What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The UK supports the EU’s efforts to promote sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour within global value chains. We will continue to review the impact of measures taken by the EU and other countries, including, as my hon. Friend suggested, to see what lessons can be drawn from other jurisdictions to inform the UK’s approach.
I am very pleased with the economic deal with the United States that this Government have delivered and with the advantages that it brings, particularly for our automotive sector, including the jobs saved at Jaguar Land Rover. It is perfectly possible, as the Government are demonstrating, to sign free trade and economic deals around the world while having a close relationship with the EU.
I certainly can. Negotiations have been proceeding very well. I look forward to making the case for those opportunities to work, travel and study for young people—I think it is very exciting.
I am very proud of the Government’s work over the past two years. I do not think there is any doubt at all that the UK-EU relationship is in a significantly better place today than when we came into office. I look forward to making the case for a deal that will be good for jobs and for securing our borders.
We have re-accession to Erasmus+ from next year at a cost of £570 million, after I negotiated a 30% discount. After 10 months, there is a review clause so that we can balance participation versus cost. I have looked after every penny in this negotiation, and I have not signed up to things that do not deliver value for money. I am quite happy to explain it to the shadow Minister, rather than him just reading about it in the newspapers.
Because it has a 10-month review clause to ensure that it is delivering value for money. Under Erasmus+, there are still opportunities to go around the world. I say quite candidly to the hon. Gentleman that he should look very carefully at all the different opportunities under Erasmus+. It is not just about traditional studies. People studying vocational qualifications go overseas as well, such as those studying sport coaching. There is a range of opportunities that are not available under Turing. If the Conservatives are seriously now setting their face against these opportunities for young people, best of luck to them.
We have been building a growth and defence partnership, and we do not have to move the red lines to do it; it is what I have been doing every single week with the democratic mandate we have from 2024. The hon. Lady makes the argument for a customs union. This Government have managed to secure free trade deals with India and the Gulf Co-operation Council and an economic deal with the United States. Perhaps she might want to send her message to workers at Jaguar Land Rover, whose jobs have relied on the Government’s trade negotiation.
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for her constituency and for this particular cause. What she has said today has been heard very clearly.
My hon. Friend knows the value of UK-EU ties from the language schools in his constituency. I am proud to have delivered the new security and defence partnership and the re-accession to Erasmus+. We are working on a summit that will be good for jobs, bear down on bills and secure our borders.
There are a number of areas where additional work with the European Union will be in our national interest. One of the great advantages of having annual UK-EU summits is that precisely those issues can be brought up.
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that. I think we all know the value of public inquiries and the moment of public justice that they give. What we need to be very careful about is, first, how much they cost and, secondly, the time they take, so that when recommendations do come, they are timely.
Yes, I have. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to work on it with our colleagues, and it remains a priority for the Government.
There is awful news from Venezuela this morning after an earthquake there. Has the Minister had the opportunity to speak to her Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office ministerial counterpart about support for that country at this difficult time?
I, too, hope that digital ID will help improve the delivery of public services outcomes. Can the Minister please say what steps the Government are taking to work with the Welsh Government on this important policy development?
I thank the Minister for his statement on this terrible conflict. Will he tell us more about the impact of this tragedy on countries that neighbour Sudan? How can we help them?
I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting our veterans and delivering fairness for them. Can we please have a statement from the Veterans Minister on reducing processing times for war pension scheme claims? My constituent Denzil Hancock, an 88-year-old nuclear test veteran, continues to await a decision.
My constituency has many steel fabrication businesses, some of which I visited recently. Will the Minister please outline how he listened to such businesses and their concerns before this announcement?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate and on her poignant speech, and I thank other Members for their brilliant speeches on this important topic. It is an issue that Members across the House have deep and personal feelings about. Windrush Day means so much to so many across the country, including many in my constituency of Barking in east London. I am grateful for those contributions today, because they speak to the independent and personal experiences of many of our constituents. There have been a number of excellent speeches, and I will address some of the specific asks. To participate in a debate that has such a powerful and vivid history brought the Windrush story to life. I begin by paying tribute to the Windrush generation and their descendants. Earlier this week we marked the anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury 78 years ago. The people who disembarked in Essex on that June day in 1948 came to the country in a moment of profound need; a country still reeling from the trauma and destruction of the second world war. They helped to rebuild Britain, working in a range of settings, including construction, public transport and manufacturing, as well as our NHS. Even more precious than that generation’s contribution as members of the workforce was the important part they played socially and culturally in this nation. From food to music, literature to art, as Members have already outlined, the Windrush generation changed our society for the better. The Windrush story is indivisible from our national story. Those who came in the middle of the last century, and subsequent generations, are owed our thanks. And yet, the tragic truth is that they have not always had our thanks. In fact, for years many were made to feel that they were imposters in their own country, and were subject to terrible injustices by the very state that had called on them to come here. The Home Office Windrush scandal reminds us of an embarrassment in our country’s history. That is why this Government will strive relentlessly to provide those affected with the support and justice that they deserve. As other Members have reflected, today is primarily a moment of celebration. It is at this point every year that we come together to mark Windrush Day and honour the immense contribution made by the Windrush generation and subsequent generations through a range of events that are taking place across the country. Each one is a unique tribute to the Windrush story and the people who live it. This year alone, the Windrush Day grant scheme has funded 33 projects, bringing communities together right across the country. Hon. Members across the Chamber will have visited the exhibition in Portcullis House. It is very important that we, as legislators, never forget the Windrush generation. I encourage those who have not been to visit the exhibition, which runs until 3 July. Despite adversity, the Windrush generation continue to build, create and contribute so much to British society. The Government are proud to support Windrush Day through the grant scheme and wider engagement across the country. It is a time to commemorate the legacy of the Windrush generation, to pause and reflect, and to give thanks—to ensure that the Windrush generation and their contribution are not forgotten.
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting how important it is that young people in our constituencies have the opportunity to learn about, talk about and celebrate the contribution of the Windrush generation and what they gave this country. It is vital that they are able to articulate that, and I thank the young people in his constituency for doing so. As well as celebrating the contribution of the Windrush generation, it is right that the state recognises the hurt caused by the Home Office Windrush scandal. The Government are committed to ongoing efforts to give those who were affected the support they deserve and the compensation they are owed. Through honest engagement and meaningful reform, the Home Office has worked to make the response to the Windrush scandal fairer, faster and more compassionate. The aim is clear: to right the wrongs as far as we can and deliver the maximum compensation as quickly as possible. More than £128 million has been paid in compensation, and more than 19,000 individuals have been issued with documentation confirming their British citizenship. Although that demonstrates real progress, I recognise that some remain deeply frustrated. I know that no amount of compensation will undo the pain, suffering and loss of many victims who suffered. I have had the honour of meeting many from the Windrush generation, their children and grandchildren, both in my constituency of Barking and Dagenham and across the country. They speak about their experience and of feeling betrayed following the scandal. They know that the impact still lingers. The truth is that we should do everything we can to talk about their experiences so that we can get this compensation scheme to a much better place. Today is an opportunity for me to reiterate the Government’s position: we are determined to ensure that those affected receive the documentation they require and the compensation they deserve. The Government have been clear that community feedback must be at the heart of improving the compensation scheme. I take particular note of the important points made by hon. Members, in particular on the disparity between the compensation secured when individuals apply for compensation alone versus the amount they might secure if they have legal advice. The Home Office will continue to listen and act on these concerns, and I will certainly be making that point in particular. We know that the voices of those affected need to be heard loudly so that their views can shape the Government’s approach, as does the insight and expertise provided by the Rev. Clive Foster, who was appointed by the Government as the first Windrush commissioner a year ago. His role is to provide independent scrutiny and challenge in relation to the Government’s response to Windrush, support cultural change in the Home Office and act as an advocate for those affected by the Home Office Windrush scandal. I note with interest the important points that Members have made about the cultural change still required in the Home Office so that victims are supported in an appropriate away. The re-established Windrush unit is working with the Windrush commissioner and stakeholders to ensure that we take a trauma-informed approach when designing restorative dialogue events, the purpose of which is to listen and acknowledge the harm that occurred and identify the actions that the Department and wider Government must take to rebuild trust and ensure that the lessons learned from the scandal lead to meaningful and lasting change. The Home Office is also completing a review of all 30 recommendations from the Windrush lessons learned review before considering the next steps. I note the call for the compensation scheme to be moved from the Home Office to a different Department. I recognise that is in part because of the frustration with the process and the speed at which victims are able to secure their compensation; however, the Home Office view is that moving the scheme to a different Department may risk a delay in payments altogether. The focus is really on improving the experiences of claimants at this point. This year marks 78 years since the arrival of the Windrush; in two years, it will be the 80th anniversary, which provides an important opportunity for us to mark this national commemoration and recognise the lasting contribution of the Windrush generation and their descendants. I wholeheartedly welcome the calls from Members across the House to ensure that we are ready as a Government and as a country to celebrate the Windrush generation, and steps are already being taken by the Government to secure a steering group to establish what events can take place across the country in order to adequately mark the occasion. I once again thank all Members who have contributed today and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for securing the debate. I have heard all the points made. I will take them to the Home Office and speak to colleagues in my own Department—MHCLG—and across Government. The scrutiny that this kind of debate provides is absolutely critical to ensuring that we get the compensation scheme right. I conclude my remarks with this reflection. As the granddaughter of two people who decided to leave one island to come to another, I know just how important it is that the experiences of those who live in this country are recognised even when they were not good ones—in fact, particularly when they were not good experiences. It allows us to be a better society and to recognise that the rich and diverse communities we live in have been built on the back of their experiences. As we celebrate the contribution of the Windrush generation, we also redouble our efforts to right the wrongs of the past. We do so for all those in the Windrush generation, because they deserve it, and it is the very least that we can do.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. As many people will have already heard, East Thanet is surrounded on three sides by sea. From Ramsgate, we can see France on a clear day, but our port stands idle and neglected, despite its noble history as the home of the Navy during the Napoleonic wars. More recently, people will remember the hovercraft and the Sally Line ferries taking them to France for day trips. That is emblematic of some of the problems that we have with our ports in our island nation. Ports connect us and defend us; they are places where we trade, where we welcome visitors and where we choose who stays. Our nation’s wealth has been built on ports as gateways to the world. We are the country that we are as a result of our ports and the people who built and worked in them. Yet for too long, we have overlooked them and the communities that sustained them, even as they remain vital to our economy. Many regional ports, including Ramsgate, operate well below capacity. If we are serious about levelling up and ensuring that the whole nation benefits from growth, we must look to how we bring trade and investment to ports that have been left behind. In Ramsgate, Vattenfall employs 300 people to operate and maintain the wind farm, and there are plans for a green skills hub. Opportunities are there to be developed, yet the port is effectively shut, even though Ostend wants it to open for trade; Dover is already at capacity and would benefit from the growth of Ramsgate; and the lower Thames crossing, which the Government are fully committed to, will enable traffic and freight to move from my part of south-east England to the rest of the country. We need to restore our connection to Europe for both trade and passengers, creating jobs and increasing our connections to the world. Overall, we need to be honest about what kind of impact Brexit has had on the ports in our country. In 2023, UK port traffic had decreased by nearly 13% compared with 2019. However, the EU still remains a significant partner, accounting for 48% of our goods exports and 54% of our imports in 2024. There are opportunities there to strengthen our relationship with Europe through investment in our ports. Ports are not only about freight; they connect us to our neighbours and support a thriving visitor economy. Some 18.1 million international passengers pass through UK ports every year—around 5,000 people daily. Cruise tourism alone injects £170 million directly into coastal communities, with Southampton’s cruise economy supporting £1 billion in wider economic impact. I want to recognise three things that this Government have done to support our ports. First, they have brought forward a consultation on a revised national policy statement for ports, recognising that the planning framework needs to support future port development better. Secondly, they have used the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to back industrial and energy investment that depends on port infrastructure. Thirdly, they have begun to recognise more clearly that ports will be central to cleaner shipping and freight and the energy transition. Part of that is to do with the excellent work of this Minister and the Minister for Industry. However, there are limits to the effectiveness of those measures. Investment is still at risk of being concentrated in the largest schemes and strongest ports, leaving many coastal communities without access to green economy benefits. The National Wealth Fund is capped, and the scale of need across our port infrastructure is much greater. Ramsgate needs only £20 million to be able to reopen with the support of private investors, yet the National Wealth Fund will not look at a project with a value of less than £50 million. The Government still need to do more to link their port strategy to the overall coastal economic regeneration strategy so that the benefits are felt not only in national growth figures, but in the communities that keep our ports going. I have suggestions for three further steps that the Government could take without additional spending. First, part of that coastal economic strategy should require a coastal economic area to be established within 5 km of the coast everywhere across the country. That way we could strategically invest in those coastal communities according to the industrial strategy. Regardless of everything else that they have, they have one thing in common: they are near the sea. Therefore we can see exactly how helpful and useful those ports are in terms of international and national infrastructure. Secondly, we should mandate a capacity audit of all UK ports. We need to have transparent, published data about which ports are operating at full capacity and which are underused. Only then can we start to allocate resources and planning permissions strategically. Finally, we need to review the allocation of the National Wealth Fund and require the industrial strategy to include a ports chapter. Critical minerals, green energy and defence supply chains all depend on ports. The Government need to be explicit about how ports fit into each sectoral strategy, ensuring that investment decisions are properly joined up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) pointed out, we need to streamline planning and regulatory processes for port development. Delays and inconsistency in the planning system hold back investment. A dedicated fast track for port infrastructure within existing frameworks would accelerate delivery. Ramsgate is actually owned by Thanet district council. It is publicly owned and there is a strong case for the public ownership of nationally significant infrastructure, such as ports, especially for an island nation. Yet, because of the way that we invest in our ports, it is struggling to make the most of its growth potential. Ports are not relics of our past; they are a foundation for our future. For too long, we have taken them for granted. I urge the Government to give ports the strategic attention that they deserve—not just with warm words, but with action that reaches every port community in this country, including and especially Ramsgate.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in response to violence and disorder last year in Broadstairs, I have worked with Kent police, Southeastern railways, local councils and the British Transport police to establish better ways of tackling the problem of antisocial behaviour, yet still it returns—this time in Margate, as well as in Broadstairs, this week. I welcomed the extra resources allocated by this Government to seaside towns last year, which definitely helped. Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Home Secretary my constituents’ concerns that we need to continue to resource our coastal communities—in particular, mine in East Thanet, but also his in Tynemouth—to meet needs that arise as a result of the influx of visitors, and to tackle the wilful misbehaviour of a determined few?
8. What steps he has taken to support the relocation of civil service roles.
The Minister will know, because she represents a constituency not dissimilar from Carlisle, that our post-industrial towns and cities have ageing populations. In Carlisle, only 7% of the population is aged between 18 to 24, and the next smallest group is those aged 25 to 34. Will the Minister ensure that future civil service relocations give particular consideration to smaller cities and towns with ageing populations, so that we retain our young people, attract working-age populations, and support the long-term prosperity of those communities?
Further to the Minister’s answer, my constituents, who live along the English-Scottish border, already experience issues when it comes to accessing cross-border healthcare. I recently expressed concern that the single patient record will not go across the border. May I press the Minister to ensure that lessons are being learned, and that we have cross-border operability, when it comes to digital ID?
I am delighted that Cumberland council is to partner with Carlisle College and the Story construction group to renovate the old keeper’s lodge in Bitts Park in my constituency. The college’s construction students will gain invaluable experience of working on a live construction site, there will be no cost to the council, and a much-loved building will be brought back into public use. Does the Leader of the House agree that this partnership model could be adopted elsewhere to bring back other much-loved buildings, and will he join me in thanking council officer Stephen Dunn, whose brainchild this project was?
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for introducing the debate so well. It is always a pleasure in this place when I discover that I have something in common with Members from across the House. In recent months, the hon. Lady and I have discovered that we share an interest and passion for Jane Austen and hard agree that the BBC 1995 production of “Persuasion” is by far the superior, but more importantly, that we share an interest and desire to improve the diagnosis, understanding and clinical treatment of people of all ages who are living with PANS/PANDAS. I first became aware of PANS/PANDAS when my constituent Joanne came to see me about her son Jake shortly after my election. Jake has lived with PANS/PANDAS for more than six years. For a period of time, treatment was effective, and NHS continuing healthcare funding enabled Jake to access the care of a specialist immunologist. However, despite the progress that had been made, the family have since faced repeated challenges in securing the treatment and funding, resulting in uncertainty, stress and significant personal expense. I therefore appeal to North East and North Cumbria integrated care board to please help urgently resolve these issues, and I have an outstanding query with the ICB on exactly this point. Joanne has worked tirelessly to advocate for her son, yet she continues to encounter delays, poor communication, a lack of clarity, and uncertainty about funding—a story all too typical of families trying to support a family member living with PANS/PANDAS. While this case is deeply personal, it also highlights the wider challenges faced by these families. Too often, parents like Joanne find themselves navigating complex systems, spending years seeking access to appropriate care and treatment, all while battling for recognition of their child’s condition. It was thanks to Joanne that I had the privilege of meeting members of the PANS PANDAS youth board when they visited Parliament in April. As has been said, they shared their personal stories with me and other parliamentarians. I welcome them again in Parliament today. I welcome the Government’s work with the royal colleges, specialist clinical bodies and PANS PANDAS UK on the development of clinical guidelines. In her remarks, will the Minister indicate when the Government expect to publish the first UK clinical guidelines for PANS and PANDAS? The guidelines should, I hope, result in a clearer and more consistent framework and recording of these conditions. Without an official diagnostic pathway and reliable data collection, it is difficult to understand how many children and young people are affected, the scale of the unmet need, or to ensure that appropriate services are available. Better recognition and data would therefore not only support future research and service planning, but help ensure that families like Jake’s receive timely, co-ordinated and compassionate care.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward today’s debate. I think we can all agree that, although the number of attendees has been small, it has been mighty in terms of the quality of contributions we have heard from hon. Members. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak today on the subject of PANS/PANDAS. As hon. Members have highlighted, these conditions cause significant distress to many children and young people and their families. It is therefore vital that we approach this issue with both scientific care and genuine compassion, recognising and responding to the lived experiences of those affected. We have heard from hon. Members today about some of those experiences, and I thank them all for their contributions. As we have heard, PANS and PANDAS are closely related, but distinct, clinical syndromes in which an infection can trigger acute and often dramatic changes in both physical and mental health—often as quickly as overnight, as we heard from the hon. Member for North East Fife. They are areas of evolving clinical understanding, with diagnosis based on observed signs and symptoms rather than definitive tests. That means that it is typically a diagnosis of exclusion, requiring clinicians to rule out other causes. While this can make diagnosis complex, it underlines the importance of a holistic, joined-up, child-centred approach. Treatment is similarly tailored and delivered through multidisciplinary teams, with psychological therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy commonly used to manage symptoms, along with pharmacological interventions where appropriate. Alongside clinical interventions, supportive care is essential. This includes helping families to understand the condition, supporting school attendance where possible, and ensuring access to appropriate mental health services. Effective care requires co-ordination across services to provide consistent and holistic support. We recognise the challenges that families face—I welcome the families who are in the Gallery today—particularly as these conditions can sit at the intersection of physical and mental health services. Good clinical practice emphasises the importance of a holistic and multidisciplinary approach, including close collaboration with parents, schools and other agencies. However, the absence of definitive biomarkers and fully understood mechanisms has contributed to a variation in how care is delivered. In response, NHS England began working in 2020 with the charity PANS PANDAS UK, which I commend on its work in this area to improve awareness, understanding and care. This led to the establishment of the PANS/PANDAS steering group, which brings together representatives from key royal colleges, specialist clinical bodies and the charity sector. The steering group has since progressed several important initiatives. First, work is under way to develop the first UK clinical guidelines for PANS and PANDAS, led by a multidisciplinary group and supported by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) asked me about timelines for that guidance. I am happy to tell her today that those guidelines are expected to be published in autumn this year, and they will support more consistent care across the system. Until then, clinicians are advised to draw on existing international guidance, including the Nordic clinical guidelines, which were published in 2021. Secondly, a dedicated research group is advancing efforts to strengthen the evidence base, including through a nationwide surveillance study. Thirdly, a cross-sector group is developing practical guidance for local authorities to improve support for children and young people living with PANS and PANDAS. That guidance is due to be published later this year, and it will ensure more consistent access to appropriate educational and social care services. As we have heard today, clear and consistent frameworks are essential to improving co-ordination across services and strengthening recognition of PANS and PANDAS. NHS England’s forthcoming children and young people’s modern service framework will address health system challenges that affect all children and young people, improve access to specialist advice, promote more integrated working across physical and mental health services, and strengthen the strategic commissioning role of integrated care boards. More widely, NHS England is also supporting local systems to implement neighbourhood multidisciplinary teams, bringing together professionals across health and social care and wider services to deliver joined-up, community-based care, ensuring that all children and young people can access co-ordinated support and paediatric expertise closer to home. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), asked me about discussions with the Scottish Government and devolved Administrations. I understand that there have been no direct discussions so far, so I commit that, following this debate, my officials will engage and raise this issue with devolved Government counterparts at the next opportunity. Alongside these developments, there remains a clear need for high-quality research, and this includes improving understanding of the underlying causes of PANS and PANDAS, refining diagnostic criteria and building stronger evidence on the effectiveness of different treatments. The Department supports research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and we welcome applications across all areas of health, including for these conditions. Recent collaborations include the “PANS PANDAS Unveiled” project, which completed an evidence and gap map on the epidemiology, prevalence, treatment and experiences of PANS/PANDAS. In the meantime, integrated care systems are responsible for planning services for their populations and should continue to draw on emerging evidence and guidance to improve care and outcomes.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who I have worked closely with on a number of health matters over a number of years, and he mentions the work that we did together on mesh. I studied my speech after listening to your earlier intervention and the conversation about antibiotics—
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should know better after 21 years in this House; it just goes to show—you can always teach an old dog new tricks. Following the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention on antibiotics, I noticed that there was nothing about that in my speech, so I have come to the conclusion that that will come forward in the guidance later this year. I will be looking for that closely, and I am sure that my officials heard the point mentioned in the debate. As the right hon. Gentleman says, if a simple course of antibiotics is going to make all the difference, we would want to ensure that it is provided. In closing, I want to emphasise that the experiences of children and families affected by PANS/PANDAS are real and significant, and that we are taking action to strengthen the system and deliver meaningful change. Our responsibility is to respond with compassion, to listen carefully, and to ensure that support is accessible, timely and appropriate. By strengthening clinical awareness, improving integration across services and continuing to build the evidence base, we can move towards a system that delivers better recognition, more effective support, and improved outcomes for children and young people, and their families.
Thank you—a batsman needs runs, Mr Speaker. Digital ID will ensure digital access to our public services. In recent weeks, citizens have been debating evidence from independent technical experts, privacy advocates and civil society groups. They have been discussing how we can join up our public services, saving time and money and reducing faff and friction. It will be a free-to-use and a freedom-to-choose proposition from this Government, and the Government are now considering the recommendations I received in person on Sunday in Birmingham from the 120 citizens involved. By taking this independent, people-led approach, we will ensure that digital ID has genuine public consent.
The Government’s preparations for digital ID will ensure that all existing routes for accessing public services will remain in place. The preparation for digital ID, which will make digital access to public services easier, as I described earlier, will be built with the highest trusted status and will be road-tested by the public as we prepare it, design it and then build it. Verification is vital if we are to ensure that the guiding principles of digital ID—being trusted, inclusive and of use from day one—are seen and not just told.
We are working closely with the devolved Governments through bilateral meetings and regular official engagement, and we are thankful to them for their constructive and ongoing engagement. In recent weeks I have had the pleasure of attending our regions’ devolved authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we are sensitive to their expectations and demands on this Government to deliver effective digital access to public services across their Administrations, but I repeat: digital ID will be free to use, and there will be freedom to choose.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is crucial that we learn how well some of the innovations in our health tech have lent themselves to the process of implementing digital access to services. I recommit to learning the lessons, and we are open-minded. In many cases, Scotland is ahead in its thinking and delivery in this area, and I am happy to have further conversations.
I refer to my membership of GMB and Unite. I thank the Minister for his statement. I understand the trade-offs he referred to and the need to take measures to rebalance the sector. He knows, because we have spoken about it a lot, that the steel strategy refers to 50% of future UK-made steel being Welsh steel. Will he say a bit more about that? It is something that my constituents are particularly passionate about.
I congratulate all the campaigners who have brought us to this moment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and the Minister, who has really spearheaded this work in the few months that she has been in the job. She should be really proud of what she has achieved. I have spoken to the Minister about this Bill extensively. As has been said, the community of victims has been waiting eight years for this legislation since it was first promised by a Conservative Government. People do not need fixing; they are not broken. Abuse is not and should never be permissible, so abusive conversion practices should be outlawed, and that really should not be a controversial topic. Will the Minister tell me about the work she will do on this Bill with the devolved Administrations? It covers England and Wales, so we need to look at Scotland and Northern Ireland and consider what best practice they can follow to ensure that there are no victims. As she said, consent to abuse is not a thing and should never be a thing. We should get this law on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) on securing this important debate, and I thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for their contributions. I fully appreciate the concerns my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields raises about houses in multiple occupation, and in particular about their excessive concentration in two parts of her constituency, and the many problems that flow from that, which she described so vividly. HMOs can play an important role in the housing market, providing relatively low-cost accommodation for rent, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. However, it is right that local planning authorities can act, where appropriate, to minimise any negative impacts that such houses may have on local communities. My hon. Friend made a number of points about the interaction between HMOs and the planning system. As she rightly said, larger HMOs always require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. However, nationally permitted development rights allow for existing homes to change use and become a small HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such small HMOs are also able to change back to standard family homes under similar rights. We recognise that the free operation of these nationally permitted development rights is not always suitable for all areas, which is precisely why local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by introducing an article 4 direction, following consultation with the affected local community. As my hon. Friend made clear, South Tyneside council has introduced a borough-wide article 4 direction, which means that all new HMOs in its area will need a planning application, regardless of their size. She has previously drawn attention to the impact of the growth of HMOs in her constituency, and will therefore welcome that change; I know the role that she played in pressing her local authority to make it. All planning permission applications are considered by the local planning authority in question in line with the development plan for the area, and in consultation with the local community. It is therefore key that local planning authorities have relevant and up-to-date policies in place. As my hon. Friend will be aware, South Tyneside council last adopted a local plan back in 2007, which means that the policies in the plan are significantly out of date. It is one of the oldest plans submitted in the legacy planning system. Following the council’s repeated failure to agree to submit its new plan for examination by an independent inspector, I intervened to ensure that the plan progressed to examination. I am pleased to report that the examination hearings have been completed, and we await the inspector’s final report. Following receipt of the inspector’s report, and in line with my intervention direction, the council will need to consider adoption of the plan. Adopting the plan will ensure that the council has up-to-date planning policies in place for South Tyneside, which is hugely important. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework. The consultation included proposals for a more flexible policy on the use of article 4 directions, so that local planning authorities can remove nationally permitted development rights where that is necessary to safeguard the amenity or wellbeing of an area—where, for instance, there is an over-concentration of small HMOs. We are analysing the feedback received on that consultation, and will publish our response in due course. It is essential that HMOs are safe and well managed, which is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. These regulations place duties on managers of HMOs to take safety measures, supply and maintain gas and electricity, and maintain common parts, fixtures and fittings. In addition, all local planning authorities must license HMOs with five or more people from two or more households who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Local authorities also have the power to require HMOs to be licensed where there are three or more people from two or more households sharing facilities. This means in practice that most HMOs can be licensed, where necessary. Local authorities can impose licence conditions to ensure that landlords effectively manage HMOs, and also have the power to inspect properties without notice, where they believe an offence has been committed under HMO legislation. Furthermore, the licence holder must undergo a fit and proper person test to assure a local authority that they can manage the property responsibly, safely and lawfully. I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about the operation of that test and its potential shortcomings, and I am more than happy to sit down with her and work through some of the examples she provided, so that we can learn more about its operation. If a local authority finds that the licence holder is no longer fit and proper—for instance, where they have committed a serious or repeated breach of licence conditions—it can revoke their licence. Local authorities have additional robust powers to tackle landlords who breach HMO regulations. That includes civil penalties of up to £40,000, rent repayment orders.
As I have said, I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to hear their suggestions on where the regulations need to be strengthened. As a Department, our experience has been that, in some areas of the country, the powers are being properly enforced and the regulations are working. I want to understand more, if she is able to provide the evidence.
I will give way in a second, but let me briefly mention resources, which are really important. It is vital that councils have the capacity to take action where needed. That is why we have provided £18.2 million in 2025-26 and £41.1 million for 2026-27 to support the new enforcement responsibilities that local authorities have taken on under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We plan to establish a more sustainable funding system for enforcement in the private rented sector over the longer term based on future database revenue fees, but, again, I want to understand the challenges that particular local authorities are facing in that respect.
Let me just give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields before I come to the hon. Gentleman.
I do not have that information to hand. I am more than happy to follow up in correspondence with my hon. Friend, as I said. I will bring that data, and any further data we have available, to any meeting that we might have on this subject.