Daniel Francis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour about those issues. We can get this right—I do genuinely believe that. I thank the Minister for the engagement she has had with the sector and Back Benchers like myself through this process so that we can get right both the consultation and legislative changes. We need to accept that we are dealing with a system that is totally broken. Like my hon. Friend, I held my own consultation. I will not go into detail on it, but I heard long and hard from those parents. My borough has gone through many things—the Ofsted judgment, the safety valve, which was a ticking time bomb for so many of our families and their provision. I was a councillor for 20 years in the London borough of Bexley, and I saw the system change fundamentally. I was leader of the opposition on the council and my wife was actually employed by the authority as a special needs co-ordinator, and if a family like mine could not get through the system, how on earth can any parent expect to get through the system? That is why I do support these changes. We need to get the early intervention right. We wonder why we have inherited the system we have today for children with disabilities and special educational needs, but we saw the loss of Sure Start, and many other changes happened in those long 14 years. I thank the Minister, and I will continue to challenge her, but I do support these changes.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my normal interests: my wife is a special needs co-ordinator in our local authority, the London borough of Bexley, and one of our children is in receipt of an EHCP. I know this journey; like other Members in the Chamber, I know the battles of being a parent in that position. I am the parent of twins and, as I have said before, I have had to battle for every single aspect of one child’s education and for no aspects of my other child’s education. We have heard lots of criticism of what might be coming, and lots of criticism of the current system. Let us be frank: the current system is totally and utterly broken. I support the proposals because there are issues that we can put right, such as with Experts at Hand. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) says about the health aspects—there are things we still need to get right there. Three years ago, my local authority ended up with an Ofsted judgment of systemic failings in our SEND system, and there was no way of holding our local NHS provision to account on those matters. We have to get that right. With Experts at Hand and that early intervention, there are things that we can do. We have heard about the individual support plans. I have to ask why on earth we are making young people wait a year or two until their EHCP is updated, particularly for some young people whose plans do not have the complexity that my daughter’s has. We could get that early intervention much more quickly and provide that support at a much earlier stage. We have heard about the issue of standardised provision. I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), whose daughter’s needs are very different from my daughter’s needs. Within that issue, we need to look at the fact that some people need to be in mainstream education and some people need to be in a special school. We wonder why one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, and why we have had the debate over welfare, but we isolate so many young people and then question why they are not available and ready to work. The Minister knows that there are three issues that I think we can get right but about which I still have concerns: transition, getting those health aspects right, and support for professionals in the sector.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, I will continue to press the Government. I could take hon. Members to bus stops close to here that I think are a risk for blind passengers as well as for wheelchair passengers. We need to do more on this. I will not object to the measures on Motability in the Finance Bill, but there is ignorance in this place from some Members—many are not here today—on Motability, the issues around the scheme and how it continues to need to be supported, particularly for wheelchair users. On regulation and enforcement, there is training and a lot of great practice; I see some great practice of support for disabled people on my own Southeastern passenger service, but that needs to be expanded. I have two horror stories involving toilets at central London stations, where staff refused access to the changing places toilet, telling me my daughter could not use it—she needs a changing bench—and needed to go into the standard disabled toilet. That is the level of training still required. I completely support Great British Railways, but there will be issues in areas where it shares services with TfL. For example, Abbey Wood is very close to my constituency—TfL will manage that station even though both services operate from it. Denmark Hill will be a GBR station. We will have to see how those two services integrate. I welcome the consultation on micromobility. The issue remains whereby, if someone’s wheelchair is over 200 kg, they have to ride it in the road, as they are not allowed on the pavement. That is hugely discriminatory. It means that a child cannot use their wheelchair if it is over 200kg. It means that if someone who has lost their driving licence for medical reasons, such as epilepsy, cannot use their wheelchair. I hope that we can resolve such issues following the consultation. I have also been involved in complaints processes through TravelWatch, and I hope the watchdog has the necessary powers to deal with the problems. We need to look again, as I have said, at the Civil Aviation Authority. In my mind, TfL leads the way on accessibility information. The TfL Go app shows the availability of level access, station accessibility, and where a lift may be out of order. GBR needs to follow that lead. We need a national transport accessibility app shows that information, as well as showing the locations of disabled toilets and changing places toilets. Of all the places that I have travelled to with my daughter across Europe, TfL leads the way in supplying that information, and I hope that can be considered as we go forward. My final point is on ticketing. Clearly, more needs to be done in this area. Problems remain with the level of information that is available for blind passengers and wheelchair users. It is a great scheme, but more needs to be done to highlight those issues. I welcome this debate and look forward to the Minister’s comments later.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing the debate. I place on record that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, and the parent of a child who has a Motability vehicle, which I drive on her behalf, with a blue badge. I will refer to those issues. I welcome the Transport Committee’s report and the Government’s response. There are some access issues that I will talk about from first-hand experience. I was the cabinet member for transport in my borough of Bexley 20 years ago, and was latterly on the board of London Travelwatch, so I have had a long interest in these issues, but it was only when I became the parent of somebody who has a complex set of disabilities—a wheelchair user who needs constant care and support—that I understood some of the complexities of travel. I turn first to toilets. The Select Committee report and the Government’s response look at changing places. There has been a sea change in the availability of changing places toilets, both in motorway service stations and at railway stations, in the last 10 years or so, which is warmly welcomed. If I am driving on the motorway, we have to plan for that. I also hope to see one more at Charing Cross in the very near future. I accept that this is a cross-departmental responsibility, but there is a great deal more to do. We need to push for more funding for changing places. We have seen the outcome of the report by the aviation accessibility task and finish group—my private Member’s Bill on this is sitting in a long queue—whose first anniversary will be this summer. On that first anniversary, I would welcome the Government bringing forward findings on how we may move forward, and setting out whether issues remain that will require legislation. At the moment, the Civil Aviation Authority probably does not have enough powers, in particular with regard to the compensation level, which I think is around £1,500. Many people’s wheelchairs are worth far more than that, and if they are damaged, they cannot receive the compensation required to replace them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, I welcome the consideration of the inclusive transport strategy; I would like to see the Government develop that. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said about floating bus stops and experiences on the bus. In my constituency, a passenger banged their shopping trolley against my leg for an entire journey because she was so angry that my daughter’s wheelchair had taken up the space she wanted to use for her shopping trolley. There remains a great deal to do on education.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his remarks about what I said. However, all the statistics show that the people who need Motability vehicles the most are the poorest and those who live in rural areas. The Conversative party policy on this matter will damage those people the most, quite frankly, by taking away those vehicles. Will he commit to go away to his colleagues and look at that policy, which will damage disabled people who live in rural communities more than anybody else?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Pothole Repairs: Government Funding · Hansard source

  More

  After months of struggling to spend the £895,000 given to Conservative-controlled Bexley council by this Government, the council is finally in a rush to resurface roads like Belmont Road in Northumberland Heath by the end of the financial year. Will the Minister confirm how much funding the Government will provide to my local council in future years to restore the condition of our roads across Bexleyheath and Crayford?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this important debate. I have previously served as a trustee of small charities managing buildings, and I know the challenges faced by staff and trustees. In my constituency there are good examples of that situation, with the buildings at Slade Green and St Michael’s in Welling being owned by the council but run by trustees. Across Bexleyheath and Crayford, we have a number of dedicated voluntary groups and charities that support communities and residents. For many they are a lifeline; they offer safe spaces for young people, allowing them to experience art, music and a variety of other services that schools and mainstream education do not always allow. They host family support services, run food banks and provide warm spaces during the winter, to name just a few things. But many voluntary groups and charities do not have a dedicated space, such as a community centre, that they can use to deliver their services to the community. Over the last year I have been supporting a number of groups struggling with property issues. The 1st Erith Scouts group, based in Cheviot Close in Barnehurst, currently faces uncertainty, as the housing association that owns its land has submitted a planning application for housing with no planned replacement building for it. The 16th Erith Scouts group, based in Hurlingham Road in Bexleyheath, has been advised by the church that it plans to sell the land on which the hut is located. Those cases highlight the issues faced by voluntary groups, which need to protect and secure their own buildings in such situations. Sendtivate is a group based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), but it serves residents in both of our constituencies across the London borough of Bexley by supporting disabled children within the boundaries of the local authority. Sendtivate remains concerned as it has been informed that our local authority in Bexley will be disposing of the building it operates from, but there remains no long-term solution as to where it will be relocated. One issue consistently raised with me relates to the future of the Parkside community centre site in Barnehurst. Our Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley had a lease arrangement where it allowed a charity to lease and manage the building, supporting a day nursery that my own children attended, a Brownies group, music groups and a fitness group, as well as being a hub for party hire and other activities. However, it appears the council’s condition survey of the building was a visual inspection and did not involve any intrusive inspections. It was then discovered, just over 18 months ago, that the roof was unsafe. The council, fearing the building would collapse, demolished the whole building. I have been gobsmacked by the council’s position regarding the future of the site. Following representations from constituents, I contacted the council about the site’s future. The council’s position is that it will support the building of a new centre and will either lease or sell the site to the community group, but the group must fully fund the building of the new centre itself. I am grateful to the 116 Barnehurst residents who completed my survey, which highlighted that 70% of respondents were unaware of the council’s plans not to directly build a new centre on the site; 85% of respondents’ households have previously used the centre; and 89% of respondents believe the council itself should build a new centre, rather than rely on a community group to fund the cost. We do not now have a local community centre in Barnehurst; residents have to drive to Slade Green and other centres, or attempt to find space in church halls that are a considerable walk from the site. I therefore second what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham has said. It would be hugely useful for residents if guidance could be published for local authorities to ensure that community buildings are available across the entirety of the borough. If guidance relating to the relationship between the local authority and the charities existed, it would ensure that residents have access to a local centre or hub and could access the centres. I would welcome the Department publishing guidance on the rationale for the circumstances in which community buildings can be removed by local authorities, which would be beneficial in the case of Parkside. Like my hon. Friend, I know the Ethical Property Foundation well—I have known it for many years. I have had meetings on many occasions and have taken advice from it. It is a valuable organisation in the sector and gives advice to charities. I know it is concerned about tenancies at will and the position that they put groups in: it has seen in recent years that tenancies at will have become increasingly popular with local authorities, which results in voluntary groups and charities being given unstable tenancies. Such tenancies offer flexibility on paper, but in reality they often create uncertainty for thousands of small voluntary groups and charities. Under a tenancy at will, groups can be asked to leave with little or no notice, as has been said. In many circumstances, charities are locked out without warning, resulting in activities being cancelled and voluntary groups unable to provide the services the communities rely on. I therefore support my hon. Friend’s three asks, and I ask that guidance be published regarding tenancies and support. Doing so would mean that voluntary groups have increased agency over their future and are not left in the dark.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his opening remarks. I want to touch on the experience of my constituent, Terry Louch, who was in contact with my predecessor prior to my election in 2024 and has been in contact with me since then. He has been trying to access the court records relating to his nephew, Mr Jay Sewell, who was murdered in December 2018. He applied to the Old Bailey for the transcripts and was told that the fee would be £22,000—£500 per day. He said that he was left with a number of questions at the trial, and that “at times it was difficult to hear and understand a lot of what was being communicated.” After several years, he would still like the transcripts to better understand the case proceedings and, ultimately, the judge’s decisions. The perpetrator was found guilty and given a minimum term of 21 years, but Mr Louch still wants to understand the full proceedings of the case. I have twice raised Mr Louch’s case with HMCTS. Initially, it said that external transcription companies set their own fees, that that is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, and that bereaved families can access a free copy of the sentencing remarks. As I said, it is not just the sentencing remarks that Mr Louch wants, but the details of what was a very lengthy case. With further correspondence, Mr Louch was advised that he could apply for a limited section of the transcripts to lower the costs, but his position is that he is unable to pick out any certain parts of a given day, and would therefore have to pay for the full day to be transcribed to access any aspect. There are several days that he wishes to have the transcripts of, and he says that it would be difficult to pinpoint the specific days that he would like. That is the position after much to-ing and fro-ing from both my predecessor in Bexleyheath and Crayford and myself. It remains the case that Mr Louch has not been able to access the transcripts due to the prohibitive costs involved. He continues trying to pursue the matter, and the aims of this petition. I welcome this debate and ask the Government to look again at some of these aspects, and particularly the issues that Mr Louch has raised. For him to fully understand what actually happened in what was, for him, a very traumatic case involving the murder of his nephew, the cost of £22,000 is extremely prohibitive.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Although they appreciate the need to put right the failings of the past, my constituents continue to raise concerns about Thames Water’s price increase last year. Will the Minister assure them that Thames Water is being held to account and will provide information to customers about how local infrastructure will be improved?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Meningitis Outbreak · Hansard source

  More

  May I share my condolences with the friends and families of the two young people who have very sadly lost their lives? Nine years ago, I saw my own daughter have a 42-minute seizure. Thanks to the work of the NHS and the drugs, she recovered from meningitis B, but I know exactly how terrifying that situation can be. For lots of families around the country, their children are currently at university and are hundreds of miles away. What advice can the Secretary of State give families about the conversations they should have with their young people in Canterbury about the health advice that they should seek and the symptoms that they should look for?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, the Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley demolished the much-loved Parkside community centre in Barnehurst. The council has now said it will allow the centre to be rebuilt if a charity funds the rebuilding. I have conducted a survey of local residents, and 89% believe that the council should rebuild it, rather than a charity. Can time be made available for a debate on the importance of community buildings and the level of support available to voluntary groups who run them?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Micropubs: Bexleyheath and Crayford · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited the Bird & Barrel micropub in Barnehurst, which also operates the Bexley Brewery in Slade Green in my constituency. They informed me that, due to the number of tied tenants in the constituency, they have access to less than 8% of the local pub market across Bexleyheath and Crayford. They are pressing me, and I will be pressing, like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), to see the pubs code updated to support micropubs and breweries. Will my hon. Friend give some more detail about when we may see some more progress on that matter?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Micropubs: Bexleyheath and Crayford · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps he is taking to support micropubs in Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for access to disability equipment and for wheelchair users. It is also well known that one of my children has cerebral palsy and uses a wide range of equipment, from a wheelchair to postural seating for eating and for bathing and so on, so I have become a bit of an expert in some of these matters over the years. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate. There will be a separate debate later this year, through the Backbench Business Committee, on wheelchair provision, which I will be sponsoring. On the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), the collapse of NRS Healthcare last summer has caused real issues across the country. My Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency borders Kent and I know that there have been issues there, as there have been for other local authorities, and I have been working with organisations to try to reduce them. However, recycling continues to be an issue, and it is addressed in the recommendations of the APPG’s report. As chair of the APPG for access to disability equipment, I am delighted to contribute to this debate, and I pay tribute to Newlife, the charity for disabled children, and the British Healthcare Trades Association for their dedication and hard work in advocating for users of disability equipment. As has been said, our first report, “Barriers to Accessing Lifesaving Disability Equipment”, was published in October. The report resulted from our inquiry—our first inquiry, in fact—into the systemic barriers that prevent millions of disabled children and adults across the UK from accessing the medical and community equipment that they need to live safely and independently. I want to highlight some of the evidence that we heard. We found that 71% of people feel that the system providing hoists, grab rails and other essential medical equipment is not currently meeting their needs, and our first key recommendation was the implementation of a national strategy. Currently, there is no cohesive national strategy for community equipment and care provision, which has resulted in inconsistent experiences across the country. The APPG recommended that a national strategy should be overseen by a Minister, who would ensure that a national directive is issued to local authorities to clarify whose responsibility it is to provide equipment. That would ensure consistency and reduce confusion. The APPG heard evidence that the system responsible for delivering essential community equipment is fragmented, inconsistent and too often failing the people it exists to support. Responsibility is split between local authorities and integrated care boards, but in practice that joint responsibility—I know this at first hand—frequently leads to unclear accountability, variation in provision and what many families and professionals describe as a postcode lottery. Often, delays are such that families order equipment and then wait a year or two, by which time it is obsolete. We heard that in the feedback we received for the report. The report highlighted the consistently long waits for assessments and equipment, which worsen conditions and increase costs. In fact, 74% of professionals and equipment providers said that they are aware of patients who have experienced delayed hospital discharge because essential equipment was unavailable at home. Not only do those delays increase the financial strain on the NHS and pressures on hospital beds and staff time, but they slow down elective care and place further strain on the social care system. One of the report’s key recommendations is to implement a co-ordinated national plan that includes clear targets, workforce investment and the streamlining of processes to reduce delays and prevent unnecessary hospital stays. Maximum service timeframes should be aligned with the wheelchair service standard of 18 weeks to ensure consistent, accountable delivery. Equipment providers from across the country said that every authority works differently, with little alignment between local areas and very limited national oversight of how services are delivered. Our inquiry found that 33% of equipment users are still waiting to receive approved equipment, with one in five waiting more than two months. That highlights the real consequences these failures have for the people who rely on the support. Despite the scale and importance of this sector, there is no single Minister with clear responsibility for ensuring that services are working effectively for patients. It is clear that the system needs change, and I would be grateful if the Minister would consider the APPG’s recommendations to introduce a national strategy for community equipment and wheelchair services in order to eliminate the postcode lottery in provision and provide proper national oversight and monitoring of services, and to introduce of a co-ordinated national plan to reduce delays in the provision of community equipment. The APPG will be meeting on 26 March, and the Minister and all other Members will be welcome, if they can find time in their busy diaries, to join us.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and support and echo what she has said about the situation in the middle east. The charity Shelter has long campaigned for people with no fixed address to be able to access bank accounts, including without ID. Which groups of people might benefit the most from the leadership shown by the Labour Government and from banks on this issue?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Adult Cerebral Palsy: National Service Specification · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the national service specification for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to secure this debate. Approximately 130,000 adults in the UK have cerebral palsy. Although the NHS now officially categorises it as a lifelong condition, there is clear evidence that specialist support stops at the age of 18. A national service specification for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS would ensure that the transition from childhood to adulthood is supported by relevant healthcare services and the necessary support. It would ensure that support continues to be provided throughout adulthood. I pay tribute to Up—the Adult Cerebral Palsy Movement, and Action Cerebral Palsy, for their dedicated advocacy for people with cerebral palsy throughout the UK, their campaigning on this issue and their support in preparing for this debate. I will start by talking about my experience. As hon. Members will be aware, one of my daughters has cerebral palsy. Although she is still a child, I remain concerned about the level of support that will be provided to her when she reaches adulthood—a concern that I am sure many parents of children with cerebral palsy will relate to. During childhood, layers of support are provided, ranging from paediatricians to services that often are supplied at school and through the NHS such as physiotherapy, speech and language support, and occupational therapy. Parents are rightly concerned about what the transition at 18 looks like and whether wraparound healthcare remains. Sadly, the reality for many people with cerebral palsy is that after the transition, they are left with little support for their health needs and to help them function in life, including for day-to-day activities such as work. Throughout this debate I will refer to the 2022 report of the all-party parliamentary group on cerebral palsy, “Barriers for adults with Cerebral Palsy on achieving full life participation: access to healthcare services and progressing at work”. Although the APPG is now disbanded, the key recommendations remain relevant. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the former Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, Paul Maynard, for their work to commission the report. For many adults with cerebral palsy, their experience is similar: they receive care and support through paediatric services before reaching adulthood, then find themselves facing a cliff edge. In essence, they are left without the support that they received for the first 18 years of their life. Cerebral palsy affects about one in every 400 children in the UK, but the severity of each child’s cerebral palsy varies greatly, and many have more complex issues, with one in two having a learning disability and one in four having a severe learning disability. The first recommendation in the APPG report outlines that NHS England and social care, education and employment specialists must agree a national service specification for adult cerebral palsy, to be commissioned based on the needs of local populations within the 42 integrated care boards across England. Furthermore, in the 10-year health plan, the Government made the commitment that 95% of people with complex needs should have an agreed personal care plan by 2027. Many adults with cerebral palsy have complex needs and, with that, elevated health risks. They are 14 times more likely to die from respiratory disease and three times more likely to die from cardiovascular disease. In 2023, a review of 69 studies to assess the prevalence and incidence of chronic conditions among adults with cerebral palsy showed that 21% had depression, 21% had anxiety, 24% had asthma, 28% had epilepsy, 32%8 had incontinence and 38% had malnutrition. I would welcome the Minister’s response outlining how the commitment in the 10-year health plan can be achieved for adults with cerebral palsy. I would also welcome the Minister considering how a national service specification for adult cerebral palsy could be implemented within the 42 ICBs, including by encouraging ICBs to implement the NHS framework for the commissioning of services for children and young people with cerebral palsy as a blueprint for adult cerebral palsy commissioning and provision. In March 2021, the then APPG on cerebral palsy published its first report, entitled “Early identification, intervention and pathways of care of infants and young children with cerebral palsy: the case for reform and investment”. One of the report’s key recommendations was that all health authorities should be required to implement NICE—National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—guidelines. Dr Charlie Fairhurst, head of children’s neurosciences at the Evelina London children’s hospital and chair of the committee for NICE guidelines on cerebral palsy, accepted those recommendations, which have been implemented in the NICE guidelines for children. It is therefore disappointing that the recommendations for adults outlined in the 2022 report, including the full implementation of NICE guidelines, have not been implemented for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS. In May 2025, NHS England published the commissioning framework for children and young people with cerebral palsy. The framework aims to simplify and summarise the existing guidance available. It also highlights best-practice care pathways that could be replicated by other systems and enables systems to identify population need through data. Over the past year, eight ICBs have been piloting that framework for children, which involves undertaking a baselining exercise to understand existing service provision and to identify service gaps for children with cerebral palsy. However, as we know—and as the 2022 APPG report highlighted—the needs of local populations differ across the country, and the results from just eight ICBs are not enough to provide an accurate representation of the effectiveness of the framework. The existing postcode lottery of specialist support constrains the lives of adults with cerebral palsy and results in worse health outcomes, not to mention lower education and employment participation for individuals, with the subsequent substantial economic loss. Analysis from the Northern Ireland cerebral palsy register has shown that the prevalence of cerebral palsy in adults is comparable to that of multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Adult Cerebral Palsy: National Service Specification · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Between the APPG’s 2022 recommendations and the example the hon. Member gave of the analysis in Northern Ireland, it is clear that the evidence is there, and hopefully we will hear from the Minister about how we can continue to progress some of those matters. I would welcome a commitment from ICBs across the country to implement the framework as a blueprint for adult cerebral palsy commissioning and provision, as the hon. Member outlined. The 2022 report’s second recommendation highlighted the need to support GPs in identifying adults with cerebral palsy by extending the UK-wide quality and outcomes framework to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers along the lines of the expansion of the QOF to learning disabilities. That would make a profound difference in the health outcomes of children with cerebral palsy when they transition into adulthood care pathways. Would the Minister look to extend the quality and outcomes framework to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers, similar to the expansion of the quality and outcomes framework to learning disabilities? The third recommendation aims to ease the transition into adult care pathways through a national service specification for adults with cerebral palsy in the NHS, which must include training covering adults with cerebral palsy for those working in general medicine, general practice and nursing from entry level. For many adults with cerebral palsy, their primary co-ordinator of care is their GP, who, despite their best efforts, often does not have the specialist knowledge or training to support their patients. Written evidence submitted to the APPG as part of the report highlighted that medical undergraduate students do not receive training about cerebral palsy in adults. One way to support GPs in identifying adults with cerebral palsy is to extend the UK-wide quality and outcomes framework to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers along the lines of the expansion of the quality and outcomes framework to learning disabilities. That would make a profound difference in the health outcomes of children with cerebral palsy when they transition into adulthood care pathways. Would the Minister outline how the current NHS staffing guidelines could be amended to include the incorporation of training for those in general medicine, general practice and nursing from an entry level to cover adults with cerebral palsy? The report’s fourth recommendation outlined that each ICB should be required to undertake a gap analysis of existing cerebral palsy services for adults against NICE guidance and use the results to inform and guide their local commissioning decisions. This must include investment in services to support and address associated conditions. The results should then be used to establish regional multidisciplinary cerebral palsy clinics for adults, providing access to a range of psychological, physical and complementary therapies. The recommendation highlights that disability access co-ordinators appointed in both acute and primary centres would be able to provide referrals to the clinics and ensure that reasonable adjustments are made. The report also highlighted that the provision of a neurologist during the transition from childhood to adulthood is an essential component of adult cerebral palsy care to ensure that, when a patient is discharged from their paediatrician, they do not face that cliff edge in support. Will the Minister agree to investigate how ICBs can undertake a gap analysis of existing cerebral palsy services for adults against current NICE guidance, and how they can include adults with cerebral palsy in their integrated needs assessments? The report’s fifth recommendation suggests that, to ensure the provision of specialist services, the Department of Health and Social Care should provide ringfenced funding to ICBs to enable them to develop the much-needed specialist services at a local level. Will the Minister agree to look at ringfencing funding for the 42 ICBs so that they can develop specialist cerebral palsy services? Finally, I want to demonstrate why national service specification is so needed. Emma Livingstone, the co-founder and chief executive officer of UP, The Adult Cerebral Palsy Movement, is in the Public Gallery, and her lived experience perfectly encapsulates why national service specification for adults with cerebral palsy is needed. Emma was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at two years old. At 16, she was discharged from medical services after being told that she was the best that she would ever be. Unfortunately, without any integrated care during Emma’s adulthood, she experienced a significant decline in mobility in her late 30s. That led to Emma having multiple surgeries, and unfortunately having to give up her work as a speech and language therapist. In Emma’s own words, “In my late thirties, my mobility declined rapidly. I needed hip surgery, then more surgeries, and eventually had to give up work. What shocked me wasn’t the physical deterioration—it was the silence. The coordinated care I’d received as a child simply vanished when I turned 18.” Emma is sadly not alone in experiencing that. The APPG report found that “the transition into adolescence and adulthood is often accompanied by a decline in physical function,” with up to 50% “of people with Cerebral Palsy experiencing deterioration in walking function between 20 and 40 years of age.” That statistic alone is reason enough to show why national service specification for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS is so greatly needed. I would welcome the Minister’s response to the five recommendations from the APPG report that I have highlighted today.