Daniel Francis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. We have an article 4 direction in the London borough of Bexley—I am one of the borough’s MPs. However, under the Charities Act 2011, charities running temporary accommodation for people suffering from drug or alcohol abuse, or a mental disorder, and registered providers do not need that permission. In my caseload, I see landlords joining with charities to put people in that accommodation who are not in those categories. In that way, they circumvent the restrictions in place. Does she agree that we need to ask the Government to look at how, following an article 4 direction, some landlords use that restriction to further circumvent regulations?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for all her work. My heart goes out to those families in Nottinghamshire, and I pay tribute to their work as well. I cannot imagine what it is like to lose a child in those circumstances, but I do know what it is like to see your own child suffer a brain injury at birth. I work very closely with other families with children who have cerebral palsy or hemiplegia, because of what they have been through and what my own family have been through. The reasons why such things happen are often connected with negligence, but they are often a result of other circumstances. In our circumstance, our children were born at 31 weeks, as twins. In other families, it is the fact that this woman is black or that woman is disabled that has caused those issues and that negligence. Will my right hon. Friend act on the recommendations of the Ockenden review and the review that is being undertaken by Baroness Amos, and work to ensure that those disparities are overcome when mothers have a greater risk of these things happening to them?

• 22 Jun 2026 · SEND: Improvement · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister provide an update on the Experts at Hand offer, and in particular how the £2.1 million that will be given to my local authority, the London borough of Bexley, can be used to support disabled children across Bexleyheath and Crayford?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Churches: Disabled Access · Hansard source

  More

  In April, St Paul’s cathedral opened a Changing Places toilet, providing disabled people with an accessible, dignified and safe toilet. That new facility gives visitors who require specialist toilets the ability to access the cathedral, as well as contributing to the local economy. Can my hon. Friend outline how other cathedrals across the UK can be supported to open Changing Places toilets, to provide disabled people with the facilities they need to visit these historic locations?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Churches: Disabled Access · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps the Church of England is taking to ensure that churches are accessible for disabled people.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my constituents rely on the 96, the 428 and the 492 bus routes, which serve Darent Valley hospital and Bluewater shopping centre. Reform-led Kent county council proposed a substantial increase to its bus tax, which Transport for London bus services pay to use the fast-track bus way at Bluewater. That is putting services at risk that many of my residents and those in neighbouring constituencies rely on to access the hospital and the shopping centre. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is vital that Kent county council reconsiders its proposal, and that Transport for London works with local MPs and the local council to ensure that these essential bus routes are safeguarded for my constituents?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. I have been contacted by members of the Tamil community across Bexleyheath and Crayford, who continue to press for accountability and justice in relation to atrocities committed during the civil war in Sri Lanka. They are very concerned about how the country’s Prevention of Terrorism Act is currently being used to silence voices, including that of Hiphop Sangee. Can my hon. Friend outline the measures her Department is taking to press for accountability for both the historical and current persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

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

• 11 Jun 2026 · Summer Rail Travel · Hansard source

  More

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

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I will give way just once.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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