Railways Bill (Third sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Laurence Turner]

I must start by slightly disagreeing with the Minister on his approach to railway puns. The shadow Minister referred to the discussion on amendment 257 as a dispute; I reassure him that this is not a case of pistons at dawn—[Laughter.] It is going to get so much worse. Before I come to the Minister’s substantive response, I will briefly respond to a few other comments that have been made in the debate.

The shadow Minister spoke about changes in passenger numbers over the years, which is a good illustration of why it is important to look across a whole time series, and to bear in mind the old maxim that correlation is not causation. After all, passenger numbers were already falling by the time that we got to vesting day in 1948. The railways were exhausted after years of war—indeed, passenger numbers halved between 1920 and 1947. In fact, the actual nadir in passenger numbers was not in the early 1990s but in 1983. I thought that Opposition Members might have wanted to take pride in the successful sectorisation experiment under the Thatcher Government, perhaps aided by some benign neglect from that Administration, which was sadly not repeated by the subsequent Major Administration.

We have some good explanations for why exactly passenger numbers rose so dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s. For a long time, I think we could have all substituted our political explanations for why that happened. However, in 2018, a very good study, led by eminent modellers and academics, was published by the Independent Transport Commission on precisely that question. It found that passenger growth was overwhelmingly driven by changes in the job market—the types of roles being created and the areas of the country in which they were being created. It was also aided by changes to tax incentives for company cars in the early 2000s, which led to an additional increase in rail traffic.

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

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?

[Laurence Turner]

I absolutely agree, and we could point to other examples where franchises being taken in-house under previous Governments led to a service improvement. The Opposition’s problem has always been that public ownership works in practice but not in their theory.

I am heartened by what the Minister had to say on my amendment. This is not an issue of dispute; this is sensible scrutiny. I welcome the commitment the Minister made to take the issue away. I recognise that this Committee is probably not the place to resolve this detailed and technical consideration. I am encouraged by his comments and on the basis that we may return to this matter at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Crown status etc

Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Morello]

I could not possibly comment, Minister—I was going to say tea. But there are basic human rights that we should be respecting here—and a gin and tonic might be one of them.

On rail journeys lasting more than two hours, access to food and drink is a basic expectation. As anyone who has done the trip to Exeter or Dorchester South from London will know, numerous stations on that line do not have a café on the platform, or even one close by. I hope we are also going to achieve a reduction in the number of delays on that line, but once someone is on it they are on it; their options for access to anything are incredibly low. Whether for a parent travelling with children, older passengers on long journeys or commuters trying to work on the move, access to basic amenities—reliable wi-fi and food and drink—should be mandatory.

New clause 8 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to introduce a passenger charter as a core function of GBR. It would set out clear expectations for passengers, and clear accountability for operators. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage laid out in his ten-minute rule Bill, it would include guarantees on value for money, service quality, adequate seating for journeys over 30 minutes, and improved accessibility across trains.

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

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?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Members that I do not believe one way or the other; please talk through me, not to me.

[Daniel Francis]

I am sorry, Sir Alec.

[Edward Morello]

Thank you, Sir Alec, for the clarification, and I thank the hon. Member for his question. I understand the premise of the point: whichever number we put in, there is a risk that someone could come up with such an example. I think the point is that, for journeys over 30 minutes, for older passengers, for example, the guarantee of a seat may be an issue of whether they want to travel or not, so we must find a line to draw in the sand; I hope that able-bodied Members would stand up for the elderly, but it is not always the case. I would like us to move to a system where we do not have to stand on trains and where there is an expectation of seating—not least so that the drinks trolley can get through and get a cup of tea to me when I need one.

The charter would also set targets for reliability and a clear timetable for improving passenger accommodation, including seat design, reliable wi-fi and mobile signals, power outlets—I honestly cannot believe we are still questioning whether or not we should have power outlets on trains—luggage and bicycle storage, clean and accessible toilets, and onboard catering for journeys of more than two hours. We must focus much of our innovation on the passenger experience and not just the journey time, whether that is wi-fi for commuting workers or accessible toilets for everyone. Crucially, it would also extend delay repay principles to cover failures in onboard amenities and move towards automatic digital compensation that does not place the burden on passengers to fight for refunds—hopefully that speaks to the teeth that the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston mentioned.

Those are not luxuries. Almost every rail user has stood despite booking a seat, lost their signal mid-journey, missed a connection because of a delay, struggled to find a clean toilet—or a working one—or found nowhere to store a bag, yet too often there is no meaningful redress for those inconveniences. That undermines confidence in the railway.

The data is stark. Only 32% of passengers believe that the rail network meets their needs, and just 59% are satisfied with value for money or onboard internet. Last year, there were more than 62,000 complaints about punctuality, nearly 40,000 about overcrowding, and more than 24,000 about onboard facilities. All those things act as a drag. They are why people do not want to travel on the trains and why they are choosing car journeys instead. If we want people to choose rail for economic, environmental and social reasons, we have to deal with these frustrations as well. New clause 8 puts passengers back at the heart of the system, where they belong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 6 deals with co-operation between GBR and Transport for London. The clause seems to exist in direct juxtaposition to clause 5, and, interestingly, to the general spirit of the Bill expressed in other clauses. While many aspects of the Bill bring powers back to the Department for Transport, GBR and the Secretary of State’s office, the clause is unusual in being one of few examples where those on the Treasury Bench do not seem to want to be involved. That is out of character. Through the clause, the Government seek to remove the Secretary of State’s position in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and replace that responsibility with a similar one for Great British Railways. That is not based on enhancing accountability or strengthening value for the taxpayer, which should be core principles of the Bill.

The clause presents special status for Transport for London that is not enjoyed by other mayoral combined authorities; that relates to a point that Committee members will recall Andy Burnham making during our oral evidence session on Tuesday. He expressly referenced the difference in how the Greater Manchester mayoral combined authority is treated on transport matters compared with how TfL is treated. We need to ask why that is. Mayor Burnham’s evidence highlighted that difference, yet the Government have given no effective answer about the rationale behind treating large, regional mayoral combined authorities differently from Transport for London.

The amendments in this group seek to correct that, proposing that, until such a time when the other mayoralties require their own special dispensation, which clause 5 of the Bill actively prohibits, clause 6 should be amended to maintain reference to the Secretary of State, and include the Secretary of State and GBR side by side, so that the relevant subsections of section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 refer to both “the Secretary of State” and “Great British Railways”. That would ensure that the Secretary of State continues to have a duty of co-operation with TfL, alongside GBR.

[Daniel Francis]

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.

[Keir Mather]

Let me begin by addressing the point made by the shadow Minister about the discrepancies in the system in Greater Manchester as it applies to London. It is not wholly correct to say that we are treating these two things inherently differently. The co-operation clause, which applies to all MCAs including Manchester, is new, but for TfL it is also set out in the GLA Act. To make this work for TfL, we have therefore to tweak the legislative system.

I thank the shadow Minister for his amendments 7 to 10, which together propose including the Secretary of State, alongside Great British Railways, in the clause requiring co-operation with TfL. Clause 6 requires that GBR and TfL co-operate on railway matters. That includes co-ordinating TfL and GBR passenger services and sharing relevant information. It will also enable GBR to work collaboratively with Transport for London to strengthen its local influence over the railways and support integration with other transport modes.

The railway responsibilities included in the clause, such as the co-ordination of passenger services, will be GBR’s, not the Secretary of State’s. Including the Secretary of State here would risk undermining the principle that GBR is the railway’s directing mind, and would widen the scope of the Secretary of State’s role under the new regime.

The shadow Minister will have heard the Government make clear commitments that this will not be a railway run by politicians. Clearly, the Secretary of State does not need to be involved in GBR’s relationship with Transport for London or in its passenger service responsibilities. Those relationships are operational ones and do not need political interference. I therefore urge him not to press his amendments to a vote.

Railways Bill (Second sitting)

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

I will certainly take that away.

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

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.

[Daniel Francis]

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.

[Laurence Turner]

Q In Trainline’s written evidence—possibly to the Transport Committee rather than this one, or possibly to both—there is a reference to a view that there might be some particularly sensitive data within GBR that Trainline believes should be firewalled off from any ticketing function. I think the suggestion is that there may be some operational information to which GBR’s ticketing function should not be given privileged access. I was wondering whether you could expand on that point and explain what types of information we are talking about. John Davies: What we are advocating for is that whatever flows of data or information are necessary for, say, a GBR online retail function to do the work of helping customers engage with the rail industry—to book tickets, to travel and to do all those things—all those sources of information should be made available equally, at the same level and without discrimination, to whoever has a legitimate cause to use them.

One of the things that becomes problematic is this. Thinking about something like the centralised seat reservation system, which is a piece of industry architecture, we are currently able to draw on it at a very granular level. We take a very base level of data and are able to use it in different ways, as are other retailers, to design good customer experiences. For example, a 28-day view of the availability of cheap fares for any given journey is not that straightforward if you are only able to access information that has previously been filtered—let us say by a future GBR—which has decided that all you are going to have available are five single and return journeys for the date on which you have made the inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I will indeed. It is for local highway authorities to determine the most appropriate measures to achieve the gritting of roads based on local circumstances. We continue to offer support by maintaining a national emergency salt reserve.

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

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, I warmly welcome the Department’s announcement this week that it is consulting on its review of the law on powered mobility devices. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are now consulting on changing the current maximum weight limit for powered mobility devices? Currently, those with the heaviest wheelchairs break the law when they use their devices on the pavement.

[Simon Lightwood]

Certainly. The 40-year-old laws on powered mobility devices will be brought up to date to better support those who use electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters. I can confirm that weight limits form part of the consultation, along with size, speed and usage rules, to better reflect modern technology.

Railways Bill

Daniel Francis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I support some of the aims and intentions behind the Bill, and having listened to the Secretary of State’s opening speech, I certainly agree with her reasons for it, but I do not believe that what she is doing will deliver what she says.

Key parts of the Bill are taken from the previous Conservative Government’s 2023 plans to unite train and track, which were not realised due to the change of Government at the election. That does not inevitably have to be done by nationalisation; indeed, under the last Government’s detailed plans, it would have been done under a concessionary scheme. That is not ideology but pragmatism. It is using the state and the private sector to deliver better railways. That model is very similar to the model used by Transport for London, which was designed by Labour and is run by Labour in London.

It is unfathomable why the Government will not look at that sort of pragmatic scheme for the rest of the UK through this Bill. I suspect that the only answer is the inevitable one offered by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden): this is a matter of ideology. It is about satisfying Labour’s union paymasters and Back Benchers—those Back Benchers who fundamentally run this Government, who vetoed the Government’s attempt to cut the welfare bill last summer, and who ensured that the Budget two weeks ago increased taxes to allow more welfare spending. For the Secretary of State and the Government, this is about a politically prudent pay-off, but it is bad for passengers.

I did some market research earlier. I travelled on a publicly owned service on a publicly owned track from Portsmouth Harbour to London Waterloo, and it was delayed because of signal failure. In fact, I do market research on that route quite often. The track has been in the public sector for over a decade, and signal failure continues to be the most common reason for delays to the train. The issue is not the train company, which was historically private, but the publicly owned track. It is not inevitable that nationalisation will lead to improved services, and there are no guarantees in the Bill that prices will be held down long term, or that services will improve and more passengers will travel by rail. That is simply a matter of faith, driven by a belief in nationalisation.

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

Southeastern was nationalised under the previous Government, and it remains nationalised under this Government, but this year, it has been brought into one organisation with Network Rail, and there has been the best customer satisfaction for my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford, and the best journey times you could see. Southeastern is at the forefront of this programme, so does the hon. Member agree that the proof is in Southeastern’s statistics?

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member obviously was not listening to what I said at the beginning, which was that I absolutely believe in uniting the trains and the track; that was the 2023 plan of the previous Conservative Government. If he is right about the improvements in his part of the world, I suspect that the reason is not nationalisation, but bringing the two together, so that they are subject to similar decision-making processes.

The Secretary of State opened her speech by saying that she wanted a railway system that was greater than the sum of its parts. I agree. If she were to buy a National Rail ticket in Shanklin on the Isle of Wight, get on a train there, and travel to London Waterloo or Guildford, she would, like me, use the ferry service that connects parts of the railway. Fares are not being frozen for that part of the rail route, because the Secretary of State has no powers to do that, and is not creating those powers. In fact, the cost of rail travel from Sandown, Shanklin or Ryde on the Isle of Wight through to Guildford or Waterloo will go up if the unregulated ferry companies put their fares up. The Secretary of State is doing nothing to deal with that part of the railway for people who live in my constituency.

In fact, the situation is worse than that, because the Government are extending the emissions trading system levy to Solent travel. The ferry company Wightlink, which connects the railways, will pay £1 million a year in extra charges because of that levy being extended to it. The Government talk about freezing fares for mainland rail travellers, but they are in fact putting up the costs for Isle of Wight train travellers. The use of fossil fuels cannot be avoided in crossing the Solent, because there is not the electric grid capacity in the mainland ports or the Isle of Wight ports to allow the ferry companies to go fully electric, as the trains have done. That grid capacity will not be there until the mid-2030s. The Government are putting that cost on Isle of Wight rail and road users, but they have exempted Scottish ferry companies, because they say that those provide a lifeline service. Isle of Wight ferries are every bit as much a lifeline service for my constituents, who use them to access education, NHS, friends and family and all the things that everyone else enjoys.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I draw attention to my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. I rise to support the measures in the Railways Bill. I know that the measures will be supported by my constituents, who predominantly travel from the four train stations of Barnehurst, Bexleyheath, Slade Green and Crayford, which are all located in my constituency. Three of those stations are solely served by Southeastern, with the benefits of nationalisation beginning to be seen on the service. For instance, in a new timetable that will take effect next week, the Bexleyheath line will see both additional evening services and increased capacity to Victoria at weekends. I appreciate that more remains to be done, and I will continue to campaign for improvements.

I have a long-standing interest in these matters, having served for four years as a member of the board of London TravelWatch—or, as it is technically known as and referred to in the Bill, the London Transport Users Committee. That experience lives with me, and it is the reason why I support the Bill. On far too many occasions at board meetings, I heard excuses from train operating companies and Network Rail blaming each other for issues relating to punctuality. That led to the lunacy of hundreds of staff being employed to establish who should cover the cost of delays.

Earlier this year, we saw the Southeastern and Network Rail Kent route unite under a single leadership team to form South Eastern Railway. The partnership is delivering improvements, with increased customer satisfaction and reduced cancellations. Initiatives include shared planning, daytime track access without service disruption, and trials of drone and AI technology.

I welcome the measures included in the Bill to help ensure that the railway is made more accessible for all. Hon. Members will have heard my tales of my experience using public transport as the parent of a wheelchair user and my requests for the introduction of a National Rail accessibility app. I am therefore delighted that the Secretary of State has named accessibility as one of the six key objectives for the railway.

Having one national operator, rather than competing operators, will improve the assistance offered and the simplification of ticketing for disabled passengers. Importantly, paragraph 49 in schedule 3 to the Bill will amend the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that the public sector equality duty applies to GBR. I welcome the Government’s road map to an accessible railway based around seven priority themes.

Finally, I welcome the establishment of an expanded passenger watchdog, having served on the board of London TravelWatch and having worked alongside Transport Focus on some aspects of joint working during that time. Those changes in London to the London Transport Users Committee include the expansion of the current role for my constituents, which will see a

“particular regard to the interests and needs”

of disabled people.

For the reasons I have outlined, I look forward to voting against the amendment this evening and voting in favour of the Bill on Second Reading.

Grove Park Railway Station

Daniel Francis Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. I am just about to go into the additional accessibility options for Grove Park and many other stations. This is an issue that we need to keep raising, because we need improvements for our constituents.

Grove Park station needs additional accessibility options. It has three steep ramps to each set of platforms, which makes access difficult for people with a mobility impairment, such as those in a mobility chair or using an aid to walk with. It is also challenging for parents who have pushchairs and small children to navigate the ramps. There is a separate bridge connecting the platforms, but it is not served by lifts, and there is also only one set of toilets. Imagine a parent who has a child who needs to go to the toilet, and who happens to be on the wrong platform. They have to go up and down a ramp to get to the toilet, and then make the long journey back. I think we can all agree—Members and constituents—that further options need to be considered in a wider consultation.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Like Hither Green, Grove Park is a station that my constituents in Crayford need to change at to reach Bromley North, so they would welcome improvements. Will she join me in calling for a national rail accessibility app that people could use when planning their journey? It would show which stations were accessible, where lifts were working, and where there were accessible toilets.

[Janet Daby]

My hon. Friend makes a strong campaign argument for ensuring that stations are accessible to all.

Much of Grove Park is made of corrugated metal, which leaks and is cold. When it rains, the waiting room is often flooded because of the leaky roof; things are even more difficult for my constituents when the door is locked. As I have said, I know that change can happen. We have campaigned for years and years for improvements at Grove Park station, and I know that campaigning works, because earlier this year, work began on upgrading Hither Green station, which is also in my constituency. It is exciting to watch the upgrade, which includes a new footbridge connecting all six platforms, new lifts, new closed circuit television and public address systems and a host of other improvements. This is a great scheme that construction workers and railway station staff are rightly proud of. More importantly, my constituents—and me, as I use both Hither Green and Grove Park stations—will benefit from this work. I am looking forward to benefiting from the improvements that will hopefully come about at Grove Park.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for improved rail services for all in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. He makes an incredibly important point: if more people can access our railways and thereby the opportunities that access provides them—social lives, employment and the ability to give back to their local communities—good will create good. Improving accessibility for all is a virtuous circle.

In 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations across Britain to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received from train operators, strategic transport bodies and Transport for London stations. This did not include a nomination for Grove Park station. I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration with the process that we inherited from the previous Government. The current limitations of the station and the benefits that step-free access would bring, which she set out clearly today, are exactly the sort of factors that I would expect to inform bids for future rounds of funding. When assessing potential projects, we look closely at station footfall, weighted by incidence of disability in the area, industry priorities, and the availability of third-party funding. Local factors—for example, proximity to hospitals or especially high numbers of interchange passengers—are also taken into consideration. I know that these factors are very important to my hon. Friend’s case as to why Grove Park station needs extra support.

I would like to highlight the significant investment we are putting in to make rail more accessible within my hon. Friend’s constituency to show where we are making progress. As she knows, significant upgrades to the nearby Hither Green station, which she has also campaigned on in her work to improve rail in her local area, are well into delivery and are progressing well. Those upgrades are due to come into passenger use in 2027, at which point Hither Green will provide a fully accessible rail hub for her constituents and the wider south-east London community.

I turn to other issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted in relation to Grove Park station. I reassure her that my Department takes the safety and security of passengers and rail staff incredibly seriously. British Transport police, which is responsible for policing the railway, works closely with train operating companies including Southeastern to create a safer network. I am pleased to say that Grove Park will benefit from an LED lighting update to the overbridge and platforms. The upgrade will improve lighting levels, security perception and CCTV-recorded images.

We have recently announced £17 million of funding to improve British Transport police’s access to railway CCTV. The Department expects that train operating companies will implement crime prevention methods where required, including by improving lighting and CCTV where necessary. The BTP’s designing out crime unit provides advice on crime prevention, including the type of CCTV technology to use and suitable placement at stations. I therefore reassure my hon. Friend that the safety and security of those who use our railways is a core priority for the Government.

Shelters and seating at train stations play a vital role in ensuring the comfort and wellbeing of passengers. The Department for Transport expects train operating companies to manage station amenities to ensure that they are safe, clean and fit for purpose. We monitor those standards through the service quality regime, which includes regular inspections of the condition and availability of assets such as seating and shelters to ensure compliance and to identify areas for improvement.

Southeastern is driving forward a multimillion pound station improvement programme, which has delivered benefits to over 100 stations since March 2024. This ambitious initiative includes deep cleaning, repairs, and enhancements that will refresh and modernise station amenities across the network. I am pleased to say that Southeastern has recently completed a deep clean at Grove Park, helping to improve the overall customer experience, but I am aware from my hon. Friend’s comments that there is much further to go.

[Daniel Francis]

Southeastern serves the stations in my constituency, like those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, and those enhancements include a number of Changing Places toilets for people with disabilities who require them. I therefore reaffirm the point I made to my hon. Friend. The Changing Places consortium has a map that shows its toilets around the country, and Transport for London has an accessibility app that shows where lifts are working and which stations are accessible. Can the Minister look at how we can bring those two together in the Railways Bill so that stations can be truly accessible, with real-time information for passengers?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituents about improving accessibility for all in his constituency. Through the Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways and the passenger watchdog, rail provision will need to have due regard to improving accessibility. Through the accessibility road map, the Government are also setting out the actions we are taking in the round to deliver a more accessible railway in the run-up to GBR becoming a reality. They will include a range of actions that I hope my hon. Friend will find productive, which will improve the experience of disabled passengers on existing lines, including the assistance they receive, their access to journey information, and improvements to how we maintain lifts, escalators and—as he so importantly mentioned—facilities such as toilets.

Let me close by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East and congratulating her on securing this important debate and on her tireless representation of her constituents’ needs. Upgrading Grove Park station is not just about infrastructure; it is about fairness, dignity and ensuring that every individual in Lewisham East can travel safely, independently and confidently. The concerns raised tonight of accessibility, safety, lighting, toilets, CCTV, seating and platform shelters are all fundamental to a modern and inclusive railway. This Government remain committed to improving accessibility across the network, supported by major investments in crime prevention, infrastructure upgrades and industry reform through the creation of Great British Railways. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue working with Southeastern, Network Rail, Transport for London and the British Transport police to ensure that Grove Park station is equipped to serve its community now and for many years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

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.