Daniel Francis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. This week we have seen evidence from Kingston University reinforcing that people with learning disabilities see advice from a doctor not as advice, but as a recommendation. We know from their experience during covid that they were five times more likely to have a “do not resuscitate” order placed on them. Does she share my view that those issues in the equality impact assessment reinforce the point that for people with learning disabilities, this legislation would remain unsafe?

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Kingston University research that I referred to earlier shows that in the Netherlands, people with learning disabilities cited being coerced into an assisted death. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about that?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment 32 and new clause 39 tabled in my name, which seek to address the problems facing community equipment and wheelchair services across the country. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for wheelchair users and for access to disability equipment. As the parent of a wheelchair user, I know just how important getting such services right is for disabled people and their families, and the consequences and long-term impacts when it goes wrong. Evidence gathered for an inquiry by the APPG for access to disability equipment last year found that one in three equipment users who responded to our inquiry are waiting a significant time for equipment, with one in five waiting over two months, and 55% stating that they do not have the equipment they need for their long-term needs. At a time when we are rightly focused on reducing waiting lists and improving patient flow, it makes little sense for somebody to remain in a hospital bed simply because the equipment they need to return home has not arrived. Some 74% of professionals and equipment providers report that patients experienced delayed hospital discharge because essential equipment was not available at home, increasing pressure on hospital beds and placing further strain on services. The current system is fragmented, inconsistent and lacks sufficient accountability and national oversight. My amendments would introduce two things that the system lacks: a clear expectation of how long people would wait, with clear, set timelines and accountability when things go wrong, and they would ensure that patients have a clear pathway for hospital discharge. Amendment 32 would require ICBs to provide community equipment and wheelchair services within 18 weeks of the date that a person is assessed. I know from experience of my daughter’s case when she was eight that the 18-week deadline was missed on two occasions, and she was without an adequate wheelchair for 21 months. These issues simply shunt costs to elsewhere in the NHS. The APPG for wheelchair users heard evidence from consultants within the NHS about the quality of assessment, interventions and aftercare. We heard that delays led to children receiving a wheelchair that was no longer fit for purpose by the time they received it. The following are quotes that we heard: “There is the additional care to consider as well. Poor equipment provision leads to pressure sores, increasing scoliosis, all of which have a wider impact on the sector.” “In terms of inequity of care, when asked for information it is always the same eight or 10 ICBs who respond. The ones who don’t, are probably the ones we should worry about.” “There is a level of bureaucracy in the NHS that stops things happening. Disability is not considered as important as other things in health parameters.” The data available shows that the wheelchair deadline is being missed by many ICBs, and 29% of ICBs are not meeting the target of providing over 25% of wheelchairs in 18 weeks.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I will come on to, there is an inconsistent set of data across the country. This inconsistency is not just between ICBs but, in the case of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), between neighbouring London boroughs, which may have the same ICB but different frameworks. I also welcome the support for the amendment from the Children’s Commissioner, who has said: “Across the country, children wait far too long for the right equipment that is essential for daily life. In recent research on children experiencing delayed discharge from hospital, the office was told that delays in getting equipment, and having equipment serviced, had led to children being stuck in hospital, away from family, friends and school.” This postcode lottery is not just cross-country—I know of a number of ICBs in which there are significant issues—but within ICBs. In my part of south-east London, one patient can be discharged, while another, in the same hospital with the same condition, living on the opposite side of the road, cannot be discharged. That difference arises because a borough boundary runs down the road. There are different contractual arrangements between different London boroughs in the same ICB. I know at first hand that pupils in the same school class, and in the same ICB, can have completely different service standards for their wheelchairs because one lives in one London borough while another lives in the neighbouring borough. I will speak briefly to new clause 85, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). Like me, she is the parent of a disabled child. We have fought these issues for many years, both as parents and on behalf of our constituents. In my case, I know that when Ofsted found that there were systemic failings in our SEND provision, we could hold our local authority to account, but we could not properly hold our ICB to account. The judgment was issued against the council, not the ICB.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister said, we were friends for many years in London local government prior to being elected to this place. I want to make two points. First, there is the issue of the Changing Places that have been provided in recent years and the amount of information out there about them. In the last week, I have written to a number of providers about cases where the money was provided or the facilities were set up under the new regulations, yet nobody has advertised that they exist, or they have not been made available. Would the Minister commit to working with me to write to local authorities to remind them to get that information out there? Secondly, on cross working, as I said earlier, that needs to be provided not just by local government but by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Transport as well. I very much hope the Minister is in the same position next week, working to secure a meeting for me to see how we can continue that spend across Departments.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Reform-led Kent county council wrote to Transport for London asking it to consider a number of options for bus route 96, with its preferred option being that it should terminate in Dartford town centre from now on. I will continue to fight for my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford to ensure that the route can serve Dartford, Bluewater shopping centre and Darent Valley hospital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is worded so that cross-boundary routes can operate in that way?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Timms Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  I declare that one of my children is in receipt of the disability living allowance. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the interim report. Earlier, we heard—without irony—a list of criticisms from the Opposition about the personal independence payment that they handed over to this Government. Clearly, part of the problem is also the SEND policies and the health service that they handed over to this Government. As my right hon. Friend knows, I believe that we need cross-departmental buy-in as part of this process, as part of the SEND review, as part of health reform in the 10-year plan and as part of a review of PIP. Will he commit today to continuing to look at that issue, particularly for young people, and to looking again at whether to raise the age of transfer from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18?