Alison McGovern MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for leading this debate, and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. I also thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition that has brought us here. Their engagement, as hon. Members have said, reflects the strength of feeling about local democracy, the future of local councils and the changes needed to get public services and stronger economic growth across England. I stood to be a local councillor 20 years ago this year—standing for election for the first time. I remember it as a humbling and important experience. I share the views of all hon. Members about the foundational nature of democracy. I grew up in the Wirral. Some 52 years ago we had quite a number of councils there and it was part of Cheshire, but when I was born we had a unitary council, so I was born in Merseyside. Now, we are part of the Liverpool city region, with a metro mayor, so I am personally aware of how change can affect areas. On the question of whether people demand mayors, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made the reasonable point most people are focused on the bread and butter. However, in my experience, having had a mayor for some years, the people I represent have felt and seen the benefit of that. I say to the right hon. Member, “Watch this space.” I begin by acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioners and expressed in this debate. Democratic legitimacy matters profoundly. People must have confidence that their vote counts and their voice is heard. They must also have confidence that the structures into which representatives are elected are sustainable, capable and fit to deliver the services on which communities rely. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) and I have engaged several times in this House—and will continue to engage—about the points that he rightly makes about Woking’s debt and what we must do to guard against such things happening again in future. Our responsibility is to safeguard both. In many parts of the country, residents continue to live with a two-tier system that is inefficient, confusing and poorly suited to the demands of the modern state. That is why the Government are undertaking the most ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in half a century. We are replacing outdated two-tier arrangements with simpler single-tier unitary councils that are better equipped to take decisions quickly, create economic growth and support integrated public services. This is where I slightly disagree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, because bringing together, for example, housing and social services under a unitary council is a different arrangement. His characterisation of the situation as us not moving away from two tiers because there will still be an Essex-wide body is not quite right. The value of a unitary council is bringing together those services that are now apart. It is not quite the situation that he describes.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Let me try again: Rayleigh. I got it right that time.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Just as the right hon. Member says—Rayleigh and Wickford. In bringing together the functions of district and county councils we can integrate public services better. That we still need a strategic tier does not, in my opinion, undermine that argument. That is why with one council responsible for growth, decisions can be taken faster, opportunities seized more confidently and investment aligned behind a coherent long-term vision. This is not a bureaucratic exercise. As I just said to the right hon. Member, when housing, public health, children’s services, adult social care and planning sit within a single organisation, the public benefits. Support services can work around the whole person, not just the element of their life that happens to fall within a particular tier of government. Nearly a third of England’s population live in areas where responsibility for services is split between two councils, and residents tell us that they struggle to know which council is responsible for what. As I have said previously, one county council recorded more than 140,000 incidents of residents contacting the wrong authority when trying to get help. That is not the public’s failure; it is a failure of a system designed for a different era. Two-tier government is significantly more expensive than it needs to be, and across the country, taxpayers fund duplicate political and managerial structures: two sets of councillors, leadership teams, finance functions, planning departments and often different electoral cycles. Those inefficiencies waste tens of millions of pounds each year. That money should be directed to social care, children’s services, housing and neighbourhoods. The petition focuses on one specific aspect of this broader programme of change: the powers available to Ministers to make changes to the timing of local elections in areas undergoing reorganisation. As Members know, the Secretary of State originally concluded, based on extensive representations from councils, that postponement would release essential capacity in 30 areas where councils set out detailed concerns about their ability to deliver complex structural change alongside running full elections. Those decisions were taken case by case, guided by evidence submitted through more than 400 representations, and reflected clear precedents for temporarily aligning electoral cycles with structural transition. However, following the receipt of further legal advice, the Government have now revoked that decision. A fresh decision was taken quickly to ensure certainty for councils, candidates and voters. A revocation order was laid and, as such, all the elections that had originally been proposed for postponement will now proceed in May 2026. We have written to all affected councils and the Government are working closely with returning officers, administrators and suppliers to provide the practical support required to deliver those elections successfully within the required timetable. Let me turn to a couple of the questions that Members asked. The hon. Member for Woking and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), asked me about legal considerations that applied to previous decisions. Those previous postponements were legal. As we know, the powers to postpone elections exist in statute and they are unchanged by the most recent decision. In a previous delegated legislative Committee, I committed to write to the hon. Member for Woking, as other Members who were in that Committee will remember. That response will be circulated in the usual way. The shadow Minister himself talked about the way in which Governments of all parties have handled legal advice. I am sure that I do not need to repeat the reasons why we would treat the advice we received in the way that we did; he knows those reasons well. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and others mentioned the circumstances in Cheltenham, which show that there are circumstances in which the power that we have discussed today can be used. In addition, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned Margaret Thatcher extending and changing the terms of the GLC, so clearly there are circumstances in which it needs to be used. Finally, a number of Members asked whether we would consider changing the law. The Government will engage with amendments to Bills in the usual way. We recognise, of course, that the reversal of the original decision places additional pressures on councils in reorganisation areas. As has been mentioned, last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in capacity funding, on top of £7.6 million that has already been provided, to support councils to deliver reorganisation effectively. We are in touch with councils directly about those resources. Let me turn briefly to the petition’s central concern: the powers themselves. Parliament provided these powers for the specific context of structural reform and previous Governments have used them in comparable circumstances, as has already been said today and as I have just mentioned again. However, we fully recognise the strength of interest among Members in how these powers are framed and exercised. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is now before Parliament, provides an appropriate forum for considering these issues. As I have just mentioned, the Government are considering amendments tabled to that Bill, and will engage with them in the usual parliamentary fashion. I do not intend to prejudge discussions in either House. Looking ahead, the focus now is on supporting councils to run safe and effective elections in May, and on progressing reorganisation in a way that improves local services and delivers long-term value for money. The new unitary authorities that will follow will eliminate duplication, strengthen accountability and make place planning—including planning for housing, transport, economic development and public services—easier, as it will be within a single strategic framework. The new unitary authorities will also deliver significant savings, estimated at about £40 million a year in allowances and associated costs, with savings of at least £120 million over the first three years, which can be reinvested into frontline services. Elections matter deeply—they matter to us all—and so does the long-term resilience of local government. Members will be aware that, after the past decade and a half, I have a significant job on my hands to get all local government towards a better and more sustainable future. When further legal advice was received, the Secretary of State acted swiftly to revoke the postponement decision and confirm that elections will proceed in May 2026. The Government remain committed to delivering simpler, stronger councils to serve their communities.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026. It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The draft order was laid before the House on 14 January and, if approved by this House and the other place, will implement a proposal submitted by Elmbridge borough council, Mole Valley district council and Surrey county council for two new unitary councils—East Surrey council and West Surrey council—on a geography covering the entirety of the county of Surrey. As I have said in the House before, we need to set local authorities on a clear path to financial sustainability. Local government reorganisation is a vital part of that journey. Having layers of councils is both ineffective and inefficient. Reorganisation is not a bureaucratic exercise or tinkering with lines on a map. With one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and reconnect people to opportunity. Residents will see more preventive care and will benefit from more financially stable councils, with combined services delivering for a larger population providing efficiencies and better value. That is why reorganisation—with stronger local councils equipped to generate economic growth, improve public services and empower communities—is a vital part of our change. I thank colleagues in this place and councils across the country for working with the Government on this process. To this end, on 5 February 2025, councils in the 21 areas of England that still have two-tier local government, including Surrey, were invited to submit proposals for unitarisation. Two proposals for reorganisation in Surrey were taken to consultation: one for two unitary councils and one for three. Following the close of the consultation, on 28 October 2025 I announced the Secretary of State’s decision to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the two-unitaries proposal. In reaching that decision, we considered the proposals carefully against the criteria set out in the invitation letter, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and all other relevant information. In our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better met the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believed that it performed better against the second criterion, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. Putting Surrey’s local authorities on a more sustainable footing is vital to safeguarding the services residents rely on, as well as to investing in their futures. If Parliament approves the draft order, there will be two unitary councils for Surrey from 1 April 2027. To deliver the new unitary councils, the order requires elections to be held in May 2026 for the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils, which will assume their full powers on 1 April 2027. These elections will replace the scheduled county council and some district council elections. The elections will be on the basis of East Surrey having 36 two-member wards and West Surrey having 45 two-member wards. Subsequent elections to the unitary councils will be in 2031 and every four years thereafter. We expect the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to review the wards in time for the 2031 elections. Implementing this proposal and establishing these new unitary authorities will help deliver our vision of having stronger local councils in charge of all local services and controlling local economic powers, to improve local public services and help grow economies. Before I outline the content of the draft order, I want to bring attention to related issues in Surrey: the level of unsupported debt in Woking, and devolution for Surrey. The Government recognise that Woking borough council holds significant and exceptional unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. We have committed to unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking council, reflecting historical capital practices at the council and the value for money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. This is a first tranche of support, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point, including following greater certainty on the rationalisation of assets in Woking. Any support will need to consider what further action can be taken locally to reduce debt and ensure value for money for the national and local taxpayer. We are committed to providing the new unitary with interim financial support, such as capitalisation support, until this process is complete. On devolution for Surrey, there is a plan that we are taking forward. On 12 February, we set out our intention to deliver a new wave of foundation strategic authorities across England as the next step forward in the Government’s devolution agenda. In Surrey, the Government are working with partners, which will include the new unitary authorities, to establish a foundation strategic authority for the area. This will ensure that relevant functions held at the county level, such as transport and adult skills, can continue to be delivered on that geographic footprint where possible. We have also proposed that a spatial development strategy should be produced for the Surrey geography, which would be a function held by the foundation strategic authority. The establishment of a strategic authority will be subject to the relevant statutory tests being met, and to local consent. The Government will also ensure that fire and rescue functions continue to be governed on the same geography. We prepared the draft order having considered the information in the proposals and the representations invited from all the councils concerned on specific matters. The order provides that, on 1 April 2027, the county of Surrey and the districts of Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking will be abolished. The councils of those districts and county will be wound up and dissolved. In their place, the functions will be transferred to the two new unitary authorities, East Surrey council and West Surrey council. The draft order also covers electoral matters, which I have set out, and provides for appropriate transitional arrangements. On transitional arrangements, it places a duty on the existing councils to co-operate with each other, the shadow authorities and the shadow executives, and to create joint committees for East Surrey and West Surrey, which will be dissolved after the first meeting of their respective shadow authorities.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  As you might expect, Sir Roger, I entirely agree with your suggestion, and I would be very happy to do so.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is very important. Dealing with the significant debt that local authorities have built up for a range of reasons is extremely important. He will be aware that we have dealt with the special educational needs and disabilities issue in recent days. He raises his point in the context of reorganisation, and those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is very important that we get this issue right, and I look forward to discussing with him the details of the case he mentioned on many occasions, I am sure, as we move forward with Lancashire reorganisation. I am pleased that Surrey leaders, members and officers have already commenced and implemented on a voluntary basis some of the transitional arrangements in the draft order to support delivery of the two new unitary councils. As such, the required joint committees have been set up and the implementation team agreed, and work is under way on the required implementation plan. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the Surrey councils and everyone involved in this process for their continued hard work and collaboration for local government reorganisation in Surrey. I know that this is not easy, and I reiterate my commitment to continue to support councils through the process. As part of that, we have confirmed £63 million in new funding for all 21 areas going through reorganisation, including Surrey, to help make the change. In conclusion, through the draft order we are seeking to replace the existing local government structures in Surrey with two new unitary councils that will be financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality public services to residents. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I can, if my hon. Friend really wants to intervene. [ Laughter. ]

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily correspond with any Members interested in that subject, but nothing has been confirmed yet. Let us try to make progress on that; it is very important for all local authorities. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner asked whether this will be the sole reorganisation, and the answer is no. We are making progress on the next waves of reorganisation, and there will be more for the Government to say on that very shortly. He also asked for guidance on the new high-value council tax surcharge that we have introduced, as well as the £63 million extra in capability funding. We have been in consultation and collaboration with councils and the Local Government Association on both those matters, as we have been throughout all of reorganisation. I will happily provide the hon. Gentleman with more detail on that, if he wishes. The hon. Member for Guildford asked about precedents from other reorganisations. Of course, we take into account what has happened previously, and the criteria against which decisions are judged are set out in the invitation letter. She asked about the county council leadership, and I can write to her with details of that process, if she would like. She also asked some detailed questions on risks and the technicalities of vacancies and by-elections, and I will again write to her with the precise details. The hon. Member for Broxbourne asked about the name and our fellow Member’s campaign. Following oral questions, I will engage with the Member concerned, so he need have no fear—we will be listening to his points. Finally, the hon. Member for Woking asked about the situation that he rightly described as incredibly serious—it is much more serious for any council to have got into that position than the attention that it is often given would suggest. I will write to him on the next steps with the commissioners, how it affects the whole best value process and the background of that. He also asked about the specifics of cancelling elections last year. I do not think that has any relevance, but I will write to him to confirm that, as I think he asked a specific point about advice. I say to Surrey Members, through the Committee, that there are significant financial challenges here, and I do not underestimate how important it is to get this right to ensure that services can continue to be delivered for residents. I look forward to working together with Surrey Members to get those decisions right, so that we all get this process to the best place it can be. The Government’s ambition is to simplify local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform to make stronger local councils that are empowered across local services and equipped to get economic growth going, improve services and empower communities. The draft order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey, and it will help ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver for residents. These are the benefits that the draft order can bestow on the people and businesses of Surrey, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate, and I also thank the Members, particularly those from Surrey, who have engaged with me on this subject in recent months—I really appreciate their time and effort. I will try my best to respond to the points that have been made but, as the hon. Member for Guildford rightly expressed, I may need to write to her and others with more detail, particularly where they have requested specific guidance or advice that has been given previously; I think it is easier for members of the Committee if I provide that to her directly. I will turn to some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. He mentioned devolution, and I answered his question in my opening speech when I said that the next step is a foundation strategic authority. Today we are dealing with reorganisation, and the Government believe that it is right to ensure the firm foundations of the unitary authorities before we proceed, but we are determined none the less to move forward with devolution for England. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the SEND deficit; I was interested in the specific figures he mentioned, as I do not believe that any firm numbers have been confirmed yet. I am in daily contact with DFE Ministers and others, so I am sure we can correspond on that matter.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think it is funny either. We will meet before too long and get on with it, because local government reorganisation is very important.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I will.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for chasing that. I am sure we will meet before too long. [ Laughter . ]

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Birmingham city council has strengthened its financial position, and its balanced budget proposal for ’26-27 is a significant milestone. That has been made possible by the Government’s funding reforms, which increase Birmingham’s core spending power by 45% from ’24-25 to ’28-29, because we recognise that councils should be funded in line with poverty and deprivation.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thought I was going to get away without answering any questions, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. On 11 November last year, we published a Government response to a consultation and I am anxious to get on with taking more steps to address the kind of thing that he raises as quickly as we can.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important issue; I am working closely with Department for Education Ministers on it. I had the pleasure of speaking to a representative of Redcar and Cleveland earlier today, but I will keep working closely with my hon. Friend as well.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman has had ample time to contribute, and while I would normally give way with gusto and have a bit of political knockabout with him, today is not the day for that. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else who has contributed today and also to thank those who contributed to the consultation on the provisional settlement and the Members who made representations to me directly. There could be no quick fixes. We cannot undo over a decade of damage overnight, but the settlement we are discussing today is our most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable, and I am committed to going further in coming years to fix the pressures our councils are facing. The Secretary of State set out the various mechanisms that we are employing to do that in his opening speech. This Labour Government have backed local governments through action, and since coming to power we have made available a nearly 25% increase in core spending power in ’28-29, worth £16.6 billion. I shall briefly turn to the points Members made. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) relayed the situation with regard to flooding on the Somerset levels. I send my support to his constituents and will work with the Flooding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), as required. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and the former Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), told me to be bold and I will try, but I look forward to their support in persuading all our colleagues in this place to vote for whatever bold solutions we come up with. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) talked about failures in children’s care, and I feel sure that we will work together on that. Many Members talked about their experiences of councils struggling yet often achieving, despite that struggle, to provide great innovative services on lean budgets, and we applaud them all for that.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  It is my pleasure to close this debate, despite the fact that I must apologise to the House. Many Members will know that I suffer from chronic migraine, and I have been having an attack over the past couple of days, so my contribution might not be as long as it might otherwise have been. In show business and in politics, the show must go on, albeit my speech might be slightly shorter than it would have otherwise been, but I think that will be a cause of joy for many Members— [Interruption.] Calm down. The Secretary of State and I know what a difference the hard work of councillors, frontline staff and all our mayors makes, and we pay tribute to them for everything they do for their communities, as many Members across the House have done. But we also know the consequences of the unfairness of the funding system. The last decade and a half of austerity was felt by the most deprived local authorities, because the link between funding and deprivation was broken. The shadow Minister seemed to imply in his remarks that he thought that the link ought to simply be with statutory duties, rather than any consideration at all being taken of the impact of deprivation. I would just say to him that those communities that suffered most, that were left out for far too long and that have struggled with the consequences of deprivation will wholeheartedly disagree with him. That is why today we are restoring the link with deprivation and ending the irrational inequality of the previous funding system. We are, as many have said, providing the first multi-year settlement in a decade, we are investing in changing our public services, and we are simplifying funding for local government.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I am determined not to give way, if that is okay—I think we need to bring this debate to a close. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asks me about remoteness from a sedentary position. I have discussed this issue in detail with many Members on a one-to-one basis, and I repeat that there are other ways in which the settlement accounts for the actual costs of providing services, such as the area cost adjustment and other means. I do not agree with what has been said, but I do not want to detain the House any longer. I had a wonderful January engaging with many Members across this House on the settlement; it was a fascinating opportunity to hear about the uniqueness of every area. I particularly thank my colleagues from Knowsley, St Helens, Gateshead and Banbury for the way in which they engaged on this settlement and contributed to how it looks today. I thank all Members once again for their valuable contributions today. The Government are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge that local authorities face as they continue to deal with the legacy of the previous system, but our changes will make a big difference. They will get money to where it is needed most, creating a fairer and evidence-based funding system and—most importantly to me and many others—restoring the link between funding and poverty. Question put.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

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

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. Yesterday’s announcement keeps our promise of a multi-year settlement, because local communities in London and elsewhere deserved better than the out-of-date funding allocations not aligned with need, which meant poorer public services and slower growth, particularly for those dealing with the consequences of poverty. We are making changes to how councils are funded. Many of these are changes that the public, local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We consulted four times on these changes, and we are grateful for the engagement from all corners, including from hon. Members in this debate. The engagement has informed our approach at every stage. The settlement confirms multi-year funding, our pledge to realign funding with need, and our commitment to end wasteful competitive bidding and to simplify funding. The Government have an important role as an equaliser for local government income, and we are directing funding towards the places that are less able to meet their needs through locally raised income, which will enable all local authorities to provide similar levels of services to their residents. However, that is true notwithstanding the major differences in spiking demands around the country. Following the provisional settlement consultation, the Government have announced an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the final settlement, including a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant, bringing total investment over the multi-year settlement to £2.6 billion. Of that £2.6 billion, £400 million is supporting places in London that suffered the most from historical funding cuts, and there is an additional £272 million to bring the total investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years to £3.5 billion—including over £800 million in London as part of our national plan to end homelessness. That is a significant investment in the capital’s homelessness services, which is much needed, as has been mentioned by Members from across the House. It takes the total new grant funding delivered through the annual settlements for 2026-27 to 2028-29 to over £4 billion. Since coming to power, we have pledged a 24.2% increase in core spending power by 2028-29 when compared with 2024-25, worth over £16.6 billion. It is a significant uplift in the spending power of councils. According to analysis by the Department, as a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up from around one third before our reforms. In 2028-29, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our challenge is to understand how we can best use our resources to support all our children. We could try to increase funding again and again, without any changes to the system, but we would not necessarily get better outcomes, and costs would keep going up, not least because councils have issues with how they are able to provide some of the support that children need. We need to get to a more stable financial position and take responsibility in this place to change the policy failures that caused the cost spikes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Compared with 2024-25, by 2028-29 London will see an increase in core spending power of more than £3 billion. The vast majority of councils in London will see a real-terms increase between 2024-25 and 2028-29 and a fairer system that addresses issues that matter in London—and across England—including recognising the additional strain that commuters and tourists can place on service provision, taking into account need in specific high-demand service areas such as temporary accommodation and crucially, using the most up-to-date data, including the 2025 indices of multiple deprivation. That has been the subject of some feedback to the Department. It is a statement of the obvious that we would use the most up-to-date data, and it so happens that that data can better account for the impact of housing costs on poverty. That was always the intention, and we would always have done that, whatever noise I have picked up on this topic.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

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

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate, in which hon. Members have raised some important issues. She posed some questions that I will come to in my response. She mentioned that I served on the London borough of Southwark just before she was first elected to the best borough in London. She is right that a bit of my heart will be forever in Camberwell. I learned a lot during those years, but local government has changed in the 20 years since I was first elected. Poverty in London has also changed, along with the services that boroughs try to provide. In a moment of shock and surprise, I find myself in agreement with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). He rightly characterises a situation faced by councils where costs are spiking, often because of policy failure not of their making, whether those are the costs of homelessness, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, or the costs associated with SEND mentioned by many hon. Members, to which I would add adult and children’s care. We have fundamental issues to tackle and many of the policy levers lie in this place, not in town halls. We all need to own our responsibilities on that front. We continually need to rethink how we approach this issue. It is a shame in many ways that I could not introduce some of my colleagues in other parts of the country to this discussion. Hon. Members will have seen in the press that I have been variously accused of robbing the north to send money to the south, and now robbing London to send money somewhere else—the north or the midlands, I do not know. In fact, the consistent theme in the funding settlement is the Government’s attempt to reconnect council funding with deprivation. I will come to the detail of that, because we are committed to making long-overdue changes to council funding. This is the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, which, as Members have mentioned, will make a huge difference.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  We set out that flexibility when we made the provisional statement, and there will be more details of that in the Chamber tomorrow. I am at the slight disadvantage of speaking between the publication of the settlement and the full debate in the House of Commons tomorrow. There will be more detail tomorrow for the hon. Gentleman. The council tax bill for a house worth £5 million in central London can be less than the bill for an ordinary family home in places such as Blackpool and Darlington. It is not fair that properties worth so much more pay less council tax and receive comparatively better services than elsewhere, because of Government subsidy. Removing referendum principles for the six councils, as we have said, will allocate more than £250 million more funding for places with higher need, instead of subsidising very low bills for 500,000 households under those councils. I want to turn to the direct questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who led the debate. She raised the issue of the costs of temporary accommodation, and she was absolutely correct to do so. I refer her to the homelessness strategy, which I published just before Christmas. The problems in temporary accommodation are very geographically concentrated. I am anxious to work with London councils, including her councils, to get children and families out of poor-quality, expensive temporary accommodation and into better-quality temporary accommodation that will be more reasonably priced for local authorities—even if it is still temporary, because some of what we are paying for is very poor value. My hon. Friend mentioned LHA rates and asked whether I will work with the DWP and Treasury. I can tell her that I am doing so. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), also raised that with me in another setting. I will happily update the House as we go. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned a stalled site in her borough, which sounds like a dreadful waste. I will alert the Housing Minister and the Secretary of State to that. They were anxious to bring forward their plan for London with the Mayor of London for this very reason, but I will refer them to this debate. She asked about a visitor levy, which other Members mentioned too. I will take those comments as input to the consultation on a visitor levy. My hon. Friend and the shadow Minister mentioned EFS. Again, shockingly, I found myself agreeing with the shadow Minister: that system should have been used sparingly and for exceptional circumstances. It is becoming less exceptional, and we have to get to the heart of why councils are in this position. Some of that is about costs, as we have said, but there are also other things, like reintroducing local audit, that I believe will help to defend the system and make it more sustainable as we go. My hon. Friend also asked about SEND deficits, which I have mentioned. We are making changes that we believe are necessary to change public services and get local government back on its feet. By realigning funding with need and reforming services that put pressure on local government, we will empower local leaders to deliver for communities in London and across the country. Unlike many people, I firmly believe that it does not matter whether someone lives in a northern town or city, in the midlands, the south-west, Scotland, Wales or London—poverty is poverty, and we should respond to it all.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

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