Sir Stephen Timms

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (9 Jun 1994 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 471

1. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

   Housing Costs: Government Support

   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.

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

   Housing Costs: Government Support

   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.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

   Housing Costs: Government Support

   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)).

   Hansard source
4. 19 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

   Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

   I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.

   Hansard source
5. 19 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

   Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

   Dr Huq, I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship—I think for the first time in all these years. Let me welcome all Members to the Committee and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East on taking up his new role. I welcome him to the Committee. Both sets of regulations were laid before the House on 1 September. The schemes to which they relate provide very important support to people who have developed certain dust-related diseases, often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. That includes diseases such as the two named in the statutory instruments: pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. They have a devastating effect on individuals and their families. I really welcome the opportunity to debate these schemes and the changes that we are making to ensure that they continue to provide effective support. Let me begin with an overview of the two no-fault compensation schemes and what these regulations seek to change. The scheme for pneumoconiosis, which I shall refer to as “the 1979 Act scheme”—for the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible people who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. That includes, as well as pneumoconiosis, diffuse mesothelioma and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. The scheme was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers because they had gone out of business, and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme, or would have an award but for their percentage disablement. The mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, which I shall refer to as “the 2008 Act scheme”—for the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme, for example because they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly, at the time when they most need help. Both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, but each scheme also allows for claims by dependants if the person suffering from the disease sadly dies before they are able to make a claim, which is not an unusual state of affairs, in recognition of the suffering that these diseases can impose on whole families. The regulations before the Committee make very important changes to both schemes. The most important relate to awards for dependants and the treatment of claims where a claimant dies before payment can be made. The changes deliver what I hope the Committee will agree is a fairer approach to compensation and provide better support to bereaved families. Under the current arrangements, awards payable to dependants are generally lower than those payable to sufferers. The regulations will align the rates payable to dependants with those payable to sufferers under both schemes. That means dependants will receive compensation calculated using the same rates as eligible sufferers, providing a single payment structure under each of the schemes. For families already coping with the loss of a loved one, these changes will provide greater financial support at an obviously difficult time. Campaigners have long called for this change. Let me pay tribute in particular to Joanne Gordon and John Flanagan, who I was with earlier this afternoon, of the Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum UK, and the remarkable work of Liz Darlison and her team at Mesothelioma UK, who have repeatedly raised this concern with me. I also pay tribute to Hugh Robertson of the TUC and to Thompsons Solicitors, who have campaigned for this change. Among the parliamentarians who have done so, let me single out the late Bill McKenzie, Lord McKenzie of Luton, who I think was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire’s local council leader for some time.

   Hansard source
6. 19 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

   Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

   As the Minister in 2010, he said that equalisation was the aim, when “resources allow”. He then campaigned for equalisation as the Opposition spokesperson in subsequent years. The regulations also make provision for circumstances where an individual dies after making a valid claim, but before payment is made. In those cases, payment may be made to the claimant’s personal representatives. That will help ensure that compensation can still be paid where somebody has done everything required of them to make a claim but sadly dies before their award can be issued. The regulations for the 1979 Act scheme also make a number of consequential changes to support the reforms. Those include introducing a clear statutory basis for determining the date used to calculate awards and removing payment provisions that are no longer needed following the alignment of award rates. Together, these changes will ensure that the schemes will provide better support to those who succumb to these devastating diseases and to their families. The Committee will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation offered by both the 1979 Act scheme and the 2008 Act scheme. I am required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I am very happy to do so. I commend these regulations, which will align compensation rates for dependants with those for sufferers and improve the operation of both schemes, to the Committee and ask it to approve them in order that they can be implemented.

   Hansard source
7. 19 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

   Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

   I thank the shadow Minister for his support for these measures. The debate has been informed and supported, as it is every year, by the very wide recognition of the scale of the impact on those who are affected by the terrible diseases that are covered by the schemes. As usual in such debates, I welcome the cross-party support. The Government share the commitment that Members of the House have to making sure that people affected by these devastating diseases and their families receive the support that they should expect. The reforms are intended to strengthen and, as the shadow Minister pointed out, simplify these long-standing compensation schemes while making sure that support is delivered in a way that is fair, clear and consistent between different claimants. The reforms will align compensation payable to dependants with that payable to sufferers under both the schemes, and will introduce provision for payment to personal representatives, as the shadow Minister touched on, where a claimant dies after making a valid claim but before payment can be made. For the 1979 Act scheme, the regulations also introduce a clear statutory basis for determining the relevant date that is used to calculate the awards and to remove supplementary payment provisions that are no longer required following the alignment of dependant and sufferer awards. Of course, people who have additional costs as a result of their disability may also be entitled to benefits such as personal independence payment or attendance allowance, and other benefits are also available to cover income-replacement needs. We are committed to providing appropriate financial support for families who are affected. Let me pick up on the very good point the shadow Minister made about communications. That is very important and we have already started working on it. I mentioned the victim support group that John Flanagan is a member of—I was in a meeting with him earlier this afternoon—and Mesothelioma UK, who are very keen to promote awareness of these changes. I agree with the shadow Minister that that kind of route is often the most effective way of getting the information to those who need to know about it. We are also promoting information today, on the back of this debate. It is very important that people know that this significant change has been made. On the TB-related top-up, what I can say to the shadow Minister is that it has very rarely actually been claimed. I am advised that we do not think anyone would be worse off, because anyone who might be worse off will be equalised by the changes that we are making, so I do not think there is a problem. If he has in mind a particular set of circumstances where there could be a problem, perhaps he could drop me a line and I will be happy to discuss what the position is. On the question of avoiding delays, I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to make sure that these things move as quickly as they can, and the payments will be made as soon as possible. He talked about the possibility of delays around probate, which of course is true. Obviously, that is outside our immediate control—we do have to follow the legal procedures in all of this—but I very much hope that delays can be minimised. On the question of transition, I am afraid that I will have to come back to the shadow Minister on the particular point that he raised, unless inspiration suddenly—[Interruption.] Ah, it could be that some inspiration has arrived. The changes will apply only to claims determined on or after 31 October—the end of this month. Existing awards and entitlement decisions will continue to be determined under the current legislative framework. Applying the changes from a single implementation date provides clarity and ensures that the schemes operate consistently and fairly for everybody. I can understand that some people might feel a little bit hard done by as a result of that, and he expressed concern to that effect, but there is the benefit of providing clarity for everybody, which I think outweighs the possible disbenefit for a small number of claimants. The schemes continue to provide very important support to people affected by some of the most serious occupational diseases and, where appropriate, to their dependants. The reforms that the Committee is considering were prompted by an independent legal review of the schemes and they give us an opportunity to address a number of long-standing issues about the operation of the schemes, as well as to equalise compensation in the way that I have described. Taken together, the changes will align awards for dependants and sufferers, provide greater clarity in the calculation and payment of awards, and simplify the operation of the 1979 Act scheme. They will help to make sure that the schemes provide the support that is needed to those who succumb to these awful diseases and to their families, who bear the impact alongside them. I am grateful for the support from across the House and I hope that the Committee will agree to both measures. Question put and agreed to. Draft Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026.—(Sir Stephen Timms.)

   Hansard source
8. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

   Statutory Paternity Pay

   Parents should be able, without undue financial pressure, to spend time off work in their child’s vital early months. Our review of parental leave and pay, which is due to report early in the new year, is considering how working families can best be supported, including through statutory paternity pay.

   Hansard source
9. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

   Statutory Paternity Pay

   I am concerned to hear about that experience. The Government recognise the vital role of fathers in supporting mothers and new-born children, particularly after difficult births, such as the one to which my hon. Friend has referred. Our parental leave and pay system is complicated. The review that is under way is looking at how paternity leave and pay and all the current entitlements are supporting working families. Across Government, families’ experiences, such as the one that she has brought to the House, are informing our future policy.

   Hansard source
10. 12 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Stephen Timms

    Statutory Paternity Pay

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am pleased to be able to confirm to him that self-employed parents are explicitly covered in the terms of reference of the current review.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: East Ham

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site