Progression of Bills through Parliament

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

I agree entirely. I absolutely respect the fact that others, including opponents of the Bill, reach different judgments on this difficult issue. Ultimately, as I said, in our parliamentary democracy that is for Parliament to resolve, on the balance of judgment of its constituent-elected MPs. That is explainable to our constituents. If something that constituents wish for is decided on by Parliament, that can be explained; what struggles to be explained is when tactics and filibustering are used to not reach a decision at all. I will come on to talk a little about that.

At this stage, it is important to say that I spoke to groups opposed to assisted dying as part of my preparation for the debate—again, not to discuss the substance of assisted dying itself, but, as part of balance, to get their view about the process. It is fair to say that their position includes the assertion that the Lords were justified in not reaching a decision on the Bill because Commons consideration in Committee was flawed. I personally disagree; having sat in Committee for more than 100 hours—way in excess of nearly any other Bill—I might be expected to say that. Those exact same arguments, however, were available to Members before Third Reading.

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

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?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am not here to speak for the sponsor of anything; I am here to speak for parliamentary democracy. Fundamentally, on Third Reading, MPs clearly backed the Bill. That was the final chance for MPs to have their say. In all those debates, my hon. Friend made his points well and ably, as I made mine, in Committee and beyond. I entirely respect his perspective, but I am bringing us back to the issue of parliamentary democracy.

It is entirely appropriate, and no one is disputing—the petitioners are not disputing—that the Lords should scrutinise and indeed amend legislation passed to them from the Commons; what the petitioners find outrageous, frankly, is the failure to consider it. I will come on to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on the way in which he introduced the debate and the strong case he made about not only the Bill and its treatment, but the recommendations for reform of the House of Lords. As he said, we do not want to rehash the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, but as we have seen, people on both sides of the debate were disgusted by the way in which a small minority of their lordships were able to abuse the powers available to them, not to scrutinise but to block the Bill. Indeed, a strong opponent of the Bill, Rod Liddle, described his side winning “by cheating”, which is exactly what happened.

Their lordships on many occasions in a rather condescending way told the democratically elected Chamber of the House of Commons that the Bill it passed on Third Reading was not fit for purpose. The fact is that if we all designed a private Member’s Bill, there would be 650 different versions. The concept of a perfect Bill can no doubt be debated by everyone that looks at it, and they would say, “I would prefer it to be amended in this manner” or “in that manner”. The fact is that the way in which the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) proceeded, accepting very sensible amendments, meant that we ended up with a stronger and very effective Bill.

[Daniel Francis]

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.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Member makes a very strong point. There were more than 100 hours of debate and scrutiny in Committee and in the Chamber. I am sure that we all in this Chamber engaged in thousands of hours of discussion with specialist bodies and had private meetings and investigations on the matter. I am on the Health and Social Care Committee and therefore take these issues very seriously.

I have mentioned the early-day motion that I tabled at the end of January, which castigated the House of Lords and proposed that if it continued with its filibuster, we needed to accelerate reform of the House of Lords. It has certainly precipitated a justification for that from the House of Commons and the Government, and I hope the Leader of the House will follow that accelerated reform through in the light of what has happened, which I think is quite disgraceful.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Daniel Francis]

I will give way just once.

[Dr Opher]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making a very powerful speech. These types of debate are slightly triggering for some of us who were on the Committee. I have absolutely no problem with the House of Lords amending the legislation. In fact, that is its job. What it cannot do is simply block the legislation. I wonder what my hon. Friend thinks of that.

[Daniel Francis]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the impassioned way in which he opened this debate.

Last week, an article in The Spectator wrongly suggested that a co-sponsor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had softened his stance on getting assisted dying over the line. To my surprise, I was that very co-sponsor. Let me be absolutely clear to The Spectator and any journalists seeking to play games and misrepresent this sensitive issue that I continue to support the principle of a compassionate society helping those at the end of their lives to slip away peacefully and on their own terms.

I do so in part because of my own lived experience, having witnessed at first hand the cruelty that a terminal diagnosis can bring. I think back to the Christmas of 2019 at the dinner table with my late nan, who was unable to eat and in considerable pain. She turned to me and said simply that she was “ready to go”. Those words have never left me. They have forced me to confront some deeply uncomfortable truths: as a society, we too often shy away from death and in doing so we allow those whom we love the most to suffer for perhaps too long.

However, I am a pragmatist and a realist about parliamentary realities. I have concerns that if a similar private Member’s Bill were introduced in future, it would face the same filibustering in the House of Lords, even if a clear and absolute majority in the Commons voted for it on Third Reading.

As a Conservative, I value tradition, respect procedure and recognise that the conventions of this House—and indeed of the other place—are central to making our Parliament one of the finest democratic institutions in the world. However, as has been well established, Britain’s unwritten constitution provides the agility to modernise our procedures for the world we now live in, rather than our merely sticking by some of the more arcane procedures of times gone by. It was therefore disheartening to see the ability of a small number of peers to table quite literally hundreds of amendments to frustrate the democratic will of an absolute majority in the Commons.

I am well aware of “Erskine May” and I understand the historical precedents that allow for such tactics, but we must ask ourselves: do they show Parliament at its best? This place is at its best when real debates take place, and when arguments are made, tested and challenged. Even when I disagree about something, I recognise the quality of debate.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) in the main Chamber; although I do not agree with his conclusions, I respect the clarity and conviction with which he made his case. In the other place, Baroness May set out her opposition in a similarly considered and coherent manner. On my own side of the argument, colleagues such as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) spoke with equal seriousness and compassion when they made their speeches. That is Parliament at its best.

Parliament is not at its best when Bills such as the assisted dying Bill are simply spoken out; it is not at its best when process replaces principles; and it is certainly not at its best when debate is prevented. The Bill, whatever one’s position on it, certainly did not lack scrutiny. It passed through the House with numerous amendments; each one was debated and voted on. It was considered for more than 100 hours in the Commons alone. That is longer than for most pieces of legislation, which often receive just a few hours of debate at the fag-end of a plethora of urgent questions or ministerial statements. And it was right that it received that attention.

[Daniel Francis]

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

[Mr Bedford]

No, I will carry on, because of time.

In the other place, 13 of the 14 allocated private Members’ Bills days were dedicated to the assisted dying Bill, so that amendments to it could be discussed fully and in a proper way. Yet despite all that, a select few Lords were able not simply to oppose the Bill but to shut down debate altogether. That should concern all of us.

Whatever side of the debate hon. Members are on, if we want our constituents to have confidence in our parliamentary democracy, we must ensure that the right to debate—the right to make considered decisions—is not lost to procedural dark arts. That is what the public expect of us, and it is what will ensure that this place continues to be one of the most respected democratic institutions in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for chairing the debate earlier.

I thank the petitioners for their hard work and the Petitions Committee for scheduling this debate, and I thank all the Members who have taken part. This has been a well-attended debate and it makes the case, dare I say it, for petitions to be heard in the main Chamber. However, that is another discussion.

Let me say at the outset that I understand the strength of feeling on this issue and appreciate some of the frustration that has come across this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the way in which he introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for reminding me of my duties and responsibilities in this place. I make no apology for saying that those are absolutely what I endeavour to carry out on any issue at any time. I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to listen to the debate and to respond, but given the role I play, I make no apology if I say some unpalatable things. The problem, with an issue of such importance and such division, is that what I have to say will probably end up being unpalatable to both sides, not just one.

There are two interrelated elements to this petition and, subsequently, to this debate: first, the principles surrounding the role of each House and, secondly, the passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I will begin by dealing with the first, which is the primacy of the Commons. The primacy of the elected chamber, the House of Commons, and the way in which it has primacy over the House of Lords, is absolutely fundamental to our constitution. It is reflected in the legislation and the conventions that govern how Parliament works. For instance, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 reduced and then further reduced the ability of the House of Lords to delay legislation against the will of the Commons. Since its passage, the Parliament Act 1949 has limited the ability of the Lords to delay the will of the Commons to just one year, and I can confirm that that applies to all Public Bills, including private Members’ Bills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said.

The Government’s democratic mandate and the primacy of the Commons are also reflected in the Salisbury-Addison convention that the House of Lords should not reject on Second Reading any Government legislation that carries out a manifesto commitment and that such legislation will not be subject to “wrecking amendments” in its passage. However, the key fact is that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was a private Member’s Bill and therefore, unlike the Parliament Act 1949, the Salisbury-Addison convention did not apply.

The will of the Commons is given precedence over the will of the Lords. However, I want to place on record the Government’s view that we greatly value the work of the House of Lords in scrutinising and improving legislation. There have been many occasions where the Members of the other place have drawn on their experience and expertise in their field—whether that is law, science, public service, military matters or indeed medicine—to bring a depth of scrutiny to legislation that sometimes the Commons is unable to.

A great deal of legislation is significantly improved because of the patient, rigorous work done in the Lords, and the Government do not have any plans to further curtail the ability of the Lords to scrutinise legislation passed on by the Commons. It seems to me that it is for the Lords to decide what their rules are, and even if the Government set about trying to change the rules, they do not have a majority in the House of Lords. We need to bear that in mind.

But—it is a very big “but”—there clearly needs to be a balance between how scrutiny takes place and how rules and conventions are respected. History shows that where the House of Lords overrides the expressed will of the elected House and is considered to be preventing legislation from completing its stages, pressure builds to revisit those rules and conventions—that is one of the first and last times I think I will ever have agreed with Tom Brake. [Laughter.]

I want to turn to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I will not rerun the Bill, its progress and who was right or wrong, but it remains an issue of profound ethical and personal importance to many. As is the convention for matters of conscience, the Government maintained a neutral position throughout the passage of the Bill, except to ensure that, should it have passed, they would assist to make it workable. That position has not changed. All MPs and peers, including Government Ministers, will have had their own personal views, and it is right that, as MPs, we had a free vote on the Bill. On two occasions—on Second Reading, by a majority of 55, and on Third Reading, by a majority of 23—the Commons, including myself, supported the legislation.

In the Commons, the Bill received over 500 amendments and, as we have heard, was in Committee for something like 100 hours. Many of those amendments were agreed to. In the Lords, there were more than 1,200 amendments. There are some key differences, of course, in the way the two Houses can deal with those hundreds of amendments, but I suggest that some Members of the Lords who spent their time putting down amendment after amendment and urging that they be debated genuinely believed that the Bill that left the Commons was not of merit and was flawed. They have a right to scrutinise legislation, and they used that right. I heard some of the examples that were given of some of the amendments, which quite frankly ran the risk of making the process rather farcical, but there were many others that were genuine and sincere attempts to make the Bill right.

Behind all this is an issue that is central to private Members’ Bills: the question of time. Unless rules on private Members’ Bills change, any private Member’s Bill—whether in the House of Commons or the House of Lords—can be timed out because it is simply talked out. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, in retrospect, shouldn’t the House of Commons and the Government have made time for this? I remind him that there was time in the House of Commons—the Bill passed there. It was not in the House of Commons that we had the problem; it was in the House of Lords.

However, it is a matter for the Lords themselves, where the Bill had 90 hours and 45 minutes of debate. As a private Member’s Bill both in the Commons and the Lords, it is to a large extent the Bill’s sponsors who decide how that time should be used. As in the Commons stage, that time was allocated and used in such a way in the Lords. It took a very long time in Committee in the House of Commons, and it took quite a long time on Report in the House of Commons. That was time that might otherwise have created some space later in the process, which the Lords might have been able to make better use. However, I suspect that I am being slightly optimistic when I say that.

[Daniel Francis]

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.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I certainly will go away and reflect on that, but as my hon. Friend knows, because he is a very distinguished member of the Modernisation Committee, we are looking at how the House of Commons should best use its time. Part of that discussion will relate to when private Members’ Bills are debated and how long they are debated for. He will know that a number of Commons Committees have looked at this question over a period of time—not least the Procedure Committee, which, if memory serves, is looking at it again.

However, limited time is available for private Members’ Bills. There might be a clear decision at the end of a debate—on a time-limited Second Reading, for example, although that would be novel, given that the aim is often to get to 2.30 pm having talked out a Bill, and sometimes the Government of the day help in that process [Interruption.] They do; that is part of how private Members’ Bills are dealt with. The more I look at the issue, the less I am sure whether they are necessarily fit for purpose.

However, if we were to get to that point, that would not address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about how long the House should take to consider these matters. This House rose to the occasion on Second Reading—recall the great fear that there would be a great row, which would show the House at its worst. The House rose to that occasion, but we had at least five hours of debate on Second Reading, so I worry slightly about what would happen if the process were curtailed.

At the heart of the issue, although I am not commenting on the Bill in this context, is the fact that Members need to reflect on whether a private Member’s Bill is the route for certain legislation, particularly when it concerns a big issue and there is a question of conscience.

Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I declare my interest as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but also as the chair of both the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users and the APPG on access to disability equipment. I come at this issue from that perspective. As many Members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user and have campaigned on both accessibility and Changing Places toilets, and I will refer to those during my contribution.

Shortly after my election to this place, I asked a series of questions. I have twin daughters, one of whom can access the building, but the other cannot access it in the way that we all can. What if she were to come here, and what are the most easily defined routes around the building? I was very lucky, because I had an accessibility tour, but I will continue to say that those routes are not easily defined for staff or visitors. For visitors, what are the most accessible routes around the building to get from A to B? We need to continue to look at that. If a Member is arranging an event, what are the main access routes for somebody who is a wheelchair user or who has different access needs?

In the report—I was not a member of the Modernisation Committee when the report was undertaken, but I am now—there are recommendations about external accessibility. In my role as chair of both groups, but particularly as chair of the APPG for wheelchair users, we continue to have problems. A significant number of wheelchair users attend our meetings, but there is only a very small number of rooms in this building that we can book. The Chair of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith), is very aware of this—we have written and spoken to each other about it at length—but under the booking system’s current procedures, the APPG cannot be given priority over others, which proves very difficult when only a very small number of rooms are available. It also proves very difficult when we try to provisionally book a room, and the only room our users can use is booked by somebody else. We do need, through the Administration Committee, to look at our booking system procedures.

My hon. Friend is also aware that the APPG for wheelchair users held an event last month at which the majority of speakers were wheelchair users, yet we managed to set up a podium for the speakers to give their speeches from. Reluctantly, we then had to dismantle the podium in front of all the wheelchair users, because it was clearly a completely inappropriate layout for how the wheelchair users in question needed to address the event. As my hon. Friend is aware, and as I said in the Modernisation Committee when we considered this report recently, there continue to be external accessibility changes we need to make in the House.

I note the recommendations in the report on accessible formats. I was really glad when my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) had her East Kent Mencap group visit the building recently, and a number of Members with experience of this went to speak to them about their experiences—I was very privileged to do so. We clearly always need to look at those formats, and ask whether our information is available in an easy read format for them in the way it would be for any other visitors, and whether we can have the same discussions with those users.

Although she is not here today, I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her valuable work since her election to make this building far more accessible. From her viewpoint, the building certainly was not in such a place.

Lastly, I want to refer to Changing Places toilets. A few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney and I wandered down to the National Portrait Gallery to see what a more modern, accessible Changing Places toilet looks like. We have the issue that, when wheelchair users who attend the all-party groups I chair come to Portcullis House, there is no Changing Places toilet there. The Changing Places toilet we have is in the Lower Waiting Hall, and I would say it is to the original Changing Places standard of about 20 years ago. I have used it with my own daughter, and the hoist is a mobile hoist. The ceiling is very low, and an adult trying to get on it will most probably hit their head on the ceiling. It does not have a moveable sink to get a wheelchair underneath. It is not to the current standards we would expect of a Changing Places toilet. It is the one place where the people who attend the all-party groups I chair can use the toilet, yet it still is not to modern standards. As my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House know, I will continue to lobby to have one of a modern standard in Portcullis House and equally for the existing toilet to be of a modern standard.

As I said in my Changing Places debate last year, we have seen great improvements. My daughter, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, will be 13 this year, and I remember how few Changing Places toilets there were in this part of London 10 years ago. There has been great progress, including under the previous Government, in making sure that local railway stations and tourist destinations have Changing Places toilets. There are the ones at the National Portrait Gallery and the National Gallery down the road; there is the one in IKEA in Oxford Street, which I had to work very hard for and lobby to get its standard up to spec; and, just yesterday, the one at St Paul’s cathedral finally opened. Those places, where visitors are welcome to access the history and culture of our amazing city, do have such facilities, yet this place does not. We need those facilities both in Portcullis House and, to a more modern standard, in the Palace itself.

I thank the Committee for its work. I will continue to press on these areas, including in my role as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but while other workplaces have brought themselves into the 21st century, we must acknowledge that there is work that we still need to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Business of the House

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Yes, I will arrange that meeting.

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

Last year, the Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley demolished the much-loved Parkside community centre in Barnehurst. The council has now said it will allow the centre to be rebuilt if a charity funds the rebuilding. I have conducted a survey of local residents, and 89% believe that the council should rebuild it, rather than a charity. Can time be made available for a debate on the importance of community buildings and the level of support available to voluntary groups who run them?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am sorry to hear about the loss of the much-loved Parkside community centre, because these are places that provide valuable services and, as I have said before, are the golden thread that ties communities together. My hon. Friend may wish to attend next week’s Westminster Hall debate on social enterprises and community ownership to hear more from the Minister directly.

Business of the House

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I will wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend in sending our sincere thoughts to Graham Murray’s family and loved ones. It is truly devastating to lose a loved one due to a road traffic accident. The Government are working hard, through our road safety strategy, to try to reduce deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads. I pay tribute and send our best wishes and thanks to Beckenham rugby club for the part it is playing in this situation and the fantastic role it plays in its local community.

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

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?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing Tom Jones the happiest of birthdays. I am sure that he has lived an incredible life, and we wish him well. He was a trade unionist and supporting our party before many Members of this House were born —in fact, before I was born; it is a rare occasion when I can say that. It is really saying something. We genuinely wish him all the very best and a very happy birthday.

Business of the House

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Rev. Jim Bennett. His work at both Greenwich and Bexley community hospice and St Augustine’s church has greatly contributed to his community. In paying tribute to Rev. Jim Bennett, let us pay tribute to all the churches and churchmen and women across our country, who play such an important part in our local communities. I wish Rev. Jim Bennett a very long and happy retirement.

Business of the House

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Competent leadership is really important for local government, and there is a duty to local taxpayers to spend money wisely. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. As I said earlier, if there is an Adjournment debate on Kent county council and Reform’s track record to date, I am sure it will be well attended.

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

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. The group has recently received extensive evidence that there is a clear need for independent oversight of wheelchair providers, and for verifiable data from the sector. Many service users are not provided with a wheelchair within a suitable timeframe, and many have little choice but to go private to access equipment. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on wheelchair provision, and the need for sector reform to ensure that wheelchair users are provided with the equipment that they need?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue, and for his work as the chair of the APPG. I welcome the support that NHS England provides to integrated care boards to ensure that services are effective and efficient, but we know of too many cases where people are still waiting too long to get access. My hon. Friend may wish to use the next Health and Social Care questions to raise the issue, but I will make sure that Ministers are aware of the problems that his constituents are experiencing.