Carer’s Allowance: Call for Evidence Responses

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

On 7 July 2026 the Government launched a call for evidence on the modernisation of carer’s allowance. We received more than 3,805 responses, and I want to thank everyone who responded and shared their experiences.

Today we are publishing the findings of those responses which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/carers-allowance-call-for-evidence. Alongside research into the impact of the increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit in April 2025 to match 16 hours at the national living wage which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carers-allowance-increased-earnings-limit-evaluation

The findings are varied, but there is broad consensus around the need to modernise the treatment of earnings and to reduce the risk of overpayments. These findings— alongside those of the Sayce review into overpayments of carer’s allowance linked to earnings—have informed the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget of work to remove the cliff-edge earnings rule in carer’s allowance once the necessary infrastructure is in place. This will include changes to automate earnings data, and to provide greater predictability in how earnings are treated in the calculation of carer’s allowance.

We are providing regular updates to the Work and Pensions and Public Accounts Committees on progress in implementing the Government response to the Sayce review and will keep Parliament informed of progress with these longer-term reforms to adapt carer’s allowance to modern patterns of care and work.

[HCWS429]

Housing Costs: Government Support

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this timely debate just the week before the Budget.

Stable, affordable, good-quality housing is fundamental to individual wellbeing, economic stability and public health. That is why the Government have set out, as Members know, the ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes. We are supporting that with a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable homes. That is the programme that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) referred to. We are also supporting that with our £16 billion national housing bank.

Securing an adequate number of decent affordable homes is our priority. People have wanted to do that for a long time. We are making sure that the investment is going in to deliver those homes. It is true that delivery will not happen overnight, but delivery is going to happen. We inherited a very serious housing crisis, and we acted quickly in response. Policies in place are having an impact already. There are over 400,000 new homes in England since the start of this Parliament, more than a quarter of the target. New build starts in the year to June were up 15% on last year.

We are driving forward big reforms of the planning system. In August, we announced a new planning policy framework with clearer rules-based policies to unlock more homes where they are needed. We are investing in construction skills. My Department spent nearly £38 billion last year supporting renters with housing costs via universal credit and housing benefit. That is an increase of around £3.5 billion over the last decade. No other OECD country spends a greater proportion of its GDP on housing support than we do.

I recognise the picture that hon. Members have set out of the impact of local housing allowance in their local areas. Rental inflation across the country varies according to specific challenges in each area. The local housing allowance determines the maximum financial support for renters in the private rented sector. Households in similar circumstances living in the same area are entitled to the same maximum rent allowance, regardless of the rent that they are required to pay.

Local housing allowance was never intended to cover all rents in all areas. The rates for that are set annually by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Future decisions will be based on the Government’s priorities, and those are the priorities that the Chancellor will have in mind as he makes his announcements in the Budget next week.

The Government provide additional discretionary housing support to local authorities to help tenants to meet shortfalls in their rent costs. In England, that is through the crisis and resilience fund housing payment. I wonder whether, in some of the cases that the hon. Member for St Ives referred to, his constituents would find it worth their while to contact the local council to see whether they could benefit from a discretionary housing payment. The crisis and resilience fund includes support for preventive wraparound help, as well as assistance for people facing a financial crisis. I know that local authorities are increasingly looking at what they can do with those resources to protect people in the kinds of situations that the hon. Member for St Ives describes.

Local housing allowance rates are set within broad rental market areas determined by rent officers in the valuation office across England. There are 192 broad rental market areas across Great Britain. As the hon. Member for St Ives said, Kernow West is the one that includes St Ives. A BRMA is an area within which a person could reasonably be expected to live, having regard to facilities and services for the purposes of health, education, recreation, banking and shopping, taking account of the needs of travel to and from those services by both public and private transport.

Across each BRMA, rent officers gather a representative sample of private rental data of all property types and sizes from a range of sources, including both new and existing tenancies. They survey rents across the full year to capture current market conditions. That includes collecting a representative sample from all the local authority areas within a BRMA, including any larger urban centres and more sparsely populated rural areas in that BRMA.

Perhaps the hon. Member for St Ives might find it useful to have a conversation with the Valuation Office Agency, because he raised perfectly understandable concerns about whether the data it uses is out of date. The process is designed to ensure that that is not the case and that up-to-date data is provided. Of course, it was only just over two years ago that the local housing allowance was uprated to the 30th percentile of the levels of rents in each BRMA.

[Andrew George]

A moment ago, the Minister said that it is not intended that the LHA should cover all rents in all areas, and he encourages me to talk to the local valuation office about its methodology in setting the LHA for my area of Kernow West. I will happily do that, but looking at the marketplace last night, there was not a single property anywhere close to reaching the LHA level. Is it not the Minister who should be undertaking a review of whether the valuation office is up to the task of understanding how the market is working, rather than leaving it to local Members of Parliament?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman reproves me in a very appropriate way. My point is that I think the LHA methodology, which he queried, is sound. When local housing allowance rates are increased, they are implemented in April, based on the latest private lettings data for the 12-month period up to the end of September the preceding year. I do not think there is a problem with the way the LHA rates are calculated—in 2024, all the LHAs were uprated to the 30th percentile of rates in each BMRA—but there have been significant rent rises, even in the two and a bit years since the level was last reset. That, I think, is the phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing the House’s attention. There has been a rapid rise in rents in that period, and that will need to be taken into account in deciding what should happen to the LHA for next year.

Tackling homelessness is a very high priority for the Government, as the Prime Minister underlined when he took office. The LHA supports those on low incomes with their rents in the private sector, but the causes of homelessness are complex, and the LHA is only one measure to tackle it. We have significant funding targeted more specifically at those who are homeless and those at risk of being homeless, as those in the kind of situation that the hon. Member for St Ives described sometimes are. Sustained cross-Government action to tackle the causes of homelessness is being taken forward through the national plan to end homelessness. We will provide more than £4 billion in funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services from 2026-27 to 2028-29.

Councils have £2.7 billion through the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, which they can use to support people at risk of and experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping, including funding for delivery of support on domestic abuse safe accommodation. That all means that councils can do more to prevent homelessness, reduce reliance on the expensive temporary accommodation that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) drew attention to and target resources where they are needed.

[Andrew George]

The Minister mentioned earlier that we will await the Chancellor’s announcements in the Budget next week. It sounds as if the Minister himself is awaiting those announcements. I wonder to what extent he is putting pressure on the Chancellor to address these issues and ensure sufficient budget for his Department to address this issue. I am sure the Prime Minister sincerely wants to reduce and entirely remove homelessness from our streets, and I applaud him for that, but I am afraid that the way that the system is working will only add to the problem.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I think we are all waiting to hear what the Chancellor says next week. I can certainly assure the hon. Member that my colleagues in MHCLG and the Treasury are continually talking about these issues and the right approach. Last time the uprating to the 30th percentile happened—April 2024—the cost over the full spending review period was, if I remember rightly, some £7 billion. If we are looking at effective measures to tackle homelessness, the approaches and specific funding that I have just described to address the problem and the risk of homelessness are the effective ways to do that. Those are the kind of factors that the Chancellor will certainly be bearing in mind as he reaches his decisions for next week.

To further drive the shift from crisis response to prevention, we are setting a national target to increase the proportion of people supported by council homelessness services to stay in their homes or helped to find alternative accommodation. Our new duty to collaborate will require public services to work together to identify people at risk of homelessness and to consider what action they can take within their existing responsibilities to help prevent that.

The Government’s key priority in all this is to secure an adequate number of decent affordable homes. We have announced the new 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme—the biggest boost to housing grant funding in recent memory. The aim is to maximise supply, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme as social rent. Initial funding allocations via the programme have been confirmed across England, excluding London; 33 providers will receive £9.5 billion to invest in new social and affordable housing and deliver 73,000 homes. Nearly two thirds of the homes built by strategic partners through the programme will be for social rent, and for the first time ever, three councils—Cambridge city council, Eastleigh borough council and Newcastle city council—have been awarded strategic partnership status with Homes England. Councils are increasingly stepping up to meet our bold ambitions.

More than £16 billion in funding for outside of London is still yet to be allocated. In allocating that, the Government intend to prioritise social rent homes, particularly council homes, to achieve the Prime Minister’s ambition for the biggest council house building programme since the post-war boom ended in the early 1980s. Directing funding into that programme and others along those lines is the way to deal properly and permanently with the severe housing crisis that we face right across the country, which the hon. Member for St Ives and others have spoken very powerfully about in this debate.

The new national housing bank was launched on 1 April, backed by up to £16 billion in financial capacity. We envisage that bank leveraging in billions of pounds of private investment to accelerate house building across the country. It is taking quite a pioneering approach to its role, and its status as a publicly owned subsidiary of Homes England, designated as a public financial institution, gives it a lot of autonomy in working out how to do this job most effectively. My colleagues in MHCLG have launched the national housing delivery fund, which includes £5 billion of grant funding to support housing delivery and address viability challenges, including through the remediation of brownfield sites and provision of unlocking infrastructure.

Let me say in the final seconds that my colleagues in MHCLG have taken the view that rent controls would do more harm than good.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce digital exclusion for people with communication disabilities.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

The digital inclusion action plan, published in February, sets out plans to widen access to devices, drive digital upskilling, break down barriers to participation and support people in their own communities. The plan highlights disabled people as one of five priority groups more likely to be digitally excluded, and the focus is therefore on them in particular.

[Zöe Franklin]

A constituent contacted me specifically about the digital inclusion action plan, explaining that because of his voice disability, spasmodic dysphonia, he struggles to access essential services such as banking, because automated phone systems could not understand his voice. There is often no clear way of bypassing those systems, and alternatives like webchat are slow and ineffective. This is a growing issue for many people with communication disabilities. What steps is the Minister taking, with Cabinet colleagues, to ensure that services remain accessible, and will the issue be addressed through the action plan?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Lady has raised some interesting points. The action plan outlines five initial actions, including the establishment of an ambitious digital inclusion innovation fund. I do not know whether some of those ideas could be used to address the concern that the hon. Lady has raised, but we do want to be ambitious in all this. In the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, published a couple of months ago, we talked about assistive tech and the possibility of making it more widely available; maybe there are solutions there that could be taken forward. I would be interested to talk to the hon. Lady about what more we might do.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Three weeks ago, I had an opportunity to visit Harlow jobcentre, meet the fantastic work coaches there, and see the important work that they are doing to help people in Harlow get back into employment. Digital inclusion was one of the issues that they raised. Does the Minister agree that we need to look at how we can support people to get back to work, give them more face-to-face appointments, and help to provide training and digital skills when they need them?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important to ensure that the tech that is available in jobcentres is appropriate for people’s needs. One element of the action plan is the launch this summer of an “IT reuse for good” charter, encouraging organisations to set up device donation schemes, because we think that they can play a helpful part as well.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to provide cross-Government support for women with endometriosis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the Government’s proposed welfare reforms on financial inequalities experienced by disabled people.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

The hon. Member is right to raise this issue; the current system does track too many people in financial inequality. We want disabled people to have chances in work, which others have always taken for granted. We will invest an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the decade in work, health and skills support.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I have spoken to several disabled constituents who are deeply fearful about the proposed cut to the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit. Research by Sense shows that one in four disabled people with complex needs could be pushed into debt if the changes go ahead. Will the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions review this damaging proposal?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

At the moment, there are 200,000 people out of work on health and disability grounds who would love to be in a job, and who say they could be in a job today if they had the support to make that possible for them. We are determined to provide them with that support.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows, the personal independence payment is a passport benefit for carer’s allowance. The Government’s impact assessment suggests that approximately 150,000 family carers will lose out due to the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for PIP. What further analysis have the Government done of the financial impacts of welfare reform on family carers?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are consulting on the support that will be needed over the next few years for perhaps one in 10 of those currently claiming PIP. Support will be needed for those who lose their benefit, and that will include family carers who receive carer’s allowance at the moment.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle violence against women and girls.

Building Safety

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the work that has been put into the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, and the measures that we have introduced in it, will be transformative for leaseholders. I know that, and I know she knows that, because she was the person who put in the work in the first place, and I pay tribute to what she did in this role previously.

My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the link between those who have been impacted by cladding and leaseholders in general. It is through reforms such as those in the Bill that we will be able to bring even more transparency, including on insurance, which the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) rightly raised. That applies not just to leaseholders who are impacted by cladding remediation, but to leaseholders in general. We will ensure that they know what they are paying for and can fully recognise whether the arrangement is fair or not.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for meeting leaseholders from Barrier Point in my constituency last week.

During a Zoom call last night, leaseholders from Waterside Park made it clear that although the original builders and the current freeholder had agreed on the specification of the work to be carried out, the work itself was being held up by quibbling between their respective lawyers over details. Is there anything that the Minister or his Department can do to knock heads together and get this long-awaited work under way?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the inherent challenges that may feature in processes that involve a lot of actors, a lot of complexity and often a lot of money, but it is absolutely the Government’s view that they must proceed as expeditiously as possible and that the organisations and actors involved in them should not hold them up unnecessarily. There must be a reasonable accommodation for reasonable discussions, but the overarching objective to ensure that buildings are remediated, and to allow leaseholders to get on with their lives even more than they are able to do at present, is paramount. If there are particular concerns or particular issues from which the right hon. Gentleman, or any other Member, thinks we can learn in order to improve the policy, I shall be keen to hear about them.

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

During her time in the Home Office, my right hon. Friend initiated and took forward fantastic work to deal with extremism and intolerance. She is right that the definition does not impinge or alter the legal threshold for prosecution where people incite violence. Indeed, there are arguments for looking again at our laws to make sure that they are fit for purpose, but today’s definition is not about changing the criminal law; it is about setting a threshold. That threshold will be evidenced when we come forward with the list of organisations that we believe meet this bar, with evidence that everyone can see makes a compelling case that the ideology that spurs those organisations is extremist in nature.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State, in my view very unwisely, recently closed down the Inter Faith Network, which facilitates the kind of dialogue he praised in his statement. He closed it down on the grounds that one of its 22 trustees is connected with the Muslim Council of Britain. If an organisation unjustly finds itself on his proposed list, will it have the opportunity to appeal against its inclusion?

[Michael Gove]

We have not closed down the Inter Faith Network. We ceased our funding, and the Inter Faith Network draws its funding from a variety of sources. We will apply appropriate due diligence and publish evidence. If anyone believes our judgment is wrong, as in any case where it is believed that the Government have acted unreasonably, the option of judicial review is always available.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 24, which is in my name. It was also considered in Committee. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for moving it there and to the Minister for his response. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) who have added their names to the new clause on the Order Paper.

I thank the Minister for his reply in Committee, but I think he missed the crucial central point of the amendment. At the moment, the risks of exposure to asbestos in a workplace are managed by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, which is monitored by the Health and Safety Executive. For every workplace under those regulations, there is a duty holder responsible for monitoring the condition of the asbestos. They are required to keep up-to-date records of the location and condition of all asbestos-containing materials, to provide that information to anybody liable to disturb the materials, and to develop a plan for managing any risks that arise.

Residential blocks with a commercial freeholder will generally also have a duty holder, because the block will have been for them a workplace, so it is covered by the Control of Asbestos Regulations. It is usually the freeholder or their agent who is the duty holder. That duty holder is responsible for all the common areas in the block, such as foyers and staircases.

The effectiveness of this whole regime is debatable. The sixth report in the 2021-22 Session of the Work and Pensions Committee expressed considerable reservations. It is doubtful, I think, that the Health and Safety Executive is doing enough to monitor compliance, and the assumption that leaving asbestos in place is better than removing it is increasingly questionable as the asbestos ages. None the less, there is at least a clear regime for managing the risks.

The concern that motivates this new clause is that, following a transfer of the kind made possible and facilitated by the Bill, there will no longer be a duty holder for the communal areas in such a block. At the moment there is, but the responsibility will be entirely extinguished, as far as I understand it, on transfer. The asbestos is still going to be there, the risks will remain, but nobody will any longer be responsible for managing them. Understandably, no individual resident will take on the responsibility, but there will be no corporate entity to do it either. In fact, it may be worse than that. The residents may well not be aware before the transfer is completed that they are taking on both a financial liability for managing the asbestos in the communal areas, and possibly a risk to life as well. It is important to bear it in mind that we are seeing 5,000 deaths per year at the moment as a result of past exposure to asbestos.

In his response in Committee, the Minister said that the amendment would

“duplicate the existing duty in regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 for landlords to survey the common areas of their property”.—[Official Report, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2024; c. 461.]

However, the newly enfranchised property would not fall any longer under regulation 4. There would be no landlord to survey the common areas once the transfer has taken place.

New clause 24 aims to prevent this problem from occurring. It requires landlords to perform a detailed survey of the asbestos present in the building within three months of a transfer taking place and then requires the landlord to remove any asbestos that is there.There is a 150% tax relief for businesses removing asbestos from their premises, so removal will not be costly for landlords. It will save newly enfranchised leaseholders from a large and probably unexpected liability and a potentially lethal long-term risk. I hope that makes the case for this change clear.

I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance with the residents of Barrier Point in my constituency. I think we have a meeting in his office next month. Last night, I had my regular Zoom call with leaseholders from Waterside Park in my constituency. Before Christmas, we thought we had a clear way forward. Barratt, the builders, had signed up and Aviva, the current freeholder, was happy, but last night we learned of the requirement that the Building Safety Regulator to look at any proposal for a minimum of eight weeks, which will substantially delay the work that has been committed to. Will the Minister look at whether it is really necessary for residents who have been waiting so long for these problems to be resolved to wait another eight weeks?

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I fully support the Government’s wish to overhaul the antiquated and feudal leasehold system in this country and address the imbalance of power between freeholders and leaseholders. I thank the Minister for his ongoing discussions with me about a number of issues I have with the Bill, and for attending the leasehold roundtable that I held recently with my constituents.

I would like the Government to abolish the system completely, but I understand that that will not happen with this Bill. I have therefore tabled an amendment and three new clauses that would improve the Bill further. New clause 12 would reduce the participation threshold required to claim the right to manage from 50% to 35%. That is a massive issue in Cities of London and Westminster. More than 1,300 properties in the City of London and an eye-watering 12,100 in Westminster have owners living abroad or are owned by companies using central London’s golden postcodes as a place to park their cash. That reduces the ability of leaseholders in those blocks to secure the 50% of signatures required to achieve the right to manage, as it is incredibly difficult to contact those overseas leaseholders for a meaningful discussion.

Let me give an example of that type of dilemma in my constituency. Residents in The Quadrangle in the Hyde Park Estate say that leaseholders in their block will struggle to meet the 50% participation threshold. They estimate that at least 40% of leaseholders in their block do not live in the building and are uncontactable. Accepting new clause 12 and lowering the threshold to 35% would give many more leaseholders living in similar blocks the chance to manage their buildings.

I commend the work that has been done on the Bill to support blocks that have shared commercial and residential usage. The Bill proposes to increase the proportion of commercial or non-residential space permitted in an individual block for a right to manage application from 25% to 50%, but I believe we can go even further. I have heard from many residents whose blocks will fail to qualify even after the threshold rises to 50%. For example, residents of 8 Artillery Row in Victoria believe that increasing the threshold to 50% does not go far enough, as the residential element of their block is lower than 50%. That is why amendment 17 is needed, as it would allow residents in a block with up to 75% commercial premises to apply for the right to manage.

New clause 14 is similarly designed to allow more leaseholders to strive for the right to manage, especially those in mixed-use buildings. Simply sharing a broom cupboard with a commercial property can disqualify them from claiming the right to manage. At Cambridge Court in Marylebone, for example, leaseholders striving to manage their block would benefit from the Government’s proposals to increase the non-residential threshold allowed in a building, but they are concerned that their ability to qualify for the right to manage would be undermined by the existence of a single shared car parking space in their building. My new clause 14 would amend the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 by adopting recommendation 5 from the Law Commission’s “Right to Manage” report, which is to allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or underground car parks to exercise the right to manage.

Finally, my new clause 15 would correct the unintended consequences of the Building Safety Act 2022. That Act has interfered with the long-standing section 24 regime, which was a vital right for leaseholders. It introduced an accountable person mechanism that expressly banned section 24 managers from being the accountable person. Consequently, specially trained and vetted professional property managers willing to take on difficult sites have been barred from being the accountable person. That makes absolutely no sense, and it stripped leaseholders of an existing right. That could not have been the Government’s intention when they introduced the 2022 Act, which was intended to provide leaseholders with additional statutory protections. So many leaseholders in my constituency and across the country would benefit from applying for a section 24 manager, but they cannot risk it if they are in blocks of 18 metres or higher because of the accountable person regime issue arising from the Building Safety Act. It is imperative that our buildings are safe, that leaseholders are safe, and that the burden does not fall heavily on leaseholders.

I will not press my amendments to a vote, but I hope that the Government will consider what I have spoken about and work with me to introduce the measures in the other place. This is a watershed moment for the Government to prove that they understand the terrible treatment that leaseholders have faced and continue to face by incompetent freeholders, and to address the imbalance between freeholder and leaseholder. I hope that the Bill will deliver real change.

Inter Faith Network Closure

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): Will the Minister make a statement about the closure that has been announced today of the Inter Faith Network?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the Inter Faith Network? I am grateful for all his work as chair of the all-party group on faith and society and as a long-standing advocate for dialogue across faiths.

As the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said during an Adjournment debate in January, we know full well the role that faith communities play in our society. We are extremely supportive of efforts by faith groups and others to bring together people of different faiths and beliefs.

The Secretary of State wrote to the co-chairs of the Inter Faith Network on 19 January this year to inform them that he was minded to withdraw the offer of funding for the 2023-24 financial year. This was because of the appointment of a member of the Muslim Council of Britain to the board of trustees of the IFN. As the House will be aware, successive Governments have had a long-standing policy of non-engagement with the MCB. The appointment of an MCB member to the core governance structure of a Government-funded organisation therefore poses a reputational risk to the Government.

The Secretary of State invited the IFN to make representations on this matter, which it subsequently did. He carefully considered the points raised by the IFN before concluding that its points were outweighed by the need to maintain the Government’s policy of non- engagement with the MCB, and the risk of compromising the credibility and effectiveness of that policy. Inter-faith work is valuable, but that does not require us to use taxpayers’ money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB.

The Department regularly reminds our partners, including the IFN, of the importance of developing sustainable funding arrangements rather than relying on taxpayers’ money, which can never be guaranteed. The potential closure of the organisation is therefore a matter for the IFN, as an independent charity, and not the Government. The Government continue to be fully supportive of developing and maintaining strong relationships across faiths and beliefs.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Since 1987, the Inter Faith Network has been the UK’s principal vehicle for inter-faith dialogue, supporting the annual Inter Faith Week, and activities and dialogue undertaken by inter-faith groups across the whole country. The network has been supported by Government funding for some 20 years. The IFN was told on 31 March last year, before the trustee appointment that the Minister referred to, that its funding would be ended from the following day. Why has the organisation been treated in that extraordinary way? Last July, the network received a letter from the Secretary of State to inform it that it would, after all, receive funding for the current financial year. That promise has never been honoured. Why not?

Given the debate in this Chamber yesterday, is it not extraordinarily stupid to be shutting down at this precise point our principal vehicle in the UK for Muslim-Jewish dialogue? Surely we need more, not to be shutting it down? Why has the Secretary of State not honoured the commitment that he made to me to meet me, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and the noble Lord Singh to discuss this matter before making his decision, and will the Minister pay tribute and express thanks to the trustees and officers of the Inter Faith Network for the very important contribution that they have made to UK national life over the last 37 years?

[Felicity Buchan]

I truly believe that inter-faith work makes a good contribution to our society. My constituency is one of the most diverse in the entire country, and I have on a number of occasions brought together my mosque, my synagogue, Christian churches and my gurdwara. We recognise the benefits of inter-faith activity. I thank the Inter Faith Network for its work; however, we have always been clear with that organisation and any other organisation or charity that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities funds that they need to put in place alternative sources of funding. As I said, the Government cannot fund this organisation when a trustee is part of the MCB.

Inter Faith Network for the UK

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch]

Again, I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point. Some of the IFN’s publications, such as the letter from the co-chairs to the editor of The Telegraph only this week, have been very candid and transparent. It has been incredibly accountable in the work it does and the way it goes about it, so I entirely agree with him on that point.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Holly Lynch]

I will give way, but then I will have to make some progress.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Is it not clear that the kind of dialogue across faith divides that the Inter Faith Network facilitates is more needed at this moment than ever? Unless the Government keep their promise to provide funding for this financial year, we are going to lose that capacity entirely. Would that not be a terrible tragedy?

[Holly Lynch]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and I thank him for making that point. We need the work that the IFN does now more than ever. If we lose that—those friendships, the trust born out of that facilitated membership and the programmes, initiatives and dialogue built up over years and years—it will take an awfully long time to rebuild it. Even should funding perhaps become available in the future, it would be gone. It would take a lot time and effort to put it back together, and that would be an absolute travesty. As I say, we need that work now more than ever.

I will make some progress. All the IFN’s members are clearly listed on its website. Those I have mentioned give just a hint of the range and number of members who proudly belong. Examples of its work include leading a programme of events to celebrate national Inter Faith Week every November. Last year’s events, which included a parliamentary drop-in, engaged more people than ever before. The network publishes practical guidance, such as the “Looking after one another: the safety and security of our faith communities” guide, in partnership with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It has supported the development and strengthening of local inter-faith engagement through publications such as “Deep connections: Women’s local inter faith initiatives in the UK”, which was published in March last year. It brings together national faith community bodies to discuss topics such as faith and organ donation, social care and hate crime and to share good practice on working with other faith communities.

The IFN monitors and evaluates its work carefully to ensure that it is continuing to be effective in enabling an ever-growing number of people in the UK to take part and benefit from stronger inter-faith relations, to tackle ignorance, prejudice and hatred linked to religious identity, to grow their religious literacy, to develop bonds of trust and friendship and to co-operate on social action projects for the benefit of wider society.

While so many MPs will speak with great pride about representing diverse communities, as the former chair of all-party parliamentary group on social integration I recognise that we also need to provide opportunities for people to engage, interact and learn about each other. Only when we nurture the relationships and friendships between different people do we establish trust and break down barriers.

The international backdrop to this inter-faith work in the UK means, as we have discussed, that it could not be more important. The horror of Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October, followed by the utter devastation of Israel’s response upon the people of Gaza, have inevitably impacted on communities here in the UK. Tell MAMA recorded 1,432 anti-Muslim cases between 7 October and 13 December—a sevenfold increase in reported incidents. The Community Safety Trust reports that it has seen an increase in anti-Jewish hate acts of 534% in the same period, compared with the same period last year.

We know that we have to do more to promote and nurture trust, understanding and respect between different communities, and this feels like a time when we should be supporting, not undermining, inter-faith work. Alongside that, I am aware that the Government last published their four-year hate crime action plan in 2016. It was updated in 2018, but it has not been updated since, nor has a new plan been published. Given these stark increases in unacceptable hate crimes, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified when we can expect some progress on that front.

From 2001 onwards, the IFN has sought and received grant funding from Government that pays for its very small team of four people and to facilitate those incredibly important meetings. Since then, funding from Government under successive Administrations towards IFN’s work programme has been a vital component of funding, alongside other forms of support, such as donations from individuals, trusts, faith communities, other bodies and membership fees.

It was a real setback when, on 31 March last year, IFN received a letter from an official at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities saying that further funding would not be given from April 2023 onwards. I, like many MPs here for this debate, tabled written parliamentary questions, wrote to Ministers and asked questions in the Chamber to query the logic of that and raise concerns about how it had been handled. However, on 7 July 2023, IFN received a letter from DLUHC saying that following a review by Ministers of funded programmes across the communities and integration portfolio, funding was now being offered to IFN. The funding was offered in the form of access to 2022-23 underspend plus some new funding. The letter explained that the money would be for use from July 2023 to March 2024. It would be subject to grant funding agreements and other conditions.

Despite the best efforts of IFN and its allies, including many of us here in Parliament, as things currently stand, the July 2023 to March 2024 grant funding agreement has not been provided and therefore that funding cannot be accessed. I am reliably informed that when the present offer of funding was made last July, the letter said that funding would not be provided beyond March 2024. So while the IFN continues to try to find alternative solutions, the truth is that its small team of staff have been given notice of redundancy. The Inter Faith Network is about to close—it is on life support—without clarity from the Government about whether financial support will be forthcoming.

As we have touched on, the Inter Faith Network has critics. I think that is inevitable—there will always be some who feel threatened by inter-faith work—but I hope that the Government would be proud to support it. In addressing some of the criticisms made, it is worth stressing that the co-chairs of the network have made clear that the IFN has a long-standing policy on the making of statements, which precludes making direct comment on overseas events; instead, members work together on responding to the impact of any such events on communities here in the UK.

It is worth saying that anyone seeking to criticise the Inter Faith Network for failing to single-handedly deliver world peace would be painfully misguided. The work that it does, and the dialogue it facilitates, is only a good thing. I hope that the Minister will agree, at least in principle, that we need more of it, not less.

I look forward to what the Minister has to say. Before I close, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the co-chairs of the Inter Faith Network, Mr Narendra Waghela and Rev. Canon Hilary Barber, as well as the executive director Harriet Crabtree. Hilary Barber is the reverend of Halifax minster in my constituency and has been instrumental in establishing Calderdale’s inter-faith council as well as now holding this special national role. I pay tribute to him and all those who work so hard in our communities on inter-faith initiatives to benefit all our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I will be speaking to the leader of my hon. Friend’s council tomorrow on the wider matter of local government finance, but we are not here to discuss that this evening. He makes an incredibly valid and important point, which I was seeking to make, too: those who are involved in faith groups reach out to do other things in our communities and societies, bringing people together. At a time when people often feel terribly isolated, when the only community they think exists is on the screen that they hold on their hands, those interactions of conversation and common humanity are phenomenally important.

I make absolutely no apology for declaring myself a proud multiculturalist, believing entirely that our country is stronger, richer and more powerful—and I do not mean financially richer or muscularly more powerful—and a better place as a result of our faith and other communities in our country doing all that they do. We are incredibly supportive of those efforts to bring people together.

His Majesty the King has often reflected on the significance of better understanding of faiths, and has spoken of the importance of remaining united in partnership and friendship. We know full well that he recently held an event at the palace to speak with young people. It is crucial that young people see faith not as an abstract thing or something for older people, but as something that unites the generations. Inter-faith activity is important, too, and learning and understanding more about different faiths can help bring about positive change in our society. As we live in an increasingly diverse society—for which I make no apology, and I doubt anyone in the House does—improving inter-faith relations is even more important.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas and its impact on community tensions in the UK has brought into sharp focus a number of issues. We must continue to encourage—if at any time, certainly now—a greater understanding of different faiths and beliefs to help foster better relationships and eliminate all forms of intolerance or hatred.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am conscious that time is running out. Are the Government going to honour the promise they made to the IFN in their letter of July last year?

[Simon Hoare]

I will come on to that in a moment if the right hon. Gentleman will just bear with me. The Department is—as per its letter of 7 July 2023, which was sent to Harriet Crabtree OBE—undertaking a variety of analyses with regard to the network. I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making an announcement in the not too distant future, but I am afraid I am not able to confirm that this evening.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I believe it will. I must now make progress because I know a number of people want to contribute, so I will try to run through the other arguments about why we are taking the approach that we are.

I mentioned service charges, and one other example, to which the Father of the House has of course persistently drawn our attention, of where those who have been managing properties on behalf of the ultimate owners have abused their position is that of insurance commissions. We will be taking steps in the Bill to make sure that insurance charges are transparent and that fair handling fees are brought in. The fact that I can list all these examples just shows hon. Members the way in which freeholders have operated. Many who have got hold of such freeholds have been thinking, “Right, okay, we can jack up the ground rent, great! We can have service charges, keep them opaque and add something. Tell you what—insurance; let’s try to get more out of that.” It is a persistent pattern of behaviour that does require reform.

Another pattern of behaviour is the way that lease extensions and the whole question of enfranchisement have been going. If someone’s lease goes below 80 years and they want to enfranchise themselves, they have to pay what is called marriage value. That is the principle that, by bringing together the ownership of the freehold and the leasehold in one by enfranchising themselves—bringing those two together in a marriage—people are enriching themselves. Again, however, it has been used by freeholders to bilk leaseholders overall, which is why the approach we are taking will in effect eliminate marriage value. It is also why, when we talk about lease extension, instead of people having to extend and extend again generation after generation, we are saying that leases can be extended to 990 years. In effect, as I say, this will make sure that one of the approaches that freeholders have taken to extracting more cash from leaseholders will end.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I agree with the Secretary of State about the seriousness of the problem of excessive insurance premiums being charged to leaseholders, and I will give an example if I am able to contribute later. Does the Secretary of State agree that the solution requires risk-pooling among insurers? The initiative on that seems to have stalled; can he hold out the prospect of the delay being resolved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), the former Housing Minister, and I congratulate her on her work in this regard. I was disappointed that she chose to adopt a rather partisan tone in some of her remarks—unnecessarily, I thought—but I was grateful for the more generous tone taken by the Secretary of State. I especially welcomed his generous and appropriate tribute to our former colleague, Jim Fitzpatrick, for his work in the all-party parliamentary group—I am glad that he was mentioned.

Let me begin by identifying a specific concern that the Bill has raised. I am aware of it because of the work that the Work and Pensions Committee has done on asbestos. Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, premises can be sold while containing asbestos; ownership can be transferred. Asbestos management is regulated in relation to workplaces, where it is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, but not in domestic properties. In a lot of shared dwellings, such as flats and conversions, the landlord or freeholder has regulated duties under the existing regulations to manage asbestos in the shared areas in those developments. This legislation, as I understand it, may well give rise to the transfer of those obligations to domestic owners.

The existence and extent of asbestos in a building might not be known, leaving homeowners taking on these responsibilities with a hidden liability and, potentially, a life-threatening risk to handle as well. Homeowners are unlikely to have the wherewithal to manage asbestos in situ effectively, and this could leave a complex set of responsibilities and liabilities between owners in shared properties or where the nominal landlord no longer exists. At the moment, there is tax relief for businesses removing asbestos from a workplace—they can offset it against corporation tax—but there is no support for homeowners to remove or manage asbestos.

It has been suggested to me—this is something I am looking at—that there should be an amendment proposing that change in ownership of a property in the circumstances envisaged in the Bill, or a change in the extent of landlord control, should be a trigger for removing asbestos. Otherwise, more asbestos will move outside effective control under this legislation, meaning that nobody will be responsible for managing it and potentially creating a significant public health risk.

I will focus the rest of my remarks on part 3 of the Bill and draw attention to some particular instances that have arisen in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in opening the debate, rightly expressed the disappointment of many that the more radical ambitions for the Bill have been dropped, at least for the time being, but there are lots of practical problems for our constituents that need addressing and that the Bill can potentially help with.

The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, who is in his place, is aware of Barrier Point in my constituency, which comprises eight towers and 257 apartments. Tower 8, the largest of the towers, has 50 apartments and a flammable cladding problem. In 2017, buildings insurance for the whole of Barrier Point cost £104,000. Last year, Aviva, which insured the block previously, refused to quote, so this year residents have ended up paying £443,547 for insurance, and Tower 8 residents have shouldered that huge increase at a cost of between £6,000 and £12,000 each. I am grateful both to Aviva and to Barratt, which built the development, for meeting residents to try to find a way forward. I am also grateful to the Minister for the interest he has shown in this and for his agreeing to visit—I hope we will have a date for that soon.

I can see that the Bill could go some way towards tackling those problems. I particularly welcome clauses 27, 28 and 29, which increase transparency around service charges and give occupants the right to obtain information about service charges and costs on request. Clauses 30, 34 and 35 will help tenants to enforce those rights and rebalance the costs of litigation in their favour. The Financial Conduct Authority’s 2020 report on insurance for multi-occupancy buildings found that commission was often at least 30% on a transaction, and it found one case where it was over 60%. The FCA was worried that insurance commissions lacked transparency and it feared the conflict of interest that stemmed from brokers regularly sharing half their commission with the freeholder or managing agent. Replacing commission with transparent handling fees, as clauses 31 and 32 envisage, should certainly help.

[Barry Gardiner]

I appreciate everything that my right hon. Friend is saying. He will be aware, though, that many companies holding freeholds will also set up an arm’s-length company that is the broker, thus taking a double take in terms of the commission. It is not just that they get cut from the broker; they are the broker.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I welcome his work in this area over a long period.

The changes in the Bill are not likely to do much to help the residents of Barrier Point who have exercised their right to manage. The FCA has argued that

“the intervention most likely to reduce prices for the minority of multi-occupancy buildings with the most substantial price increases would be cross-industry risk pooling”.

I was pleased to hear from the Secretary of State, in answer to my intervention, that he will be meeting representatives of the Association of British Insurers this week. The ABI initiative on this issue appears, up to now, to have stalled. The FCA recommended that the ABI should work with it and with the Government to introduce a risk pooling scheme in 2022. The scheme was expected to come forward last summer, but we are still waiting. I am hoping that, as a result of the meeting this week that the Secretary of State has told us about, things will get moving.

I checked with the FCA last week about this. It said that the ABI plan is

“credible and capable of delivering savings to those worst affected buildings”,

but it went on to add that the plan is delayed with “no firm launch date” because the ABI is struggling to secure “the reinsurance capacity required”. That seems to be the obstacle. I very much hope that the Secretary of State can find a way to push this forward at his meeting. The ABI urged the Government to increase capacity by backing catastrophic losses in the scheme. It did that most recently in June. Can the Minister tell us whether that appeal has been considered by the Department and whether that might be taken forward at the meeting with the Secretary of State later this week? When does he think risk pooling will commence?

On remediation, there is a power imbalance between leaseholders and freeholders. That has been highlighted to me by Barrier Point residents. The Bill does not really address that. Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 makes a right-to-manage company the “accountable person” for a high-risk multi-occupancy building, making the directors criminally liable if negligence can be proved. The same Act, however, requires only that freeholders “co-operate” with accountable persons, without any enforcement mechanism in place at all. The freeholder at Barrier Point has held up remediation works for several months and is refusing to sign off on them. The directors of the right-to-manage company desperately want to fulfil their legal obligations but they are left liable because of the refusal of the freeholder to say okay, and there is no comparable liability on the freeholder. That seems wrong, and I wonder whether that imbalance can be addressed in the course of the Bill’s passage through the House.

The Minister said in oral questions just last week that the Government plan to make changes to the Bill as it goes through Parliament, and I hope he will consider how that imbalance can be addressed to ensure that remediation work can go ahead in a case such as that, which I suspect is by no means unique. The residents of Barrier Point want to purchase their freehold. To do so, they need to get at least 50% of all the leaseholders to agree to, and be able to afford, a freehold purchase. That is very difficult in a building with 257 households. I do not think the Bill does anything to make that process easier, so I very much hope that Ministers will be open to further improvements as it progresses through the House.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

What I would like to see in my hon. Friend’s constituency and so many others is an increase in housing overall—houses for social rent, for private rent and, above all, for people to own. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out, there is a particular challenge in the very attractive parts of the country, such as those my hon. Friend represents, that attract tourism.

There has been a phenomenon whereby houses that would have been available for rent to the local community have been Airbnb-ised, although not just through that company. They have been turned into short-term lets and effectively been operating as shadow B&Bs or shadow hotels. There is nothing wrong—there is everything right—with making sure that we utilise property as efficiently as possible, but that has created percussive and deleterious consequences in some areas. That is why we are consulting on both using the planning system and also, with our colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, a form of registration to ensure that the situation works. Ultimately, however, the challenge is increasing supply overall.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has just mentioned the private rental ombudsman, a post that I welcome. Is he considering the case for giving that job to the existing housing ombudsman, who supports the social housing sector at the moment?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, we are. There is a case for both a separate organisation and for having the issue fall to the existing ombudsman—who, I have to say, has been doing a very effective job.

I must draw my remarks to a close shortly so that all colleagues who wish to contribute can, but the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention provides me an opportunity to suggest that the condition of housing in this country—particularly housing built in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s—is a profound cause for concern. Many of those homes are reaching the end of their natural lives. As a result of how they were built, we are seeing not just building safety issues but children in particular living in homes that are not decent.

The tragedy of Awaab Ishak’s death reminded us that damp, mould and other poor housing conditions can have a deleterious effect not just on life chances but on lives themselves. That is why the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, the actions of the housing ombudsman and the actions that my Department has taken have been focused on ensuring that registered providers and social landlords live up to their responsibilities.

What we seek to do in the Bill is ensure that the small minority of private sector landlords who also need to up their game do so. We are not targeting any one sector. We are not targeting registered providers of social housing while leaving the private rented sector off the hook; nor are we directing particular attention to the private rented sector and letting registered social landlords off the hook. What we are doing is ensuring that citizens, who deserve a warm, decent, safe home, get one. That is what the establishment of the decent homes standard through this legislation will do.