Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

16. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to update regulations on the use of micromobility vehicles.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

Shared e-scooter schemes can provide a great way to get around, but the scooters can pose a nuisance for other people, so we need to ensure that their roll-out is both safe and properly regulated. We have extended e-scooter trials until May 2028 to allow local authorities to test how the technology works. We have also committed to pursuing legislation, when parliamentary time allows, for the full regulation of micromobility in order to create a safe shared-use network where they work for all people.

[Daniel Francis]

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Does the Minister accept that a wheelchair, whether manual or with power, is a medical device that enables disabled people to maximise their independence and live the life they choose? Does he therefore agree that the terminology of “invalid carriages” in the legislation is discriminatory and outdated and that the regulations on the use of micromobility vehicles require updating urgently?

[Simon Lightwood]

I share my hon. Friend’s view that the term “invalid carriages” in the existing legislation is outdated and no longer reflects modern attitudes or needs. This Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same freedom to travel as everyone else and we recognise that mobility devices are vital for many. That is why we are reviewing the legal frameworks surrounding mobility devices, including the outdated terminology, and we will consult on that in due course.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. She knows that, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, I share similar concerns for them. We often see that bus ramps are designed to fit in with the bus boarder, but it is then very difficult for the wheelchair user to pivot from the exit of the bus ramp back on to the pavement. Will she join me in continuing to impress upon the Government that we have got to get the design right in order to assist all disabled people, and that disabled people—whether blind or partially sighted, or wheelchair users—must continue to be engaged in this dialogue?

Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the significant issues that affect my constituents across Dulwich and West Norwood because of the lack of accessibility at our local railway stations.

The Dulwich and West Norwood constituency covers part of Lambeth and part of Southwark. Unlike much of the north of those boroughs, we are poorly served by the London underground network; there is only Brixton tube station, just inside a corner of my constituency. Instead, my constituents rely on rail and buses to get to central and outer London, as well as for more local journeys. We have many stations—10 to be precise, with an 11th just outside the boundary. The stations in my constituency are Brixton, East Dulwich, Gipsy Hill, Herne Hill, Loughborough Junction, North Dulwich, Sydenham Hill, Tulse Hill, West Dulwich and West Norwood. Only three—Herne Hill, East Dulwich and West Norwood—are accessible, and only Herne Hill meets up-to-date standards of accessibility and has lifts to all platforms. The ramps at East Dulwich station are too steep, and West Norwood ticket office is not step-free, although the platforms are accessible from the street.

The lack of step-free access at our local railway stations causes major problems for many of my constituents. Wheelchair users are effectively locked out of rail travel entirely at inaccessible stations. Parents and carers for small children may or may not manage to carry or drag their buggy up and down flights of stairs at their station. Even if they can, it is neither safe nor comfortable. Frail and elderly passengers are confronted with impossibly difficult climbs; there are really long flights of stairs at several stations. Loughborough Junction and West Dulwich in particular have long, steep flights of stairs that can be difficult and daunting for many passengers.

The lack of accessibility at our local stations is counter to two of the Government’s strategic objectives. Inaccessible stations are a significant barrier to work for many physically disabled people, who cannot easily access employment in the wider London economy because they cannot get to work from Dulwich and West Norwood. Further, many people will not make the modal shift from private cars to public transport, as the Government want them to, while our stations remain inhospitable and inaccessible because the only way to access the platforms is via a steep flight of stairs.

During every round of Access for All funding since I was first elected more than a decade ago, I have pressed for stations in my constituency to be granted funding to increase the number of step-free stations, but the previous Government failed to prioritise investment in my constituency. Herne Hill was upgraded with the installation of lifts under the Access for All programme in 2013. That is more than a decade with no further advancement in the accessibility of local rail travel.

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

I welcome and support my hon. Friend’s campaign. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, I campaign a lot on these issues. Transport for London has an excellent app that shows which stations are wheelchair accessible and which have lift access, and I believe we should introduce that nationally. We should also introduce a campaign for accessible toilets, as well as for lifts and wheelchair access. Would my hon. Friend welcome expanding the app nationally, as it is currently available only in London?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for all his work on this important set of issues. He is absolutely right to say that full accessibility is about more than simply level access, and also that information about accessibility at different rail stations is vital to whether travellers will be able to travel, particularly if they are visiting somewhere outside their home area. I support his campaign for better information.

Pavement Parking

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate and continuing to shine a light on the persistent and widespread issue of pavement parking. She and many other hon. Members—26 in total, I believe—have made a clear and compelling case for change.

Pavement parking affects communities across the country, from busy urban centres to quiet residential streets, and the issue is particularly close to my heart. No one knows that better than the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who spoke about the work that we did together on the Committee back in 2019.

I have heard countless accounts from constituents and stakeholders of the challenges posed by vehicles parked on pavements. Those challenges are not just inconvenient but exclusionary. They disproportionately affect disabled people, those with visual impairments, older adults, parents with pushchairs, children walking or wheeling to school, and many others who rely on safe, unobstructed pavements to move around independently. I will use this opportunity to congratulate the schoolchildren and school that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) highlighted.

I thank all the hon. Members who contributed to today’s debate. The breadth of contributions once again demonstrates the scale of this issue and the urgency with which it must be addressed. Pavement parking is clearly not a niche concern; it affects all of us. Members made an enormous number of important points in sharing the experiences of their constituents, illustrating the impact on safety and independence, highlighting the damaging effect on the quality of our pavements, and also recognising that no two places are the same. A new town will likely face different challenges from a medieval city, and there are competing priorities that need to be addressed.

As Members will be aware, after five years of inaction despite promises to the contrary, in 2020 the previous Administration finally held a public consultation on managing pavement parking. The responses to that consultation were robust, thoughtful and deeply informative. They provided clear evidence that pavement parking is a problem that affects people’s daily lives, their safety and their ability to participate fully in society. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to respond. I am acutely aware of the frustration caused by the lack of a formal response to that consultation. It is a frustration that I share, and, frankly, it seems that the previous Government were not focusing on the issue, so we have had to pick the work up from scratch. I want to reassure Members that I am straining every sinew to publish the response as soon as possible.

In the five years since the previous Government held the consultation, a lot has changed in the political landscape of the UK. Much more of England is covered by mayoral combined authorities and, because this Government believe in true devolution, we are moving to strategic authorities across England. Those changes have to be factored into our thinking on pavement parking.

More broadly, we have carefully considered the potential impacts of pavement parking to ensure that our approach aligns with the Government’s wider missions, which are focused on growth, health, safer streets and breaking down barriers to opportunity. Tackling pavement parking can contribute to safer streets by reducing risks for pedestrians who would be forced into the road. It can enable more people to walk—the perfect antidote to inactivity. By ensuring that disabled people and families can move freely and safely, it can break down barriers to opportunity, which, alongside high levels of active travel, can potentially drive growth benefits. Our work is helping us shape a policy that is not only effective but equitable. As a result of all that work, I expect to make an announcement very soon.

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

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, and in my conversations with Bexley Mencap, I have had many discussions about the impact of pavement parking on disabled people. Crayford is in the London borough of Bexley, but some of its roads are partly in London and partly in the area of Kent county council. Will the Minister look at how the policy will be implemented for roads that are partly in London and partly in a different area?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that I am sure we will consider in our response. As I said, I will make an announcement very soon. I am also pleased to share that I have commissioned new research to update and strengthen our evidence base on the extent and impact of pavement parking. To be clear, that research is not a prerequisite for the consultation response—it will not delay progress—but it is part of our broader commitment to evidence-based policy and future evaluation to better understand the problem and ensure that the solutions we implement are working.

Gravesham: River Crossings

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sullivan]

My petition, which has garnered thousands of signatures, calls for the return of the ferry service. It is clear that businesses and residents want their ferry back.

At present, there is a desire for people to travel by public transport, which I support. People should leave their cars at home, but they need options. Previously, the option was a 10-minute jump across the water. Now, the options are a train into London and back out again, or multiple buses to get through the Dartford crossing. All this is costing us precious time.

If we as a society want to support public transport, relieving congestion on the roads should be at the heart of everything we do. Take the example of the Woolwich ferry, which, by parliamentary statute, must be run and is not able to charge. I am not asking—tempting as it is—for that to be the case for the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry, but I am asking the local authority to protect these valuable transport routes.

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

In the last 20 years, we have seen two new public transport options that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford benefit from when crossing the river: the docklands light railway in Woolwich, and the Elizabeth line into Abbey Wood. But as my hon. Friend has said, there is no public transport option from Woolwich to the Kent coast that her and my constituents can benefit from. Will she join me in welcoming some exploration of river and other public transport options through south-east London and into Kent?

[Dr Sullivan]

I absolutely agree. The Thames Clipper is a remarkable service that is supported by Transport for London, but it needs to be subsidised. It is looking at expanding into the estuary. Taking on board the desire of my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine to be able to travel via the river, I think that is a very good proposal that we in this place should get behind.

I know from my past role as a councillor on Gravesham borough council that operators are very interested in introducing a ferry service. In fact, Gravesend pier was sold to Thames Clipper in order to make way for the exciting development of the new public transport route to London and beyond. However, Gravesham borough council is not a local highway authority, so it has neither the status nor the money to develop this kind of public transport and hold the contract. Given the local government reorganisation that is coming, the council is prepared to do it, but it cannot be left with no money, because that would be poor financial management. The ferry service could be a public-private partnership—if businesses are listening, perhaps we can come together with the Government and fund it through moneys that go down to local authorities.

I will speak briefly about the lower Thames crossing, which may not be the solution or the silver bullet. It sits within Gravesham and goes through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. It is fair to say that we have been vocally opposed to it since the outset, particularly because of its significant impact on Gravesham. Quite rightly, Labour has promised that local residents will see the benefits of major infrastructure projects, and it is in this vein that I will ask the Minister some questions, which I hope he will be able to follow up. I would welcome a private meeting, if needed, to go through this issue with his Department for Transport colleagues.

The lower Thames crossing will have an impact on Gravesham. Option C was chosen nearly a decade ago under the Tories. It was the most expensive option compared with another bridge at Dartford. I do regret the loss of ancient woodland, the impact on air quality and the congestion of our local roads. The Conservatives took a “dither and delay” approach. Therefore, while a new bridge could have already been built had it been funded, we are still waiting.

Residents of Northfleet, Gravesend and the villages along the A227 in my constituency already suffer with congestion and gridlock when the Dartford crossing goes down or when the A2, which is a huge arterial road into London, has problems. Gravesham and Gravesend will be cut in half, yet sandwiched between the Dartford crossing and the proposed lower Thames crossing. The modelling data from National Highways show that congestion levels will be back to what they are now within four years of the opening of the lower Thames crossing.

Residents are worried about getting to Darent Valley hospital for urgent care when these problems occur on our roads at peak times or, sadly, when there are accidents. Giving people a choice of reliable public transport options would ease that congestion. If there are reliable public transport options—buses, river boats, river ferries—to take cars off the road, there would be greater capacity on the roads for when such unfortunate congestion events occur.

The wider impacts of the tunnel need to be considered. Currently, we fear that the A227 will be used as a rat run to access the M20. When the original plans for the lower Thames crossing were thought of, there was going to be an upgrade at Bluebell hill. Sadly, under the Conservatives, that was cut back and then cut back further. Unless that junction is improved, sadly, the villages in my constituency will be bearing the brunt of the hugely increased number of vehicles travelling to the M20.

I would like some assurances about the lower Thames crossing, and I have some questions to which I would like answers in the days to come. How will National Highways ensure that the years of construction and of delays will minimally impact Gravesham residents? How will the traffic get to and from the lower Thames crossing without impacting local roads? Indeed, there was talk of using the river for bringing in equipment and materials. What powers exist to ensure that local roads are not used as rat runs, and who will be held accountable for that?

Our local infrastructure, such as housing, will be impacted by the influx of workers. We would like a halt on people working on the lower Thames crossing moving into the area, because we already face a significant housing crisis in the area. Other things that could be affected include leisure and health services, so will such wider infrastructure projects be increased in the future? What accountability is there for the modelling data? As I have said, four years on, and the congestion will be at the same level, which will have a wider impact. Local residents have raised that concern with me, but who can I hold accountable?

We are all local MPs, and it is right that we ask the tough questions and make requests for our constituencies. So I kindly request the Minister to look at restoring the Gravesend to Tilbury ferry and sustainably maintained in perpetuity as a decent public transport option, and it could be subsidised and promoted from a small proportion of the tolls on the lower Thames crossing.

We want a guarantee, with accountability, that Gravesend businesses and residents are at the front and centre of the new jobs. We have deprived wards in Gravesham, which is among the top 10 most deprived areas, and we want those people to have access to such skills. I hope Members understand that Gravesham and Thurrock will be most impacted by this programme. It is only right that those residents see some of the benefits, especially as at the moment “local” is considered to be a local resident or a local person who is employed within a 20-mile radius. Now, that is half of London. I ask that we capture that information from a five-mile radius. I am not saying all of it should be local, but we need to ensure that local people and businesses are encouraged to apply and take up those jobs.

On the mitigations and accountability for the rat running that will ensue on the A227 based on the wider road modelling, there is the issue of proposed tolls. We are directly opposite the larger unitary authority of Thurrock. The residents of Thurrock enjoy a residents’ discount scheme. In Gravesham, however, such a scheme has not been promoted, yet very many of my residents use the Dartford crossing on a regular basis, especially now that the Tilbury crossing is down. I therefore ask the Minister if Gravesham could be included in the Dartford crossing scheme while the lower Thames crossing is being built and thereafter in perpetuity.

I want to raise mitigations for the environmental impact. We know the terrible air quality in Dartford and we do not want that in Gravesham. How can we improve both places and protect Gravesham residents? Finally, on housing, a vast array of our land that could have been developed for housing is now no longer available.

In conclusion, I thank the Minister in advance for his upcoming reply and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this Adjournment debate. Most of all, I would like to thank the residents, businesses and visitors of Gravesham. Gravesham has a long history on the river and we would really like to see the return of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry crossing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

Participants in the bus fare cap are only able to increase bus fares by inflation, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to speak to me outside the Chamber, I would be happy to take that matter up for him.

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

T7. I was disappointed to see the findings of yesterday’s Civil Aviation Authority airport accessibility performance report, which outlined that three airports—Edinburgh, London Heathrow and Glasgow Prestwick—received a “needs improvement” rating for accessibility. Can my hon. Friend provide an update on when the aviation accessibility task and finish group’s recommendations will be published, and when the Government will be able to outline how they plan to introduce measures to support disabled people who wish to access air travel?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

Everyone should be able to travel with dignity and ease, which is why we launched the aviation accessibility task and finish group last year. I expect to be able to provide an update soon, when that group publishes its findings. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the Civil Aviation Authority’s airport accessibility performance report 2024-25 demonstrates that improvements are still required in some areas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I understand the hon. Member’s wish to get his constituents moving; it is one that we share. I would be happy to look at his concerns in relation to the A38, and I will contact him with further information.

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

In 2022, the previous Government cut a significant number of Southeastern services that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford rely on. My constituents continue to raise concerns that direct services from London Charing Cross to Barnehurst and Bexleyheath should be reinstated during the evenings and weekends. Could the Minister provide an update on progress to reinstate those services?

[Simon Lightwood]

Southeastern plans services to meet passenger demand while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Timetables are kept under review and can be adjusted to reflect fluctuations in demand. I am pleased to say that four additional weekday evening services will be introduced on the route in December.

Transport Infrastructure Projects: Elizabeth Line

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing today’s debate.

I had the pleasure of serving as the cabinet member for transport in the London borough of Bexley from 2003 to 2006. During that period, the route for what was then called Crossrail was agreed. The Queen’s Speech of November 2004 confirmed that a Bill would be introduced to authorise the construction of Crossrail. Although the announcement confirmed that a southern spur would terminate at Abbey Wood rather than Ebbsfleet, people with long memories like me recall discussions at the time about terminating that spur at Canary Wharf or Custom House. I was quoted at the time, regarding the benefits for residents in Bexley, as saying:

“The most important achievement is getting Crossrail south of the river. If it had stopped at the Isle of Dogs, there would have been no benefit at all.”

My council lobbied to have that section reinstated, but it was not included in the final scheme, although the safeguarding directions for the associated land were retained.

As things stand, the southern spur of the Elizabeth line terminates at Abbey Wood station where, uniquely, the ticket office is located in the London borough of Bexley while the platforms are located in the royal borough of Greenwich. Although the station is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), it is within three quarters of a mile of my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford. The route has therefore brought many benefits to my constituents—particularly in the western part of the constituency—providing much faster journey times through to Canary Wharf, the City, the west end and Heathrow. It has also brought benefits for my constituents interchanging at Abbey Wood via Southeastern and Thameslink services from Slade Green. Sadly, the previous Government cut the majority of direct services from Crayford to Abbey Wood, making it difficult to interchange directly. I will continue to campaign for better services by train and bus to reach Abbey Wood from Crayford.

Passengers interchanging from Slade Green and other stations to its east have to rely on less frequent services to undertake this change. There remains a strong case to extend the Elizabeth line to Ebbsfleet in order to serve residents in the thousands of new homes built there, in order to interchange with high-speed services and hopefully, in the future, with reinstated services to mainland Europe.

The Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet corridor covers the local authorities of Bexley and Gravesham and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson). The corridor has the potential to build on its existing strengths and diversify its economy, but it needs to improve transport links to make that happen. Although the corridor has large areas of underutilised brownfield sites, many sites are complex and cannot be brought forward for housing by the market alone, because of viability challenges, in part caused by poor transport connections, which limit land values. Significant evidence has been assembled to show how additional housing can be delivered by transport investment making the local area more attractive. An extension is also expected to support jobs growth due to enhanced connectivity and additional commercial floor space and through jobs to support the new population, which would support the regeneration of both Crayford and Slade Green.

The C2E Partnership was formed in 2016 as an informal group of authorities to promote an extension of the Elizabeth line beyond its planned terminus at Abbey Wood and towards Ebbsfleet. It comprises stakeholders representing local communities in the area, including the London borough of Bexley, Dartford and Gravesham borough councils, the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, Kent county council, the Greater London Authority and the Greater North Kent Partnership. The partnership has lobbied since its inception for funding to develop scheme options. It was successful in securing funding from Government for the development of a strategic outline business case, which was submitted to the previous Government in October 2021.

Despite that, there has still not been a formal response to that business case. The project continues to form a key element of the transport strategy for growth of the London borough of Bexley, being referenced in the Bexley growth strategy and the recently adopted local plan. That is echoed in the policy documents of the wider partnership, as well as regional partners, such as the Thames Estuary Growth Board and Transport for the South East.

The partnership’s ask is for further resource to refine the options presented in the business case and identify a preferred scheme for development to detailed design, and the securing of appropriate powers for delivery. The case for such investment is considered to be stronger than ever, in the context of housing and economic development imperatives. I shall continue to call for this extension to be delivered in the years ahead. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Lower Thames Crossing

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

I certainly agree that we have to get this right, and that is the purpose of the process, which I know is a frustratingly long one.

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

Does the Minister agree that we also need to look out for businesses in my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford? Currently, when there is congestion, they end up travelling 28 miles—instead of six miles—to the Blackwall tunnel and back again, and a 10-minute journey ends up taking them an hour. We therefore need to look at options for river crossings through both south London and Kent as we move forward.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend has very effectively put the views of his constituents on the record.

Finally, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is reassured that my Department fully appreciates the importance of the proposal to his constituency and that it is being thoroughly considered. I thank him for securing an opportunity to discuss the issue and all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I would be very happy to meet the right hon. Member to discuss that.

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

I pay tribute to the “Rights on Flights” campaign for the work that it is doing to improve accessibility, particularly for wheelchair users. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to improve aviation accessibility for disabled people?

[Louise Haigh]

I met the “Rights on Flights” campaign early on after becoming Secretary of State. We will set out our plans to address the major issue of aviation accessibility shortly.