Timms Review: Interim Report

Debate between Clive Betts and Stephen Timms

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman has set out some trenchant criticisms of the system that his party set up and left behind, and the question in everybody’s mind is: why did the Conservatives not do anything about it? They had 14 years, and they left the problems to which he has referred. He should be apologising to the House for the system that the party he represents left behind. The biggest ever rise in the welfare bill was in their last year in government.

We previously heard that the Conservative party has a plan for £23 billion of welfare cuts, although nobody has any idea at all what those cuts will be. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to that figure in his statement, so I am not quite sure whether the Conservatives now have a plan. He said that the Conservatives will review PIP; I welcome his belated recognition of the value of a review, but I do not know whether that means that they do not have a plan any more, or that they are throwing away the plan until they have carried out their review.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly expressed concern about the rising costs of the system—the public are rightly concerned about that—and particularly about the steep increase in the number of young people who are claiming, but we have set up work to address that problem. His party abandoned the growing number of young people applying for benefits; we will not do so. We are changing the question that the system is asking, and we are providing employment support and the youth guarantee to give young people the chance of a decent future.

The hon. Gentleman complained about the small number of face-to-face assessments, but that is what was left behind by the previous Government. Understandably, the system moved away from face-to-face assessments during the pandemic, but they were never brought back; that is the problem. We are increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments, which is an important and positive step. When we were upstairs debating a measure to facilitate greater face-to-face assessment, another shadow Minister said that it was a “nice to have”, rather than essential. We think that face-to-face assessments are key to rebuilding trust in the system, and that is why we are making the changes we are.

The system that the Conservatives left behind did not work for disabled people, and did not work for taxpayers. This review will bring forward proposals to fix the problems that they created.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that—as I have explained to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will have to leave straight after my question to chair Westminster Hall.

I thank my right hon. Friend for doing this very challenging piece of work. I think that the theme of fairness, for the people who need benefits and for taxpayers, is right. I have spoken to him briefly about the complaints from the Link Community Hub in Stradbroke in my constituency about the fact that people there with mental health conditions who are claiming PIP have drug abuse and alcohol abuse conditions, and are using PIP to fund those conditions. I have also complained about the young lads in their 20s driving around in Motability cars in Darnall; someone in the community has been paid to fill in the forms for them. On the other hand, so many constituents with really serious conditions get turned down for PIP, and can get it only if they struggle through the appeal system, sometimes without any help at all. So the system is not fair to anyone at present. I commend him for his suggestions, but is he going to have a real look at the different reasons people give for applying for PIP, and at how to respond to them properly?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think we have an appointment in the diary to talk about the issues that he has raised about his constituency, and his constituent who has drawn his attention to them. My hon. Friend is right that, at present, the system does not work properly for disabled people, and it does not give taxpayers confidence that the funding is being well used. We are determined to turn things around and to be fair to both, and I am grateful for his support for the efforts we are making.

Private Rented Sector

Debate between Clive Betts and Stephen Timms

Thursday 29th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Betts]

I hope that the Minister will come back on that, because we made a clear recommendation, and it would be helpful to have her response to it. The two things go together. Our report called not for the abolition of section 21, but merely for it to be looked at again. The same is true of retaliatory evictions. The Government are looking at one thing, so will they indicate that they might be prepared to look at the other as well, as part of a joint review?

We also called for a specialist housing court. We are pleased that the Government have now announced a call for evidence on the setting up of such a court. Will the Minister explain what will be covered and the likely terms of a housing court’s jurisdiction? Will it cover section 21 notices or retaliatory eviction? Will it cover tenancy fees, which we have recently had legislation on? Will it cover the issues arising from the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)? Will it go so far as to look at the whole matter of leasehold, which we are discussing in another inquiry? Will the Minister explain precisely what it will cover, or whether the Government have ruled on what it will not cover? It would be helpful to have such information.

The first of two other issues we asked to be looked at was that of five-year electrical safety checks. We are pleased that the Government have announced support for that in principle, but when will we get a clear announcement and action on it? In terms of having carbon monoxide alarms not only in every room with a coal fire but every room with a gas fire, I understand that a working group inside the Department is looking at that. Where has that got to? Every day of delay might lead people to lose their life because of carbon monoxide poisoning, which is easy to stop with a very simple measure. Will the Minister give us information about that as well?

We looked at enforcement and local authority powers. That is clearly important, and we questioned the housing health and safety rating system, as we have done before.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

On enforcement, the report makes the point that half of the prosecutions in the country happen in my borough, Newham. In the Committee’s view, what problems are there with the enforcement arrangements that seemingly make it so difficult for the vast majority of local authorities to carry out such prosecutions?

[Mr Betts]

My right hon. Friend raises a good point. Newham is a trailblazer—I think 50% of the prosecutions in the country happen there. We looked at two main issues in the report: the first is resources. I am sure it is not true that Newham has too much money and does not know how to spend it on other things; I am sure it has many challenges. The second is political will: is there the political will in the council to address these issues? Clearly there was, and still is, in Newham, but in more than half the councils in the country there are no prosecutions at all.

Councils will say, “We adopt a softly, softly approach and try to persuade.” Often that goes on with landlords who are in the inefficient and incompetent but reasonable category. Officers say to them, “You need to put this right,” and they do, but it does not work with the rogues and the criminals. Tougher action is needed. At the end of the day, it is about political will. Clearly, resources are under pressure; there is pressure on care services—the Committee will look at children’s services shortly—and that does mean there is less money for important things such as private sector housing enforcement.

We looked at how easy the powers were to use. I said that the rating system is complicated. Is there a case for bringing in a simpler minimum standard? By and large, the professional officers do not want to change. Landlords and tenants gave evidence that, although the rating system may be understood by most professionals working in the service, it is understood by very few landlords and virtually no tenants. Is a system that is so complicated that no one outside the professional sphere understands it fit for purpose? The Government have done some events, where they have talked to professional officers. There is a division of opinion among them—perhaps the majority still want to keep the rating system—but at least the Government have now acknowledged that there is general support for updating the system, in terms of both the evidence base and the guidance, which is very out of date. Will the Minister tell us how far we have got with that?

One of the landlords organisations that gave evidence told us that private sector housing legislation was based on 150 different pieces of legislation. Everything the Government do—however worthwhile—is built on top of this higgledy-piggledy structure, with no real coherence. Will the Government ask the Law Commission to do an overall review? We made that recommendation in our 2013-14 report. At some point, someone must do a comprehensive review, not necessarily to change the intention of the legislation, but to pull it together as a coherent whole. The Government responded that they will have discussions with the Law Commission. Will the Minister tell us where those discussions have got to?

We raised the issue of fees and penalty notices. The Government say they are at an appropriate level, but the Committee wants them to be raised because, for some of the really bad landlords, the fines levied are a business cost that they write off against the business. Courts should give back the cost to local authorities who take a case. Local authorities’ resources are under pressure; if authorities spend a lot of money prosecuting a landlord and they get the prosecution, the court does not give them back the cost involved. That can be really discouraging. Has the Minister had discussions with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on that recommendation?

We recommend the creation of a benchmark system, whereby the different approaches of local authorities could be compared, including the number of prosecutions they take out. We asked the Government to work with the Local Government Association on that. They said they would have talks with the LGA. How far have those talks gone?

The Committee supported the Government’s decision to bring in banning orders. The Guardian and ITV News have publicised the fact that the banning orders are not public. That is not to say that that will not happen, but under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 they are available only to local authorities to tackle problems in the private rented sector. They cannot be made public as the legislation stands. The Prime Minister has committed to change that, but I understand that that needs primary legislation. Will the Minister say whether the Government intend to bring in primary legislation to do that?

Although a local authority may know that someone is banned in another local authority area, knowing whether a landlord is operating in an area and the properties they have is very difficult, because of the lack of information. To make public that a landlord has been banned would cause other people to come forward and say, “That landlord is banned, but he is renting a property down our road.” It would be very helpful if that could be done.

I went to a meeting of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in Leeds to talk about our report and the general support for it. Interestingly, Mark Baxter, an environmental officer in Scarborough Borough Council said, “If the Government change legislation, could they go further and insist that when a landlord is banned in court, they have to give the court, for the public record, a list of all the properties they own, manage or have an interest in?” That is an incredibly simple but effective way forward. Once publicity shines a spotlight on these bad landlords, they should be made to help by giving that information, and it should be an offence not to give all the information at that stage. That would be very helpful to get a proper grip on this issue.