Daniel Francis MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 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.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Hong Kong: Human Rights Situation · Hansard source

  More

  In addition to the situation on the ground in Hong Kong, there remains evidence of transnational repression against Hong Kong nationals living overseas, including here in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister update us on the work being done on that issue across Government Departments, and on the measures that she is pursuing to end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices in the UK?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Hong Kong: Human Rights Situation · Hansard source

  More

  11. What recent assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the human rights situation in Hong Kong.

• 3 Mar 2026 · SEND Provision: Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my usual interest, as my wife is a special needs co-ordinator and one of our children has an EHCP. I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for bringing forward this debate. My constituents have seen our London borough of Bexley council have a safety valve agreement and an Ofsted inspection of systemic failings, which we are hopefully about to come out of. I have seen those things as a councillor and as a parent. I am the parent of twins, and I can tell the House that despite having an EHCP, the transfer for my daughter with an EHCP was so much more stressful than it was for my other daughter. I welcome the changes, as the Minister knows. There are still a few things we need to iron out in these conversations about transition, support for schools and the role of ICBs. Can the Minister commit that, through the consultation and legislative process, we will continue to hear those voices to get the package right? I know at first hand that the system is broken, and we have to get it right for these families.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Steve Bainbridge is a dual UK-Greek national. He has raised his experience of a delay in receiving his UK passport forcing him to have to use his Greek passport to attend his daughter’s wedding in the UK. He also highlighted bureaucratic issues faced by women travelling from Greece, such as with their maiden name having to be displayed in their passport and Greek documents using a different alphabet from British ones. Will the Minister outline how, if someone’s UK passport is delayed, they can avoid having to pay several hundred pounds and facing the bureaucratic issues that Steve has highlighted?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As has been said, this is an issue of generational unfairness. My wife and I had plan 1 loans. At that stage, in our early 30s, having paid off our loan, we felt we could start career progression, work our way up the housing ladder and have a family. However, what I have seen in my postbag is correspondence from constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford who do not feel that that is the case for them and feel that the system now works against them. If we had time, I would read out the case studies of Jessica, James, Gurkamal and Stuart, and also the comments from parents, such as Adebimpe, Emma and Nicola, outlining the experiences of their children, whose loans are growing and who, unlike those of us who had plan 1 loans, are having to pay huge amounts in interest, rather than paying off the loan itself. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this debate. I echo what he said about the key things that we need to hear from the Minister today: about the level of interest, the thresholds and how we can resolve the 9% repayment rates, and about how we can make the system closer to what I experienced and fairer for those studying today, those considering studying or those who have just been through the system.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest, as my wife is special educational needs co-ordinator and one of our children has an EHCP. As the parent of twins, I have had to fight for virtually none of the education of one of my children, but for every single aspect of my other child’s education because she is disabled. What I say, and what I have heard clearly from my constituents, is that we must get right aspects such as holding ICBs to account—we heard about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft)—and the transition stages at both primary and secondary school, and the end of secondary. I welcome the proposals, but will the Secretary of State assure the House that during the consultation we will hear those voices and get this right for the families I represent?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, my Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley issued a press release stating that DFT data showed that it has the seventh best roads in England. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the data shows that it has an amber rating and does not say that it has the seventh best roads in England?