Daniel Francis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I think some Opposition Members are suffering from amnesia and have forgotten the asset stripping that happened, which has led to infrastructure failing across Bexleyheath and Crayford, and to the 30% increase in bills last year. We have tried every option to keep Thames Water organisationally solvent, but my patience, and that of my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford, is running out. Will the Secretary of State outline how ready we are as a Government if we need to take the company into special administration? In Bexleyheath and Crayford, our patience is running out.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Summer Rail Travel · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are concerned about the reduction in Thameslink services serving Slade Green and Abbey Wood during the six weeks of the school summer holidays. Is it possible to review the decision? Given that both Southeastern and Thameslink are in public ownership, will the Minister outline how their timetables and services can be better integrated at Slade Green to improve punctuality and journey times for my constituents?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford have been at the forefront of this model, with Network Rail and Southeastern Trains now integrated in Southeastern Railway. As a result, we have the top punctuality for any rail service, so would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we are showing the delivery model that can be delivered across the country?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend knows, we both sat long and hard on that Bill Committee. But if we sent the Bill to the other place in good shape, why did the sponsor there table 77 amendments to it? Is my hon. Friend able to outline why that happened?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Member aware that I fought long and hard on the learning disability issue in the Bill Committee? The sponsor in the House of Lords had amendments that would have undone some of those commitments. If the Bill had passed in the Lords, we could have then been stuck in a ping-pong situation with the amendments that had been passed in the Commons being undone by the Lords.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I have sat on a Committee for a private Member’s Bill that took 45 minutes, and I sat on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee, which took 100 hours. With an issue like this, we need to look at how the private Members’ Bill process works. As Committee members, we were expected to receive 242 pieces of written evidence and 159 pieces of written correspondence the day before line-by-line scrutiny commenced. We also had no equality impact assessment, human rights assessment or delegated powers memorandum throughout the entire Committee process. All I would ask is that, for these larger, more contentious Bills, we go away and look at how the private Members’ Bill process works.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for his opening remarks. I am one of five Members in the room who were members of the Bill Committee, and I think I am the only one of those who voted against the assisted dying Bill on both Second Reading and Third Reading. As Members know, I support the principles of the Bill, but I continue to have concerns about the issues of mental capacity and learning disability. I want to talk about the Bill that we sent to the other place. It should be remembered that the Bill we passed on Second Reading was not open to people with cancer, HIV or multiple sclerosis. It was not open to people under the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010, which includes those three conditions. We had to put that right in Committee, because the original Bill was not open to people with cancer. [Pete Wishart in the Chair ] In Committee we took evidence, and we accepted evidence from somebody who said, “Move to a panel situation.” However, that person also said to us, “Look at the law in Spain and how it treats the families of people with learning disabilities.” As a Committee, we decided to accept that person’s evidence on having a panel but disregard their evidence on the role of the families of people with learning disabilities. It was clear that there was a cross-party whipping operation in place. Very early in the process, we saw that anyone from an opposition position, like me, had their amendments rejected. For example, my early amendments on learning disability were rejected. The Minister would stand up and say, “The Government advice is to reject these amendments,” and they would be rejected. However, as the public criticism grew, with my later amendments on learning disability, the same Minister would get up and say, “The Government’s position is to reject them,” and then vote in favour of them with the majority of the Committee. We ended up, against Government advice, accepting some amendments on learning disability but rejecting others, and that was the Bill that went to the Floor of the House. I also note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central that he had advice from DHSC officials, because that advice was not given for my 26 amendments. It appears that advice was given to supporters of the Bill, but not to those who were against it. Those issues continue to concern me about the Bill that we sent to the other place. We have heard a list of Members of the other place who tabled amendments, but we have not heard that the person who tabled the fourth highest number of amendments was the Bill’s sponsor in the other place. They tabled 6% of the amendments, 77 of them, to make the Bill stronger. The Bill that we said was the strongest possible Bill when we sent it to the other place had 77 amendments tabled by its sponsor.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  My view is that some Members most probably tabled too many amendments, but the Bill’s sponsor tabled 77. Amendments 548A and 549A, which were not reached, would have undone the very measures that other Members and I sought for the learning disabled community. If they had come back to the Floor of the House, I can assure Members that I would have fought tooth and nail during the ping-pong process to ensure that they were not introduced. It is all well and good saying, “They talked it out,” but there were measures to undo what was accepted in Committee and on the Floor of the House to protect people with learning disabilities. I will continue to oppose those. I would also say that the House of Lords Committee took evidence from a great number of royal colleges and disabled groups that we had not heard in Committee in the Commons, and it was that evidence that led to a number of Lords amendments. Do I believe that the House of Lords needs reform? Yes, most probably it does, but we need a good, long, hard look, folks, at how we scrutinise in both Houses. There were 310 days between the Bill being sent to the House of Lords and Prorogation. Well, it took 327 days to deal with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, and 347 days to deal with the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, so the situation is not unique to this Bill. It applies to Government Bills as well. I will be very careful as the Leader of the House is here—I serve with him on the Modernisation Committee—but there is also an issue about how much time we spend scrutinising Bills in the Commons. In 2007-08, we spent 12.4 hours scrutinising Government Bills; we now spend less than eight hours before we send a Bill to the other place. We now spend 26% of our time on the Floor of the House scrutinising Government Bills. There is a question for ourselves, folks. Is our priority having clips for social media or sending Bills to the other place in a proper manner? That is the question we should ask ourselves. I support the principles of the Bill, but I continue to believe it had issues that were not corrected. If it had come back during the ping-pong process, I would have opposed it, but there is a question we need to ask ourselves about reforming the other place and our own House.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way just once.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate. Many in my constituency will welcome the comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), given the kind of shops that we have in Bexleyheath and Crayford and the changes we have seen in recent years. I declare an interest: I am a member of the USDAW parliamentary group. I spent 11 years working in retail. I started as a Saturday boy—an old-fashioned term, I know—in my Marks & Spencer in Bexleyheath, and I worked my way up to a management role, so I understand the importance of high street businesses to our communities. In my constituency, we have two town centres in the two towns, with a mix of large retailers and independent stores, a smaller high street in Northumberland Heath and a number of smaller shopping parades. I appreciate that, in the 32 years since I first worked in retail, our town centres have changed, and that has been heavily driven by changes in our shopping habits. In my constituency, with a retail park in Crayford and a 1980s shopping centre in Bexleyheath, we have lost some of our high street shops from the shopping centre, which has a higher footfall, because of the pattern of businesses, particularly my former employer, that want to be in those retail parks. I know from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) that my former employer has recently invested in its store in his constituency—in fact, in a number of stores in London—but with a very defined model, which is very different from when I first worked for it 32 years ago. It is about food retail rather than clothing, and it is about retail parks. That is the reality of where some of our high street businesses have gone; we cannot replicate the high street of the 20th century. There are some issues unique to my constituency. I thank my local business improvement district and Broadway shopping centre in Bexleyheath for the work they do to diversify opportunity and to try to bring leisure opportunities into the town centre. I hope there is some good news coming, with a new retailer in the near future. I receive requests, notably from the Kings Arms, Globetrotters soft play, Masala Inn, Zingara, Stuzzichini and Buddha restaurant in Bexleyheath, and the Duke’s Head, and the Duchess of Kent in Northumberland Heath, about the pressures on the hospitality industry. I thank you, Ms Lewell, for the work you do leading on those issues. I support the Government’s Great British summer savings, which I hope will increase footfall for a number of those businesses. I note that Government changes have meant that two thirds of the pubs in my constituency have seen their business rates go down this year, but there is more we need to do and, while any measure would need to be costed, I am receptive to looking at the rate of VAT in the hospitality industry. On cash, there are no longer any banks in Crayford and Northumberland Heath. We rely on post offices in those two places for cash services. We need to look further at the criteria for banking hubs and make sure there are more of them. I welcome the Government’s announcements on the high streets strategy. I engaged with the previous Minister and I look forward to engaging with the new Minister to look at more investment in my patch. On Pride in Place, we are seeing £20 million coming into Slade Green; the retailers in Forest Road and Slade Green will look forward to that investment. On transport, I continue to press Transport for London for a direct bus route between Crayford and Northumberland Heath to support the shopping parades, and to press my Conservative council to introduce a fairer short-stay parking arrangement for traders in Northumberland Heath. I welcome measures in the Crime and Policing Act 2026. I have been at the forefront—I have wrestled shoplifters to the floor, many times—and I welcome the measures that the Government have brought forward, but there is still much more that we need to do to support people, and I will continue to press for that. My policing teams have done some great work in Crayford around illegal working, particularly with delivery drivers in my retail park, with arrests and deportations as a result. I thank my policing team in Crayford for that. They have also worked on shoplifting there. In Bexleyheath, they have done similar work; I went out on a raid with them last summer and looked at the work they do. They have also done some great work on illegal shops, which hon. Members have commented on, but they still need an increase in police numbers. I have welcomed the changes that have been brought forward. Police in Bexleyheath now have higher police numbers at the end of the day and at school kicking-out time, and on a Friday and Saturday night. That is as a result of changes that were controversial, but which I have supported. There is more that the Government could do to support our high streets and businesses. I will continue to press them on that, but, as I have said, I support them on a number of the things that have already been done.

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I spoke to Alan Milburn about this yesterday. Does the Minister accept that, although there is a clear job for Government in this matter, there is also a clear job for retailers? The kind of schemes the retailer I worked for had in the ’90s for young and disabled people have gone by the wayside for many large retailers. We need to bring them round the table and get them to bring back some of those schemes.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. I echo the comments the Prime Minister just made. In August 2024, my constituent Holly Woodcock was found deceased in France aged 20 years old. Her parents Lee and Joanna, who are in the Gallery, still have no idea what happened at Holly’s friend’s holiday villa. They have raised significant concerns with the Foreign Office regarding the investigation, including the inconsistencies in witness statements and timelines, how samples were prematurely destroyed and how matters raised by French lawyers were dismissed by the investigating French police officers and officials. I am grateful that a Foreign Office Minister met me and Mr Woodcock, but I share the family’s concerns that our Government should do more to press the French authorities to reopen the investigation. Will the Prime Minister commit to look at what can be done to raise the matter with his French counterparts at the highest level to help Mr and Mrs Woodcock get the answers that their daughter Holly deserves?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  One legacy of the previous Government was that it is easier to keep disabled people on an education, health and care plan until they are 25 because there is no adequate support to get them into work. Equally, other young disabled people became NEETs, because there is no adequate support to get them into work. Does my hon. Friend agree that any reforms need a cross-departmental approach to support disabled young people into work and ensure lifelong work opportunities for them?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. A constituent of mine has raised concerns that the biodiversity net gain commitments, linked to the development consent order for the Riverside energy park in Belvedere, which was granted in April 2020 by the previous Government, have yet to be met at three mitigation sites in my constituency—Barnehurst open space, Whitehall Lane in Slade Green, and Bursted woods. What action is available if a developer does not fulfil its biodiversity net gain commitments in a timely manner?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  At the outset, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). As fellow SEND parents, we both call for the measures that she has pressed for. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for access to disability equipment and for wheelchair users. I wish to speak about some of those issues, predominantly as they relate to clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill and how ICB commissioning needs to be considered in relation to carers and disabled people. Last October, the APPG for access to disability equipment published a report entitled “Barriers to Accessing Lifesaving Disability Equipment”, which made recommendations that I believe need to be considered as the Bill progresses. Its main recommendation was that there be a national strategy for community equipment, ensuring consistent national standards and accountability at every level. Disparities exist not just across ICB areas, but within them. In my part of south-east London, there are different contracts in Bexley, Greenwich and Bromley—three neighbouring boroughs within the same ICB, where people receive completely different service levels. My daughter is a wheelchair user. She is in a school class with children from the neighbouring boroughs that, despite being in the same ICB, have completely different commissioning contracts and different levels of service. That postcode lottery, both across ICBs and within them, is something we really need to look at. Getting the commissioning of disability equipment right is crucial if we are to streamline processes, reduce delays and prevent unnecessary hospital stays. For instance, there is no timescale for equipment when it comes to hospital discharges. A timescale of 18 weeks for wheelchairs is set out in the national strategy, but not for disability equipment. That leads to delayed discharges, but also to operations that in many respects are unnecessary, such as for people with cerebral palsy who do not have the equipment they require. There is clear evidence, as we will see again in the months ahead, that providers of disability equipment and wheelchairs bid lowest for contracts, creating cash flow issues for them. They then have to slow down the ordering and provision of equipment, which has great knock-on effects on both operations and discharges for the NHS. That is why our APPG has called for a streamlining of communication channels between local authorities, health bodies and Government Departments to ensure a more joined-up approach. I have very little time, but I want to mention the recycling of equipment. Often, one ICB will have the equipment that a patient in a neighbouring ICB requires, because it has recycled it, but it cannot pass that equipment on because the contracts are different. We saw that issue to a great extent last year in the area of disability equipment when the NRS Healthcare contract collapsed. I welcome the Bill, but I believe it can be strengthened to better address the needs of carers and the disabled.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is completely right. Last year I helped launch a report commissioned by Whizz Kidz about children who are wheelchair users accessing education, which highlights the issues my hon. Friend has brought to our attention. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has received a significant increase in complaints about wheelchair services, from four in 2018 to 76 in 2025, mainly about long delays in receiving equipment and poor communication. I would like to highlight the Wheelchair Alliance’s 2022 report, “An economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England”, which I will refer to throughout the debate. The report highlighted three areas of concern: wheelchair services in England do not consistently work for service users; NHS-provided wheelchair services should be subjected to more rigorous and mandated regulation; and the true scale of demand is not known. Despite that report being published three and a half years ago, the findings are still relevant. Wheelchair users’ experiences have, if anything, deteriorated further. The report concluded that wheelchair users may be exploited due to a lack of clear regulation, independent review body or information about who to approach regarding repairs, complaints or suggestions for service improvements. I am grateful to the Chamber engagement team for its support in preparing for today’s debate and for sharing the experiences of the 653 people who contributed to its survey on disability equipment. One respondent said: “My husband has a basic wheelchair that is the wrong size and broken. It causes pain and pressure sores. He can’t self-propel more than 50 metres in it, making any kind of independence impossible. He is exhausted and in severe pain all the time.” Another said: “I had to put off starting university for a year because I couldn’t access a wheelchair in time. I spent a year at home unable to go out and see friends or access education or to even just go to the shop on my own.” Wheelchair users already face everyday accessibility issues, from transport to housing and work. Having an unsuitable wheelchair adds not just an extra complication but often a debilitating and painful experience, and needs to be resolved. The current system is not working. Wheelchair providers need to work in cohesion rather than compete for contracts and undercut other providers. National leadership and accountability of the service is necessary to ensure that service providers are held to account. Funding reform is needed to give wheelchair users the right piece of equipment, rather than the cheapest. The better, more appropriate yet expensive piece of equipment can often be the cheapest later down the line, with savings in health care and users better able to contribute economically. I will refer to that later in my personal experience. Better and more conclusive data is needed. We are still not sure exactly how many adult and child wheelchair users there are in this country. We cannot, therefore, accurately access the current need or where gaps lie. To improve services, we need wheelchair users to be involved from the start in co-production, service design and commissioning. To get the service right and address the individual needs of wheelchair users, we need to hear directly from them. Ultimately, a national review body overseeing wheelchair provision is required to ensure that the service provided is of a good standard. As a result, wheelchair users will receive better quality care and outcomes. I have five asks from recommendations to put to the Minister. First, it is clear that national leadership and accountability are needed. Service providers need to be held to account, as we have heard and will surely hear more during the debate. There are far too many examples of the service failing wheelchair users, leading to poor health outcomes. The Wheelchair Alliance’s 2022 report, “An economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England”, highlighted that NHS-provided wheelchair services should be subject to more rigorous and mandated regulation. Addressing the current inconsistent and fragmented service will improve outcomes for users, as forms of provision are held to account effectively. The report suggests that mandatory regulation of wheelchair services could, for instance, be the responsibility of the Care Quality Commission, to address the gaps in accountability, guarantee a minimum standard of quality and, therefore, reduce the current postcode lottery in support. That could also cover private sector providers and additional regulations for private retailers, to give wheelchair users greater confidence and more oversight of the services they receive. Across the country, 45% of wheelchair services are not run directly by NHS trusts and are often commissioned to private companies. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the Department has considered appointing a national lead or regulator to oversee the provision of wheelchair services to hold providers to account and ensure that wheelchair users in England are no longer at the mercy of a postcode lottery determining the quality of the service that they receive. The second issue is budget. Increasing baseline funding in line with current needs and inflation would not only be beneficial for wheelchair users but would likely result in future long-term savings for the NHS. The Wheelchair Alliance’s 23 December report, “The Value of a Wheelchair”, showed that a £22 million per year increase in equipment spending to the average level among ICBs that currently report average levels of per patient spending would represent an estimated 14% increase in the current total annual NHS spending on wheelchair services. That would make a meaningful difference to the total equipment budgets in half of ICBs—and a big difference to wheelchair users. The research shows that this could reap £60 million—along with £315 million in wider societal and economic benefits—in NHS savings. Budget should also be flexible and innovative, including in individual personalised wheelchair budgets, where users have found gaps in the funding, including not covering additional costs such as shipping or repair and maintenance, resulting in a need for users to self-fund for elements of care. The 2023 report outlines that some users felt the availability of support and funding was inflexible and not always optimally allocated. Whizz Kidz’ research has found that 22% of wheelchair users were offered a wheelchair budget as an option. Many more individuals had to fundraise and source charity support to allow them to get the right wheelchair. Reports from Frontier Economics show that, on average, the NHS spends £125 per wheelchair user per year, covering all types of equipment, staff, service, insurance and maintenance. Establishing an independent national review body to oversee wheelchair provision would help show where the gaps lie in the current funding and provide more efficient budget management, and where this can be improved. Could the Minister therefore outline whether steps have been taken to review current funding and whether consideration has been made of the benefits of introducing baseline funding in line with other complex and individual needs of wheelchair users? The third recommendation was about data and transparency. To further improve wheelchair services, data collection needs to be vastly improved. As I have touched on, we do not know the number of wheelchair users in the country and while there is the national wheelchair data collection quarterly publication, it is essential that the available data also includes outsourced providers to ensure that they have a full picture of service provision across the UK. An independent national review body with oversight of all wheelchair services, including the NHS as well as private providers, would help to provide a greater understanding of the current provision, along with more accurate data to help identify gaps—whether in funding or in a postcode lottery of service users having different experiences based on where they live. Wheelchair users and patients should also have a role. Their feedback and suggestions would illustrate the reality of the current provision and the impact that it is having on their lives. Currently, there are limited avenues for users to provide feedback on the quality of service received, resulting in reduced mechanisms for providers of care and ICBs to identify gaps in the service provided. The Wheelchair Alliance has found communication issues across multiple aspects of wheelchair provision, with users not being provided with an explanation for delays and a lack of communication between providers of care, resulting in users undergoing multiple unnecessary assessments. Giving users the opportunity to report those experiences to one body with national oversight would allow for greater improvements sector wide. Without an accurate national dataset and consistent reporting, unmet need and poor performance are not being addressed and continue to remain prevalent. Will the Minister therefore commit to improving the current collection of data on wheelchair users and their experience in accessing wheelchair provision and services? The fourth ask regards procurement and value. Currently, many wheelchair users find that they are not given the most suitable wheelchair and are instead given the most cost-effective option. For example, in evidence provided to the APPG for wheelchair users by Charlie Fairhurst—and I declare an interest in that he is my daughter’s consultant at the Evelina—in his role as a consultant for 20 years and as the national lead for children’s neuroscience for the past eight, he outlined that in his experience, poor equipment provision leads to pressure sores and increasing scoliosis, all of which have a wider impact on the sector. Hip dislocation rates—which is a big issue for people, particularly children, with cerebral palsy—are increasing in both adult and child wheelchair users due to the wrong equipment being provided. My own daughter had to have her hip broken as a result and may need to have that done again because of those posture issues. Charlie described clearly to our APPG the issues for wheelchair users if they do not have the right equipment: they have to continue having the same operations to put their posture right again. Another issue users encounter is the wheelchair they require not being suitable for their housing. One respondent to the survey said that the “wheelchair I was offered weighed nearly 20kg and stopped me from moving around my very small home. Due to the size and weight of the chair, I spent almost four months not leaving the house.” The NHS would experience cost savings as a result of improved provision, including providing patients with suitable wheelchairs from the beginning. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on those issues. The fifth recommendation relates to children. Currently, children aged three to five often miss out on receiving an appropriate wheelchair. The strict eligibility and issuing criteria that the NHS uses mean that young children are often deemed ineligible, despite their need not necessarily being any less than that of an adult or young person.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; I completely agree. I will refer later to the position that we now know of, how ombudsman complaints have risen exponentially in recent years, and to the experience of many people, including that of my own daughter, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, in the kind of delays that my hon. Friend has outlined. In the 2024-25 financial year, there were 630,000 wheelchair users registered in England, with 70,600 of them under 18 according to NHS data. However, that figure does not include those who have purchased their wheelchairs privately, or those unable to obtain the right equipment through the NHS. In 2018-19, the Wheelchair Alliance estimated there were a total of 780,000 users. That was an estimate due to lack of robust evidence to back those assumptions. There is no set location on NHS health records to identify whether someone is a wheelchair user. With many users purchasing their wheelchairs privately, or being provided a wheelchair through a charity, NHS data does not provide an accurate picture and we remain in the dark about the true number of wheelchair users in England. Unfortunately across the country we are seeing countless examples of wheelchair users being systematically failed by their service providers, and I am sure we will continue to hear horror stories throughout this debate. Wheelchair users face long waiting times, poor fitting and unsuitable equipment, and complex and fragmented access pathways, with reports of a postcode lottery in accessing wheelchair provision.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this morning’s debate. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, alongside Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson; as the chair for the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment; and as the parent of a wheelchair user. Through the APPG’s work, we have heard directly from stakeholders and service users about the unacceptable delays that wheelchair users face in accessing suitable equipment, often with reduced health outcomes as a result. Too often we also hear that service users are confined to using completely inappropriate wheelchairs as that is, frankly, their only option. The issues I will discuss today in patients accessing disability equipment are also all too evident to me as chair of the APPG for access to disability equipment. I pay tribute to the Wheelchair Alliance and Whizz Kidz for their dedication in their advocacy for wheelchair users across the UK and for their support in preparing for today’s debate. I am grateful to have secured the debate and, as Members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user and have lived and breathed the issues that so many wheelchair users face in accessing wheelchair provision. The wheelchair quality framework, published in April 2025, outlines that wheelchairs provide “a significant gateway to independence, wellbeing and quality of life for thousands of adults and children. They play a substantial role in facilitating social inclusion and improving life chances through work, education and activities that many people who do not need wheelchairs take for granted.” While I welcome the framework for introducing some minimum standards and expectations, in my experience—and I will come to that later—it is the case that the user deals with the contractor, not the integrated care board. The ICB appears to have little or no idea, quite often, what the actual experience for users is when dealing with the contractor.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It was a great honour, though deeply disturbing, to hear of people’s lived experience as wheelchair users. To be brief, we heard good examples from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) of mobility providers, and from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) of the growing needs of users. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) about access to school. I urge all hon. Members to look at the Whizz Kidz report on that issue. There was an interesting comment from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on all-terrain wheelchairs, which is something we looked at in a recent event across the road. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is always here for these debates. It is good to hear about the position in Northern Ireland and, in particular, about veterans’ use of wheelchairs, which also featured at that event. We heard about AJM Healthcare from my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I accept that it is the largest provider in the market—it was the provider I was referring to in my comments—but clearly there have been issues with delays across the country. I will come back to those, and to individual ICBs’ awareness of what was going on. I was really sorry to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) about the suitability and parts issues experienced by her constituent. I know those issues at first hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South talked about discharge delays. I would say that they are sad but, quite frankly, they are just disgraceful. I welcome the pressure to improve standards from the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who also rightly brought up the point about NRS. I have met with officials from the Department of Health and Social Care in recent months on that and the overall framework for where the responsibility lies. To my good friend the Minister, I will say that I will continue this pressure, as will other hon. Members. I accept that what happened during covid was very difficult. I was attending wheelchair appointments during that period and it was difficult—of course, delays were caused—but we have ended up in a position where there are far more ombudsman complaints now than before covid. I will not prejudge matters, but I think the ombudsman may have something to say about this later this year. Lots of wheelchair users have ended up having to go to the ombudsman because it is a complex system. That goes back to the framework and what I said earlier. How many people out there know what their ICB is and how to go to their ICB? The wheelchair contract where I live is about to be tendered across three London boroughs: Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich. At the moment, those three boroughs have individual providers. It looks like they will have one provider going forward. When the consultation meetings were held around the new framework and the new contract, the provider, AJM Healthcare, was asked to advertise them. Did it tell any of the users? No, it did not, because if it had, they would have come to the meetings and told their horror stories. I found out by accident because I am the Member of Parliament, and guess what? I was the only person who attended the meeting because none of the users had been informed that it was happening. That is my concern about ICBs monitoring those contracts and being able to say what is happening. It appeared to me in that meeting that, from my experience as a parent and from talking to other parents, I knew more about the problems in the system than the people commissioning the contract within my ICB. That is why we need continued monitoring and some kind of framework. I absolutely welcome the Minister’s comments. There has been movement, but I will continue the pressure, along with other Members, in the months and years ahead. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of establishing an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. The hon. Member will hear my own personal horror story on that very matter in a moment. It is a big issue. Children grow, and the delays often mean that when the wheelchair finally arrives, the child is a very different size from when they were measured for it. Instead of a wheelchair, younger children are offered a standard buggy, which often does not meet their clinical or social needs. It also impacts their social integration at a crucial age and limits their independence and participation at home, in school and at playtime. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister considered extending NHS wheelchair provision to children aged three to five so that they can get the right equipment. The situation does not necessarily get any better for older children. In 2024, the national wheelchair data collection outlined that 80.9% of children under 18 received their wheelchair within the 18-week timescale, meaning that nearly one in five children are waiting over 18 weeks to receive their wheelchair. That figure unfortunately increases for children with more complex needs. In 2023-24, 29% of children assessed as having a specialist need waited over 18 weeks, and the figures for October to December 2025 showed that 1,563 children waited more than 18 weeks after a referral to NHS wheelchair services. A further 1,685 children were assessed with no equipment provided. That is despite the NHS England model service specification requiring services to have developed improvement plans by 2019 to ensure that all children who require a wheelchair receive one within 18 weeks. My family and I have direct experience of that with our contractor in the London borough of Bexley. Back in October 2021, when my daughter—who, as I said, has quadriplegic cerebral palsy—was eight years old, it was agreed that she required a new wheelchair. The appointment to measure her for it was held three months later in January 2022, and the wheelchair arrived six months later in July 2022—nine months after the referral. Despite recommendations on the postural support that she required given that she has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, a standard wheelchair had been ordered, which then had to be repaired or have adjustments made to it on five occasions in the next four months. Despite those adaptations, it was still not fit for purpose. After my wife and I got the ICB involved—how many parents out there know what the ICB is and how to get it involved?—a new fit-for-purpose wheelchair was ordered in January 2023. It arrived in April 2023, but no one advised us that it had arrived. I really believe our contractor rations appointments to manage its workload. When we chased the position in June 2023, we were advised that the wheelchair had been in stock for two months. An appointment was made in July 2023. Twenty-one months after the initial referral, my daughter received a wheelchair that was fit for her needs. That meant that the contractor had missed its 18-week deadline twice in an 18-month period in one patient’s case. Importantly, as I have said, children grow and delays like that cause more work, given that the child will clearly be taller than they were when the referral was made. At such a crucial time in a child’s life, their mobility and independence matter. It is critical that children are given the necessary equipment to engage with their peers and participate in school. Having an independent national review body would help to give children and their families a voice and more ownership over their care and, in doing so, drive down waiting lists and improve patient outcomes. I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues, and the Minister’s comments on the points I have made.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my interest as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but also as the chair of both the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users and the APPG on access to disability equipment. I come at this issue from that perspective. As many Members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user and have campaigned on both accessibility and Changing Places toilets, and I will refer to those during my contribution. Shortly after my election to this place, I asked a series of questions. I have twin daughters, one of whom can access the building, but the other cannot access it in the way that we all can. What if she were to come here, and what are the most easily defined routes around the building? I was very lucky, because I had an accessibility tour, but I will continue to say that those routes are not easily defined for staff or visitors. For visitors, what are the most accessible routes around the building to get from A to B? We need to continue to look at that. If a Member is arranging an event, what are the main access routes for somebody who is a wheelchair user or who has different access needs? In the report—I was not a member of the Modernisation Committee when the report was undertaken, but I am now—there are recommendations about external accessibility. In my role as chair of both groups, but particularly as chair of the APPG for wheelchair users, we continue to have problems. A significant number of wheelchair users attend our meetings, but there is only a very small number of rooms in this building that we can book. The Chair of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith), is very aware of this—we have written and spoken to each other about it at length—but under the booking system’s current procedures, the APPG cannot be given priority over others, which proves very difficult when only a very small number of rooms are available. It also proves very difficult when we try to provisionally book a room, and the only room our users can use is booked by somebody else. We do need, through the Administration Committee, to look at our booking system procedures. My hon. Friend is also aware that the APPG for wheelchair users held an event last month at which the majority of speakers were wheelchair users, yet we managed to set up a podium for the speakers to give their speeches from. Reluctantly, we then had to dismantle the podium in front of all the wheelchair users, because it was clearly a completely inappropriate layout for how the wheelchair users in question needed to address the event. As my hon. Friend is aware, and as I said in the Modernisation Committee when we considered this report recently, there continue to be external accessibility changes we need to make in the House. I note the recommendations in the report on accessible formats. I was really glad when my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) had her East Kent Mencap group visit the building recently, and a number of Members with experience of this went to speak to them about their experiences—I was very privileged to do so. We clearly always need to look at those formats, and ask whether our information is available in an easy read format for them in the way it would be for any other visitors, and whether we can have the same discussions with those users. Although she is not here today, I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her valuable work since her election to make this building far more accessible. From her viewpoint, the building certainly was not in such a place. Lastly, I want to refer to Changing Places toilets. A few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney and I wandered down to the National Portrait Gallery to see what a more modern, accessible Changing Places toilet looks like. We have the issue that, when wheelchair users who attend the all-party groups I chair come to Portcullis House, there is no Changing Places toilet there. The Changing Places toilet we have is in the Lower Waiting Hall, and I would say it is to the original Changing Places standard of about 20 years ago. I have used it with my own daughter, and the hoist is a mobile hoist. The ceiling is very low, and an adult trying to get on it will most probably hit their head on the ceiling. It does not have a moveable sink to get a wheelchair underneath. It is not to the current standards we would expect of a Changing Places toilet. It is the one place where the people who attend the all-party groups I chair can use the toilet, yet it still is not to modern standards. As my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House know, I will continue to lobby to have one of a modern standard in Portcullis House and equally for the existing toilet to be of a modern standard. As I said in my Changing Places debate last year, we have seen great improvements. My daughter, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, will be 13 this year, and I remember how few Changing Places toilets there were in this part of London 10 years ago. There has been great progress, including under the previous Government, in making sure that local railway stations and tourist destinations have Changing Places toilets. There are the ones at the National Portrait Gallery and the National Gallery down the road; there is the one in IKEA in Oxford Street, which I had to work very hard for and lobby to get its standard up to spec; and, just yesterday, the one at St Paul’s cathedral finally opened. Those places, where visitors are welcome to access the history and culture of our amazing city, do have such facilities, yet this place does not. We need those facilities both in Portcullis House and, to a more modern standard, in the Palace itself. I thank the Committee for its work. I will continue to press on these areas, including in my role as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but while other workplaces have brought themselves into the 21st century, we must acknowledge that there is work that we still need to do.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  7. What recent discussions the Church of England has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  St Paulinus church in Crayford and Christ church in Bexleyheath are both grade II listed churches that are desperately in need of investment to restore their buildings. In line with previous questions, I ask my hon. Friend to outline what further news we might have on future capital funding schemes to help to support churches like these.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Harley Harris is 15. He has spondylocarpotarsal synostosis syndrome, which has caused his spine to curve 120° and damaged his lungs, leaving him with significantly reduced lung function and in continual pain. Harley needs lifesaving surgery, but his family have been unable to get a referral to have it performed in the UK. Will the Minister commit to urgently reviewing Harley’s case to ascertain what support can be provided to him and his family?