Health Bill

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan]

Crumbling estates are a big part of the problem across the whole NHS and in maternity, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the state of his own local hospital and advocate for its quick remediation. Amendment 10, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) will outline in more detail, would reintroduce the mental health investment standard. That is a crucial investment to avoid failures further down the line if interventions are not made for patients early on.

Nowhere is the cost of failure more obvious than in maternity—a devastating scandal which, despite many recent reviews, still deserves far more attention. Our amendments to make our maternity services finally safe for mothers and babies will therefore be the main focus of my remarks today. I thank the Minister for her constructive engagement with me on new clause 1, and the commitment that she made at the Dispatch Box today to table relevant amendments when the Bill reaches the other place, and to put that maternity commissioner in place. I am grateful to her for the discussions we have had, and the constructive approach she has taken both with me and with the many campaigners on the issue beyond this place. In the light of that, I will not be pushing new clause 1 to a vote.

I have seen up close the human costs of failures in our maternity system. Four years ago the Ockenden review found that over 200 babies and nine mothers in my community had died needlessly in Shrewsbury and Telford due to failures in maternity care. That has been devastating for my community, and we have heard since then that the situation was not isolated. There have been terrible stories from families around the country, most recently following the review into services in Nottingham. New clause 6 would introduce a scheme to ensure that every maternity unit in the country is rated “good” or “outstanding” by the Care Quality Commission. That new clause is essential if we are to meaningfully address the crisis in our maternity services and show families that lessons have been learned not just locally but nationally.

The Liberal Democrat maternity rescue package would require an estimated £600 million a year to bring safety in maternity units up to standard, investing in safe staffing and listening to mothers. The Government already spend £1.3 billion a year—more than double the cost of the package—on maternity negligence payments, so introducing that reset is a no-brainer. Rather than spending a fortune compensating for failure and heartbreak, the NHS should be getting it right in the first place. Recently we have seen the consequences of safety failures, with lack of staffing causing North Devon’s maternity unit to close, forcing women to take a 50 mile trip if they go into labour. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), whose constituency has been hit hard by that news, has tabled new clause 66 to guarantee safe staffing levels and access to a maternity unit within 45 minutes.

While on women’s health, I also want to highlight new clauses 11 and 12. Earlier this year I wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to highlight the stark inequality in research and investment in women’s health, with a huge gap in investment, governance and reporting mechanisms between women’s and men’s health strategies. The new clauses would set up an inquiry into women’s health outcomes, and ensure that average waiting times for women’s health conditions do not exceed the average waiting times for wider elective treatments.

The crisis in our maternity care is a national shame and reveals a systemic neglect of the safety of women and their babies over many years. However, that is indicative of even wider concerns for patient safety, which I urge the Secretary of State to address in the Bill, and which we will discuss in more detail tomorrow. If the Government are serious about using the Bill to improve our NHS, they must invest time and money in the front and back doors of the NHS rather than structural reorganisations. The safety of staff and patients must be at the centre of those changes, and I urge the Minister to consider the amendments tabled by me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, which would improve the Bill to achieve just that.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendment 32 and new clause 39 tabled in my name, which seek to address the problems facing community equipment and wheelchair services across the country. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for wheelchair users and for access to disability equipment. As the parent of a wheelchair user, I know just how important getting such services right is for disabled people and their families, and the consequences and long-term impacts when it goes wrong.

Evidence gathered for an inquiry by the APPG for access to disability equipment last year found that one in three equipment users who responded to our inquiry are waiting a significant time for equipment, with one in five waiting over two months, and 55% stating that they do not have the equipment they need for their long-term needs. At a time when we are rightly focused on reducing waiting lists and improving patient flow, it makes little sense for somebody to remain in a hospital bed simply because the equipment they need to return home has not arrived. Some 74% of professionals and equipment providers report that patients experienced delayed hospital discharge because essential equipment was not available at home, increasing pressure on hospital beds and placing further strain on services. The current system is fragmented, inconsistent and lacks sufficient accountability and national oversight.

My amendments would introduce two things that the system lacks: a clear expectation of how long people would wait, with clear, set timelines and accountability when things go wrong, and they would ensure that patients have a clear pathway for hospital discharge. Amendment 32 would require ICBs to provide community equipment and wheelchair services within 18 weeks of the date that a person is assessed. I know from experience of my daughter’s case when she was eight that the 18-week deadline was missed on two occasions, and she was without an adequate wheelchair for 21 months. These issues simply shunt costs to elsewhere in the NHS. The APPG for wheelchair users heard evidence from consultants within the NHS about the quality of assessment, interventions and aftercare. We heard that delays led to children receiving a wheelchair that was no longer fit for purpose by the time they received it. The following are quotes that we heard:

“There is the additional care to consider as well. Poor equipment provision leads to pressure sores, increasing scoliosis, all of which have a wider impact on the sector.”

“In terms of inequity of care, when asked for information it is always the same eight or 10 ICBs who respond. The ones who don’t, are probably the ones we should worry about.”

“There is a level of bureaucracy in the NHS that stops things happening. Disability is not considered as important as other things in health parameters.”

The data available shows that the wheelchair deadline is being missed by many ICBs, and 29% of ICBs are not meeting the target of providing over 25% of wheelchairs in 18 weeks.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party parliamentary group; he is a real champion of this cause. AJM Healthcare, the contractor in my constituency, has a similar level of failure. People are left for months—sometimes six months—without a wheelchair, bed-bound and unable to get out of the house. Does he agree that ICBs seem completely at sea on this issue, and are totally unaccountable? Does he agree that we need much tougher measures, such as those he suggests, to hold them to account?

[Daniel Francis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I will come on to, there is an inconsistent set of data across the country. This inconsistency is not just between ICBs but, in the case of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), between neighbouring London boroughs, which may have the same ICB but different frameworks.

I also welcome the support for the amendment from the Children’s Commissioner, who has said:

“Across the country, children wait far too long for the right equipment that is essential for daily life. In recent research on children experiencing delayed discharge from hospital, the office was told that delays in getting equipment, and having equipment serviced, had led to children being stuck in hospital, away from family, friends and school.”

This postcode lottery is not just cross-country—I know of a number of ICBs in which there are significant issues—but within ICBs. In my part of south-east London, one patient can be discharged, while another, in the same hospital with the same condition, living on the opposite side of the road, cannot be discharged. That difference arises because a borough boundary runs down the road. There are different contractual arrangements between different London boroughs in the same ICB. I know at first hand that pupils in the same school class, and in the same ICB, can have completely different service standards for their wheelchairs because one lives in one London borough while another lives in the neighbouring borough.

I will speak briefly to new clause 85, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). Like me, she is the parent of a disabled child. We have fought these issues for many years, both as parents and on behalf of our constituents. In my case, I know that when Ofsted found that there were systemic failings in our SEND provision, we could hold our local authority to account, but we could not properly hold our ICB to account. The judgment was issued against the council, not the ICB.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech, and for bringing his personal experience to the Chamber. I am sure that he will agree with me that the ‘H’ in EHCP stands for health; we need to see the health service doing its part. Does he agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

I absolutely agree, and I was a Labour councillor and leader of the council’s Labour opposition back then. I was also married to a special educational needs co-ordinator who was employed by the local authority. I was employing my own professionals to get through this process and ensure that the health aspects of the EHCP were upheld. The situation is absolutely abhorrent. Many parents who do not have the opportunity and insight that my wife and I had cannot ensure that accountability for their child. When my borough received that judgment of systemic failings, that issue really came to the fore.

I would be grateful if the Minister or Secretary of State could outline how the Government intend to address the issues addressed by my amendment and the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. My amendment intends to ensure that we deliver basic objectives, set clear expectations for how long disabled people should wait, set consistent standards, and ensure meaningful accountability for ICBs when services fall short.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I want to start by thanking the Minister for the emphasis that the Bill places on a single patient record. Despite many problems in NHS care, that is an area where the NHS is a world leader, but putting a single patient record on the right legal footing, making it possible to share data with proper governance, gives the NHS an opportunity to become a world leader in artificial intelligence, and it creates the opportunity to transform care for patients, so that has my full support.

I speak in support of new clause 25. The biggest structural reform in this Bill is the abolition of NHS England, but my worry is that there are other structural reforms that are not in the Bill that would have a much bigger impact on patient care. New clause 25 is about continuity of care, particularly in general practice and maternity. It is now very clear to many people that the abolition of the old GP list system in the 2004 contract changes was a huge mistake. In fact, restoring the system so that GPs have their own patients was part of the Labour manifesto, so that is an issue that the Government understand, but it is not in the Bill.

A study in Norway, published in the British Journal of General Practice in 2022, of over 4 million patients showed that patients who have their own doctor for more than 15 years are 30% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 28% less likely to need hospital care and 25% less likely to die. Why is that? Because GPs who know their patients are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to give an accurate diagnosis and will better calibrate risk, as they will have situational awareness of a patient and their family. The experience of a patient is infinitely better when they are dealing with a GP whom they know.

Instead of that, we have moved to a system in which many GP surgeries effectively operate like call centres. People will contact a GP and they may never see that GP again. It is exactly the same when someone calls 111, if you get put through to a clinician. Contacting a GP in the NHS should never be like calling an Uber driver who will never be seen again.