is not new, but the challenges that it presents today require the Government to act. Without mandatory qualifications and regulatory oversight, leaseholders remain vulnerable to inconsistent service quality, opaque charges and a lack of recourse when things go wrong. Managing agents are responsible for a variety of complex and important areas, including health, fire and structural safety, building maintenance, major works projects, and handling building finances and insurance.”
“The developer has walked away from that development, and the residents are being presented with a bill of £100,000 by the managing company, Ringley. Communal boilers have been left broken for two and a half years, and leaks under floorboards remain unfixed. Although my team and I continue to work to support and advocate for those residents, the reality is that without a proper regulatory framework, managing companies like Ringley—which are appointed by freeholders—remain free to provide inadequate customer service, charge extortionate fees without justification and ignore residents. They seemingly serve vested interests, not the leaseholders who pay their fees. I am proud to be a member of the Labour for leaseholders group, working with hon.”
“The Bill would provide legal obligations and create a mechanism for redress for concerned leaseholders. The regulator would have powers to enforce compliance against managing agents and, ultimately, to remove them from the register of regulated agents. This would all be funded by the firms and individuals that are regulated. Those are reasonable and sensible steps forward. Colleagues across the House have highlighted the plight of constituents who fall victim to unregulated managing agents, laying bare the failures of the current system. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) for their support and advice on the Bill. In my constituency, I have been supporting residents living in Union Park in Cowley.”
“This Government’s commitment to end the broken leasehold system is a welcome pledge for many, including leaseholders in places like my Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency. Many have long been held hostage by exploitative management companies. In this Bill, we have the opportunity to take a further step forward in rebalancing the system, improving management standards and empowering leaseholders to hold their managing agents to account. The Bill would establish a new independent regulator of managing agents. It would require managing agents to have mandatory qualifications and to pass a fit and proper person test. The regulator would be empowered to impose continuing professional development requirements. That would be underpinned by a clear code of practice set in statute, of which leaseholders would have clear sight and knowledge.”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent regulator of managing agents; to make provision about the powers and duties of the independent regulator; to require managing agents to comply with a code of practice and to make provision about that code of practice; to make provision for a licensing scheme for managing agents; to make further provision about the regulation of managing agents; and for connected purposes. Labour Governments past and present have been underpinned by a motivation to stand up for the voiceless and disempowered—those let down by broken systems—so that they can take control over their own circumstances. I present this Bill to the House because the failure to regulate managing agents has rendered leaseholders—ordinary hard-working people—voiceless, let down and disempowered.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”