Labour Party MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
319
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Bexleyheath and Crayford | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
No entries in the current register. Parliament's register page
<Question HRSContentId="{148FCBF7-D2D8-402F-B45B-856A8960A537}">9. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{F70214CD-4864-4A52-9FE2-858088A3222F}">What fiscal steps he has taken in the autumn Budget 2026 to help support small businesses in the Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency. </QuestionText></Question>
I welcome the fact that a significant number of independent high street businesses across Bexleyheath and Crayford will be released from having to pay business rates from next April as a result of those decisions. One of those businesses is the Bird & Barrel micropub in Barnehurst, which also runs the hugely popular Bexley Brewery in Slade Green. Will the Minister outline the additional support that will be given to small alcohol producers and brewers as a result of the decisions in the Budget?
Similarly, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, and clearly the Bill covers some aspects of that work.
Shortly after the election, the Government set up the aviation accessibility task and finish group. Clearly, a lot of work in the Bill builds on that. Disabled passenger groups want to see those measures introduced, so can the Minister confirm that clause 2 will require a consultation to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill being passed, and that he will then publish the outcome of that consultation so that we can continue to build on the work of the task and finish group?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Shortly after my election the year before last, I was delighted to introduce my private Member’s Bill, the Aviation (Accessibility) Bill, and I welcome the fact that this Bill—and, in particular, the clauses that we have been debating—encompasses a number of its measures. Accessibility in air travel is not just a matter of convenience; it is a matter of rights, dignity and equality. It is about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their mobility or physical condition, can enjoy the freedom to travel. I pay tribute to my fellow chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, Baroness Grey-Thompson, for the work that she has done on the Bill in the Lords, and for her work as chair of the aviation accessibility task and finish group, which this Government set up shortly after our election to ensure that the work on these safeguards started, and which reported back last year. As Members know, as well as being chair of the APPG I am the parent of a wheelchair user, so I live and see that lived experience on a daily basis. If you will allow me, Mr Turner, I want to place on the record my thanks to Sophie Morgan, Christopher Wood, who is with us in the Gallery, and their colleagues at the Rights On Flights campaign for their work to raise awareness of the issues that have led us to this place. The clauses that we have already discussed will require Ministers to give due regard to strengthening passenger rights, but clause 4 will, vitally, remove the compensation limit for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices. At present, the limit can be around £1,500, and someone can be required to battle for several months through the courts, with no real understanding of their legal rights. Many wheelchairs—even my 13-year-old’s—are <span id="30" class="column-number" data-column-number="30"></span>worth more than £1,500 and, as I have said to the Minister, I am aware of a Member in the other place whose wheelchair is worth six times the current limit, so there really is a need to remove it. As well as causing complexity, the current arrangements do put people off flying. Unlike the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, my daughter has not flown for 12 years, because I dread the thought of going through the process, quite frankly. Strengthening these rights will not only help people during their journeys, but encourage people to undertake them again. I welcome the measures on compensation rights for lost, damaged or destroyed wheelchairs or mobility aids. Currently, airlines are not required to cover the full cost of repairs, and the limit for international flights will continue to be set in the Montreal convention; the limit in the Bill will be only for internal flights. There remains work to be done with regard to the Montreal and Warsaw conventions. Those longer flights fall outside the Bill, and there will continue to be some pressures for passengers travelling on them. The Minister knows I will continue to press the Government on working with international partners to press for compensation. We cannot, of course, encompass that in the Bill, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what we can do on that matter. The CAA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety in the UK, but it has been inhibited by not having the power to take proper action against airlines. Taking businesses to court has been a lengthy process, so I strongly welcome the measures in clause 4. I concur with the Minister on new clause 13 from the Liberal Democrats. We have themes 3 and 4 of the report from the aviation task and finish group on mobility aids design and handling. We continue, through consultation and the Bill, to look at how those could be incorporated. I will not name airlines, but there are good examples of airlines that are following that guidance and that are ahead of the curve. Of course, there are also airlines that frankly need to step up to the plate. New clause 13 is well intentioned, but there is good practice out there. There is work stemming from theme 4 in the report submitted by the task and finish group. As the Minister said, there will be the consultation, as we saw in clause 2.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There are themes within the aviation task and finish group report on that matter. Training is in theme 1, and passenger information is in theme 2. So there are recommendations there. There will be the <span id="31" class="column-number" data-column-number="31"></span>consultation. We need to look at the good examples—as I said, I will not mention individual airlines, but I will tell the Minister later. We can feed that in and look at it. However, as the hon. Gentleman referred to, there is also complexity. Under the current arrangements, we would end up with that passport being used for internal flights and for flights leaving the United Kingdom, but it would not apply to people returning on a flight from overseas to the United Kingdom. As a user, I think that that would cause some confusion. As a London MP, I know my rights on a Transport for London bus, and I quote the big red book to bus drivers if they are not upholding the rights of a wheelchair user. I know my rights on the railway. I think it would be hugely confusing to have one set of rights for a flight leaving the UK and not the same set of rights for returning.
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. It is the same as the issues within the Montreal convention. We cannot put those or the issues with IATA in the Bill. We need to leave it to Government and Ministers to consult and work to strengthen those rights. That is why I would not support them being in the Bill. I support the measures in clause 4, but I ask Ministers to go away, look at the Montreal convention, have conversations with IATA and continue to strengthen rights in this area.
Over the past year, I have also had countless constituents contact me about the adequacy of postal delivery services across Bexleyheath and Crayford. Along with colleagues, I met the chief executive of Ofcom yesterday to look at what more it can do, but will the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the adequacy of services across Bexleyheath and Crayford and set out what more the Government can do to help my constituents?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I have listened to the debate, and I think Opposition Members have amnesia over some things that have happened over <span id="605" class="column-number" data-column-number="605"></span>the years. The A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme) Order 2013 and the Silvertown Tunnel Order 2018 are measures that directly impact my constituents every single day, and they happened under their watch. Conservative MPs in my part of south-east London go around campaigning, saying, “How dare you increase the Silvertown charges this year?” But it was their legislation that insisted that that happened; they really do forget what happened under their watch. I should have started by declaring that I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for better roads and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. I also drive a Motability vehicle on behalf of my daughter, as I will refer to later. My constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford sits less than 3 miles from the Dartford Crossing, and for businesses—particularly industrial businesses—in Crayford and Slade Green, it is an essential link. A number of those businesses are located around Thames Road in Crayford. Over 20 years ago, as Bexley’s then cabinet member for transport, I worked to ensure that funding was forthcoming from the then Labour Government and Transport for London to upgrade Thames Road in Crayford to a dual carriageway. Unfortunately, one part of the scheme was never completed, which leaves a pinch point at the Cray Mill railway bridge on Thames Road that carries the North Kent railway line. The road is constricted due to that single carriageway to pass through the bridge arches, and that pinch point can cause long queuing during busy periods. I will continue to raise that matter with both my local authority and the Government. Similarly, a couple of miles down the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) at the Littlebrook interchange, there are further delays for my constituents as vehicles approach the Dartford tunnel to travel north across the Thames. Those issues are resolvable through engineering, but the congestion at Dartford each day is a lot harder to resolve. The delivery of the lower Thames crossing will reduce the number of vehicles—particularly lorries that have crossed the channel and need to cross the Thames—and will therefore relieve that congestion. I warmly welcome that the lower Thames crossing will double road capacity east of Crayford. For my businesses, the lower Thames crossing will deliver reduced costs and opportunities to grow. I am amazed that later today the Conservatives will vote on a reasoned amendment calling for the Bill not to progress, as that would leave the scheme without a funding mechanism. This afternoon, the Conservatives will actively try to stop a Bill that supports growth and investment for businesses in my constituency and across south-east London and the Thames estuary. I say to Conservative Members that if they have concerns, the time to try amendments is in Bill Committee and on Report, rather than trying to kill the Bill in its entirety this afternoon. As the Bill progresses, issues will need to be looked at. I know that my constituents and businesses would want us to look at mechanisms in clauses 7, 8, 24, 25 and 26 to ensure consistent tolling arrangements between the lower Thames crossing and those existing ones at the Dartford crossing. In particular—I am afraid this is a <span id="606" class="column-number" data-column-number="606"></span>mouthful—schedule 3 to the A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme) Order 2013, which was passed under the previous Government, outlines that a vehicle exempt from vehicle excise duty due to carrying disabled people does not pay the toll. That normally relates to Motability vehicles. I am clear that we need to ensure consistency in the legislation for both the Dartford and lower Thames crossings for Motability users. We also need to look into the detail of clauses 33, 87 and 92 as the Bill progresses in order to protect consistency and the current tolling arrangements. Clauses 87 and 92 allow arrangements that would see the removal of toll booths at other toll roads and crossings, such as the M6 toll or the Mersey tunnel. I warmly welcome that, as it would relieve congestion. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, these removals are happening more and more in France. I had a moment of panic this year, when I was on a toll road without a toll booth, and I realised I had not paid. That is happening more and more, and there are lessons that we need to learn from our French counterparts on this matter. Relieving congestion is of real benefit to business. The Bill is not all we need, but it can be a catalyst for beginning to look at the interoperability of toll systems. Currently, a business in Crayford that wants to cross at Dartford, then use the M6 toll and then maybe use another toll somewhere else, will have to set up several accounts across different toll roads. We have to look at the cost for businesses, including the amount of work in their internal accounting systems. We must look at the interoperability arrangements, both for businesses and for disabled people. At the moment, people need a separate Motability account on every single toll road. Dartford and Silvertown are free, but people have to register at Silvertown and do not have to register at Dartford. For the M6 toll and the Mersey tunnel, people have to register and pay an annual charge. It is hugely confusing for disabled people that different arrangements exist at each toll road. I warmly encourage the Government to work on interoperability, both for business and for disabled people. I know that conversations are already being had between the operators of the Dartford crossing and the M6 toll road about interoperability, bringing those systems into one arrangement and encouraging that across all toll systems in the country. I am sure that businesses in Bexleyheath and Crayford would welcome those toll roads and crossings being brought together into one system, as would Motability users. I support the Bill. It will bring benefits for my constituents through the delivery of the lower Thames crossing, and I hope it will start the conversation on interoperability, which will support Motability customers and businesses, reducing complexity for them and helping to encourage growth in our economy. I warmly welcome the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Held . Recorded result: Lab Gain. Majority 2,114. 43,461 votes cast from an electorate of 70,297. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Francis | Labour | 15,717 | 36.2% |
| Mark Brooks | Conservative | 13,603 | 31.3% |
| Tom Bright | Reform UK | 9,861 | 22.7% |
| David McBride | Liberal Democrat | 2,204 | 5.1% |
| George Edgar | Green Party | 2,076 | 4.8% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| Bexleyheath and CrayfordElected 1 time | – present |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill | – present |
| Transport Committee | – present |
| Railways Bill | – |
| Modernisation Committee | – present |
| Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill | – |
| Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill | – |
| Constituency | Date |
|---|---|
| Old Bexley and Sidcup |
Website
X (formerly Twitter)
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .