Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

[Joe Powell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Fortune]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

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

[Joe Powell]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

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

[Peter Fortune]

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

[Alison McGovern]

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

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

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

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

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

[Alison McGovern]

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

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

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

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

[Luke Taylor]

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

[Alison McGovern]

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

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

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

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

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

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