Sir Stephen Timms
MP for East Ham · Labour · United Kingdom
“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.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
6,741 lines on record for Sir Stephen Timms, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 7 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Certainly, it is absolutely right that the construction sector has a lot of promising opportunities for exactly those young people, and we need to ensure that they have the support to take them up. We also need to provide a social security safety net—I do not think it is one or the other—but I agree that the work of the CITB is vital in this area. The CITB provides a wide range of services and training initiatives. It sets occupational standards, funds strategic industry initiatives to support Government missions, and pays allowances and direct grants to employers, as we have heard, that carry out training to approved standards. In the five years since 2021, employer demand for CITB services has increased by 36%.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The average network supports 122 employers, while only five training groups supported more than 50 employers in 2024-25. Training groups cost £2.87 million in 2024-25, which is twice as much as the cost of networks, even though networks seem to support far more employers.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The idea is for networks to be designed around local need. Employers in each area collectively identify their priority skills needs—be they in traditional trades, digital skills, net zero capabilities or broader workforce development—and funding is directed accordingly. The decision to replace training groups with employer networks is an operational decision for the CITB, which points out that its pilot has provided evidence that the employer network model is better. In 2025-26, networks have already supported 56,000 learners and 4,400 employers —up from 51,000 learners in the previous year. Training groups, by contrast, supported around 1,800 employers per year—less than half the number supported by networks—and growth was very limited.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The employer networks model was piloted in 2022, and the CITB board has concluded that it is effective. It argues that the model gives employers a simpler route to identify training needs and secure funding, avoiding the navigation of complex grant processes or funding applications. Networks are open to all levy-registered employers at no additional cost. They provide direct support from CITB advisers, significant funding contributions toward training and a dedicated training booking team. Instead of lengthy grant applications, employers work with a CITB adviser who helps to identify skill needs, arranges training and secures funding up front to cover a portion of the training costs. It is argued that that reduces the administration burden and makes training more accessible to employers.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend said, the CITB is replacing training groups with a newer model, with employer networks, which are designed to offer a more responsive, efficient and employer-led system. There are now 33 employer networks, which, between them, cover the whole of the UK—25 in England, five in Scotland and three in Wales. The decision to move in that direction has been made by the board of CITB, with its majority construction industry membership, following its consideration of how best to meet evolving industry needs and deliver best value for employers in return for their levy payments. It is not a decision for Government; it is a matter for the CITB board. It seems to me that the CITB has thought about this quite carefully, and I will set out the arguments that it makes.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The CITB has concluded that the training group model has significant limitations. It is quite expensive to run; each group receives an annual £35,000 support grant, as my hon. Friend said. Groups often operate on a closed-membership basis, and many groups charge employers annual fees. Groups do not have direct access to skills funding—employers must apply for grants. That limits scalability, diverts levy funding away from actual training into administration, and burdens employers, especially SMEs. My hon. Friend raised that important point. The CITB has confirmed that funding for training groups will end on 31 March this year, so those £35,000 support grants will not be paid in the coming financial year. However, as my hon.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand that the chief executive of CITB, Tim Balcon, has written to my hon. Friend and invited him to make contact if he would like to discuss the matter further. I do not know whether he has taken up that opportunity yet, but if he does take up that offer and has further reflections in the wake of the subsequent discussions, I would be pleased to hear from him about that. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend will readily acknowledge that meeting the current and future skills needs of construction employers is extremely important for delivering the Government’s aims, and important for opening up opportunities for the large number of young people, and others, left economically inactive over the past few years. The CITB’s view is that the employer network model is simpler, faster, more cost effective, and more flexible. In its view, it better supports SMEs—those employers that need the most support—and it allows the industry to respond quickly to emerging skills challenges, including digital and net zero construction skills. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House, and for his interest in it, and that of other Members.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but CITB’s view is that most employers that are members of training groups now access support through employer networks. He raised an important point about SME participation, which CITB reports is improving under the network model, reflecting the easier access and more direct influence that businesses have over local training priorities. CITB thinks that helps to reduce regional disparities, and provides more agile support for smaller firms. Indeed, it recently surveyed employers that had accessed support via employer networks, 87% of which were micro, small, or medium-sized organisations. Of those, 81% said that they were satisfied, and 54% said that they were likely to do more training in future because of employer network support. My hon.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). Their party leader was in the Cabinet when much of the damage was done, and he did nothing to stop it when it came to the crunch. In the battle against child poverty, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The headline rate of benefits was over time cut to the lowest real-terms level for 40 years. The Child Poverty Commission set up by the Act was replaced by the Social Mobility Commission, and child poverty eventually rocketed by 900,000 to 4.5 million. That is what Tory policies did. Their claim of wanting to tackle child poverty proved to be hollow, and we discovered the authentic voice of the Tory party, which we have heard again this afternoon. We should not forget the contribution of the Tories’ coalition partners in the 2010 to 2015 Government. I warmly welcome the Lib Dem support that we have heard today. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made a thoughtful speech on behalf of his party, and we also heard from the hon.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Like the shadow Minister, I will start by quoting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. At the start of the debate, he said that this Government have chosen to reject the politics of division and of rage. Instead, we have chosen to seek to bring the country together and to open up a hopeful way forward. That is the choice that underpins this Bill. It was my great privilege to take through this House the Child Poverty Act 2010, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). That Bill, as he pointed out, had all-party support. George Osborne spoke in favour of it. A few months later, George Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government took the opposite stance. The four separate child poverty targets were scrapped.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is a generation less likely to struggle with their mental health, more likely to do well at school and more likely to be in work as young adults and to thrive in their future working lives. That is a generation with the capacity to thrive. That is the future we are choosing to build.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The costs of child poverty play out throughout the lives of those affected. They play out in our social security system, in the NHS and in other public services, too. The Tories claim that by making those cuts, they were saving money. What they were doing, in fact, was heaping up massive costs of future failure, which we are all now having to pick up. The Bill will deliver a better future for our children and for the country. Removing the two-child limit in universal credit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this decade, and that figure rises to more than half a million children alongside other measures in our child poverty strategy.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not just at the moment. Poverty does immense harm, as we have heard, to children and their future prospects. In the classroom, children eligible for free school meals are on the wrong end of an education gap that reaches 19 months by age 16. They earn around 25% less at age 30. Recent research by Liverpool University has shown that children growing up below the poverty line are three times more likely to be not in education, employment or training as young adults. To tackle the NEET problem—as we must, with almost a million young people left NEET by the last Government—we have to tackle child poverty, too. We have heard arguments in this debate that we are piling up costs for the future. Actually, it is the failures of the past that have piled up those costs, and we are now having to address that.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) made a thoughtful speech, as he often does, but he was wrong. He said that the extra money would be for people because they were not working. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron)—in a spirited contribution—and my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) that the great majority of the beneficiaries of this measure are people in work, and as a result the hon. Gentleman’s argument crumbled away.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her contribution to the debate and for the work of her Work and Pensions Committee, alongside that of the Education Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in scrutinising our child poverty strategy. The points that she made were absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) was, I think, the first to draw attention to the struggle that teachers are having in supporting children in classes. According to survey evidence, in 38% of schools staff are currently paying out of their own pockets to provide essentials for their pupils because their parents cannot afford to buy them. They have full-time roles tackling hardship, taking away funds that ought to be spent on education. The hon.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned, successfully, for the change that we are making. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said in her opening speech that her party did not accept the relative poverty definition. As we were reminded during the debate, her party embraced that definition in 2010—it was part of the change that was made at the time—but between 2010-11 and 2023-24, even absolute poverty rose. It was higher at the end of that period than it had been at the beginning. That was an extraordinary feature of her party’s record in government. I am grateful to my hon.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The change for which I think the hon. Lady is arguing would make a relatively modest alteration to the figures. There is a real advantage in the benefit cap, in terms of the incentive to work. We are not proposing to change that, and in the changes that we are making we are maintaining that incentive very robustly. This is a change from the choices of the last Government, which left us with a third of primary schools running food banks. I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) to the work of the End Child Poverty Coalition. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) rightly referred to the Child Poverty Action Group, and others mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill is the key to delivering the biggest fall in child poverty in any Parliament on record, and in doing so it will make a very big contribution to the missions of this Government. Our manifesto was summed up in one word—“change”—and this is what change looks like: ambition for families, and for the country. Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The House proceeded to a Division.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I remember a time when there seemed to be at least some degree of consensus in the House on the importance of tackling child poverty. Well, there was not much sign of that among Conservative Members this afternoon, and I am sorry that we have lost it. Scrapping the two-child limit on universal credit is the single most effective lever that we can pull to reduce the number of children growing up poor, and in pulling that lever we are helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives now, and to have real grounds for hope for their futures. We are supporting their families, the majority of whom are working families, and by enabling the next generation to fulfil its potential we are investing in our country’s success in the years to come.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I will not be giving way. It was very interesting to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). Her party is looking more and more like a cut-price Boris Johnson reunion party, with all the old faces turning up on the Reform Benches. Now they are even starting to sing some of the old songs. The leader of their party has been talking for years about opposing the two-child limit, and just a few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) wrote an article in which she said that she opposed it. Today they are voting with the Tories in favour of the cap. Those old policies would cause the same damage if they were brought in again in the future.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our Pathways to Work guarantees will tackle the unnecessary barriers that keep disabled people out of work, Connect to Work employment support will be nationwide by April, last week we expanded WorkWell, and regular meetings of the lead Ministers on disability ensure cross-Government working.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the disability employment gap is too big. Every Department has a lead Minister on disability and I chair regular meetings. The Minister for Roads and Buses champions disabled people at the Department for Transport, and the rail accessibility road map sets out planned improvements for disabled people ahead of the establishment of Great British Railways.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would let me have a note on the hold-up with that particular complaint. There are delays with Access to Work, reflecting the big surge in demand for it, and that is why we have proposed reform. We have consulted on reform, and we will come back with our proposals quite soon.”
House of Commons28 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My review of the personal independence payment will be co-produced with disabled people, and its 12-person steering group will meet with me and my two co-chairs face to face for the first time later this week. I cannot pre-empt the choice of priorities and recommendations, but the review will draw on the full range of voices to build a system that is fair to everybody.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend raises a good point. However, on the work capability assessment, people claiming universal credit can be treated as having limited capability for work and work-related activity—LCWRA—if they are being treated for cancer, if they are likely to be treated within six months, or are recovering from treatment. I hope that will reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There were 2 million working-age personal independence payment claimants before the pandemic. That number is now over 3 million and is set to exceed 4 million by the end of the decade. My review will aim to make sure that PIP is fair and fit for the future.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I have not seen the details of that particular case, but I would be happy to have a look at it if he would like me to. There is, of course, the opportunity for mandatory reconsideration and in due course for appeal, but I would be happy to look at those details.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend will welcome, as I do, the dramatic record fall in waiting lists that has been recently reported, but of course we need to make further progress in reducing waiting lists and we are determined that the assessment for PIP will be fair to everybody. As I have mentioned, the steering group will meet for the first time over two days at the end of this week, and I know that everyone on that group will be focused on ensuring that we can deliver a fair system for those who need it.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have already made some important changes. For example, we have removed a serious disincentive to work that was created in the universal credit system by the last Government. That has gone, thanks to the changes in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which finished its passage last summer. Those changes will take effect in April. We do have a broken system—the hon. Lady is absolutely right about that—but it is the system that was left behind by the last Government; and, yes, we are determined to fix it.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My two co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, were appointed in October. We have appointed a firm to facilitate the co-production of the review, and, drawing on an open expression of interest, we have appointed a steering group of 12, which will come together for the first time this week.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The steering group that we have appointed is made up overwhelmingly of disabled people, many of whom currently claim PIP or have done so in the past, so the perspective that my hon. Friend rightly asks about will be at the heart of the review. The review is co-produced, and effective co-production needs transparency and openness—the co-chairs and I are publishing monthly letters. I hope that he and everyone who follows this with interest will see the progress we are making and the determination we are expressing.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not sure which figures the hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to. There certainly has been an increase in the incidence of disability. The incidence of benefit claiming has been greater than the increase in the incidence of disability, though. That is one reason that we are undertaking this review. We must ensure that the system is fair, because PIP is a vital benefit for many, and that it is fit for the future.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have said, the review will be co-produced with disabled people to put lived experience at its heart. It will engage widely to bring together the full range of voices, including those of people with arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that Liz Sayce did a superb job. We commissioned her review straight after the general election, and we have accepted all but two of the recommendations that she made in her report. We are working through the detail of how to implement those recommendations, and we will set out the proposals and the details as soon as we are able to do so. We are also working with carer organisations on communications with the carers affected to ensure that they are right. I look forward to giving the hon. Gentleman more details as soon as they are available.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s experience. We are in the most difficult part of the transition, as people who were previously on employment and support allowance move over to universal credit. We have introduced an enhanced support journey to try to simplify it, and I am keeping a very close eye on how it is going. If he sends me the details of that case, I will certainly look at them.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are certainly addressing the backlog, but if the hon. Lady would like to send me the details of those two cases, I will certainly investigate.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend raises a very good point. As I have said, the process of migration that we are going through is the most difficult part, as people move from employment and support allowance to universal credit. We have introduced an enhanced support journey to assist people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent who are going through this process, but I look forward to meeting him in a couple of weeks’ time to discuss lessons from this particular case.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady makes a good point, and it is one of the reasons we are reforming Access to Work. We consulted on reform in the Green Paper last year, and I think she is right that we need a less bureaucratic system for access, not least for appointees.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have heard this evening of serious accidents—in some cases fatal—that can befall people engaged in this work. I hope I have been able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we have a regulatory regime and framework in place that are sufficiently robust to protect the health and safety of those workers, as we must. I will certainly follow with great interest the developments he has indicated to the House, and the thinking that is under way at the moment, and see where that gets us in the coming months. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The BSI is independent of Government and makes its own decisions, so I will certainly follow with interest the outcome of the work he has referred to. I should also make the point that British standards are not routinely made mandatory. If they are followed, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with the law; however, as they are set independently, legislating for them to be mandatory would introduce the risk of falling behind technical advancements. I think there are consumer uses where there is some mandation, but in an instance such as the one we have been talking about this evening, BSI standards are not generally made mandatory. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to correspond with me on that. To conclude, the Government continue to take the health and safety of people cleaning windows very seriously.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The committee concluded that the standard on tools for live working is just not suitable for water-fed cleaning, because it is intended to cover tools used by people who have been trained in working on, or near, live electrical conductors in the electrical industry. Industry training is generally three to four years to become competent to work on live conductors. The committee’s view was that a water-fed pole is not a tool for live working, and that window cleaners should not be encouraged to carry out live working near a live electrical cable. On that basis, the industry experts on the committee and the BSI rejected the application. I note from the what the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the BSI may be looking at making a change to another standard.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I should perhaps also point out that the federation provides a training course on “Using water-fed poles and portable ladders”, which is approved by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. It is a one-day course, and it costs £175 plus VAT per person for members. The right hon. Member referred to the product introduced by Ionic Systems of Swindon. I know that Ionic Systems, in pursuing the case the right hon. Member set out this evening, met the relevant British Standards Institution committee, PEL/78, on 22 July this year to discuss including water-fed poles in standard BS8020 on tools for live working. The idea was to include fully insulated water-fed poles to avoid an incident like that which befell Jason Knight. As the right hon. Member said, the system uses de-ionised water, which will not conduct electricity.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If you are in any doubt about whether the lines in question are power or telephone (this is a very common mistake) always assume that they are power lines and are live.” It goes on: “It is not normally practical for electricity companies to shroud high voltage conductors and even when low voltage conductors are shrouded, the shrouding is not designed to protect against contact by Tools or Equipment—again, Keep your Distance! If unsure, always contact your local electricity network operators”. That is available on the website of the Federation of Window Cleaners. In the specific case of a 33 kV line, which the right hon. Member told us was the case here, the Energy Networks Association advises a clearance distance of 3 metres to be maintained.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The latter is called “Safe use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines” and it is jointly branded by the Energy Networks Association and the Federation of Window Cleaners. I just want to read part of what it says. I appreciate that this is no comfort to the right hon. Member’s constituent, but it may be helpful to others to quote from it: “Be aware of the dangers of working near or underneath Overhead Power Lines (OHPLs). Always assume they are live and beware that electricity can jump gaps. Plan ahead and note the location of OHPLs. Consider your position at ground and the extent of your equipment (i.e. Telescopic devices) and ensure that when extended it will not encroach or breach the exclusion zone as a minimum. Generally remain 5 metres away to be safe.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Enforcement of the duties in law is carried out by the HSE and by local authorities, which have powers to inspect workplaces, to investigate accidents and to take action to address non-compliance up to and including prosecution. To help employers comply with these duties, the HSE produces general guidance on a range of topics relevant to window cleaning, such as manual handling, control of hazardous substances, and slips and trips. In addition, guidance specific to working safely when cleaning windows is available from the window cleaning industry itself. That includes two pieces of guidance on the safe use of water-fed poles, produced in collaboration with the HSE, and guidance on the use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines, produced in collaboration with the Energy Networks Association.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I have said, the self-employed are subject to those duties only where their activities place others at risk, but it is nevertheless a good idea to observe them. I understand that in the tragic accident we have heard about, as the right hon. Member has said, the power line was compliant with statutory clearance distances and those set out in industry guidance but the pole manufacturer’s guidance was to avoid touching overhead power lines, including by having a warning marked on the pole itself. From the account the right hon. Gentleman has given, my understanding is that the pole did not in this instance touch the overhead cable but got quite close to it without touching it.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If there are overhead power lines close to a property, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 would require a risk assessment to be carried out. If there is a danger of electrocution, the HSE advice is not to carry out the work on that part of the building or to find another method that reduces the risk, particularly one that does not involve water-fed poles. Other risks associated with water-fed poles, and window cleaning in general, include musculoskeletal injury from the handling of the pole, slips or trips, injury from falling poles, and the spread of Legionella from water systems. It is a legal duty under health and safety law for employers to identify and manage all those risks and, in doing so, to protect their workers and the public from harm.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Depending on the material and weight of the pole, they can cause back and shoulder injuries through continued use. There is often a balance to be struck between weight, reach and cost. Prices start at around £100 for a very basic, budget, short-reach pole but can be over £700 for high-reach ones, while mid-range poles cost around £200. I cannot comment on the efficacy of these poles for cleaning, but there obviously are safety benefits from using poles from the stable footing of a ground-level position, and certainly the view of the HSE is that they are safer than ladders. However, there are risks, and using a pole to carry out an activity at elevation in the presence of overhead power lines does carry the risk of electric shock, as the tragic experience that we have heard about underlines.”
House of Commons17 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗