Local Government Finance

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brash]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I endorse them wholeheartedly. I have heard stories of London boroughs and Birmingham city council putting families in taxis with the threat, “Get in the taxi, or you’re homeless.” They do not know where they will get out at the other end, and they discover that they are in Hartlepool only when they arrive. It is left for our council to deal with the pressure and the additional SEND needs, and for our council to deal with the children, who sometimes end up in care. It is a disgraceful practice that should rightly be cracked down on. I know that the Minister is alive to this problem, and it needs to be dealt with.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I thank both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for their comments. My hon. Friend is rightly talking about the financial consequences. Does he think—as I do, and as I am sure the hon. Member for Fylde does—that the abysmal outcomes for children are what we should care about? I am sure he agrees with me that this issue ought to be a priority.

[Mr Brash]

I absolutely agree. Just this week, there have been stories in my local press about a family with children who have been moved to a place where they have no connections, no familial links and no understanding of the local community. The Minister is absolutely right: those children are suffering as a result of the behaviour of councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is my pleasure to close this debate, despite the fact that I must apologise to the House. Many Members will know that I suffer from chronic migraine, and I have been having an attack over the past couple of days, so my contribution might not be as long as it might otherwise have been. In show business and in politics, the show must go on, albeit my speech might be slightly shorter than it would have otherwise been, but I think that will be a cause of joy for many Members—[Interruption.] Calm down.

The Secretary of State and I know what a difference the hard work of councillors, frontline staff and all our mayors makes, and we pay tribute to them for everything they do for their communities, as many Members across the House have done. But we also know the consequences of the unfairness of the funding system. The last decade and a half of austerity was felt by the most deprived local authorities, because the link between funding and deprivation was broken.

The shadow Minister seemed to imply in his remarks that he thought that the link ought to simply be with statutory duties, rather than any consideration at all being taken of the impact of deprivation. I would just say to him that those communities that suffered most, that were left out for far too long and that have struggled with the consequences of deprivation will wholeheartedly disagree with him. That is why today we are restoring the link with deprivation and ending the irrational inequality of the previous funding system. We are, as many have said, providing the first multi-year settlement in a decade, we are investing in changing our public services, and we are simplifying funding for local government.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

The right hon. Gentleman has had ample time to contribute, and while I would normally give way with gusto and have a bit of political knockabout with him, today is not the day for that.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else who has contributed today and also to thank those who contributed to the consultation on the provisional settlement and the Members who made representations to me directly. There could be no quick fixes. We cannot undo over a decade of damage overnight, but the settlement we are discussing today is our most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable, and I am committed to going further in coming years to fix the pressures our councils are facing. The Secretary of State set out the various mechanisms that we are employing to do that in his opening speech. This Labour Government have backed local governments through action, and since coming to power we have made available a nearly 25% increase in core spending power in ’28-29, worth £16.6 billion.

I shall briefly turn to the points Members made. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) relayed the situation with regard to flooding on the Somerset levels. I send my support to his constituents and will work with the Flooding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), as required. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and the former Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), told me to be bold and I will try, but I look forward to their support in persuading all our colleagues in this place to vote for whatever bold solutions we come up with. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) talked about failures in children’s care, and I feel sure that we will work together on that.

Many Members talked about their experiences of councils struggling yet often achieving, despite that struggle, to provide great innovative services on lean budgets, and we applaud them all for that.

[James Wild]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I am determined not to give way, if that is okay—I think we need to bring this debate to a close. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asks me about remoteness from a sedentary position. I have discussed this issue in detail with many Members on a one-to-one basis, and I repeat that there are other ways in which the settlement accounts for the actual costs of providing services, such as the area cost adjustment and other means. I do not agree with what has been said, but I do not want to detain the House any longer.

I had a wonderful January engaging with many Members across this House on the settlement; it was a fascinating opportunity to hear about the uniqueness of every area. I particularly thank my colleagues from Knowsley, St Helens, Gateshead and Banbury for the way in which they engaged on this settlement and contributed to how it looks today.

I thank all Members once again for their valuable contributions today. The Government are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge that local authorities face as they continue to deal with the legacy of the previous system, but our changes will make a big difference. They will get money to where it is needed most, creating a fairer and evidence-based funding system and—most importantly to me and many others—restoring the link between funding and poverty.

Question put.

Local Government Best Value: Bedford and Spelthorne Borough Councils

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

This Government are committed to taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking to support two councils to recover and reform: Bedford borough council and Spelthorne borough council.

Bedford borough council

Today I have exercised powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 to carry out a best value inspection of Bedford borough council’s compliance with the best value duty. Given the economic importance of Bedford, I am committed to ensuring strong oversight to safeguard investment and support regional growth.

I have appointed Paul Najsarek as the inspector and, on his request, Margaret Lee and Parveen Akhtar as assistant inspectors.

Given our concerns relate to broad decision making, and whether the standards expected for effective and convenient local government are being upheld, the inspection will consider decision making in relation to those functions, encompassing leadership, governance, organisational culture, use of resources, partnerships and community engagement, and impact on service delivery. It will also consider the authority’s capacity to address the recommendations made by the Local Government Association corporate peer challenge team and progress review, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy review and the external auditor’s (KPMG) update report to Bedford borough council’s audit committee meeting on 27 November 2025.

I look forward to receiving the inspector’s report in June and will carefully consider this before determining the next steps for Bedford borough council. If it shows that the council is in breach of its best value duty, we will then consider whether to exercise powers under section 15 of the 1999 Local Government Act.

Spelthorne borough council

Today, I am publishing the commissioners at Spelthorne borough council’s first report, received in December 2025, which sets out early progress, including the adoption of an improvement and recovery plan, restructuring of debt and the implementation of a new minimum revenue provision policy. These steps are critical to improving the council’s financial sustainability ahead of Surrey’s planned local government reorganisation in April 2027.

While I welcome the progress to date, significant challenges remain. Delivering these improvements will be essential to ensuring stability and readiness for the changes ahead, and I look forward to the council and commissioners working together to take forward the strategy they have outlined to address these issues.

To support continued progress at the council, the Secretary of State has confirmed the reappointments of Lesley Seary as lead commissioner and Deborah McLaughlin, Peter Robinson and Mervyn Greer as commissioners, until the expiry of the directions on 31 May 2030 as a backstop. In practice, their appointments will cease when Spelthorne borough council is dissolved as part of the planned local government reorganisation in Surrey.

I recognise that local government reorganisation in Surrey brings added urgency and complexity to Spelthorne’s improvement journey. I have therefore asked commissioners to include in their next report reflections on the reorganisation process, including how Government can best support new councils in meeting their best value duty from day one, and any urgent issues that fall outside their current remit. I look forward to receiving their progress report later this summer.

I am committed to working with these councils to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect. My Department will take action to support improvement where needed.

I will deposit in the Library copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on www.gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.

[HCWS1323]

Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate, in which hon. Members have raised some important issues. She posed some questions that I will come to in my response. She mentioned that I served on the London borough of Southwark just before she was first elected to the best borough in London. She is right that a bit of my heart will be forever in Camberwell.

I learned a lot during those years, but local government has changed in the 20 years since I was first elected. Poverty in London has also changed, along with the services that boroughs try to provide. In a moment of shock and surprise, I find myself in agreement with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). He rightly characterises a situation faced by councils where costs are spiking, often because of policy failure not of their making, whether those are the costs of homelessness, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, or the costs associated with SEND mentioned by many hon. Members, to which I would add adult and children’s care.

We have fundamental issues to tackle and many of the policy levers lie in this place, not in town halls. We all need to own our responsibilities on that front. We continually need to rethink how we approach this issue. It is a shame in many ways that I could not introduce some of my colleagues in other parts of the country to this discussion. Hon. Members will have seen in the press that I have been variously accused of robbing the north to send money to the south, and now robbing London to send money somewhere else—the north or the midlands, I do not know.

In fact, the consistent theme in the funding settlement is the Government’s attempt to reconnect council funding with deprivation. I will come to the detail of that, because we are committed to making long-overdue changes to council funding. This is the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, which, as Members have mentioned, will make a huge difference.

[Joe Powell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will make some progress. Yesterday’s announcement keeps our promise of a multi-year settlement, because local communities in London and elsewhere deserved better than the out-of-date funding allocations not aligned with need, which meant poorer public services and slower growth, particularly for those dealing with the consequences of poverty.

We are making changes to how councils are funded. Many of these are changes that the public, local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We consulted four times on these changes, and we are grateful for the engagement from all corners, including from hon. Members in this debate. The engagement has informed our approach at every stage. The settlement confirms multi-year funding, our pledge to realign funding with need, and our commitment to end wasteful competitive bidding and to simplify funding.

The Government have an important role as an equaliser for local government income, and we are directing funding towards the places that are less able to meet their needs through locally raised income, which will enable all local authorities to provide similar levels of services to their residents. However, that is true notwithstanding the major differences in spiking demands around the country.

Following the provisional settlement consultation, the Government have announced an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the final settlement, including a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant, bringing total investment over the multi-year settlement to £2.6 billion. Of that £2.6 billion, £400 million is supporting places in London that suffered the most from historical funding cuts, and there is an additional £272 million to bring the total investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years to £3.5 billion—including over £800 million in London as part of our national plan to end homelessness.

That is a significant investment in the capital’s homelessness services, which is much needed, as has been mentioned by Members from across the House. It takes the total new grant funding delivered through the annual settlements for 2026-27 to 2028-29 to over £4 billion. Since coming to power, we have pledged a 24.2% increase in core spending power by 2028-29 when compared with 2024-25, worth over £16.6 billion. It is a significant uplift in the spending power of councils.

According to analysis by the Department, as a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up from around one third before our reforms. In 2028-29, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived.

[Peter Fortune]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) first.

[Joe Powell]

As the Minister knows, where we have pockets of high deprivation in London, one concern is protecting those communities. When the settlement was announced, it was very clear that the Government’s expectation was that things like council tax support should not be the first thing that councils looked to. Does the Minister agree that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea cutting £441,000 of council tax support to our lowest income families as its first decision is not the right way to go about building a sustainable budget for the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I agree, and my hon. Friend makes that case very well. I imagine that his local authority could have made other choices than that one.

[Peter Fortune]

I thank the Minister for the objective way that she is tackling this debate, but the reality for the London borough of Bromley is a £22 million cut over the next three-year period. Thinking about the deprivation and the challenges that we have, including the second-highest number of education, health and care plans in London, the cut will have a significant impact on our residents, despite pushing council tax as high as we can.

[Alison McGovern]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our challenge is to understand how we can best use our resources to support all our children. We could try to increase funding again and again, without any changes to the system, but we would not necessarily get better outcomes, and costs would keep going up, not least because councils have issues with how they are able to provide some of the support that children need. We need to get to a more stable financial position and take responsibility in this place to change the policy failures that caused the cost spikes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Compared with 2024-25, by 2028-29 London will see an increase in core spending power of more than £3 billion. The vast majority of councils in London will see a real-terms increase between 2024-25 and 2028-29 and a fairer system that addresses issues that matter in London—and across England—including recognising the additional strain that commuters and tourists can place on service provision, taking into account need in specific high-demand service areas such as temporary accommodation and crucially, using the most up-to-date data, including the 2025 indices of multiple deprivation. That has been the subject of some feedback to the Department. It is a statement of the obvious that we would use the most up-to-date data, and it so happens that that data can better account for the impact of housing costs on poverty. That was always the intention, and we would always have done that, whatever noise I have picked up on this topic.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

I apologise, Dr Murrison. The debate moved more quickly than I had anticipated. I thank the Minister for giving way despite my late arrival. I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s aims; we all want to tackle deprivation and poverty. In my borough, the London borough of Richmond, we are going to see £29 million of cuts over the next three years, which will stretch to £46 million by year 4. That means a huge cliff edge, and at the moment the Government are refusing to provide any transitional protection. I recognise that Richmond is largely a wealthy borough, but we have significant pockets of deprivation and very needy residents, particularly young and older vulnerable residents. Despite a maximum council tax hike and efficiency savings, we will see cuts to the most vulnerable.

Will the Minister finally agree to meet with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the leader of our council to talk about how we can put transitional provisions in place? She has refused to do that so far. [Interruption.] She seems perplexed, but her latest letter refused a meeting with us, so I am asking her again, in the spirit of cross-party working, if she will meet us to discuss this.

[Alison McGovern]

The reason for my perplexed state is that during the period of consultation with Members of this House, I met 140 Members of Parliament on the settlement. I am sorry if the hon. Member has had the message that I will not meet her, because my office door has literally been open to Members over the recent period. We can discuss this at any point. The fact is that the London borough of Richmond is in the least deprived decile. While she rightly stands up for her borough, when I look at some parts of the country that have been forgotten for far too long, I feel that it is right that we have taken the decision through the settlement to reconnect funding with deprivation. But I can discuss that with her in detail in the future.

I want to make some points about cost. Local governments are still under pressure, and despite the increase of nearly 25% that I mentioned, that pressure will remain because of the costs that they are facing. That is why we are taking action now to support local authorities as we move towards a reformed special educational needs and disabilities system. The first phase of support will address historic deficits accrued, as was mentioned by the shadow Minister. All local authorities will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs dedicated schools grant deficit, subject to the approval of a local change plan.

We are also fixing social care services, on which many people, including in London, rely. We are changing children’s social care in a generation by rolling out the Families First Partnership programme, backed by more than £2.4 billion of investment across this multi-year settlement. We are providing about £4.6 billion of additional funding, available for adult social care, by 2028-29, compared with ’25-26. When it comes to children’s care, the issue is not only that the costs are unsustainable, but that we are failing in our duty to so many children, and that is why we must change.

It is important to recognise that some places, including some inner-London boroughs, benefited disproportionately from the old system. However, we are supporting those places to plan for changes with transitional arrangements, including by protecting their income and providing additional flexibilities. For London, we are providing more than £550 million for income protection over the multi-year settlement.

[Luke Taylor]

The Minister mentions additional flexibility. Within that does she include allowing what I think are five inner-London boroughs, including Wandsworth, to increase their council tax by up to 10% without a referendum? Is that the additional flexibility that she mentions?

[Alison McGovern]

We set out that flexibility when we made the provisional statement, and there will be more details of that in the Chamber tomorrow. I am at the slight disadvantage of speaking between the publication of the settlement and the full debate in the House of Commons tomorrow. There will be more detail tomorrow for the hon. Gentleman.

The council tax bill for a house worth £5 million in central London can be less than the bill for an ordinary family home in places such as Blackpool and Darlington. It is not fair that properties worth so much more pay less council tax and receive comparatively better services than elsewhere, because of Government subsidy. Removing referendum principles for the six councils, as we have said, will allocate more than £250 million more funding for places with higher need, instead of subsidising very low bills for 500,000 households under those councils.

I want to turn to the direct questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who led the debate. She raised the issue of the costs of temporary accommodation, and she was absolutely correct to do so. I refer her to the homelessness strategy, which I published just before Christmas. The problems in temporary accommodation are very geographically concentrated. I am anxious to work with London councils, including her councils, to get children and families out of poor-quality, expensive temporary accommodation and into better-quality temporary accommodation that will be more reasonably priced for local authorities—even if it is still temporary, because some of what we are paying for is very poor value.

My hon. Friend mentioned LHA rates and asked whether I will work with the DWP and Treasury. I can tell her that I am doing so. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), also raised that with me in another setting. I will happily update the House as we go. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned a stalled site in her borough, which sounds like a dreadful waste. I will alert the Housing Minister and the Secretary of State to that. They were anxious to bring forward their plan for London with the Mayor of London for this very reason, but I will refer them to this debate. She asked about a visitor levy, which other Members mentioned too. I will take those comments as input to the consultation on a visitor levy.

My hon. Friend and the shadow Minister mentioned EFS. Again, shockingly, I found myself agreeing with the shadow Minister: that system should have been used sparingly and for exceptional circumstances. It is becoming less exceptional, and we have to get to the heart of why councils are in this position. Some of that is about costs, as we have said, but there are also other things, like reintroducing local audit, that I believe will help to defend the system and make it more sustainable as we go. My hon. Friend also asked about SEND deficits, which I have mentioned.

We are making changes that we believe are necessary to change public services and get local government back on its feet. By realigning funding with need and reforming services that put pressure on local government, we will empower local leaders to deliver for communities in London and across the country. Unlike many people, I firmly believe that it does not matter whether someone lives in a northern town or city, in the midlands, the south-west, Scotland, Wales or London—poverty is poverty, and we should respond to it all.

Local Supported Housing Strategies

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

Today I am pleased to publish statutory guidance under Section 2 of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which sets out the framework for local housing authorities in England to formulate and publish local supported housing strategies.

The local supported housing strategies are a crucial step forward in increasing the Government’s and local councils’ understanding of the supply and need for this vital accommodation for people with care and support needs. The Act places a duty on all local housing authorities in England to assess the current provision of supported housing, and to estimate current unmet and future need. Delivery of the strategies will ensure that councils can plan new supply of supported housing effectively, and will enable better commissioning, oversight and safeguarding for vulnerable residents.

The guidance includes:

A framework for local supported housing strategies: including the statutory requirements under the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, covering strategic priorities, partnership arrangements, needs assessment, and delivery plans, with the first strategy due by 31 March 2027 and updates every five years.

Process and components: Providing detailed steps for developing strategies, including designating strategic leads, engaging partners, conducting a needs assessment, and creating a delivery plan covering funding, development pipeline, referrals, void management, and move-on pathways.

Governance, reporting, and monitoring: Requirements for formal governance structures, annual reporting to MHCLG and ongoing review of progress, ensuring alignment with wider housing, health, and social care strategies and compliance with data-sharing and quality standards.

To support implementation the Government are allocating a total of £39 million in new burdens funding to local authorities. This will ensure that councils can develop robust local supported housing strategies and prepare for the introduction of full licensing and oversight functions.

This is an important first step in implementing measures that will enable local areas to properly understand who is delivering supported housing in the area, and will help ensure that in the future there is the right kind of supported housing to meet the needs of those who require it.

Local Government Finance Settlement 2026-27 to 2028-29

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

This time last year, this Government committed to delivering long-overdue reforms to local government funding, through the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade. Today we have delivered on that promise.

The previous Government’s funding system was not fit for purpose. It meant that cuts hit our most deprived communities hardest—the places that could least afford them. Those councils were left on their knees, with services cut to the bone. Youth clubs and libraries were sold off. Bins went uncollected and streets were left dirty. Wherever you lived, whether you got essential funding depended on 10-year-old data and out-of-date formulas. This settlement delivers transformational changes that the public, our local government partners and Parliament have long called for.

We are reconnecting funding with need. Only around a third of councils were given the funding to broadly match their assessed need before our reforms. By the end of the multi-year settlement, that will be nine in 10 councils. As a result of these changes, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived in 2028-29.

We have consulted four times on these changes, most recently on the provisional settlement, and we are grateful for the engagement from all corners. At each stage we have listened to views to ensure we are putting funding where it is most needed. We said a year ago that fixing the broken system that we inherited would require tough decisions, and we have made them in close partnership with all who have given their time, energy and expertise. Communities across the country are lucky to have such passionate representatives committed to fighting their corner.

This settlement is about fairness. It delivers our manifesto commitment to give councils multi-year funding settlements; our pledge to realign funding with need and deprivation; our commitment to simplifying funding and ending wasteful competitive bidding; and our promise finally to reset the business rates retention system. We are also delivering a transformation in children’s social care, backed by £2.4 billion.

Today we are going even further by announcing an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the settlement. As part of this we are confirming a £440 million funding boost to support the areas most impacted by historical funding cuts, as well as additional funding for homelessness and rough sleeping, and for mayors.

I am also pleased to announce a plan to resolve SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—deficits, which have threatened councils’ sustainability and diverted funding from essential day-to-day services. We will resolve 90% of local authorities’ dedicated schools grant high needs deficits accrued to the end of 2025-26, projected to be worth over £5 billion. All local authorities with a SEND deficit will be eligible to receive grant funding, subject to submitting and securing the Department for Education’s approval of a local SEND reform plan.

The local outcomes framework, published alongside the settlement, is an essential component of these reforms. The framework outlines national priority outcomes delivered at a local level and driven by councils as local leaders of place. Rather than micromanaging how councils decide to deliver their services, it will prioritise the outcomes that people care about the most, focusing on progress, not process. It will strengthen the way the Government support and hold councils to account for improving outcomes for their areas. As ever, I am grateful to our colleagues working in local government for their constructive support in its development.

The work does not stop here. We know that the challenges still facing local government are real and complex. Having fixed the foundations, we are ready to take the next steps to transform public services and put local government back on its feet.

The Government’s response to the consultation on the provisional settlement for 2026-27 has been published, as have details of the final settlement.

The final settlement

I have laid before the House the “Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026 to 2027” and the “Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026 to 2027”. Together, these reports represent the final local government finance settlement for 2026 to 2027.

The Government will provide over £5.6 billion of new grant funding towards local government services over the next three years. This includes announcing today an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the final settlement for 2026-27. This takes the total new grant funding delivered through the annual settlements for 2026-27 to 2028-29 to over £4 billion.

With this new funding and other available funding in the settlement, we are today setting out:

A £440 million additional uplift to the recovery grant, aimed at the councils most impacted by cuts during austerity, bringing the total to £2.6 billion through the multi-year settlement;

A £272 million in additional allocations within the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, bringing the total through the grant to £2.7 billion;

An additional £39.6 million for mayors to build their capacity, bringing the total to £138.6 million through the multi-year settlement; and

An additional £15 million over the multi-year settlement to support stand-alone fire and rescue authorities.

By the end of the multi-year settlement, we will have provided a 15.5% increase in core spending power, worth over £11.4 billion, compared to 2025-26. Since coming into power, we will have made available a 24.3% increase in 2028-29 compared to 2024-25, worth £16.6 billion.

We have listened to feedback and, as a result, have made technical changes to ensure that we more accurately reflect councils’ current income from local business rates pooling arrangements—a way that councils share risk in the business rates system. The Institute for Fiscal Studies noted that the method we used to do this assumed many districts and the City of London started with significantly more funding from pooling than they do in practice. We are committed to changing this, while providing protection for councils for the first year of this change, giving them time to adapt.

To achieve this, the Government will provide a one-off adjustment support grant in 2026-27 to authorities that would otherwise see their core spending power reduce in 2026-27, compared to indicative allocations set out at the provisional settlement. Allocations for this grant are set out within the final settlement. The pooling assumption for 2027-28 and 2028-29 will be subject to consultation at the next settlement, and we will provide an update to councils in due course.

The recovery grant

We have heard many calls for further support to repair the damage done by the previous Government. We previously confirmed that the Government will maintain 2025-26 recovery grant allocations for all authorities across this multi-year settlement. The recovery grant was targeted at deprived places, which suffered the most from historical funding cuts. We have heard clearly through consultation feedback that more support for these areas is needed. The Government are therefore confirming today a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant, targeted towards upper-tier authorities with a funding increase of less than 17% over the period. This brings the total funding through the recovery grant, including the recovery grant guarantee, to £2.6 billion. This Government make no apologies for their commitment to reversing the effects of austerity, starting with the places that have been left behind and disrespected for too long.

We recognise that the current SEND system is not working for children or families, and nor is it working for local authorities, which continue to face significant financial pressures. The Department for Education has set out the principles for a reformed SEND system that meets needs earlier, before challenges escalate, and will set out details of these plans in the upcoming schools White Paper.

Ahead of this, we are introducing support to address local authorities’ dedicated schools grant deficits. All local authorities with SEND deficits will be eligible in 2026-27 to receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs-related DSG deficit accrued up to the end of 2025-26. This grant will be paid in autumn 2026, subject to each local authority submitting and securing the Department for Education’s approval of a local SEND reform plan.

We know that SEND reform will take time to fully embed and local authorities will need further support. For deficits that arise in 2026-27 and 2027-28, local authorities can expect that we will continue to take an appropriate and proportionate approach, although it will not be unlimited. From 2028-29, SEND spending will be covered within the Government’s DEL budget, so local authorities will not be expected to fund future SEND costs from general funds.

Homelessness and rough sleeping

I am also confirming a total uplift of £272 million for the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, bringing the total value to over £2.7 billion through the settlement, and £3.7 billion including funding outside the settlement. The £159 million of the uplift is funding for supported housing services, announced in the national plan to end homelessness, which we have uplifted by a further £35 million, and with which we are targeting 40 local areas with the greatest single homelessness and rough sleeping need. This additional funding will help local authorities prevent homelessness before it occurs and ensure that vulnerable people are given homes that meet their needs.

Council tax and exceptional financial support

Fairness for taxpayers is at the heart of this Government’s decision making. For the vast majority of councils, the Government will maintain a core referendum threshold of 3%, with a 2% adult social care precept over the multi-year settlement. When taking decisions on council tax levels, the Government expects all authorities to carefully consider the impact on households.

Our local government finance reforms get money to where it is needed, but we recognise that some councils remain in a challenging financial position as they continue to deal with the legacy of the previous system. Some have requested additional flexibility to increase their council tax without holding a referendum next year. We have carefully considered requests from these councils and agreed to small additional flexibilities in only seven councils—less than the councils requested in all but one area. We will provide additional flexibilities so that councils can decide whether to set their council tax above 5% core referendum principles in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (1.75%), Warrington (2.5%), Trafford (2.5%), Worcestershire (4%), Shropshire (4%), North Somerset (4%), and Windsor and Maidenhead (2.5%) next year. These additional flexibilities are a limit, not a target. Decisions on council tax levels are for local authorities. One fire authority will also receive an additional flexibility of £5.

In recognition of financial pressures in some police forces and the importance of public safety, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Secretary have also agreed an additional £3.50 council tax flexibility for six police and crime commissioners in 2026-27, where this flexibility was critical to financial sustainability.

These are difficult decisions that are not taken lightly. In line with the approach taken last year, we have not agreed to any requests that could lead to households in those areas paying above the average council tax level.

As set out at the provisional settlement, in order to increase fairness for taxpayers and provide better value for money, we do not intend to set referendum principles in 2027-28 and 2028-29 for six unique authorities with the lowest council tax levels. Band D taxpayers in these areas are paying between £450 and £1,280 less than the average in England—the council tax bill for a house worth £5 million in parts of central London can be less than the bill for an ordinary family home in places such as Blackpool and Darlington. Removing referendum principles in these areas will enable the Government to allocate over £250 million more funding for public services in places with higher need instead of subsidising very low bills for households in these councils.

We have been clear that all authorities should take steps to protect their most vulnerable residents.

In addition, the Government have been clear that we expect local authorities seeking additional support to have robust plans to deliver the improvements and service transformation required to help them to return to financial stability over the multi-year settlement. Alongside upcoming decisions on exceptional financial support requests, we will therefore confirm arrangements for supporting councils in the most difficult positions, including targeted approaches to support invest to save in services that are more effective and more sustainable.

Social care

We know that the pressures on local government are growing. We are committed to transforming the adult social care sector. This settlement allows for around £4.6 billion additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared to 2025-26, including £500 million for the sector’s first ever fair pay agreement, which will support progress towards a national care service. That means more carers, receiving better pay, with the time to provide the high-quality, compassionate care that they want to give.

This Government are transforming children’s social care through the Families First Partnership programme, backed by £2.4 billion investment in this multi-year settlement. This will enable local services to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive, statutory provision towards early-intervention and preventive support.

We have further to go: the children’s social care residential market is fundamentally broken. Our aim is to move towards a system rooted in family environments through fostering. The Government set out a plan to expand fostering for 10,000 more children by the end of this Parliament. And using the new powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will explore how we might implement a profit cap in the residential market to ensure that public money delivers care, not profiteering.

Local outcomes framework

In July last year, we announced a draft local government outcomes framework and sought feedback on how we could make outcome-based performance management as effective as possible. Today’s publication is the culmination of extensive engagement with the local government sector since then.

Following feedback, and in recognition of the contribution made by other local partners to the delivery of the outcomes, I am announcing that we have renamed the local government outcomes framework as the “local outcomes framework”. This change acknowledges, and indeed encourages, that partnership working is essential to breaking down silos in delivery and improving outcomes for citizens. But it is right that local authorities, as leaders of place, remain at the heart of driving local delivery and improvement.

The framework will be operational for the spending review period. Alongside funding consolidation and a reduction in individual grant conditions, the framework will shift the focus of central Government away from micromanaging individual activities towards a focus on the outcomes we all care about for local people. By publishing outcomes data in one place, the framework ensures transparency for residents and that central and local government measure progress through the same lens. Where outcomes are poor, we will act, but action will begin by talking to local leaders to support self-improvement and reduce barriers getting in the way of good services.

Mayoral Strategic Authorities

This Government are committed to giving locally elected leaders the powers and funding they need to drive growth and to deliver jobs, new homes and new transport. We are confirming almost £435 million total funding for strategic authorities through the multi-year settlement, through the mayoral capacity fund and the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, to create greater alignment of the funding at a local level, avoiding needless duplication and waste. This includes an additional £39.6 million of capacity funding from the provisional settlement and an additional £98.7 million for selected mayoral strategic authorities to deliver supported housing services.

We have also taken steps into a new era of fiscal devolution in England, giving mayors the power to raise and invest money into projects that improve their local areas, raising living standards and driving growth through a new overnight visitor levy power for mayors of strategic authorities and, subject to consultation, foundation strategic authorities.

As set out in the autumn Budget and the fair funding review 2.0, the Government are improving the business rates retention system to more consistently support mayoral strategic authorities in driving growth. Options being considered include allocating MSAs a direct share of business rates, building on local growth plans, allowing more tax to be spent where it is raised and providing mayors with a share of regional growth. We will begin engagement with MSAs over the coming weeks to co-develop an offer, including considering how this could work in place of existing grant. No changes will be made to grants without local consent.

Conclusion

We promised that we would fix the foundations of local government by reforming funding, ensuring that local powers were at the right level, mending the broken local audit system and focusing on ambitious public service reforms.

This settlement is a landmark in the story of local government. It represents our progress reforming the services that have grown to dominate local budgets—in adult social care, children’s social care, SEND, and homelessness. Today’s announcement on SEND deficits directly responds to the pressures we have heard about from local partners. Funding for social care and homelessness will shift the system towards early intervention and prevention. We are making progress at pace on our commitment to devolve the right powers to the right levels, and to end the two-tier local government system by establishing new single-tier unitary councils. We have published a strategy to overhaul the local audit system, and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill includes a range of audit measures including the establishment of the Local Audit Office in the autumn. When we are finished, councils will no longer be asked to act as caretakers; they will be asked to act as agents of renewal in building a new, better country.

This written ministerial statement covers England only.

[HCWS1315]

Written Statement: Correction

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

On 5 February I made a written statement on local government reorganisation. There was a minor error in the statement. In outlining the proposals received from the invitation area of Kent and Medway, it said:

“Dartford Borough Council and Gravesham Borough Council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils…

Dover District Council, Swale Borough Council and Thanet District Council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.”

[Official Report, 5 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 25WS.]

It should have said:



“Dover District Council, Swale Borough Council and Thanet District Council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils…

Dartford Borough Council and Gravesham Borough Council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.”

Local Government Reorganisation and Local Election Postponements

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

This Government are undertaking one of the biggest reforms to local government in a generation; not only have we overhauled how we fund local government, but we are ending the current two-tier system and replacing it with new single-tier unitary councils.

These reforms are not about funding formulas or lines on a map; they are about better outcomes for the people we serve.

We want to see our country grow economically and socially, but we inherited a local government system that did not put funding where it was needed and that left residents dealing with the disjointed two-tier council system and paying a two-tier premium.

That is why we have put deprivation at the heart of how we fund local government. The top 10% of the most deprived councils will see an average 24% increase in what they have to spend per person—those places, whether in the north or south, east or west, will finally see their areas turn a corner.

Today I can announce the next step in our vital reforms to reorganise local government. We will finally put an end to a two-tier system that slows down local decisions, sees local economies fragmented with different councils responsible for different priorities, and means that outdated boundaries stop our towns and cities from growing.

Instead, we will see one council in charge for each area, fully responsible for taking the quicker decisions to build homes and grow our towns and cities, as well as creating the right conditions for businesses to invest, grow, and create jobs. Reorganisation is a vital element in our vision for reform—stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities.

Consultation

On 28 November, my Department received final proposals from councils in the final 14 invitation areas for reorganisation. I thank all councils in those areas for their work in bringing these 52 proposals forward. As set out in the invitation, these proposals include the areas of existing neighbouring small unitary councils. Some proposals were accompanied by requests for boundary change, where existing districts would be split. These will require careful consideration.

Today I am launching consultations on all the below proposals, available on gov.uk, and I will deposit a copy of each in the Library of the House.

Four proposals from councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough:

Cambridgeshire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Cambridge city council, East Cambridgeshire district council and South Cambridgeshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Fenland district council and Peterborough city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Huntingdonshire district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Five proposals from councils in Derby and Derbyshire:

Derbyshire county council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

Amber Valley borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

South Derbyshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Bolsover district council and North East Derbyshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Chesterfield borough council, Derby city council, Erewash borough council and High Peak borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Derbyshire Dales district council did not submit a proposal.

Five proposals from councils in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay:

Devon county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

South Hams district council, Teignbridge borough council and West Devon borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Mid Devon district council, East Devon district council, North Devon council and Torridge district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Plymouth city council and Exeter city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Torbay council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Three proposals from councils in Gloucestershire:

Cotswold district council, Gloucestershire county council, Stroud district council and Tewkesbury borough council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

Cheltenham borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Gloucester city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Forest of Dean district council did not submit a proposal.

Three proposals from councils in Hertfordshire:

Hertfordshire county council and St Albans City and district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Watford borough council, East Herts district council and Three Rivers district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Stevenage borough council, Broxbourne borough council, Dacorum borough council, Hertsmere borough council, North Hertfordshire district council and Welwyn Hatfield borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Five proposals from councils in Kent and Medway:

Kent county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.

Folkestone and Hythe district council, Maidstone borough council, Sevenoaks district council, Tonbridge and Malling borough council and Tunbridge Wells borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Dartford borough council and Gravesham borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Medway council, Ashford borough council and Canterbury city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Dover district council, Swale borough council and Thanet district council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.

Five proposals from councils in Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool:

Lancashire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Blackburn with Darwen council, Fylde borough council, Hyndburn borough council, Rossendale borough council and Wyre borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Chorley borough council, Lancaster city council, Preston city council, Ribble Valley borough council, South Ribble borough council and West Lancashire borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Blackpool council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Burnley borough council and Pendle borough council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.

Three proposals from councils in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland:

Leicestershire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Leicester city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Blaby district council, Charnwood borough council, Harborough district council, Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, Melton borough council, North West Leicestershire district council, Oadby and Wigston borough council and Rutland county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Four proposals from Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire:

Boston borough council, East Lindsey district council and South Holland district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Lincoln city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Lincolnshire county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils (supported by North East Lincolnshire council and North Lincolnshire council).

North Kesteven council and South Kesteven council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

West Lindsey district council did not submit a proposal.

Three proposals from councils in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire:

Nottinghamshire county council and Rushcliffe borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Bassetlaw district council, Gedling borough council, Mansfield district council and Newark and Sherwood district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Nottingham city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Ashfield district council and Broxtowe borough council did not submit a proposal.

Three proposals from councils in Oxfordshire:

Oxfordshire county council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

Cherwell district council, South Oxfordshire district council, Vale of White Horse district council, West Oxfordshire district council and West Berkshire council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Oxford city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Five proposals from councils in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent:

Staffordshire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Stoke-on-Trent city council, East Staffordshire borough council, Stafford borough council and Cannock Chase district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Staffordshire Moorlands district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Lichfield district council, Tamworth borough council and South Staffordshire council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.

Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.

Two proposals from councils in Warwickshire:

Warwickshire county council and Rugby borough council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

North Warwickshire borough council, Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council, Stratford-on-Avon district council and Warwick district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

Two proposals from councils in Worcestershire:

Worcestershire county council and Wyre Forest district council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.

Bromsgrove district council, Malvern Hills district council, Redditch borough council, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.

The consultations will run for seven weeks until 26 March 2026. The consultation documents are available on the Department’s online platform “Citizen Space”, and those responding to the consultations can use that online platform, email or post to submit their views.

I welcome views from all councils in these areas as well as neighbouring councils, and specified public service providers, including health providers and the police, and other business, voluntary and community sector and educational bodies. As before, where boundary changes are requested, we consider it appropriate to consult the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

I would also welcome responses from any other persons or organisations interested in these proposals, including residents, town and parish councils, businesses and the voluntary and community sector.

Once the consultations have concluded, the Government will assess the proposals against the criteria in the invitation and decide, subject to parliamentary approval, which, if any, proposals are to be implemented, with or without modification. In taking these decisions, we will have regard to all the representations received, including those from the consultation, and all other relevant information available.

I will continue to update the House as further milestones are reached in the delivery of this landmark reform.

Local Elections

I can also inform the House that I have today introduced an order to postpone 30 local elections in councils undertaking local government reorganisation. This includes the 29 previously announced by the Secretary of State, and one additional council—Pendle—following further representations from Pendle borough council’s leadership. These representations, received after the initial decision of 22 January, set out more clearly how capacity and resources would be redirected from election planning and delivery in Pendle towards supporting local government reorganisation, safeguarding the programme’s delivery.

The Secretary of State considered these representations carefully and concluded that postponement is in the best interests of ensuring effective and orderly reorganisation. A copy of his letter to the leader of Pendle borough council notifying them of this decision has been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

I will keep the House informed of any further developments.

[HCWS1309]

Local Government Best Value

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

This Government are committed to taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking to support Nottingham city council recover and reform.

Nottingham city council has been under intervention since January 2021. New directions were placed on the council in February 2024 and commissioners were appointed until February 2026.

I am today publishing the commissioners’ fourth report, received on 5 December 2025, which provides their comprehensive assessment of the council’s improvement journey to date. The commissioners have also set out their proposals for the approach that could be taken after February 2026 to ensure the council can continue its improvement. The council has also written outlining its requests.

Having carefully considered all the information, including the commissioners’ report and the council’s letter, the Secretary of State believes that there has been significant improvement in many areas of the council’s operation.

The council’s member and officer leadership is strong. They should be commended for their constructive and collaborative work with the commissioner team, and for their willingness to seek further support. Since the appointment of commissioners, and under the leadership of councillor Neghat Khan and chief executive Sajeeda Rose, we have seen the pace of improvement accelerate considerably.

The Secretary of State is satisfied that the council has made progress and is meeting its best value duty in most themes as described in the statutory guidance published in May 2024. The council has shown significant progress in its leadership, strengthened strategic direction and accountability. It has improved its financial management, governance and scrutiny, and member-officer relationships. However, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the council is not yet meeting its best value duty in the themes of continuous improvement and service delivery.

After nearly five years of intervention, it is critical that the council builds on its recent progress and addresses remaining challenges. Continued effort is needed to make sure the improvements are put in place across the whole council, its services and the outcomes experienced by residents, particularly in the context of potential local government reorganisation.

Some service redesign is in the early stages and implementation remains a key priority. This is especially the case for children’s and adults’ services, where the council is seeking external support. The Secretary of State considers that the council needs ongoing, but less intensive, support to ensure that momentum is maintained and that continuous improvement thinking is put in place across the organisation.

In recognition of the progress made, and the council’s strong leadership, the Secretary of State is minded to extend the intervention but reduce its scope.

The Secretary of State is minded to exercise powers of direction under the Local Government Act 1999 to issue new statutory directions to the council, overseen by two ministerial envoys, to be appointed by him. The envoys would work collaboratively with the council in an advisory and mentoring capacity. They would not hold powers to exercise any council functions. All decision making would return to the council. The council would be directed by the Secretary of State to establish a bi-partisan continuous improvement committee. This would be chaired by the leader and include the envoys and other sector experts, including the experts on adults’ and children’s services whom the council have requested. The committee would oversee delivery of a continuous improvement plan, which would be agreed with the envoys. The envoys would report on progress to the Secretary of State at six-monthly intervals.

I am now inviting representations from the council on the Secretary of State’s proposals, by 11 February. We want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Nottingham, to make their views known. Should the Secretary of State decide to act along the lines described here, he will make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act.

I am committed to working with Nottingham city council to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect. This Government are working to deliver a consistently fit, legal and decent local government sector that provides good-quality essential statutory services for all residents.

I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.

[HCWS1303]

Woking Borough Council and Thurrock Council: Best Value Duty

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

This Government are committed to taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking to support two councils to recover and reform: Woking borough council and Thurrock council.

Woking borough council

Woking borough council has been under statutory intervention since May 2023 and, in December 2025, I published the commissioners’ fifth report, together with my response. I welcomed their assessment of continued progress in governance, housing, and commercial restructuring, and shared their concerns about the significant challenges ahead. To maintain stability and the council’s improvement progress, the Secretary of State reappointed Richard Carr as managing director commissioner, and Barry Scarr as finance commissioner. Sir Tony Redmond also remains as lead commissioner. Their appointments are in place until 24 May 2028 as a backstop, when the directions are set to expire. In practice, these appointments will lapse when Woking borough council is planned to be dissolved in 2027, as part of local government reorganisation in Surrey.

As the commissioners also note, local government reorganisation in Surrey adds urgency and complexity. In their next report, I would welcome their reflections on this process, including how Government can best support new councils in meeting their best value duty from day one and any urgent issues beyond the commissioners’ remit.

This report is published at an important stage for the council, following the Government’s announcement to provide in-principle £500 million of debt repayment support for the council in 2026-27. This is a difficult position for Government representing a significant and unprecedented commitment, made necessary in the context of Woking’s acute financial failure. The announcement of debt support reflects that Woking borough council holds exceptional unsupported debt linked to historic capital practices, and that there is a value for money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. Any support is subject to continued assurance of the council’s financial position; the council’s commitment to reduce debt locally as far as possible within its local capacity; and value for money for the local and national taxpayer.

Thurrock council

I am today publishing the commissioners’ most recent report which I received in November 2025. I am pleased to see the continued progress made by the council and that there has been a smooth transition to the new leadership. The report notes that financial management has improved, with more transparency in reporting and that the council is embracing external reviews and public engagement, indicating a cultural shift toward greater transparency. I am pleased the council continues to take the necessary steps locally to reduce its level of debt and to support financial improvement. Government are committed to providing debt repayment support to Thurrock and Woking councils, given their significant and exceptional unsupported debt linked to historic capital practices, and the value for money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. Any support for Thurrock council is subject to continued assurance of the council’s financial position; the council’s commitment to reduce debt locally as far as possible within its local capacity; and value for money for the local and national taxpayer.

The commissioners’ latest report also highlights some of the risks to improvement. It is important that that the council maintains its focus on improvement and transformation alongside the broader transformation programmes of local government reorganisation and devolution.

I also note that the commissioners support the council’s desire to be given the opportunity to appoint its own chief executive rather than the role being filled by a managing director commissioner. I am writing today to the leader of the council to confirm that I am content for the council to initiate a recruitment process for a chief executive. This is on the understanding that a suitable, experienced candidate can be recruited and that the commissioners will continue to support and guide the council throughout this process; and with the expectation that the progress made so far is embedded throughout the council and that the pace of improvement continues.

If a suitable candidate is appointed, I would expect a period of overlap with the existing managing director commissioner to enable a smooth transition and handover to take place. It is evident that ongoing commissioner support will be critical to ensure the council’s improvement trajectory is maintained. Following the conclusion of the recruitment process, I intend to review what further changes would be needed to ensure the commissioner team has capacity to provide sufficient support to the council, and assurance to Ministers.

Conclusion

I am committed to working with these councils to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect. This Government are working to deliver a consistently fit, legal and decent local government sector that provides good quality essential statutory services for all residents.

I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.

[HCWS1277]

Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue.

I share the concerns and frustrations that have surfaced in the debate. The industrial action has gone on far too long. The ongoing disruption is not in anybody’s interests: it is holding back the great city of Birmingham, a city that I am incredibly fond of, and the people of Birmingham, who deserve better. It is the people of Birmingham who matter: it is their voices that must be heard, and they should be at the centre of the resolution of the dispute.

I have heard the points made by all Members, and I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) says. Birmingham is a city that its people are deeply proud of, and they deserve to be. She was right to mention the funding settlement that we have just awarded to Birmingham city.

I want to address directly a point that has just been raised. The reason why Birmingham is seeing a core spending power increase of 45% under this Government is not that it is some kind of reward for what has happened there. That is ridiculous. The reason is that we are reconnecting council funding with deprivation—with poverty. We are reversing what we saw under the Tories, which was town halls dealing with the worst of austerity, and the places that had the least being hit the worst. That is going to change, because we need to sort out poverty in this country. We cannot do that without a town hall that has the resources that it needs to help people. That is why we are changing it. I do not take kindly to the idea that we should not help councils to tackle poverty in this country.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Labour Members fully agree with the Minister on that point, certainly. I refer to my registered interest as a member of Unite.

As time is limited, will the Minister address the key question that several Members have put to her? The Government have a specific, special role in this matter. It is not like other disputes between the council and a workforce: because of the role of commissioners appointed by the Government, there is a responsibility that falls on the Government’s shoulders.

There will be a major picket on 30 January that trade unionists will be coming to from across the country, to support their comrades—their brothers and sisters—in the dispute in Birmingham. I will be going as well. There is a limited time in which that picket could be made redundant if the Government convened a meeting of all the parties concerned. It behoves the Government to do so, because it seems as though it is the commissioners who are blocking the settlement. I urge the Minister to convene that meeting and get people round the table, because I think a negotiated deal could be forthcoming as a result.

[Alison McGovern]

My right hon. Friend spells out the situation: clearly the Government are not the employer but, given that we have commissioners, we will want to hear regularly about what is happening in Birmingham. I will come to that point later.

The Government are not a party to the ongoing dispute. It is an issue for the parties involved to work towards a sustainable solution, notwithstanding the question I have just been asked and my response—given the arrangements with commissioners, I will want to hear from them directly. The Government have that responsibility because of the decision that was taken.

I call on all involved to end the disruption. Last spring, the Government took action to avert a public health crisis, as a number of Members have mentioned, and supported the council in clearing the streets. As a result, the council was able to remove thousands of tonnes of waste from the street and restart regular kerbside collections. As a result, thankfully, we have not seen a return to the crisis that the city faced last spring, and the waste has not piled up to dangerous levels. The council and my Department will continue to monitor the situation closely and ensure that waste does not build up again. It is important to note that although residual waste is now being collected regularly, recycling remains suspended, as Members have said. That situation must change.

[Wendy Morton]

To be absolutely clear, if the Minister thinks that waste is not piling up, does she think that the situation in Birmingham is acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

No, not at all. I have set out my opinion that this needs to be brought to an end. Members have set out the consequences for the residents of Birmingham, for staff and for others, including the right hon. Member’s constituents. Of course the strike needs to be brought to an end; the point I was making is that the Government took steps to bring a public health crisis to a close.

Government commissioners have been in place at the council since 2023 to oversee its improvement journey. In their most recent report, the commissioners highlighted the positive progress that the council has made in key areas—we needed to see progress on other issues as well, not just the dispute—but they noted that the dispute has consumed council time, diverted attention and slowed overall progress. That is a real concern for me. The council still has work to do towards financial sustainability. Given the points made by the commissioners, we all want to see things brought to an end. As I say, I will want to hear regularly from the commissioners about the progress.

In recent weeks, the city has faced additional strike action by agency workers in waste. As I understand it, and as Members have mentioned, a small number of agency workers began a separate strike on 1 December due to alleged bullying and harassment. I am sure that everyone here will agree that bullying and harassment are totally unacceptable, so the council and the agency, who are the employers, must address the issue.

Since the new year, some disruption has been caused by recent snowfall across the midlands, and there have been issues at council depots, but I am told that the council has plans in place to resolve any backlogs created. Disruption at pickets has also been a big factor affecting waste collection, since contingency arrangements were put in place. I understand that Unite the union has acknowledged and apologised for that behaviour, which no one wants to see repeated.

In recent months, Unite has urged the council to come to the table to find a way forward to end the strike. I am obviously extremely sympathetic to that goal, as I have mentioned on a couple of occasions. The council has duties and responsibilities beyond the industrial action. I support the leader of the city council, John Cotton, in his position that any solution to end the strike must be both lawful and financially viable. We all want a resolution to be found.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will, briefly.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

The intervention needs to be short.

[John McDonnell]

It is almost heartbreaking to witness this happening. It is pure sophistry to say that the Government do not have a role or that they have no locus. The Government appointed the commissioners, who report to them. I appeal to the Minister: simply get people in the same room, because a deal is available.

[Alison McGovern]

All the parties will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said, what I have said, and the priority that we put on getting a decent service for the residents of Birmingham and getting staff in a position where they can do their jobs. We all support that, and everyone will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way briefly on that point?

[Alison McGovern]

Very briefly, although I am conscious of your strictures, Ms McVey.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister answer this question for me? Since she or even her predecessor took office, what specific advice has she sought from officials to see whether she has the cover—as a Minister of the Crown, through legislation—to get those people in a room? Does she or do the Government have that power?

[Alison McGovern]

I have received advice from the commissioners and others on the situation in Birmingham. I will happily set that out for the shadow Minister. He will know that the commissioners have the responsibility to produce reports and so on. The relationship between commissioners and the Government is well understood, but I will happily write to him with the detail.

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will not give way any more, because I feel that would test your patience, Ms McVey. I have set out a range of responses to Members’ points.

Members have also raised the equal pay challenges that Birmingham has faced over the past 15 years, which have cost the council and the residents of Birmingham more than £1 billion. Commissioners are now in place to deal with the situation. In October last year, the council signed an agreement with unions to settle historical pay claims, which was a significant step forward. Members will appreciate that the council cannot reopen this by incurring any new equal pay liabilities or perpetuate any further discrimination.

Birmingham’s overall waste service has not been good enough for a long time, despite the very hard-working staff. Collections have been inconsistent and recycling rates have been low since long before the dispute began. Members have talked through these issues. I understand that the council is trying to move forward and make sure that it delivers for Birmingham, as it must do and as it wants to do. I am sure that we all share that goal, despite the different perspectives that have been aired. As I say, I will meet commissioners and local leaders as necessary to progress towards that goal.

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing the debate, and all Members who have taken part. Birmingham deserves a waste service that works, it deserves a council that can support all its needs, and it deserves an end to the uncertainty that has overshadowed the city for too long. I am pleased that the new funding settlement will invest in Birmingham, because Birmingham people deserve much better. Working together, I am sure that we can see Birmingham move past this, be the proud city it deserves to be, and make sure that the people there come first.