Daniel Francis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mrs Harris. Yesterday, we heard evidence about the impact of the Bill on different groups with protected characteristics, including age, disability, race and sexual orientation. We heard from the EHRC, an arm’s length body of the Government, that it strongly recommends that a full impact assessment, a human rights assessment and a delegated powers memorandum be undertaken before the Committee begins line-by-line scrutiny. We have also heard from witnesses about the impact that the Bill will have on disabled people, from Disability Rights UK and others, on black and minority ethnic people, from Dr Jamilla Hussain, from LGBT people, from Baroness Falkner, and on those from a low-income background, from Sam Royston of Marie Curie. We heard from Dr Sarah Cox and Dr Jamilla Hussain that evidence from their work shows that this Bill has a higher probability of pushing minority groups further away from seeking healthcare, while inequality pre-exists. As observed through the pandemic and from available data, minority groups do not always trust that their interests will be best represented in institutions that would enable the facilitation of someone’s death, should this Bill become law. I therefore believe that on the basis of that advice, so as not to inadvertently widen health inequalities through Bill, it is essential to have health impact assessments. I appreciate that an equality impact assessment will be produced for Report stage, it will not be available for detailed line-by-line scrutiny. When we agreed the timetable for line-by-line scrutiny last Tuesday, we were not aware that this assessment would be produced, given it was first reported to the House during the money resolution last Wednesday. There is a risk that there will be a bigger impact on people with protected characteristics, and this will not be understood fully until the Government have produced the equality impact assessment. As things stand, that means that we will move into line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill on 11 February without a full understanding from the assessment of the impact of the Bill. I am therefore minded to request a short Adjournment of the Committee so that, as advised, we can receive the assessments before we progress to line-by-line scrutiny. Please will you advise me, Mrs Harris, how I could secure such a motion to adjourn the Committee until we are in receipt of the evidence, as advised by the witnesses yesterday?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask about capacity. Chloe, I think you said patients are sometimes given the drug some time before they die, so I want to understand where capacity assessments are taken and at what stage during the process. Dr Furst: Capacity assessments are taken every time a doctor sees the patient. In my state, that would be at first assessment—first request—then a consulting doctor would come and do another hour-long assessment of the patient and assesses capacity at that stage, and then I would come back as the co-ordinating doctor for a second or third assessment of the patient, and assess capacity. They would then be given their drug, if it is self-administered. We assume and hope that they retain capacity, and we strongly advise patients and families that, should they lose capacity, they will have voided their permit and they cannot take the drug, but there is less oversight of that. However, we know that the majority—over 80%—of these patients are connected with palliative care, so we often have community teams going in and seeing them, and we are still touching base with them, maybe more peripherally, and checking capacity as we are having conversations or as we are coming and doing home visits from a palliative care perspective. If it were deemed that the patient is quite delirious, the permit would be voided and we would remove the substance from the house. If it is practitioner administration, we are also, obviously, testing capacity right at the moment that we are administering the substance.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is to both Dr Mullock and Professor House. In your written evidence, you both refer to clause 18(9) and issues regarding the obligations of the doctor if the procedure either fails or if there is a long-delayed death. I accept that it is a small number, but we know from elsewhere that there are cases where the death takes some days—three to four days in some cases—or where the procedure fails. The Bill says that the doctor must stay with the person for the entirety ofthat time. I am trying to understand from your written evidence how you feel that measure should be amended to make it stronger, because at the moment there is no mention what the doctor should do to intervene, and clearly it is not practical for a doctor to stay for three to four days. What are your views on how that could be amended?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Ms Hadi, we heard evidence this morning that the majority of disabled people support the Bill. I would like to hear your comments on that. What analysis do you have on whether the majority of disabled people support the Bill? Baroness Falkner, based on what we have just heard, if we had had the equality impact assessment before oral evidence was sought and before line-by-line scrutiny, would you have supported the approach more? Baroness Falkner: My answer will be very brief. Every additional piece of analysis is helpful, because there are gaps in the analysis. The problem is that because we have not had a consultation, and because the process of deliberation was not transparent—it never will be with a private Member’s Bill—there is a sense of not knowing quite enough as to the reasoning behind—

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Yesterday, we heard from some clinicians from the USA, who outlined how they have reviewed the scheme in practice. They said that their waiting period between the two clinician appointments has been reduced from 14 days to 48 hours, and that in some cases the second clinician has been removed and replaced by a nurse practitioner. Have you undertaken a similar review? Have you made any changes as a result? Dr McLaren: We are undergoing our review at the moment. It was meant to commence after the first five years of operation of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act in Victoria. That review has yet to be tabled or published. Certainly, the recommendations that we have submitted to it involve reducing or removing the so-called grace period, or waiting period. My experience, and that of an almost homogeneous group of practitioners, is that patients serve their own lock-out periods, grace periods and periods of reflection, as I believe you have called them, before applying. Subsequently, there are several logistical pauses throughout the process, which also instigate their own grace periods. The addition of further periods for reflection is, I think, superfluous and unnecessary. Secondary to that, in all our Bills and Acts, we have an ability to bypass those waiting periods. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I did not see the capability to bypass any of those in your current Bill. If the person has a prognosis of less than seven days, they should be able to be expedited and not serve that time. I do not see the purpose of putting extra time on these people to apply for this. I always say that people do not know that they have six months to live until they have six weeks to live. We as oncologists do not know that either. In a matter of one CT scan, we can change a person’s prognosis from 18 months to three months. All of a sudden, they start thinking about how they see their life ending, and then they have to engage in a process of application. Out of that three-month period, it might take a month to apply. My recommendation has always been to increase the prognostic eligibility criteria from six months to 12 months and to remove waiting periods, which patients will place on themselves regardless of the legislative requirements.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Could I clarify whether there is also a review of keeping two clinicians in the process? We heard yesterday that that is not the case elsewhere. Dr Mewett: One has to understand that although there are some broad similarities, there are a number of differences state by state, and now the Australian Capital Territory has legislation. In the ACT, they have passed legislation, although it has yet to come into practice, whereby one of the two assessing practitioners could be a suitably qualified nurse practitioner. In all the other states of Australia, each of the assessing practitioners has to be medically trained. Different states have different requirements. There is also, in some states, the ability for a suitably qualified nurse practitioner to be the administering practitioner in the case of practitioner-administered voluntary assisted dying.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I hear what you have said already regarding capacity. Of course, the Mental Capacity Act relies on the capacity principles. They include the presumption of capacity, the principle that a person cannot be seen as lacking capacity unless all practicable steps have been taken to support them to make a decision, and the principle that a person cannot be seen as lacking capacity merely because the decision is unwise. I also heard what you said about the scaling of decision making, but within the Bill, in some of those scenarios there is no mandating; the word “may” is used rather than “must”. I want to understand your viewpoint on whether it would provide stronger safeguards if those parts of the Bill were tightened to include “must” rather than “may”, and if the reference to capacity were replaced with a separate definition of “ability”, as proposed in our amendments. Professor Whitty: I am probably not the best person to ask about the exact drafting of the Bill in terms of “may” and “must”, but I can answer the second part of your question, which is really important. If there were no Mental Capacity Act, there would be an argument, which has been used for a long time, that the Bill would have to define what was meant with a fair degree of clarity. It would not be able to do that with just one clause; there would have to be quite a lot of clauses, if I am honest. All systems of this sort are going to be imperfect. The reason why I think it is sensible to base yourself on the Mental Capacity Act is that it is well used and well understood in practice by practitioners every day. Having a system with two completely separate groups of assessment, one of which has never been tested in the courts or used outwith this Bill, would lead to a whole set of potential complications and ambiguities, which are not there at the moment because we have a well-tested mechanism through the Mental Capacity Act. People should move away from the Mental Capacity Act with some caution, because I think that will cause as many problems as it solves. It is not clear to me what problem people are trying to solve by doing that, given that the Mental Capacity Act clearly makes the point that the more severe the decision, the greater the degree of capacity that has to be assumed before people can actually take that decision. That is the foundation of some of the disquiet that people have had, but it is central to how the Mental Capacity Act works in practice.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is to Dr Ahmedzai. In the paper you produced you talked about specific recommendations regarding the training and experience of the doctors involved in the process. You suggested five years, for instance, and some other experience. Have you got examples elsewhere in the world where such a scheme has been implemented? Do you believe that we have enough trained doctors in the United Kingdom who have that level of experience and would therefore be taking part in this part of the process? Dr Ahmedzai: You have caught me on the hop, because I cannot quote the level of training that doctors have received elsewhere, except for examples in the Netherlands, where there are additional doctors who are, through their medical association, trained specifically in assisted dying. I cannot tell you the number of years’ experience that doctors have in other countries. I felt that it was self-evident that you would want doctors who are experienced—three years, five years or whatever post qualification—and who have seen real life. It is up to the medical associations to stipulate how much experience, but I would not like the idea of a doctor immediately, having got their certificate of training, going off and making these kinds of decisions. That is why I suggested that ballpark figure.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Just to clarify, is there nowhere else in the UK where we have that? I am just trying to understand, because we would need to go away and do a piece of work on whether there are enough doctors with that level of experience if we were to take on that kind of recommendation. Is there nowhere else in the medical profession in the UK where we insist on that level of experience? Dr Ahmedzai: Probably not, but this is a very, very special situation, and it may be, once it has become embedded in the health service, that that stipulation could move back. I am so glad that Dr Clarke keeps coming back to training. One thing that is absolutely needed if this Bill goes forward is to take the topic of assisted dying out of being an optional training—where people might sign up for a course—to become mandatory. In the NHS, we do mandatory training for all sorts of things, including washing hands, lifting and basic life support. There should be basic dying support mandatory training as well. Why do we not have that? That kind of provision would become part of training doctors up to become good at those conversations that Dr Clarke is obviously involved in teaching, and in ensuring that they keep up to date with how the law is changing too. I would look to the royal colleges and the GMC to lead on those aspects.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Alex, in paragraph 8 of your written evidence you touch on clauses 9, 15 and 18 of the Bill and the potential complications that could arise when the substance is taken. Could you expand on the concerns you have about that? Alex Ruck Keene: I should make it absolutely clear that all I am trying to do is make sure that whatever law is passed is a good law and has as few inadvertent consequences as possible. My concern here arises out of the fact that understandably the proponents of the Bill want to make it very, very clear that this is about people carrying out a final act, and no doctor is allowed to do something that involves going beyond that. At the same time we have a situation where doctors—I am using the word “doctor” slightly loosely, but for present purposes that is what we are talking about—have to be present and have to remain with the person. We know that there will be some people for whom there are complications. My concern is to make sure that there has been sufficient consideration given to what exactly a doctor is meant to do at that point, because it seems to me that it ends up putting the person who is undergoing those complications in a horrible position. It is also—I am perfectly happy to use this phrase—putting the doctor in a position of extraordinary moral distress. Are they at that point supposed to try and rely on the doctrine of double effect and say, “All I am trying to do is treat the complication, not bring about your death,” but the Bill is saying, “No, you are not allowed to do that”? I understand entirely why the intention is to say that the doctor must always be hands off, as it were, but you need to super clear that you are going to put some people in some very, very difficult positions, and Parliament needs to be clear-eyed about that.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Fraud: Public Sector · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps he is taking to reduce fraud in the public sector.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Fraud: Public Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. One of the biggest scandals that we saw under the last Conservative Government was Ministers giving out dodgy covid contracts to their friends and donors. Will the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that there will never again be a repeat of that shameful behaviour and that where the public have been defrauded, we will get our money back?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Sir Roger. Amendment (i) clashes with the sitting times on Thursday suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  My residents in Crayford, in the London borough of Bexley, have their services provided by one council, but in many cases, residents on the same road have their services provided by two councils—by Kent county council and Dartford borough council—which causes confusion, as the Minister said. Does he agree that the changes introduced in the English devolution Bill will make local government more effective and save money for those taxpayers?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Parking: Town Centres · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In the Northumberland Heath ward in my constituency, Councillors Baljeet Gill and Wendy Perfect have been working tirelessly to support local traders who would like to introduce free parking for a very short period for the small range of independent shops in Northumberland Heath. Does she agree that councils should investigate measures to reduce parking charges and also consider free short-term parking arrangements to support, as she put it, the viability of such small independent traders?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For the record, my wife is employed as a special educational needs co-ordinator in a local authority school in the London borough of Bexley. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill on aspects relating to looked-after children and academies. On looked-after children, the Bill would make a series of changes on accommodation, as colleagues have commented, which include increasing Ofsted oversight of organisations that operate multiple children’s homes or independent fostering agencies, introducing a financial oversight regime for certain independent agencies and children’s home providers, and allowing the Secretary of State to cap the profits of children’s home providers and independent fostering agencies. From my years as a local councillor, I know how badly those changes are needed. My local authority in Bexley, like many others, has struggled to control those areas with regulation and struggled with the financial aspects. Last year, we saw the largest children’s services overspend of any London borough as a result of those issues. I therefore welcome the measures to limit the profits of specified non-local authority, Ofsted-registered social providers of children’s homes and fostering agencies, which have continually raised their costs far above inflation to profit from the taxpayer and from the care costs of our most vulnerable children. I welcome the changes in clauses 47 to 50 to school admission arrangements, requiring schools and local authorities to co-operate to manage admissions and giving local authorities the power to direct academy schools to admit pupils. In my local authority, we have schools where over 50% of the children do not live in our borough because of the admission arrangements that our academy schools have decided to put in place. In a borough where 79% of schools have been academised, we rely on their good will as to how many pupils they will admit each year from our local authority and how those applicants will be prioritised. That has resulted in the same Conservative councillors who cheer-led the roll-out of academies openly complaining to me and colleagues that they no longer have control over admissions criteria. Today, we have the opportunity to give this landmark legislation its Second Reading. It will improve education standards and strengthen protections for the most vulnerable children in Bexleyheath and Crayford and across our country. It will drive high and rising standards in schools through common-sense reform, and it will prevent children from falling through the cracks by introducing landmark reforms to safeguard children’s social care. The Bill is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation. A vote for the amendment is a vote against the Bill and against the safety of our children, their childhoods and their futures. I urge all Members to vote with me and the Government and to give the Bill its Second Reading.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Lobular Breast Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate, and I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) about health outcomes for those diagnosed with cancer. One of my most difficult days was when my wife was diagnosed with cancer. She has now thankfully recovered but, looking back at her cancer and her diagnosis, the fact that it was caught early and was seen as a cancer with greater success outcomes shows the disparity of outcomes—particularly for those with lobular breast cancer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood described. I pay tribute to the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which aims to give lobular cancer the attention and funding it needs, so that it can be better understood. Lobular breast cancer is the second most common form of breast cancer and, as has been said, accounts for about 15% of all breast cancers, yet there is still not enough research being undertaken. My hon. Friend mentioned my constituent Emma, who is in the Public Gallery. Emma recently attended my constituency surgery and told me of her experiences with lobular breast cancer. Because of the way it presents, it was not picked up by a mammogram, and it took an MRI—facilitated through a routine private healthcare check—for it to be diagnosed. As has been said, it was initially thought to be a stage 2 cancer, but it was in fact stage 3. Following her diagnosis, she underwent a double mastectomy, followed by chemotherapy for six months, and then 15 sessions of radiotherapy. In Emma’s case, her cancer is likely to return, which leaves her with a very uncertain future for years ahead. On the current data collection framework on lobular breast cancer, there is a lack of documented research about outcomes for and recurrences of lobular breast cancer. Indeed, there is currently just one trial available in the UK for lobular breast cancer patients. This leaves women like Emma unprepared for the potential impacts that the cancer will have on them further down the line. Given this position, I would be grateful if the Minister could address not only the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood in her asks, but her comments on what can be done to secure more regular MRIs—as was shown in Emma’s case, having more regular MRIs is the only thing that will pick this up—and to ensure that there is greater data collection and transparency on the effects of lobular breast cancer.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Fireworks: Sale and Use · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I pay tribute to Alan and his family, whose horrific story we have just heard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it is deeply upsetting to hear stories about pets and wild animals being distressed by fireworks, but equally this issue affects people with PTSD and children with SEND. A growing number of constituents from across Bexleyheath and Crayford have written to me about this issue and the problems with the regulations. I was a councillor when the regulations were introduced 20 years ago; there was improvement at the time, but there clearly continue to be issues today. Under the current legislation, members of the public are not required to have any form of licence or training to let off consumer fireworks. Public displays are controlled and must take place during set times, but private displays can go on well into the night. A recent study by the RSPCA found that as many as 14 million Britons plan to have a private display each year. Dog owners report that dogs are scared of fireworks and exhibit the five signs of stress. Pet owners say they have no choice but to try to manage their pets, as the fireworks remain out of their control and they cannot remove the triggers. The regulations state that fireworks can be set off past 11 pm on four nights of the year, when the cut-off is extended to 1 am. Under the current rules, it is impossible to predict when fireworks may go off, especially around that time of the year. In my area of south-east London, fireworks are a nightly occurrence for a month or two in the autumn, and they continue into the early hours. I welcome the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) has introduced, and her asks of the Minister. I hope the Minister will outline plans for stricter enforcement of the sale of fireworks and to give more powers to local authorities such as the London borough of Bexley to stop disturbances. I also hope he will address the asks in my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for raising this important issue. As he did with his constituent Debbie, I recently met with my constituent Paula, who shared her experience of the impact of having pelvic mesh fitted. In 2015, Paula had her mesh fitted to resolve urinary incontinence, but her experience with pelvic mesh has been painful and inconvenient. Between 2020 and 2023, she had various painful bladder stones that attached to the mesh, and in July 2023 she was informed that the mesh had eroded into her bladder. I understand that the mesh is now cutting into Paula’s urethra, causing her terrible pain and incontinence. Paula will now need to undergo three major operations to remove the mesh, and she has told me of the toll that it has taken on her. In her own words, her life has “gone from working full time, holidaying, socialising and running, my big passion covering 5k around three times a week, to losing my job,” not being able to run and feeling “isolated and very depressed”. Paula now plans her life around the availability of toilet facilities. She is unable to take long journeys and lives in fear of the issues that incontinence causes her. As we have heard, this is an issue that affects many women who, like Paula, say that they did not have the risks and potential harms of surgical mesh properly communicated to them. It is not mandatory for individuals to report the side effects of surgical mesh to the NHS, so many women like Paula were not properly informed of the potential long-term effects on their health and wellbeing. Requiring side effects to be reported would ensure better regulation and allow patients to fully understand the implications of medical procedures, so I will welcome the Minister’s comments on the points raised by Members and the need to implement in full the recommendations of the Cumberlege review.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Home-to-School Transport: Children with SEND · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. My constituent Jessica has raised the case of her son. The London borough of Bexley introduced a charging policy for post-16 children in 2018. Although her son has not changed schools, they now have to pay £400 towards transport to reach his school in the London borough of Bromley, despite the fact that he is on the highest mobility component rate for personal independence payment and Jessica receives universal credit. Bromley children in the same class do not have to pay that charge and contribution. With the current system, there has been a crisis in school transport. My own local authority had seven local government ombudsman cases against it in 2017, and a further report found failings because the local authority did not remedy those cases. Because of those failings, we have situations such as the one that Jessica has raised, where she or her son must contribute £400 towards transport, and yet children in the same class with identical circumstances do not have to contribute because they live in a different London borough. The system therefore does need some reform.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Aviation (Accessibility) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the accessibility of air travel for disabled passengers; to make provision about the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority to enforce accessibility requirements; to remove the limit on compensation for damage to wheelchairs or other mobility equipment on domestic flights; and for connected purposes. I seek to introduce legislation to create stricter regulations for airports and airlines to ensure that they can facilitate the smooth journey of disabled passengers to enter the airport, navigate security, board the aircraft and have a safe journey before disembarking at their destination. The Bill aims to grant greater powers to the Civil Aviation Authority to fine airports and airlines for not complying with regulations to accommodate disabled passengers. It also aims to provide adequate compensation to them and to promote further accessibility in future development in the aviation industry. Accessibility in air travel is not just a matter of convenience; it is a matter of rights, dignity and equality. It is about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their mobility or physical condition, can enjoy the freedom to travel—whether for work, family or leisure —without facing undue barriers or discrimination. I pay tribute to Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, and thank her for spending time last week to discuss with me her direct experience of these issues. I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Transport for announcing this month that she is setting up the aviation accessibility task and finish group. That group, to be chaired by Baroness Grey-Thompson, will report back next summer, and will be dedicated to examining the current legislation. It will report on how to break down barriers in order to make air travel better and more accessible for disabled passengers. My Bill aims to assist with implementing any recommendations, as well as addressing existing issues relating to fines and compensation. I place on record my thanks to Sophie Morgan, Christopher Wood and their colleagues at the Rights on Flights campaign for their work to raise awareness of these issues. Since its creation in 2023, their group has campaigned admirably on accessibility in air travel. My Bill takes into account their work in designing a proposed assisted air travel Act that recommends extending the accessibility and rights of disabled people in air travel. I am grateful for their continued support in the creation of my ten-minute rule Bill. All too often we hear stories and see videos of wheelchair users being forced to crawl through or off an aeroplane because of a lack of equipment, knowledge and space on board. I am grateful to Frank Gardner, who, like Sophie Morgan and Baroness Grey-Thompson, has highlighted those issues and his own experiences. Such experiences are sadly also shared by blind and sight-impaired passengers. Research conducted last year by Which? showed that the most inaccessible or challenging acts of air travel are navigating the airport, arranging assistance to board and disembark the plane, and getting to and from the airport. The issues of accessibility can occur at check-in desks and security, alongside a lack of clear signage and inefficient procedures. Once passengers have boarded the plane, the issues begin to manifest tenfold for disabled passengers. The current design of many aircraft does not meet the needs of disabled passengers. There is often inadequate space for wheelchair users to navigate the cabin, and facilities such as accessible bathrooms are limited or non-existent on many flights. Although airlines may offer assistance to board and disembark, the quality and availability of that assistance can vary drastically from one airline to another, and there is little, if any, regulation. Making airports legally liable for the bad treatment and discriminatory practices against disabled passengers would give consumers the ability to sue airlines for disability discrimination. Many air carriers do not provide the space or the safety requirements for a passenger to fly in their own wheelchair. To facilitate that, wheelchair blocks should be included to allow wheelchair users to remain safely in their chairs throughout the flight. Many of those changes will be an ongoing development in new aircraft, and should also feature wider aisles, larger accessible bathrooms and priority seating for those who require special assistance. I accept that a number of leaders in the field are working to design a new range of airlines that will redesign aircraft to make that part of the journey experience easier. Those who are able to get on to a plane in the first place are often left with the worry of their wheelchair being damaged in transit or because of a lack of knowledge among airport staff. It is therefore paramount that a single set of rules and regulations be applied to all airlines, to promote better knowledge among airport and airline staff and to minimise the risk of damage to wheelchairs and mobility scooters. It is of paramount importance that a passenger can quickly access and use their mobility equipment once they have reached their destination, but that is hindered by any damage sustained, so measures must be put in place to ensure that air carriers and airport-managing bodies have the means to transfer securely and stow mobility aids. That would avoid all forms of hand-carrying of power wheelchairs and other large mobility aids, minimising the risk of damage and the risk of injury to staff. It also requires further training for airport and airline staff on assisting disabled travellers from the airport to the boarding of the plane. Staff must also be provided with training on manoeuvring disabled passengers and their mobility equipment in an emergency. There needs to be more consistency in the accessibility services provided by airlines and airports. Too often, the quality of service can vary from one airport or airline to another, and that inconsistency leads to confusion and delays for passengers. We need clearer, standardised protocols that can be relied upon by all. The CAA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety in the UK, but it is inhibited in that because it lacks the power to fine airlines. Instead, it must rely on taking businesses to court to force them to uphold passenger rights. It is therefore imperative that a suitable compensation and penalty charge scheme is introduced, with new legal rights for complaint-handling, reporting, and enforcement procedures. That would include plans for the CAA to be able to issue financial penalties to airlines that fail in their obligations to disabled travellers, and would ensure that the CAA has legal powers to fine airlines and other actors in the air travel sector if they fail to look after disabled passengers and their mobility devices, whether any harm is due to damage or neglect. That would help to create an equal basis in air travel for disabled people. Airlines and airports typically have their own claims procedure to follow, which leads to a lack of cohesion and often to more confusion and difficulty for consumers in navigating the process. The combined outcome can lead many consumers not to claim for their owed compensation. In November 2024, the CAA’s independent panel recommended new consumer enforcement powers and reformed alternative dispute resolution schemes. Without the necessary enforcement powers, consumers face lengthy waits to receive assistance and are often misinformed about their rights, and the CAA does not have the powers to investigate concerns. Currently, the amount of compensation available through those complex rules may be limited to around £1,300, but many wheelchairs are worth six or seven times that amount. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that although airports should be responsible for providing a temporary alternative when a wheelchair or mobility aid is repaired or replaced, that does not have to be on a like-for-like basis. As the parent of a wheelchair user, I fully appreciate the issues outlined by campaigners. Like others, my family have decided for many years that flying would simply be too much hassle, and that the distress of a damaged or lost wheelchair at the end of a flight is too upsetting to consider. Every person should have the right to use an aeroplane for leisure, family or work purposes. However, the current facilities of airports and airlines, and the CAA’s lack of powers, prohibit disabled passengers from accessing aviation travel. My Bill is applicable to all carriers—domestic and foreign—undertaking flights within, from and to the airspace of the UK, as well as to all airports within the UK. The Bill’s provisions extend to tour operators, ground handlers, service providers, stakeholders and subcontractors involved in providing goods and services to disabled people travelling within or through the United Kingdom. The Aviation (Accessibility) Bill would make the necessary changes to the law to ensure that airports and airlines are better able to provide facilities for disabled passengers and allow them to access air travel safely. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Daniel Francis, supported by Mr Calvin Bailey, Richard Baker, Antonia Bance, Ruth Cadbury, Jen Craft, Marsha De Cordova, Steve Darling, Mary Kelly Foy, Ruth Jones, Anna Sabine and Melanie Ward, present the Bill. Daniel Francis accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 134).

• 14 Nov 2024 · Council Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley had to apply for a capitalisation order three years ago and make 15% of our staff redundant. Despite that, it still overspent its budget every month for over two years, and is currently overspending on the safety valve agreement made with the previous Government. In addition, the Conservative leader of the council, in responding to a question from me last year, accepted that she was part of the LGA Conservative group executive that published a manifesto last year asking their own Government to remove caps on council tax. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that it is rank hypocrisy for the Conservative party to complain now about black holes in council finances?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 13 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The disability charity Sense estimates that 200,000 disabled children across the UK are struggling to get the right school support, because of funding issues and a need to employ more multisensory impairment teachers to ensure deafblind children can access education. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure disabled children are represented in the forthcoming children’s wellbeing Bill?

• 12 Nov 2024 · Transport Infrastructure Projects: Elizabeth Line · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing today’s debate. I had the pleasure of serving as the cabinet member for transport in the London borough of Bexley from 2003 to 2006. During that period, the route for what was then called Crossrail was agreed. The Queen’s Speech of November 2004 confirmed that a Bill would be introduced to authorise the construction of Crossrail. Although the announcement confirmed that a southern spur would terminate at Abbey Wood rather than Ebbsfleet, people with long memories like me recall discussions at the time about terminating that spur at Canary Wharf or Custom House. I was quoted at the time, regarding the benefits for residents in Bexley, as saying: “The most important achievement is getting Crossrail south of the river. If it had stopped at the Isle of Dogs, there would have been no benefit at all.” My council lobbied to have that section reinstated, but it was not included in the final scheme, although the safeguarding directions for the associated land were retained. As things stand, the southern spur of the Elizabeth line terminates at Abbey Wood station where, uniquely, the ticket office is located in the London borough of Bexley while the platforms are located in the royal borough of Greenwich. Although the station is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), it is within three quarters of a mile of my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford. The route has therefore brought many benefits to my constituents—particularly in the western part of the constituency—providing much faster journey times through to Canary Wharf, the City, the west end and Heathrow. It has also brought benefits for my constituents interchanging at Abbey Wood via Southeastern and Thameslink services from Slade Green. Sadly, the previous Government cut the majority of direct services from Crayford to Abbey Wood, making it difficult to interchange directly. I will continue to campaign for better services by train and bus to reach Abbey Wood from Crayford. Passengers interchanging from Slade Green and other stations to its east have to rely on less frequent services to undertake this change. There remains a strong case to extend the Elizabeth line to Ebbsfleet in order to serve residents in the thousands of new homes built there, in order to interchange with high-speed services and hopefully, in the future, with reinstated services to mainland Europe. The Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet corridor covers the local authorities of Bexley and Gravesham and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson). The corridor has the potential to build on its existing strengths and diversify its economy, but it needs to improve transport links to make that happen. Although the corridor has large areas of underutilised brownfield sites, many sites are complex and cannot be brought forward for housing by the market alone, because of viability challenges, in part caused by poor transport connections, which limit land values. Significant evidence has been assembled to show how additional housing can be delivered by transport investment making the local area more attractive. An extension is also expected to support jobs growth due to enhanced connectivity and additional commercial floor space and through jobs to support the new population, which would support the regeneration of both Crayford and Slade Green. The C2E Partnership was formed in 2016 as an informal group of authorities to promote an extension of the Elizabeth line beyond its planned terminus at Abbey Wood and towards Ebbsfleet. It comprises stakeholders representing local communities in the area, including the London borough of Bexley, Dartford and Gravesham borough councils, the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, Kent county council, the Greater London Authority and the Greater North Kent Partnership. The partnership has lobbied since its inception for funding to develop scheme options. It was successful in securing funding from Government for the development of a strategic outline business case, which was submitted to the previous Government in October 2021. Despite that, there has still not been a formal response to that business case. The project continues to form a key element of the transport strategy for growth of the London borough of Bexley, being referenced in the Bexley growth strategy and the recently adopted local plan. That is echoed in the policy documents of the wider partnership, as well as regional partners, such as the Thames Estuary Growth Board and Transport for the South East. The partnership’s ask is for further resource to refine the options presented in the business case and identify a preferred scheme for development to detailed design, and the securing of appropriate powers for delivery. The case for such investment is considered to be stronger than ever, in the context of housing and economic development imperatives. I shall continue to call for this extension to be delivered in the years ahead. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.