Local Supported Housing Strategies
Alison McGovern Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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. LOCAL AUTHORITY 25/26 26/27 28/29 29/30 Total Adur £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Amber Valley £54,898 £- £28,894 £28,894 £112,686 Arun £65,985 £- £34,729 £34,729 £135,443 Ashfield £54,778 £- £28,830 £28,830 £112,438 Ashford £44,485 £- £23,413 £23,413 £91,311 Babergh £43,941 £- £23,127 £23,127 £90,195 Barking and Dagenham £66,708 £- £35,109 £35,109 £136,926 Barnet £59,098 £- £31,104 £31,104 £121,306 Barnsley £58,433 £- £30,754 £30,754 £119,941 Basildon £51,007 £- £26,846 £26,846 £104,699 Basingstoke and Deane £52,859 £- £27,820 £27,820 £108,499 Bassetlaw £51,516 £- £27,113 £27,113 £105,742 Bath and North East Somerset £57,667 £- £30,351 £30,351 £118,369 Bedford £98,528 £- £51,857 £51,857 £202,242 Bexley £45,867 £- £24,140 £24,140 £94,147 Birmingham £194,872 £- £102,564 £102,564 £400,000 Blaby £45,473 £- £23,933 £23,933 £93,339 Blackburn with Darwen £60,991 £- £32,100 £32,100 £125,191 Blackpool £63,545 £- £33,445 £33,445 £130,435 Bolsover £44,115 £- £23,218 £23,218 £90,551 Bolton £125,508 £- £66,057 £66,057 £257,622 Boston £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole £74,432 £- £39,175 £39,175 £152,782 Bracknell Forest £59,545 £- £31,339 £31,339 £122,223 Bradford £126,571 £- £66,616 £66,616 £259,803 Braintree £47,589 £- £25,047 £25,047 £97,683 Breckland £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Brent £87,531 £- £46,069 £46,069 £179,669 Brentwood £46,807 £- £24,635 £24,635 £96,077 Brighton and Hove £110,323 £- £58,065 £58,065 £226,453 Bristol, City of £164,376 £- £86,514 £86,514 £337,404 Broadland £45,139 £- £23,757 £23,757 £92,653 Bromley £56,759 £- £29,873 £29,873 £116,505 Bromsgrove £66,395 £- £34,944 £34,944 £136,283 Broxbourne £44,716 £- £23,535 £23,535 £91,786 Broxtowe £45,891 £- £24,153 £24,153 £94,197 Buckinghamshire £69,736 £- £36,703 £36,703 £143,142 Burnley £54,551 £- £28,711 £28,711 £111,973 Bury £51,028 £- £26,857 £26,857 £104,742 Calderdale £59,142 £- £31,127 £31,127 £121,396 Cambridge £73,183 £- £38,517 £38,517 £150,217 Camden £113,525 £- £59,750 £59,750 £233,025 Cannock Chase £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Canterbury £49,449 £- £26,026 £26,026 £101,501 Castle Point £46,167 £- £24,298 £24,298 £94,763 Central Bedfordshire £57,018 £- £30,009 £30,009 £117,036 Charnwood £57,955 £- £30,503 £30,503 £118,961 Chelmsford £55,595 £- £29,261 £29,261 £114,117 Cheltenham £68,831 £- £36,227 £36,227 £141,285 Cherwell £48,060 £- £25,295 £25,295 £98,650 Cheshire East £75,918 £- £39,957 £39,957 £155,832 Cheshire West and Chester £89,940 £- £47,337 £47,337 £184,614 Chesterfield £53,316 £- £28,061 £28,061 £109,438 Chichester £49,405 £- £26,003 £26,003 £101,411 Chorley £57,290 £- £30,153 £30,153 £117,596 City of London £57,889 £- £30,468 £30,468 £118,825 Colchester £61,888 £- £32,573 £32,573 £127,034 Cornwall £104,016 £- £54,745 £54,745 £213,506 Cotswold £44,568 £- £23,457 £23,457 £91,482 County Durham £113,830 £- £59,910 £59,910 £233,650 Coventry £149,302 £- £78,580 £78,580 £306,462 Crawley £55,010 £- £28,953 £28,953 £112,916 Croydon £117,131 £- £61,648 £61,648 £240,427 Cumberland £62,821 £- £33,064 £33,064 £128,949 Dacorum £51,097 £- £26,893 £26,893 £104,883 Darlington £65,716 £- £34,587 £34,587 £134,890 Dartford £46,732 £- £24,596 £24,596 £95,924 Derby £76,499 £- £40,263 £40,263 £157,025 Derbyshire Dales £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Doncaster £92,434 £- £48,650 £48,650 £189,734 Dorset £55,409 £- £29,163 £29,163 £113,735 Dover £49,794 £- £26,207 £26,207 £102,208 Dudley £64,602 £- £34,001 £34,001 £132,604 Ealing £96,522 £- £50,801 £50,801 £198,124 East Cambridgeshire £44,040 £- £23,179 £23,179 £90,398 East Devon £46,583 £- £24,517 £24,517 £95,617 East Hampshire £43,985 £- £23,150 £23,150 £90,285 East Hertfordshire £47,330 £- £24,911 £24,911 £97,152 East Lindsey £49,507 £- £26,056 £26,056 £101,619 East Riding of Yorkshire £53,286 £- £28,045 £28,045 £109,376 East Staffordshire £52,713 £- £27,744 £27,744 £108,201 East Suffolk £62,022 £- £32,643 £32,643 £127,308 Eastbourne £54,577 £- £28,725 £28,725 £112,027 Eastleigh £47,255 £- £24,871 £24,871 £96,997 Elmbridge £49,862 £- £26,243 £26,243 £102,348 Enfield £74,018 £- £38,957 £38,957 £151,932 Epping Forest £67,017 £- £35,272 £35,272 £137,561 Epsom and Ewell £48,326 £- £25,435 £25,435 £99,196 Erewash £52,355 £- £27,555 £27,555 £107,465 Exeter £65,542 £- £34,496 £34,496 £134,534 Fareham £45,983 £- £24,201 £24,201 £94,385 Fenland £51,105 £- £26,897 £26,897 £104,899 Folkestone and Hythe £53,090 £- £27,942 £27,942 £108,974 Forest of Dean £47,777 £- £25,146 £25,146 £98,069 Fylde £48,857 £- £25,714 £25,714 £100,285 Gateshead £59,329 £- £31,226 £31,226 £121,781 Gedling £47,273 £- £24,881 £24,881 £97,035 Gloucester £60,061 £- £31,611 £31,611 £123,283 Gosport £45,745 £- £24,077 £24,077 £93,899 Gravesham £49,815 £- £26,218 £26,218 £102,251 Great Yarmouth £47,299 £- £24,894 £24,894 £97,087 Greenwich £85,561 £- £45,032 £45,032 £175,625 Guildford £64,010 £- £33,690 £33,690 £131,390 Hackney £81,042 £- £42,653 £42,653 £166,348 Halton £67,678 £- £35,620 £35,620 £138,918 Hammersmith and Fulham £68,410 £- £36,005 £36,005 £140,420 Harborough £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Haringey £73,072 £- £38,459 £38,459 £149,990 Harlow £51,373 £- £27,038 £27,038 £105,449 Harrow £51,571 £- £27,143 £27,143 £105,857 Hart £46,617 £- £24,535 £24,535 £95,687 Hartlepool £59,169 £- £31,142 £31,142 £121,453 Hastings £46,609 £- £24,531 £24,531 £95,671 Havant £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Havering £57,179 £- £30,094 £30,094 £117,367 Herefordshire, County of £47,010 £- £24,742 £24,742 £96,494 Hertsmere £49,680 £- £26,147 £26,147 £101,974 High Peak £44,978 £- £23,673 £23,673 £92,324 Hillingdon £72,094 £- £37,944 £37,944 £147,982 Hinckley and Bosworth £44,914 £- £23,639 £23,639 £92,192 Horsham £48,977 £- £25,777 £25,777 £100,531 Hounslow £63,939 £- £33,652 £33,652 £131,243 Huntingdonshire £67,547 £- £35,551 £35,551 £138,649 Hyndburn £56,946 £- £29,972 £29,972 £116,890 Ipswich £68,611 £- £36,111 £36,111 £140,833 Isle of Wight £54,011 £- £28,427 £28,427 £110,865 Islington £85,820 £- £45,168 £45,168 £176,156 Kensington and Chelsea £96,021 £- £50,538 £50,538 £197,097 King's Lynn and West Norfolk £48,726 £- £25,645 £25,645 £100,016 Kingston upon Hull, City of £137,138 £- £72,178 £72,178 £281,494 Kingston upon Thames £56,086 £- £29,519 £29,519 £115,124 Kirklees £62,807 £- £33,056 £33,056 £128,919 Knowsley £77,110 £- £40,584 £40,584 £158,278 Lambeth £111,407 £- £58,635 £58,635 £228,677 Lancaster £67,566 £- £35,561 £35,561 £138,688 Leeds £166,479 £- £87,621 £87,621 £341,721 Leicester £86,111 £- £45,322 £45,322 £176,755 Lewes £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Lewisham £118,689 £- £62,468 £62,468 £243,625 Lichfield £44,957 £- £23,662 £23,662 £92,281 Lincoln £58,510 £- £30,795 £30,795 £120,100 Liverpool £194,872 £- £102,564 £102,564 £400,000 Luton £82,649 £- £43,499 £43,499 £169,647 Maidstone £52,249 £- £27,499 £27,499 £107,247 Maldon £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Malvern Hills £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Manchester £194,872 £- £102,564 £102,564 £400,000 Mansfield £55,210 £- £29,058 £29,058 £113,326 Medway £71,254 £- £37,502 £37,502 £146,258 Melton £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Merton £52,449 £- £27,605 £27,605 £107,659 Mid Devon £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Mid Suffolk £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Mid Sussex £49,498 £- £26,052 £26,052 £101,602 Middlesbrough £81,425 £- £42,855 £42,855 £167,135 Milton Keynes £76,541 £- £40,285 £40,285 £157,111 Mole Valley £53,801 £- £28,317 £28,317 £110,435 New Forest £56,306 £- £29,635 £29,635 £115,576 Newark and Sherwood £53,954 £- £28,397 £28,397 £110,748 Newcastle upon Tyne £103,234 £- £54,334 £54,334 £211,902 Newcastle-under-Lyme £49,632 £- £26,122 £26,122 £101,876 Newham £78,757 £- £41,451 £41,451 £161,659 North Devon £64,877 £- £34,146 £34,146 £133,169 North East Derbyshire £46,492 £- £24,470 £24,470 £95,432 North East Lincolnshire £76,141 £- £40,074 £40,074 £156,289 North Hertfordshire £49,631 £- £26,121 £26,121 £101,873 North Kesteven £44,051 £- £23,185 £23,185 £90,421 North Lincolnshire £56,810 £- £29,900 £29,900 £116,610 North Norfolk £44,448 £- £23,394 £23,394 £91,236 North Northamptonshire £66,315 £- £34,902 £34,902 £136,119 North Somerset £72,809 £- £38,320 £38,320 £149,449 North Tyneside £61,417 £- £32,325 £32,325 £126,067 North Warwickshire £45,474 £- £23,934 £23,934 £93,342 North West Leicestershire £44,768 £- £23,562 £23,562 £91,892 North Yorkshire £87,377 £- £45,988 £45,988 £179,353 Northumberland £67,347 £- £35,446 £35,446 £138,239 Norwich £77,031 £- £40,543 £40,543 £158,117 Nottingham £168,867 £- £88,878 £88,878 £346,623 Nuneaton and Bedworth £47,158 £- £24,820 £24,820 £96,798 Oadby and Wigston £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Oldham £71,521 £- £37,642 £37,642 £146,805 Oxford £75,848 £- £39,920 £39,920 £155,688 Pendle £47,585 £- £25,044 £25,044 £97,673 Peterborough £71,840 £- £37,811 £37,811 £147,462 Plymouth £78,184 £- £41,149 £41,149 £160,482 Portsmouth £79,463 £- £41,822 £41,822 £163,107 Preston £81,972 £- £43,143 £43,143 £168,258 Reading £71,994 £- £37,891 £37,891 £147,776 Redbridge £72,186 £- £37,992 £37,992 £148,170 Redcar and Cleveland £44,100 £- £23,211 £23,211 £90,522 Redditch £49,772 £- £26,196 £26,196 £102,164 Reigate and Banstead £59,745 £- £31,445 £31,445 £122,635 Ribble Valley £45,172 £- £23,775 £23,775 £92,722 Richmond upon Thames £49,294 £- £25,944 £25,944 £101,182 Rochdale £116,279 £- £61,200 £61,200 £238,679 Rochford £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Rossendale £49,621 £- £26,116 £26,116 £101,853 Rother £45,178 £- £23,778 £23,778 £92,734 Rotherham £82,763 £- £43,559 £43,559 £169,881 Rugby £46,217 £- £24,325 £24,325 £94,867 Runnymede £52,975 £- £27,882 £27,882 £108,739 Rushcliffe £44,246 £- £23,287 £23,287 £90,820 Rushmoor £48,960 £- £25,768 £25,768 £100,496 Rutland £43,962 £- £23,138 £23,138 £90,238 Salford £100,106 £- £52,688 £52,688 £205,482 Sandwell £59,174 £- £31,144 £31,144 £121,462 Sefton £74,784 £- £39,360 £39,360 £153,504 Sevenoaks £44,779 £- £23,568 £23,568 £91,915 Sheffield £133,547 £- £70,288 £70,288 £274,123 Shropshire £75,560 £- £39,769 £39,769 £155,098 Slough £54,824 £- £28,855 £28,855 £112,534 Solihull £61,813 £- £32,533 £32,533 £126,879 Somerset £93,424 £- £49,171 £49,171 £191,766 South Cambridgeshire £49,780 £- £26,200 £26,200 £102,180 South Derbyshire £45,240 £- £23,810 £23,810 £92,860 South Gloucestershire £67,683 £- £35,623 £35,623 £138,929 South Hams £45,441 £- £23,916 £23,916 £93,273 South Holland £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 South Kesteven £49,496 £- £26,051 £26,051 £101,598 South Norfolk £45,714 £- £24,060 £24,060 £93,834 South Oxfordshire £48,929 £- £25,752 £25,752 £100,433 South Ribble £49,585 £- £26,097 £26,097 £101,779 South Staffordshire £58,349 £- £30,710 £30,710 £119,769 South Tyneside £53,040 £- £27,916 £27,916 £108,872 Southampton £137,756 £- £72,503 £72,503 £282,762 Southend-on-Sea £103,850 £- £54,658 £54,658 £213,166 Southwark £104,202 £- £54,843 £54,843 £213,888 Spelthorne £54,355 £- £28,608 £28,608 £111,571 St Albans £60,891 £- £32,048 £32,048 £124,987 St. Helens £77,092 £- £40,574 £40,574 £158,240 Stafford £48,041 £- £25,285 £25,285 £98,611 Staffordshire Moorlands £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Stevenage £49,062 £- £25,822 £25,822 £100,706 Stockport £66,106 £- £34,792 £34,792 £135,690 Stockton-on-Tees £57,497 £- £30,262 £30,262 £118,021 Stoke-on-Trent £86,271 £- £45,406 £45,406 £177,083 Stratford-on-Avon £49,512 £- £26,059 £26,059 £101,630 Stroud £44,691 £- £23,522 £23,522 £91,735 Sunderland £82,383 £- £43,360 £43,360 £169,103 Surrey Heath £47,292 £- £24,891 £24,891 £97,074 Sutton £54,748 £- £28,815 £28,815 £112,378 Swale £46,772 £- £24,617 £24,617 £96,006 Swindon £61,127 £- £32,172 £32,172 £125,471 Tameside £65,319 £- £34,379 £34,379 £134,077 Tamworth £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Tandridge £50,997 £- £26,840 £26,840 £104,677 Teignbridge £45,539 £- £23,968 £23,968 £93,475 Telford and Wrekin £130,604 £- £68,739 £68,739 £268,082 Tendring £53,548 £- £28,183 £28,183 £109,914 Test Valley £48,463 £- £25,507 £25,507 £99,477 Tewkesbury £45,487 £- £23,940 £23,940 £93,367 Thanet £47,224 £- £24,855 £24,855 £96,934 Three Rivers £50,320 £- £26,484 £26,484 £103,288 Thurrock £50,175 £- £26,408 £26,408 £102,991 Tonbridge and Malling £62,220 £- £32,748 £32,748 £127,716 Torbay £50,094 £- £26,365 £26,365 £102,824 Torridge £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 Tower Hamlets £103,356 £- £54,398 £54,398 £212,152 Trafford £57,218 £- £30,115 £30,115 £117,448 Tunbridge Wells £47,932 £- £25,227 £25,227 £98,386 Uttlesford £48,639 £- £25,600 £25,600 £99,839 Vale of White Horse £48,684 £- £25,623 £25,623 £99,930 Wakefield £92,578 £- £48,725 £48,725 £190,028 Walsall £53,166 £- £27,982 £27,982 £109,130 Waltham Forest £66,884 £- £35,202 £35,202 £137,288 Wandsworth £58,987 £- £31,046 £31,046 £121,079 Warrington £85,143 £- £44,812 £44,812 £174,767 Warwick £58,803 £- £30,949 £30,949 £120,701 Watford £60,172 £- £31,670 £31,670 £123,512 Waverley £45,591 £- £23,995 £23,995 £93,581 Wealden £46,444 £- £24,444 £24,444 £95,332 Welwyn Hatfield £57,279 £- £30,147 £30,147 £117,573 West Berkshire £69,194 £- £36,418 £36,418 £142,030 West Devon £44,033 £- £23,175 £23,175 £90,383 West Lancashire £46,352 £- £24,396 £24,396 £95,144 West Lindsey £43,846 £- £23,077 £23,077 £90,000 West Northamptonshire £71,619 £- £37,694 £37,694 £147,007 West Oxfordshire £46,095 £- £24,260 £24,260 £94,615 West Suffolk £57,124 £- £30,065 £30,065 £117,254 Westminster £119,336 £- £62,808 £62,808 £244,952 Westmorland and Furness £66,301 £- £34,895 £34,895 £136,091 Wigan £94,494 £- £49,733 £49,733 £193,960 Wiltshire £65,077 £- £34,251 £34,251 £133,579 Winchester £47,856 £- £25,188 £25,188 £98,232 Windsor and Maidenhead £48,888 £- £25,731 £25,731 £100,350 Wirral £98,950 £- £52,079 £52,079 £203,108 Woking £54,525 £- £28,698 £28,698 £111,921 Wokingham £56,345 £- £29,655 £29,655 £115,655 Wolverhampton £75,336 £- £39,650 £39,650 £154,636 Worcester £61,809 £- £32,531 £32,531 £126,871 Worthing £59,949 £- £31,552 £31,552 £123,053 Wychavon £47,849 £- £25,183 £25,183 £98,215 Wyre £48,967 £- £25,772 £25,772 £100,511 Wyre Forest £45,225 £- £23,802 £23,802 £92,829 York £52,487 £- £27,625 £27,625 £107,737
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.
[HCWS1317]
Local Government Finance Settlement 2026-27 to 2028-29
Alison McGovern Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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]
Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums
Alison McGovern Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On behalf of everyone, I thank you for the excellent way in which you dealt with the suspensions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate on local government reorganisation. He made the case on behalf of his constituents very well, and I was listening to what he said.
I also listened to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Many Members spoke up for the identity of their constituents and the culture and history of their constituencies. It is important that we are able to do that in this House, and I congratulate all Members on doing so. I will try as best I can to respond to the points they raised.
I will set out why we are reorganising local government and why it matters. Nearly a third of the population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government, which splits functions and services across county and district councils, slows down decisions as different councils try to agree and leads to fragmented public services. It is confusing for citizens in terms of who does what and who is responsible.
My constituency is in the Wirral, which was reorganised six years before I was born. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, over time, the Wirral has come to have its own identity, but people still have identities from long before. The county of Cheshire, which is near my constituency, still has a strong identity—as you will know, Ms McVey. It was reorganised in 2009, but, while the unitary authorities have grown in different ways, that Cheshire identity is still there.
This is a continuing journey, as Members have said. In the area of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire, Leicestershire county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support. We can all do better than that, and I want to work with local government to make that happen. We want to simplify local government and have single-tier, unitary councils everywhere, making stronger local councils that are equipped to create the conditions for growth, improve public services and empower communities. This is not a bureaucratic exercise; it is the biggest reform to local government in 50 years. We want to make the most of that opportunity. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that everyone everywhere is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation can help to do that: with one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions, grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who made an important contribution, asked what the net effect would be. It is different for each area, which makes it hard to forecast, but I want to point out another issue. We are currently seeing spiking costs in particular areas, including SEND, as he will know well, children’s care, temporary accommodation and homelessness. I would be wary of drawing hard and fast conclusions because of the cost environment that we are in. We will have a number of opportunities to discuss the finances of local councils on the Floor of the House in the months to come, but I would be happy to discuss those issues with him. Local government finance is complicated but very important, and I noted his strong contribution.
Particularly in these areas, we want public services to be designed for people’s lives rather than in council silos. Bringing housing, public health and social care together under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is very important in the case of children’s care, where we want to take a preventive approach and improve parenting support.
Strong local government is the only way that we can really tackle deprivation and poverty in the round. People living in neighbourhoods with high levels of deprivation especially deserve public services that will help them to reach their full potential. Rather than multiple councils with confusing and inefficient structures, one council will take responsibility for making sure that its area turns a corner.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As the Minister knows, in Surrey, which is going through a process of reorganisation, two unitary authorities have been selected, and each will cover more than 600,000 people. There is a great concern that that is too big or will feel too remote. An added complication is that, with potentially £4.5 billion of debt in the new West Surrey, which my constituency is in, many of my residents will end up paying a very high cost for debt that they had no part in accumulating. That may directly affect the very public services that the Minister has just mentioned. Will she speak directly to my residents and tell them why they should be paying for debt they did not accrue, and offer them reassurance that they will get the public services they deserve?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the time he has spent engaging with me on these issues. He will know that the Government took an unprecedented decision in relation to debt in Surrey, and we continue to be concerned about ensuring that we can reach financial sustainability, for all the reasons that he describes. I would say to his residents that their MPs are engaging with the Government and others on the subject. It is very serious, and we will continue to work together on it.
In early February, we expect to launch a consultation on proposals for the remaining 14 areas, including the area of the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I know that he is actively engaged in the discussion on reorganisation in Leicestershire and has been encouraging his constituents to have their say, as he described—I applaud and welcome that. I reassure him and other Members that we take people’s views very seriously; as I said before, I was listening very carefully to the contributions that colleagues have made. Community engagement and neighbourhood empowerment form part of our judgment in looking at proposals for new councils, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon for her contribution on that subject.
Like existing councils, new councils must listen to their communities and deliver genuine opportunities for neighbourhoods to shape the places where they live. That is part of another area of policy in the Department; whether it is pride in place or the measures in the Bill that is going through the House at the moment, community engagement is important.
The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about precepts. Deciding on that process will be a part of the reorganisation. If she would like further details, I would be happy to correspond with her, but it is part of the overall set of arrangements that we need to decide.
Residents can make their views known through the upcoming consultation on local government reorganisation. The responses to the consultation will all be taken into account, and I hope that Members will consider this process as part of the discussion that we are having.
I thank Members for engaging. If there are issues that I have not picked up for reasons of time, I will respond to them individually in writing. All Members are most welcome to take part in the discussions and consultations on the reorganisation. In the end, this is about outcomes; we want to see our country grow economically and socially. I thank Members for taking part in making the process work.
Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands
Alison McGovern Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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?
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
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 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.
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.
Temporary Accommodation: Out of Area Placements
Alison McGovern Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this debate, Sir John, on such an important issue. I was unaware of your views on green suits, so I shall try not to err in future. I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for securing this debate. He and I have discussed this issue a couple of times, and he has written to the Department. I congratulate him on working hard to make sure this issue gets the attention it deserves. It is complex, but we set out our national homelessness strategy before Christmas, as the hon. Member mentioned, and we can make a difference. I will run through some of those areas and come to the points that he has raised.
As a Government we inherited a homelessness crisis, with both rough sleeping and the number of households in temporary accommodation more than doubling since 2010. Those pressures stem from years of underinvestment in affordable housing and overstretched local homelessness systems, and I am sure the hon. Member would recognise that. Insufficient truly affordable housing means that councils in England too often have to rely on poor- quality, high-cost options to house homeless households. That has a huge impact on families in temporary accommodation, which is at record levels. As of June last year, 132,000 households, including 172,000 children, were living in temporary accommodation. It is shocking to hear those numbers and that is why we are determined to put it right. Our national plan to end homelessness sets out how we will do that: committing to record investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services, and giving a huge boost to social housing because, in the end, the cause of all of this is not having enough homes that people can afford. Even though it will take time, our commitment to £39 billion of investment to build the social housing we need must be at the root of our response.
The scale of the crisis means we will need to make progress over time and there will be a transition period as the situation stabilises and services are able to move toward longer-term prevention, rather than moving to some of the crisis responses that the hon. Member set out. In our plan we set out that sustainable change to tackle the root causes of homelessness, including the delivery of 1.5 million new homes. In the medium term, while we are building the homes that we need, we are investing £3.5 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, which will help councils intervene earlier, keep people in their homes and reduce the number of households entering temporary accommodation.
In the short term, we are taking immediate action to increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation through the £950 million local authority housing fund and, where it is needed, we are working to improve the experience of people living in temporary accommodation. I mention that because two important new goals in the national plan to end homelessness will help the situation that the hon. Member faces in Eastbourne. First, I want to see local authorities prevent homelessness and not end up in the position where they have to place people at all, never mind place them out of area. We will not be able to do that overnight, but if we can stop people becoming homeless in the first place, that problem will not arise.
Secondly, too many places that are using out of area placements to fulfil their homelessness duty have poor access to good-quality temporary accommodation in their own areas. Addressing that is a way to prevent the problems arising, before I get to the reasonable points that the hon. Member has made about what happens when authorities do need to place out of area.
On out of area placements, as of June 2025, 42,0000 households in temporary accommodation were placed outside their home district, with the majority placed in nearby regions. London boroughs accounted for the vast majority of those moves—placing 34,000 households out of area—and also received the highest number of inward placements from other boroughs. As a proud northerner, I sometimes hear from colleagues in the north of England about whether London is the cause of all of our problems. That is just not true; London is dealing with significant issues related to poverty itself. This is a huge amount of disruption for the individuals and families who are affected. We cannot accept it as inevitable, as I have said. We think our plan will help us get to the root cause of it, but we must act now to address poor practice in managing out of area placements to ensure that they are not used where closer, more suitable accommodation is available, and that, where they are used, there is collaboration between the placing and receiving authorities. That comes to the heart of the points that the hon. Member for Eastbourne has made.
The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that all temporary accommodation placements, including those out of area, must be suitable. That includes minimising disruption to schooling, healthcare, support networks and other essential services. The household’s circumstances, safeguarding and support needs must be considered, with links with schools, doctors and social workers retained wherever possible. The guidance does what I think the hon. Member for Eastbourne is arguing for; the question is why it is not working, if the guidance is already there. He mentioned a commitment to strengthen the guidance made by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali). That is restated by the homelessness strategy, and we will be engaging with councils. He has already written on behalf of Eastbourne, and I am in touch with councils week in, week out—including Brighton, which he also mentioned, on a number of occasions. I will be on the hunt for the areas where we need to strengthen the guidance in all my conversations with local authorities, which he will know are very regular at the moment because of the funding settlement.
Josh Babarinde
I thank the Minister for her response. I am heartened that a review of the out of area placements guidance is still on the cards, but I am disheartened not to hear a timetable for that. It feels as though not much has progressed since my letter and the response that I received in the summer. I wonder if she can share a timetable for when that review will take place and be concluded.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for his point, but I disagree that not much has progressed because we have published a national plan to end homelessness. As I set out before, the point of that plan is to increase prevention and, in the short and medium term, get better quality placements closer to home. We are working on that action plan now. I do not want to give him an arbitrary deadline for work on the guidance, but I am sure we will speak again on many occasions. It will be part of the action plan and the steps that we are taking, coming out of the strategy. I am happy to update him as we move along.
Let me make some progress in responding to some of the other points the hon. Member for Eastbourne raised. For example, we already require the authority to consider the suitability of the location for all members of the household. Housing authorities should, wherever possible, seek to place homeless households in their area, except where there are clear benefits for the person seeking assistance. I am pleased that the hon. Member mentioned those who are experiencing domestic abuse—we would all obviously see the benefit of an out of area placement, and I am sure he did not mean to imply anything other than that.
Where an out of area placement is suitable and necessary, good communication between authorities is vital, as we have heard. Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 requires councils to notify the receiving authority when they place a household out of area. We know that, across the country, notifications are not always made and, where they are made, the information provided is limited. That is not good enough; I expect all local authorities to ensure that placements and notifications align with duties under the relevant legislation. The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked about sanctions and so on. There are clear ways in which local authorities can be held to account for the decisions they make, such as the ombudsman, Parliament and other means. We will not succeed in our goals in the national plan to end homelessness without local authorities, so my role is to support them. Through the funding settlement and other things, that is what I am trying to do. If there are areas where local authorities have fallen down, there are clear routes through which they can be held accountable.
All services have a role to play in providing the right support, and I am delighted that we recently introduced an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill requiring local housing authorities to,
“notify…educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services…when a child is placed in temporary accommodation”.
Consent would have to be provided. That will ensure that schools and health services have the information they need to provide proactive, practical and pastoral support where needed.
The amendment a part of our strategy, as is our commitment to introducing a duty to collaborate, to ensure that notification and co-operation is happening as it should. To be honest with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I can imagine a number of reasons why they may not operate as they should, not least a decade and a half of austerity where local councils were stripped of the resources that they needed to do the job. That is the reality they face, but our job collectively is to provide the systems and processes to help them do it, notwithstanding the point I just made about accountability.
Amanda Hack
Could the Minister clarify whether that duty to inform also includes the 16 to 18-year-olds, who may well be placed by social services, rather than by homelessness teams?
Alison McGovern
My very dedicated civil servants are just mouthing to me that they might be in care, and therefore there might be requirements from that point of view. If it is okay with her, I will write to my hon. Friend with a detailed and full response, because the legal situation surrounding 16-year-olds is particularly important.
To conclude, temporary accommodation challenges are different across the country. Therefore, as I said, we need to respond to the realities that councils are facing. As part of that, in boosting the capacity that local authorities have, our emergency accommodation reduction pilots, backed by £8 million of investment, have effectively reduced the number of families with children in bed and breakfasts for more than the six-week limit by working with areas experiencing the highest pressures. That is the approach that I want to take on this issue. Receiving authorities must of course be able to work collaboratively with placing authorities, as we have said.
In the end, the heart of this problem is the people who are affected. I was disheartened to hear the hon. Member for Eastbourne report that somebody had said to him they had been “dumped”—how awful. We want people to feel that councils are there to support them if the worst happens and make sure they get back on their feet. That is why our emergency accommodation reduction programme, with a £30 million funding increase through the homelessness strategy, will help tackle poor practice and get us on the right road.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for raising these issues. As I have said a number of times, out of area placements should be a last resort. When they happen, they must be handled properly with full notification, safeguarding referrals and collaboration between councils. Overall, we are committed to tackling the drivers of homelessness, improving standards and ensuring that vulnerable households get the support they need.
This is a shared challenge, and I look forward to working with all local authorities, charities and Members across this House to deliver the long-term solutions we want to see. On behalf of all of us in this House, could the hon. Member for Eastbourne pass our sincere thanks to the charities, organisations and individuals he mentioned? It sounds like they are doing a very important job.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Elections: Cancellation
Alison McGovern Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the cancellation of scheduled local government elections in May 2026.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are undertaking a once-in-a-generation reorganisation of local government. We have now received proposals from all areas, and from councils across the political spectrum. For decades, the two-tier council system, where it still exists, has made local government more complicated and more bureaucratic than it needs to be. This Government are bold enough to change that.
We will put in place single-tier councils everywhere by the end of this Parliament. That will mean faster local decisions to build homes and grow our towns and cities. It will bring services such as housing and social care under one roof, making them more effective and responsive to what communities need, and it will end the duplication that sees two sets of chief executives and two sets of councillors, which creates confusion and waste for local taxpayers. This is a proven model, and when we change to unitaries, we never hear calls for a return to two-tier local government.
On 18 December I updated the House on our plans to seek councils’ views on their elections in May. There is clear precedent for postponing elections due to local government reorganisation—the previous Government postponed many elections between 2019 and 2022 in order to smooth the transition to new councils. I therefore wrote to 63 councils undergoing reorganisations with elections in May to ask them if postponing their elections could release essential capacity to deliver reorganisation and to allow it to progress effectively. It is only right that we listen to councils when they express concerns about their capacity. Local leaders know their areas best and are best placed to judge their own capacity. As we have said, should a council say that it has no reason to delay, we will listen; if a council voices genuine concerns, we will take those seriously.
We are running a legally robust and fair process, and all representations are now being considered before decisions are made. The Secretary of State has written to four councils to ask for more clarity on their position by 10 am tomorrow. These councils are Essex county council, Norfolk county council, Oxford city council and Southampton city council. As I have said, no decisions have been made, but we want to make them as quickly as possible in order to give councils certainty, and we will update Parliament on those decisions in the usual way.
Sir James Cleverly
This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils.
The Government’s own local election strategy said:
“The right to participate in our democracy…should not be taken for granted.”
Cancelling elections was not part of that strategy. The Electoral Commission has been clear that the scheduled elections should go ahead as planned and that capacity constraints are not a legitimate reason for delay. Why was the Electoral Commission not consulted on these cancellations? Why is this being done at the last possible moment? Do the Government accept the Gould principle that at least six months’ notice should be given for any changes to election administration?
Ministers say that they are following the wishes of local councils, and the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the Secretary of State has written to, among others, Essex county council. The leader of Essex county council has been clear that these elections should go ahead, yet the Secretary of State still cites Essex, among others, to justify the cancellations. It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to write to councils basically to ask them the same question, but they have already given an answer. When does the Secretary of State intend to lay the statutory instruments for these areas, and does he think it is appropriate to use secondary legislation under the Local Government Act 2000? Did Parliament really allow Ministers to run scared and cancel elections at will?
I have always said that these elections should go ahead, but the Secretary of State was the one who called these elections “pointless”, so why does he not have the courage of his own convictions, take responsibility for his own ineptitude and stop laying the blame on local councils?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making those points, which I will certainly relay to the Secretary of State so that he can take them under advisement. We wrote to notify the Electoral Commission, and we are grateful for its ongoing engagement. We will certainly have regard to all views and representations made, including those of the Electoral Commission, but this is fundamentally about local councils and their capacity, and that is why we have asked for representations from them.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Gould principle. That principle is underpinned by the need for certainty, so if there are technical changes, those responsible for the delivery of elections have time to adapt, but this is not about technical changes. We are listening to councils’ views about their capacity in the context of local government reorganisation.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked when the Secretary of State will make decisions. We have moved quickly to get these representations from councils, and the Secretary of State will make a decision as soon as he possibly can.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for raising this important issue. I accept that the Minister highlighted that there are concerns from councils, but again, we find ourselves in quite a disappointing area. Just before Christmas, the Minister highlighted that councils were asked to delay elections, after the Secretary of State had repeatedly told our Committee that they would be going ahead. As a former election organiser, I know how key dates will be etched in a lot of our minds. It is 108 days until polling day. The deadline for people who have to re-apply for postal votes is 31 January, while the deadline to register to vote is in April. We want people to vote, so I am concerned that we are seeing a postponement yet again. Can the Minister outline when the Government will make the final decisions? Do they plan to reject any of the requests for delays?
The Minister outlined that the Government want councils to be up to date and not have to stress with reorganisation. Reorganisation will take a lot of time and resources, but we are effectively asking councils to choose between running day-to-day services and running an election. It should not be either/or. Councils should be in a state to deliver those services. Can the Minister outline that she is confident that the reorganisation will not distract hard-working frontline staff, impacting residents across the country who rely on the council’s day-to-day services?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend mentions how important it is for elections to take place. As she knows, large numbers of people will be voting in May. We are talking about a relatively discrete number of local authorities undergoing reorganisation. She asked when the Secretary of State will make the decision. He will do that as soon as he possibly can, and we have set out the further information that we have asked for.
My hon. Friend also asked about resources. This is really important, because the whole point of reorganisation is to ensure that we use our resources in the best way possible. It bears repeating, as I have done on many occasions in this House, that local authorities bore the brunt of austerity. We have reconnected council funding with deprivation, and I am anxious to make sure that all local authorities move towards financial sustainability. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend’s Committee further.
Zöe Franklin
That said, the Labour party is the main offender in cancelling elections, and it appears to be running scared from the ballot box rather than trusting voters. Does the Minister accept that cancelling elections risks setting a dangerous precedent that elections become optional when they are inconvenient to those in power? What message does it send to residents about the value of local government if their right to vote can be so easily set aside? Democracy is a right, not a matter of convenience.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for powering through, despite commentary from the Opposition Front Bench. She asks about the importance of democracy. It is, of course, very important. The vast majority of elections are going ahead next year. A huge number of people will be voting. It is important that that principle is stuck to. We will take the decisions based on the evidence and the precedent I set out in response to other Members.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
As a former leader of a major council and a Labour MP, I find this completely embarrassing. A Labour Government should not be taking the vote away from 3.7 million people. It is completely unprecedented for a Labour Government to do that. There is clearly a vested interest for some councillors who may feel, looking at the opinion polls, that they will lose their seat. Some of those councillors will vote for delay. How will the Minister distinguish between that motivation and whether or not there really is a lack of capacity to carry out the elections? I do not believe that any of those councils are unable to hold those elections.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the views he expresses, which I will be certain to pass on to the Secretary of State as he takes his decision. In the statement before Christmas, I set out the kind of evidence we are looking for. That is the kind of thing we will take into consideration.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
A year ago, Ministers told council leaders in Essex that it was necessary to postpone elections in order to facilitate reorganisation to “the most ambitious timetable”. A year later, there has been absolutely no progress and we do not even know how many authorities are proposed. Was it not wrong to cancel elections last year and wrong to cancel them again this year?
Alison McGovern
We have made progress on the reorganisation and I anticipate us making strong progress this year. I hear the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes about his own views. Those will be taken account of, alongside other views expressed.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes this year, and I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant hard-working Labour councillors. The ongoing process of reorganisation is delaying elections, but it is also delaying the creation of new combined authorities across many parts of the country. Given that, will the Department look again at the fast-track process, and whether places that have already gone through reorganisation and are fully unitarised, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes, should be added to that programme, and that the creation of new combined authorities should be sped up in those places, given that it has taken some time in others?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Coming from an area with a unitary council and a combined authority that is taking steps to improve public transport and other things, I appreciate fully the points he makes and I will pass them on to the Minister for Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh).
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Only dictators cancel elections, as well as Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, which are terrified of facing the wrath of the voters. We will be carrying out a judicial review of this appalling decision to cancel elections. Will the Minister confirm that if the noble judges rule in our favour that this is the wrong thing to do, the Government will abide by their ruling?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman mentions a legal process that I am not at liberty to comment on in detail. We want elections to go ahead, unless there is a strong justification. That is what we have said and that is what we will stick to.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents do not understand why we have an inefficient, duplicative, confusing system of two-tier councils at the moment. They are looking forward to this process going ahead and to having one council. As we await the process, it is really important that the councils we have remain responsive to our constituents’ needs. To give one example, I am organising a meeting next month about local bus services. I have invited East Sussex county council, run by the Conservatives, as the responsible transport authority, but it is currently refusing to send anyone to the meeting. Does the Minister agree that is unacceptable, particularly because it has been given a record amount of money by this Labour Government—over £10 million—to improve our bus services and my constituents want to tell it their experiences of buses?
Alison McGovern
Given the number of times buses have been raised with me when I have been door-knocking during elections, I am surprised that they do not lead the news more often. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her efforts to get decent bus services for her constituents, and would say to any local authority that if it wants to engage with residents on the things they care about, buses should be top of the list.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is it just a coincidence that the only three councils in Essex that want to cancel the elections—Basildon, Harlow and Thurrock—are all run by the Labour party, while all the others—Braintree, Chelmsford, Colchester, Brentwood, Epping Forest, Rochford, Southend and Essex county council—want the elections to go ahead? Is the Minister going to listen to the majority?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points he raises. I have set out the way in which we are consulting with local authorities, and the Secretary of State will take the decision accordingly.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
As the Minister has already mentioned, the previous Government postponed elections in 2021, including in my constituency. Does she agree with the words of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who was the Communities Secretary at the time—and whom I note is not in either of his recent places in the Chamber this afternoon—that holding elections “in such circumstances”, namely local government reorganisation, risks
“confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms”?—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 24WS.]
Alison McGovern
I do not know about agreeing with the right hon. Member for Newark, but I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who gets to the point we are trying to make. We are acting in accordance with precedent. She makes that point very well.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In Eastbourne, Conservative-run East Sussex county council is one of the worst in the country for potholes, with the second highest number of compensation payouts in total. It has resurfaced zero roads in the past year, making it the worst. Yet the people of East Sussex do not currently have a say. When can they expect to hear from the Minister or the Secretary of State about when they can kick out the Conservative council that is squatting in County Hall?
Alison McGovern
Potholes are probably second only to buses in the list of important issues. We will not have any undue delays. The Secretary of State will have more to say quite soon.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The truth of the matter is that there is actually a lot of false information flying around—does the Minister agree? In Bolton, we are very much looking forward to having local elections in May. Can the Minister confirm that that has always been the case, as it has been in the other nine boroughs in Greater Manchester, and that words to the opposite effect are simply false information?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is right, of course: elections are taking place up and down the country. I am sure there are lots of people who are looking forward to participating.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The good people of Exeter want their elections to go ahead as planned in May, yet the Labour super-majorities both on Exeter city council and here in Westminster leave no realistic prospect of fighting the decision. Does the Minister agree that Exeter city council is quickly losing its democratic mandate and is moving to some form of local tinpot autocracy?
Alison McGovern
Let me thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not agree with him on the substantive point he makes, but I have heard his views and will pass them on to the Secretary of State.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
“No taxation without representation.” Councillor Kevin Bentley, the dynamic Conservative leader of Essex county council, has been adamant that elections should go ahead. On 14 January, he wrote to the Minister:
“You may be aware that at our Full Council on 9th December I stated that Essex County Council would not be calling for the postponement of elections in May 2026. This continues to be our position.”
What was ambiguous about that? Is Labour simply running scared?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for relaying the words of Councillor Kevin Bentley, whom it has been a pleasure to meet on a number of occasions. Getting a clear position is obviously important. We will do that quickly, and the Secretary of State will —[Interruption.] I don’t know; there may have been more context than that one quote, but the Secretary of State—
Alison McGovern
No, you’re fine. The Secretary of State will take into account those representations and others, and make a decision without any undue delay.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
For the second year running, Conservative-run West Sussex county council has applied to cancel local elections, in which the Conservatives face wipeout. Their excuse is that it would be too hard to organise, but it is the seven district and borough councils that run the elections, not the county council, so will the Minister speak to the councils that have an actual democratic mandate, rather than the county administration, which is trying to cling to power long past its sell-by date?
Alison McGovern
We are in regular contact with local authorities. The Department and the Secretary of State will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we will make sure that those views are fed in.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As the House may be aware, I was a local councillor at three different levels: parish, district and county. Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the proposals as being either single tier or two tier. I gently remind them that parishes and towns will remain, so two tiers is the minimum. I repeat the question that was asked earlier: when will all these councils know for definite if and when their elections are going to be held later this year?
Alison McGovern
Again, we have moved quickly. We are getting the information that we need, and the Secretary of State will move as quickly as he can to take the decision. It is good to know that we have Members with extensive experience in the House. I thank the hon. Gentleman for all that he has done down the years.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Conservative-run Broxbourne borough council wants its elections to go ahead, and the people of Broxbourne should be allowed their choice on 7 May. However, devolution plans could see us merge with Labour-run Stevenage borough council and the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition-run Welwyn Hatfield borough council, which both want their elections to be cancelled. Conservative-run Broxbourne council wants its elections to go ahead. I, as the Conservative Member of Parliament for Broxbourne, want the elections to go ahead. The people of Broxbourne want their elections to go ahead. Can the Minister categorically confirm to my constituents that local elections in Broxbourne will go ahead on 7 May?
Alison McGovern
I have said on a number of occasions that we want the elections to go ahead unless there is a justified reason. The hon. Gentleman makes his point on behalf of his constituents, in the context of reorganisation. I will take that under advisement as we move forward.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If a future political researcher decides to write a thesis about the influence of adverse opinion polls on the cancellation of local elections in Britain, will the Minister, amiable as she always is, make herself available?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind question. I hope that at that point I might be doing something other than politics, and perhaps I might not quite have time.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
People in Northern Ireland on a day-to-day basis know well how casually the democratic process can be set aside, not just by this Government but by the previous Government, who gave the EU permission to impose its laws on the people of Northern Ireland without any say at all. Now the people of England are beginning to experience that—3.7 million people, who would want to vote against the £280 million of additional taxes imposed on them by Labour councils, will now be denied the ability to have their say. Are the Government running scared of Reform, or do they simply not want to be held to account? Do they not realise that behaving like this turns the United Kingdom into some kind of third-world dictatorship?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which I take in the serious terms in which it was meant. The vast majority of elections are going ahead. It is very important that people have their say. I hope that he will appreciate, as I have set out previously, the reason we have taken these steps and the manner in which we will take the decision, but he makes a very important point about the centrality of democracy, which I take seriously.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Isle of Wight councillor. Local government reorganisation in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is a mess. Meanwhile, the Government propose to cut £13 million of funding from Isle of Wight council. We are due to have elections in just three and a half months’ time. Our council wants those elections to go ahead and wants to prepare for them. Will the Minister confirm that we can do that, and that those elections will go ahead on the Isle of Wight in May?
Alison McGovern
As I have said to other Members, where councils want to go ahead, and they have the capacity and there are no issues, that is fine. Elections go ahead unless there is a strong justification for them not to, which is what I—[Interruption.] Where councils want the elections to go ahead, that is fine. We will listen to what they have to say. The issue that the hon. Member raises about funding and capacity is an important one, not least in a place as unique as the Isle of Wight. We are currently in a process of considering the local government finance settlement, and he will know that we are working very hard to get that right.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Last year, a junior Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), stood at the Dispatch Box and said that
“local council elections are happening in 2026. We are cracking on with it”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1164.]
For some communities, this is the second year in a row that elections have been cancelled. How does the Minister expect the British people to believe anything this Government say, or have any faith in their commitment to democracy?
Alison McGovern
Elections will be happening up and down this country in May. We are committed to democracy and it is very important that people have their say.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is indeed a very honourable lady, in her response and in the way that she does things in the House, but the fact is that, whether it be down to reorganisation or a new strategy—whatever reasons the Government put forward—3.7 million people will be denied the right to cast their vote. They will see it as a denial of their franchise, which will reduce their confidence in the Government, the Minister and local government. What will she and the Government do to restore that confidence, in the light of the denial of people’s franchise and their right to express themselves democratically?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the attention and care that he gives to these issues. He gives me the opportunity to come back to the underlying reason for this whole process, which is reorganisation to get councils in a good position. In those areas that are undergoing reorganisation, once we have got the new institutions set up, which we are doing without delay, people will be able to elect representatives to those new institutions. That is what happened when we had reorganisation previously—as has been mentioned, this process has been gone through recently—and it will mean that people can elect their councillors, and have their say about the kind of public services they want in their area.
Sir James Cleverly
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred earlier, and did so again in her final comments, to the cancellation or delay of the 2020 local government elections as being justified by the reorganisation of local government. That is a factual error; they were, quite unambiguously, delayed because we were in the middle of a global pandemic. How is it best to correct the record with regard to the reason those elections were delayed?