Daniel Francis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This coming Monday, I will be honoured to join my long-standing friend Tom Jones, who also happens to be my eldest constituent, for his 108th birthday celebration. Tom joined the Labour party under the leadership of Sir Clement Attlee, and has supported our party under every subsequent leader. This year, he will complete 92 continuous years of service with Unite the Union. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Tom a very happy 108th birthday, and thank him for his lifetime of service to our community in the London borough of Bexley?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate. I spoke in last year’s debate to raise the experience of my constituents Paula and Gillian, who had experienced the impact of having pelvic mesh fitted. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then, and Paula tells me she is still living with the devastation that pelvic mesh has caused in her life. She had the mesh implanted in 2012, and between 2020 and 2023 she experienced painful bladder stones that were linked to the mesh. She finally had surgery last year to remove a 3 cm bladder stone, which revealed that the mesh had completely eroded into her bladder. She will need further surgery to remove the remainder of the mesh, and will need to undergo a further recovery period. That story is like many others we have heard. As I did when I spoke about valproate last year, I would like to thank Emma, Janet and the campaigners who are here today, who do so much in this area. With regard to the Hughes report, the Epilepsy Research Institute continues to ask the Government to allocate dedicated ringfenced funding for research into epilepsy drugs and to ensure that regulatory bodies act swiftly on safety concerns, and that pregnant women with epilepsy have access to the best possible information and care. I will take us down a slightly different path now because, as some Members know, my wife and one of my daughters have epilepsy. When my wife and I tried to conceive, I saw at first hand the issues women have when they have to come off valproate. My wife was seizure-free for 12 years, and her life was turned upside down when she started having seizures again. Those resulted in her falling all the way down the stairs; falling into a bathroom cabinet and trapping her head—I had to try to disengage her; having a seizure in the bath, after which I had to resuscitate her on the bathroom floor; and having to surrender her driving licence. At one stage, she thought she would never go back to her teaching job, although she has now successfully gone back to it. She will be three years seizure-free this year, mainly because she has gone back on to valproate. Those many years when she had seizures and other issues show why research is desperately needed for drugs to control epilepsy. Unfortunately, for many people, valproate is the only drug that allows them to lead a normal life. I have seen that; the rules are there for a good reason, but my daughter, who is 12 and who, as Members may know, has no mental capacity, has had to come off valproate because of the rules. We need to understand these issues and that wider issue, because for many people valproate is the drug they need to support them. That is not to disrespect Emma and Janet for the work they do to support those, including their children and families, who have been so desperately impacted by valproate. I welcome the noises we have heard recently about forthcoming updates from the Department, but I also say, on behalf of my constituents and the wider community, that we need concrete measures for the implementation of financial and non-financial redress, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Like her, I have received a litany of complaints in recent weeks from constituents—including Antoni, Catherine, Christopher, Kevin, Mike and Robert—with similar heartbreaking stories. Does she agree that it is important we take urgent action to ensure that consistent and timely pension payments are made for all these scheme members in our constituencies?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I again declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Amendment 62 appears to refer not to railcards but to all ticketing. As I have said, it would result in an increase for many tickets for wheelchair users and blind and visually impaired people. As the parent of a child who is a wheelchair user, I know that the discount on a ticket for wheelchair users is 75%, and it is the same for an adult day return. For blind and visually impaired users the discount on an adult day return is 50%. Some discounts also apply to the carer or companion of the wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. That provision is not included in the Bill, yet the Opposition thought it was more important to table an amendment to introduce a discount for 26 to 30-year-olds than to table one on a discount for the carer of a wheelchair user or blind or visually impaired passenger. I anticipate that the Government will confirm that the discount remains for carers and companions, and in my mind that does not need to be included in the Bill. I certainly do not support amendment 62, as it would undo the current, more generous discount arrangements for wheelchair users and blind or visually impaired passengers, and cause an increase in their fare.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the shadow Minister accept that in recent years, when Transport for London was negotiating its fare settlements, the previous Government dictated the level of fares that should be charged not just for the congestion charge, but for passenger rail services? The Conservative Secretary of State and Government were doing that very thing in negotiations with Transport for London for rail passenger services in London.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will briefly respond to some of the comments that have been made. First, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 does not have many of these components. Yet the Mayor of London allows a number of discounts, including for veterans, care leavers, apprentices and people who are unemployed and seeking work. They are not on the face of that legislation, but those exemptions do exist, including for veterans, and I am sure the Minister will cover those points in due course. However, there is other legislation where that is the case. At no point in their 14 years did the previous Government attempt to amend that Act to provide that exemption for veterans, so that is the position that remains. I remind Members of my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Amendment 62 causes some concern with its reference to fares being “one third lower” because in many cases that would represent a fare increase for wheelchair users and blind passengers.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, I will return to that in due course.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think this provision needs to be on the face of the Bill. These issues already exist; there are examples where the passenger watchdog and the Transport Committee would be looking at the same matter. There would be examples with other Departments where an ombudsman would also be looking at something in a similar vein to a Select Committee. My view is that it would be an overly bureaucratic system. Passenger watchdogs issue many reports, and some are on very serious matters, but sometimes they need to issue a report that is not at that level, and I do not believe these amendments are necessary.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman looks at the clauses in the group, he will see that there are significant issues that the passengers’ council needs to take into account for all passengers, which come to the door and—as I know, having sat on a watchdog for four years—come in the form of casework and meetings. I am sure that I will talk later about why nationalisation, and having trains, signals and rolling stock under one operator, is much better for a passengers’ council, but those issues come to the organisation’s attention anyway. I fully support the need to look at the issues for disabled passengers who come to the council’s door, and I will hear what the Minister has to say, but I believe that how things are investigated and brought to the organisation’s attention are set out in the legislation, just as they are, in many regards, for Transport Focus and for the London Transport Users Committee. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  London TravelWatch is a large organisation, and I used to chair some of its casework committees. It deals with and reports on a huge range of issues and, like Passenger Focus, it deals not just with trains but with other modes of transport. I made recommendations on a range of issues. I remember making recommendations to Eurostar about issues regarding disabled passengers. I remember making recommendations regarding changes to timetables. There were some significant issues that one would want to issue a report on. There was an issue back then for South Western about how Network Rail and the train operator were integrating, and a report had to be commissioned. There will be reports that are really to say to the operator, “You need to look at this specific issue.” We do not need to make it mandatory that all those reports are tabled in this House, with the bureaucracy that brings.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Railways Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I hear what was said about amendment 63, and I will wait to hear what the Minister says. I have sat on a passenger watchdog, although not this one, and worked in that role alongside Passenger Focus, as it was back then—it is now Transport Focus. I served as a member of the board of London TravelWatch, which is referred to as the London Transport Users Committee in the legislation, for four years, although that was a long time ago now. Many of the provisions we will see in later clauses are inherent in the aims and work of such organisations. Investigations, reports, representations and referrals come to the attention of the organisation from all passengers. The amendment is not necessary. I did this work as a member of a board for four years, and chaired many meetings of sub-committees looking at some of that work, and, in the work of a watchdog, these issues are there, they are referred to the organisation and they are in the reports that are presented on behalf of all passengers.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I will briefly speak to clause 18 stand part. At the outset, I remind Members that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on wheelchair users, and one of my children is a wheelchair user. I do not believe that some of these details need to be set out in the Bill. I am a London MP. The details of how Transport for London operates on accessibility issues are not set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1989, yet, in my mind, TfL leads the way, particularly with its TfL Go app, on the accessibility of the information that it provides to disabled passengers. As the Minister and other colleagues know, I constantly say that I would like to see that kind of app being rolled out for Great British Railways. It would be show people which stations were accessible, live information about which lifts were working, and where there were accessible toilets. For my constituents in Bexley and Crayford, we have a nationalised railway, in the main, through Southeastern, although we also have Thameslink at Slade Green. We already have an exceptional service for disabled passengers. Sometimes, passengers will need to book, but I could give the Committee a list of stations that are staffed constantly and that provide a very good service for disabled passengers. Equally, we continue to see the roll-out of changing places toilets. Toilets are a key issue for many disabled people, including my child, who cannot use a standard toilet. We have seen that roll-out from Southeastern at Margate through what was Network Rail at London Bridge and Waterloo, and very soon we will see it at Charing Cross. I accept that disabled passengers still have poor experiences on many parts of the network, and we need to improve that. However, as I say, we already have, through Transport for London, an app that leads the way. I had a terrible experience last year in Paris, when there was no live information and a lift was not working. I had to carry my child up a set of escalators, while my wife carried the wheelchair behind us. Information about those kinds of things does not need to be on the face of the Bill, but, as we have already seen with TfL, we can lead on that provision, and I believe that Great British Railways should lead in due course. Those things do not need to be set out in the Bill; we already have examples of them with Southeastern and others, who are providing the facilities here and now.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last Sunday, I joined the congregation at St Augustine’s church in Slade Green to celebrate the retirement of Rev. Jim Bennett. Jim has been a long-standing pillar of our community in Bexleyheath and Crayford, having worked for Greenwich and Bexley community hospice for 16 years, starting as a fundraising co-ordinator and eventually becoming its chief executive. Following his retirement from that post, he took on a new career later in life. Following his ordination, he spent over six years as the priest at St Augustine’s church in Slade Green. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Jim for his work in supporting my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford, and wish him all the very best for his retirement?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member, who is advocating for her constituents. Within London, Transport for London operates at least four lines—the Elizabeth, Central, Lioness and Metropolitan lines—all of which leave the London boundary. They would therefore potentially enter the boundaries of strategic authorities. If the amendment were passed, which would Great British Railways need to have regard to: the mayor’s transport strategy or the strategic authority’s transport strategy?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Young Disabled People: Support into Work · Hansard source

  More

  Too many young people with education, health and care plans are being kept on them until they are 25 years old due to the complexities involved in offering them the specialist support required to place them into apprenticeships or work placements. Will the Secretary of State therefore provide an update on the work being undertaken across Government Departments to support these young people into career paths so that they can commence their working lives?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Young Disabled People: Support into Work · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps he is taking to help support young disabled people into work.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. For my constituents, in the period since the railways were privatised they have twice needed to be brought back under public ownership: once in 2003, when Connex failed, and again in 2021, when Southeastern failed. However, on both occasions, there was no impact on passenger numbers; rather, the factors that my hon. Friend is describing correlated and led to those passenger numbers. Does he agree that over the last 30 years, whether the service has been under national or private ownership has had no impact on the passenger numbers on trains in my constituency?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, Sir Alec.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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 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. 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. 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 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. 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.

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND: High-quality School Places · Hansard source

  More

  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.