Daniel Francis
MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford · Labour · United Kingdom
“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.”
“As the Minister knows, I will hold her to account on this issue and continue to pursue it. I thank her very much for the commitments that she has given today that we can continue to pursue. I thank the hon. Members for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon.”
“An expansion of capital funding for Changing Places toilets would lead to people with profound disabilities accessing more opportunities and more families and individuals contributing to our hospitality businesses, theme parks, leisure facilities and sports grounds—the list goes on. There was, of course, a previous fund.”
“I turn now to the importance of maintaining Changing Places toilets. I mentioned last year that, in Bexleyheath town centre, we had to close a Changing Places toilet because of the vandalism it was receiving, with people living in it and dealing drugs in it.”
“Although I acknowledge that changes to building regulations ensure that facilities continue to be installed in new buildings, I retain concerns that older buildings would greatly benefit from having a Changing Places toilet installed.”
“One said: “Without access to an appropriate facility, I am left with impossible choices: ending outings early, avoiding certain venues altogether, or changing my daughter on the floor of an accessible toilet, which is neither hygienic, safe nor dignified.” I have read through the responses to the survey, and there was a lot of appreciatio…”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Daniel Francis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“If my constituents travelled from London Bridge this evening and caught the 5.34 to Barnehurst or the 6.50 to Bexleyheath, in zone 5, those journeys would take 31 minutes, so do you actually believe that, under your guarantee, my constituents—many of whom, you would expect, would rather just get on a train and expect to stand for some of the journey—would get compensation if they did not have a seat for that commuter journey home of an evening?”
“However, it should rightly be between the rail operators, given that stations such as Denmark Hill or Abbey Wood have Transport for London services, and there will be some stations operated by Transport for London, but some stations, such as Denmark Hill, will be operated by Great British Railways. That is where the liaison powers should lie, and as I say, that will bring us back to the original arrangement under the 1999 Act. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments and support clause 6.”
“Under this arrangement, Southeastern and Thameslink would come under one ownership, under Great British Railways, and with Transport for London. Also, if my constituents catch the Bexleyheath or Barnehurst service to London Victoria, or to Denmark Hill, if they are using King’s College hospital, they will use a service that is currently operated by Thameslink but on a line that also has Southern and Southeastern services on it, as well as TFL services on the Windrush line. The liaison power should therefore be with the operators, not the Secretary of State. If we went down the Opposition’s route, we would be saying that that liaison should be between the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London.”
“Some people living in the very northern part of my constituency—I have a very small part of Abbey Wood in my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency—use Abbey Wood station, where rail usage has trebled since before the pandemic. During that time, we have seen the introduction of the Elizabeth line and the nationalisation of Southeastern, and the station has been transferred from Southeastern’s operation to Transport for London’s. Yet there are three different railway services serving that station: the nationalised Southeastern, the privatised Thameslink and the Elizabeth line, which is operated by Transport for London. There therefore absolutely has to be liaison by the operator, not the Secretary of State.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. As a Member of Parliament for a London constituency, and as a former member of the London TravelWatch board who understands some of the passenger watchdog issues in London, it is incumbent on me to speak to some of the clauses. Of course, the GLA Act 1999 originally gave the liaison power to the Strategic Rail Authority, not the Secretary of State, and it was the Railways Act 2005 that amended the words “Strategic Rail Authority” to “Secretary of State”. Clause 6 will in fact put back the relationship that was there in the original 1999 Act, so that the actual rail operator, rather than the Secretary of State, has that liaison right with Transport for London. Look at how the passenger interacts with some of those services.”
“John Davies: There is always more that can be done in this space, of course. Trainline has been in discussion with the Rail Delivery Group regarding access to its central system, which would enable us to offer passenger assistance to customers and to book the kind of assistance they need at stations or on board trains. That was what I was referring to earlier as one of the features that we have been unable to secure access to. Of course, giving the broadest possible access, in the right way, to customers with additional needs is an extremely important part of what we all do.”
“Q I should declare that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users—one of my children is a wheelchair user. Having used SNCF’s retailer to book assistance, I will say it is not the best game in town. Under the new arrangements, do you see that there could be advantages for bringing accessibility information together, particularly given the way it currently works across train operating companies? How would that be sold to disabled passengers? Catriona Meehan: You raise a really good point: having only one retailer offering certain things, such as accessibility information, is a problem. That is why we need several retailers, to have that competition and to work on those products and make better offerings. That is something we do in the third-party retail market.”
“That could be accessed by any retailer, so that customers can book assistance as they need it, for stations or on board trains, and the staff at those stations and on those trains know who to expect and the kind of assistance that is needed. It would all be aggregated in one place, but drawn upon by as many retailers as needed.”
“Q I hear the merits of having different retailers, but where you have one operator—as we see in London with the TfL Go app—do you see benefits in having all the accessibility information in one place, because that operator is able to collate it and pull it together? John Davies: I think it is a bit like there being one central seat reservation system that every train operator uses. Every customer who books a ticket, via whichever operator, accesses the same seat reservation system—there is one definitive record. The same could be true of passenger assistance bookings. Rail Delivery Group, or its successor, which will be part of the retail industry and management function in the future, could have a system—a definitive record—of all availability of assisted services on offer in the industry.”
“As outlined in my entry in the register of interests, I am a member of GMB and USDAW. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users.”
“We have responsibility for reviewing the provision of rail services within what is known under statute as the London railway area, which covers approximately 400 stations out of a national total of about 2,500— so getting on for about 20% of the national footprint. Around 70% of all railway journeys start or finish within our remit, yet there are probably four or five places within the Bill where GBR’s duty to consult is with the passengers’ council—for example, on its business plan—but there is no explicit reference to us, despite the fact that we are a statutory body. We think that needs remedying.”
“We will need to refresh that and set out how we expect to work together in a world where Transport Focus, or whatever it is called in the future, has a standard-setting role. Where we have a concern, and where we think the Bill is currently flawed, is with regard to our independent ability to be consulted within key industry processes. I heard the evidence given by the chief executive of the DFTO, and I believe that he was slightly mistaken. Transport Focus—or passengers’ council, to give its formal title—is not the only statutory passenger representative body. We are that body for London, as you will know.”
“It has been mentioned that the more the watchdog moves into the role of regulator, the more its ability to act as passenger champion and to speak in an unvarnished way on behalf of the passenger is diluted, because as the regulator it has to take into account a broader range of considerations when opining. I think the model is fine. The “but”, or the “if”, depends on how independent one feels that watchdog will be in its ability to point out failures and speak truth to power, and the Committee may want to come back to that later. Your other point was about how the two watchdogs work together. At one level, I think we are reasonably comfortable. Transport Focus and London TravelWatch have a collaboration agreement whereby we share resources within our respective areas for the common good. It is not quite fit for purpose for the new world.”
“We have talked a lot about accountability. There will be ways in which we can work collaboratively and publish information to try to make sure the right thing happens, but a big part of the change we need is GBR being held to account in public, and the powers we have will assist with that. Michael Roberts: There are two separate dimensions to your line of questioning. First, there is the model where the national watchdog sets standards and monitors compliance, but enforcement ultimately rests with the ORR. I think we are comfortable with that approach.”
“I will start with the duty on GBR to consult us so that we do not get into a position where we are having to call out something that is not right. That is there in both particular documents and strategies and in decisions made by GBR that might affect passengers. That is an important change. We have the power to request information and require it to be provided to us within a reasonable timeframe. That is a stronger power than we have now, as is the ability to ask for improvement plans. You highlighted the ability to refer across to ORR. Making sure that works in practice will be important, but the ability is there. One thing we have said that we also need, which we understand the Government will include in the licence, is the ability to call officials in front of us to explain and account for what they have done.”
“Q This question is predominantly for Michael and Alex, but others can come in. On the watchdog and current enforcement, I understand that under the new regulations, the enforcement power would go to the ORR. Could you expand on whether that is an improvement or a backwards step from the current arrangements? Many years ago, I was a member of the London TravelWatch board. There are clearly continuing issues with cross-borough arrangements in London—I speak as a London MP. How do you see the new arrangements working for my constituents, for instance, who will sometimes take a London-only journey but sometimes take a London-into-Kent journey? Alex Robertson: I will pick up the first point. For us, it is quite a significant increase in our powers and it might be worth setting those out.”
“I draw attention to the fact that my wife is employed by our local authority as a special educational needs co-ordinator. At the start of this school year, my local authority, the London borough of Bexley, rolled out a number of new resource provisions, adding an additional 122 SEN places in mainstream schools. They are in addition to some fantastic established resource provisions, such as the one at Mayplace primary school in Barnehurst. I invite the Secretary of State to visit the school to see how it is delivering high-quality school places for children with SEND.”
“As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, I warmly welcome the Department’s announcement this week that it is consulting on its review of the law on powered mobility devices. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are now consulting on changing the current maximum weight limit for powered mobility devices? Currently, those with the heaviest wheelchairs break the law when they use their devices on the pavement.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. Over the past 17 months, I have supported my constituents Nevgül and Bora Bicakci. In August 2024, a bus mounted the pavement in Bexleyheath and killed their nine-year-old daughter, Ada. The driver of that bus was subsequently found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and driving while unfit through drugs. I pay tribute to the family’s campaign work on issues relating to drug-driving. Will the Minister confirm that the strategy includes a review of the penalties for drug-driving offences and the exploration of alternative methods for collecting and processing drug-driving evidence?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. One of the most important ways to support people is to help them back into work, and we have seen that in my constituency—as my hon. Friend knows, I have worked closely with disabled people and carers. Locally in Bexleyheath, we have seen specialist support for neuro- divergent people to assist them back into work, sometimes with the involvement of clubs and organisations. Would he welcome that kind of support for disabled people and carers to assist them back into work and give them the specialist support they require?”
“I have told the company many times that, if we must have that level of increase, and we know the condition of the local infrastructure, it would be hugely helpful for me to be able to explain to my constituents why they are seeing that increase and to understand the programme of works for local infrastructure and where the money is being invested to put things right. It continues to prove very difficult to obtain that list. I have supported the Government’s position, which is that they will continue to work to turn the company around in private ownership, but what will we do if the Government’s investment runs out? At what stage will we say to Thames Water that constituents cannot continue to see that level of increase and receive that lack of explanation on the local investment?”
“They have caused the closure of the road in the town centre for a week or two, impacting residents and businesses, and there is no real understanding of Thames Water’s long-term solution for these issues or how we will see investment in local infrastructure in the longer term. As has been said, we have seen an enormous increase in bills this year. For many of my constituents, they have risen by 30% or 40%—my bill in fact went up by a higher percentage—but we continue to struggle to obtain information from Thames Water.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing the debate and for her comments. As she said, the issues have been caused by many years of under-investment. In my corner of south-east London, constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford continue to experience many problems. Of course, I support the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which this Government introduced following our election last year. However, as I have said on numerous occasions since my election 18 months ago, we continue to see the real impacts of a lack of investment in infrastructure over many years, particularly in Crayford town centre. We have now had four consecutive summers of major leaks in Crayford town centre.”
“Five years ago, the Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley found itself in such a dire situation that it sought a capitalisation order, made 15% of staff redundant and had to sell a building because it could not even fund the redundancy notices. [ Interruption. ] For the Conservative Members chuntering, that is a real example of there being “no money left”. Will the Minister contrast the announcement she has made today with the approach taken by the previous Government?”
“I echo colleagues’ comments regarding social media sites. In Bexleyheath and Crayford, we have seen more and more examples of anonymous users, particularly on Facebook, spreading disinformation not just at election time, but also to undermine trust and faith in public bodies outside election time. As well as the review, will the Secretary of State give us assurances about how we can continue to work with colleagues across Government to look at these issues, and at how foreign interference is playing its part in them?”
“Southeastern was nationalised under the previous Government, and it remains nationalised under this Government, but this year, it has been brought into one organisation with Network Rail, and there has been the best customer satisfaction for my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford, and the best journey times you could see. Southeastern is at the forefront of this programme, so does the hon. Member agree that the proof is in Southeastern’s statistics?”
“Importantly, paragraph 49 in schedule 3 to the Bill will amend the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that the public sector equality duty applies to GBR. I welcome the Government’s road map to an accessible railway based around seven priority themes. Finally, I welcome the establishment of an expanded passenger watchdog, having served on the board of London TravelWatch and having worked alongside Transport Focus on some aspects of joint working during that time. Those changes in London to the London Transport Users Committee include the expansion of the current role for my constituents, which will see a “particular regard to the interests and needs” of disabled people. For the reasons I have outlined, I look forward to voting against the amendment this evening and voting in favour of the Bill on Second Reading.”
“Initiatives include shared planning, daytime track access without service disruption, and trials of drone and AI technology. I welcome the measures included in the Bill to help ensure that the railway is made more accessible for all. Hon. Members will have heard my tales of my experience using public transport as the parent of a wheelchair user and my requests for the introduction of a National Rail accessibility app. I am therefore delighted that the Secretary of State has named accessibility as one of the six key objectives for the railway. Having one national operator, rather than competing operators, will improve the assistance offered and the simplification of ticketing for disabled passengers.”
“I have a long-standing interest in these matters, having served for four years as a member of the board of London TravelWatch—or, as it is technically known as and referred to in the Bill, the London Transport Users Committee. That experience lives with me, and it is the reason why I support the Bill. On far too many occasions at board meetings, I heard excuses from train operating companies and Network Rail blaming each other for issues relating to punctuality. That led to the lunacy of hundreds of staff being employed to establish who should cover the cost of delays. Earlier this year, we saw the Southeastern and Network Rail Kent route unite under a single leadership team to form South Eastern Railway. The partnership is delivering improvements, with increased customer satisfaction and reduced cancellations.”
“I draw attention to my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. I rise to support the measures in the Railways Bill. I know that the measures will be supported by my constituents, who predominantly travel from the four train stations of Barnehurst, Bexleyheath, Slade Green and Crayford, which are all located in my constituency. Three of those stations are solely served by Southeastern, with the benefits of nationalisation beginning to be seen on the service. For instance, in a new timetable that will take effect next week, the Bexleyheath line will see both additional evening services and increased capacity to Victoria at weekends. I appreciate that more remains to be done, and I will continue to campaign for improvements.”
“I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. Page 104 of the Budget document confirms capital investment to fix potholes and capital investment for the lower Thames crossing to the east of my constituency and the DLR extension to Thamesmead to the west of my constituency. Will she join me in thanking the Chancellor for that capital investment for our constituencies?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Like Hither Green, Grove Park is a station that my constituents in Crayford need to change at to reach Bromley North, so they would welcome improvements. Will she join me in calling for a national rail accessibility app that people could use when planning their journey? It would show which stations were accessible, where lifts were working, and where there were accessible toilets.”
“Southeastern serves the stations in my constituency, like those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, and those enhancements include a number of Changing Places toilets for people with disabilities who require them. I therefore reaffirm the point I made to my hon. Friend. The Changing Places consortium has a map that shows its toilets around the country, and Transport for London has an accessibility app that shows where lifts are working and which stations are accessible. Can the Minister look at how we can bring those two together in the Railways Bill so that stations can be truly accessible, with real-time information for passengers?”
“We were lucky because we were working part-time in occupations that paid enough of an hourly rate to keep us going, but carers can face a cycle of poverty. They can also face health conditions as a result of being a carer. I am still lifting a 12-year-old around my house, which is still not fully accessible; she will never walk. We need to face those issues burdening carers, and the support in the 10-year-health plan will help with that. In Parliament, we are employers too. We have a good ParliCare network for parliamentary staff, but we must always be setting an example. In Parliament, and through the ParliCare network, we as Members and employers must do all we can to demonstrate that we will support carers and that we expect others in the country to do the same.”
“At that roundtable, they set out how they are trying to provide financial support and introduce new innovative ways of working, which I know the Minister will have taken away and be looking at in detail. I also thank two other local charities, Crossroads Care South East London and Evergreen Care, for their work supporting my constituents, and I pay tribute to carers across my constituency. As a parent collecting my child outside the gates of respite care, I know those parents. I am not just their MP; I have worked with them for many years. They may bring their cases to me, but they are my friends and fellow carers, and I pay tribute to them for all they do in very challenging circumstances. Lastly, I have a few asks for the Minister. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said about the cycle of issues facing carers.”
“Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability for visiting my constituency back in May, when he met representatives of local charities —Carers Support Bexley, Bexley Mencap, Age UK Bexley, Citizens Advice Bexley, Irish Community Services, Bexley Voice, Bexley Deaf Centre, Inspire Community Trust and Bexley Voluntary Service Council —to discuss the support they give to carers through respite, equipment provision and, notably, access to financial guidance. I have worked with those groups for many years, both as a councillor and a carer, and I thank them for all they do to support my constituents across Barnehurst, Bexleyheath, Crayford, Northumberland Heath and Slade Green.”
“The review will allow engagement from carers, employers and trade unions to understand how the existing unpaid carer’s leave entitlement is working; to examine options for different models of paid carer’s leave; to consider the options and principles for additional interventions; and to identify options with low or no cost to business and the Exchequer, and the appropriate routes for implementation. I thank my right hon.”
“This afternoon and tomorrow night, my wife and I will be doing rotas, as we normally do, to work out who is doing the care at the other end of the day. Real pressures are caused by the shortage and affordability of paid carers to support the many families across the country that experience what we do daily. I strongly welcome the announcement yesterday from the Department for Business and Trade on the terms of reference for the review of employment rights for unpaid carers, and the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), at last night’s reception.”
“My wife and I decided to give up full-time work in 2016, the year my daughter had 110 medical and physiotherapy appointments, to job share the care components at home while we both worked part time. I accept that the majority of the burden has fallen on my wife over the years. Although we have not been in poverty, it did at that point leave a subsequent hole in our finances, with difficult decisions about the things we could no longer do. Those are the decisions that so many carers make, and they have a wider impact on the economy. My day started, as it does the majority of days, at 6.15 this morning. I was changing a 12-year-old’s nappy before getting her dressed, fed and putting her in a wheelchair ready for the school bus to come and collect her. There is complexity at the other end of the day, too.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing the debate and support the asks that she has made of the Minister. It was a pleasure to join her, carers, Ministers and colleagues last night at the “State of Caring” report launch and it is a pleasure to support Carers Rights Day today. No one expects to become a carer. It is not something we set out in our plans for the future or our lifetime goals. It usually happens because a loved one falls ill, or, as in my family, because a child has a complex disability, identified early on in life. The burden of care usually falls on women. It is absolutely right that we acknowledge that and discuss today the huge inequalities they face. One of my children has quadriplegic cerebral palsy.”
“I do not expect an answer now, but can I also ask the Minister to take away a point about the complexity of some of these disabilities? Sometimes people are under several different consultants in several different hospitals, perhaps for a neurological condition, for their sight, for epilepsy and so on. I am thinking about both the complexity of the different apps, and different parts of apps, used by different NHS trusts and hospitals, and the complexity of the distances travelled —it is the carer who manages all those aspects. How can we take that away and support the carer in managing the care of the person for whom they are caring?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Today, on Carers Rights Day, will my hon. Friend join me, as the parent of a child with a neurological condition, in paying tribute to all carers and charities for their work in supporting families like the family in his constituency?”
“Transition is a key issue for families in this area. In the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group on cerebral palsy issued recommendations about health pathways for adults, because for a lot of these conditions, including cerebral palsy, there are not the same health frameworks for adults as there are for children. Will the Minister take that point away and look at how we can replicate some of the pathways that are there for children in the adult sector?”
“I thank the Home Secretary for her statement on controlling our borders, which I know will be welcomed by the majority of constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford. In recent months, we have seen our police and enforcement officers, particularly in Crayford, carrying out raids and working to arrest people working here illegally. Can the Home Secretary set out how the measures announced today will continue that work to tackle people who are working here illegally?”
“Oh, no—he is slightly older than me. [ Laughter. ] It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. My constituency borders Kent, and we also have a safety valve programme, as well as an Ofsted judgment of “systemic failings”, so children in my constituency, who cross that border, experience similar issues. Will my hon. and learned Friend join me in encouraging the Minister to look, as part of the reforms, at how these issues work on a cross-borough basis when children live in one borough but use schools in another?”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. That situation has occurred at Bexleyheath sorting office in my constituency, and Royal Mail asked whether I could help advertise its vacancies. Should Royal Mail do more to try to fill vacancies on routes that are not filled?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate and for the recommendations he has made. In the London borough of Bexley, we have an article 4 direction, but we are beginning to see landlords setting up charities and housing associations that do not appear to comply with the ethos of such organisations, simply to get around the rules. They do not then require planning permission, as we have recently seen in Highfield Avenue in Northumberland Heath. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to look at landlords setting up those organisations to get around the rules?”
“I welcome the Government’s consultation on plans to strengthen protections over charges and services and hope that they will bring forward measures to support my constituents. I was proud to sponsor the Managing Agents (Regulation) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), and I support calls from across the Chamber for the need for clear managing agent standards and regulation. I welcome the Minister’s comments on these matters and the measures to be brought forward in secondary legislation. I support the Government’s work in this area, but I will continue to press for further action to empower residents and deal with service charges to protect residents across the Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency.”
“In correspondence to me, the new managing agent stated that the service charge bank account was empty and that many suppliers were owed substantial sums, with many of them having withdrawn services as a result. Continuing management on the estate was possible only because the developer provided substantial funding to the new managing agent to enable it to pay suppliers. I have seen similar issues on Talehangers Close in Bexleyheath. At Vickers Green in Crayford, where FirstPort has attended a public meeting and where I believe we are making some progress, I have seen that some of the fault lies—in my view—with the local authority, which agreed a planning development back in 2009 in which residents took on responsibility for the roads, the lighting and the public space, which is then costed back to the residents.”
“The development was originally managed by DJC, which was then bought by FirstPort, which has been relieved of its duties and replaced by a new managing agent. The directors of the management company took action to remove FirstPort in 2024 due to concerns about performance levels and a lack of financial transparency, which was raised by residents. FirstPort was responsible for producing audited accounts for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024, but in the most recent correspondence I have received it failed to do so. As a result, the developer is legally pursuing those accounts at their cost. FirstPort was unable to provide any funds on account to the new managing agent.”