Internal Drainage Board Levy Support Grant

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

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

At the local government finance settlement on 9 February 2026, the Government confirmed the £5 million internal drainage board levy support grant for the financial year 2026-27. This is a continuation of the grant from 2025-26, reflecting the Government’s recognition of the continued financial pressures special levies place on local authorities.

Today, I am confirming the allocation of this funding to the 17 local authorities most severely impacted by internal drainage board special levies. Councils and internal drainage boards are encouraged to continue working together to deliver services efficiently and ensure good value for money for the public.

Local Government Best Value

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

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

This Government are committed to taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today, I am updating the House on the Government’s action to update the best value guidance, to set clear expectations of the standards local authorities need to meet for their residents. I am also updating the House on the steps we are taking to support individual councils at risk to recover and reform.

Best Value Duty

In March, we published an independent evaluation of our best value interventions, and committed to updating the best value statutory guidance, previously issued in 2024. We are now publishing, for consultation, revised draft guidance that sets out what constitutes best value, the standards expected by Government, and the Government’s approach to supporting local government in delivering real prosperity for their residents and local area.

To achieve best value and meet the standard residents expect, we need strong local institutions that are well led, focused on the long term and committed to a culture of continuous improvement.

The revised guidance sets out this Government’s intention of supporting authorities to secure their own compliance with best value, prevent them from slipping into crisis, and take action to address risks before they escalate. It lays out a new focus on the high standards expected in local government. Where authorities are in crisis, the guidance explains how Government may intervene to get them back on their feet.

Following the closure of the consultation on 7 October 2026, Ministers will update the House when the Government publish the final statutory guidance.

Best Value Notices

I am also updating the House on the use of best value notices as a lever to secure improvement in several councils. Best value notices are not a form of statutory intervention, but provide a formal notification that Ministers have concerns about risks to compliance with the best value duty. They request that each council engages with the Department to provide assurance of improvement at pace against a set of expectations to avoid future failure.

Three councils had notices issued in 2025 that are due for review. Following significant improvements in Dudley metropolitan council, the notice there will be lifted on 16 July. The Department will continue to work with the council and its partners to ensure improvement is sustained and cultural change is embedded. Progress has also been made at the London borough of Newham. However, there is further work for the changing political and officer leadership team to deliver and embed planned improvements, and the Department has issued a revised notice, to be reviewed after six months. I remain very concerned about the scale of challenge at Cheshire East council, and the Department has issued a revised notice, to be reviewed after six months. I expect the council to significantly increase the pace of improvement, driven by a stable leadership team and supported by the Department and the Local Government Association.

The Department has also issued four new best value notices. In the London borough of Hillingdon, Shropshire council and Somerset council, my concerns relate to financial sustainability, as evidenced by prolonged and forecasted reliance on exceptional financial support, alongside broader issues including with financial management, governance and capacity. In Basildon borough council, my concerns relate to serious cultural and governance issues. To build the evidence base for improvement, I will also commission an independent external assurance review into Basildon, which will report its findings by the end of October 2026.

Woking and Spelthorne

Following consideration of local representations, I have established a single commissioner team to operate across both Woking and Spelthorne borough councils. This creates a single, cross-cutting team that will focus on embedding council improvements and strengthening the grip on the complex challenges that remain as the councils approach West Surrey’s vesting day in April 2027. The team is led by Lesley Seary, supported by Barry Scarr, Deborah McLaughlin and Mervyn Greer.

As part of these changes, Sir Tony Redmond and Peter Robinson have stepped down from their commissioner roles. Richard Carr will also transition from his managing director commissioner role, and will continue playing an important part in supporting Woking borough council's improvement and transition towards local government reorganisation as its interim chief executive. I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to all three commissioners for their significant contributions.

I have also received the latest commissioner reports for both councils and published them, together with my formal responses, on gov.uk.

Thurrock

On 27 January 2026, I announced that I was content for Thurrock council to initiate a recruitment process for a chief executive. I understand that the recruitment process is on schedule, with an appointment due to be recommended to full council later this month. As Parliament will be in recess at that time, and having considered local representations, I am announcing today that if the council successfully appoints a chief executive, and the managing director commissioner subsequently steps away from their role, I will appoint a commissioner with responsibility for transformation in due course. This will ensure that there continues to be three commissioners in place in Thurrock to provide the necessary oversight, challenge and support as the council moves into the next phase of its intervention and recovery.

Slough

Following the managing director commissioner setting out his plans to step down at Slough borough council over the summer period, and having considered local representations, I am today announcing that I will appoint a replacement managing director commissioner with the expertise and leadership needed to address the scale of its ongoing challenges. Given that Dr Dave Smith’s role will end at Thurrock with the appointment of a chief executive, I am announcing that he will be appointed as managing director commissioner at Slough borough council.



I would like to take this opportunity extend my sincere thanks for all the work Will Tuckley has done as managing director commissioner for the intervention at Slough borough council.

Nottingham

In March, I announced the de-escalation of the statutory intervention at Nottingham city council and committed to appointing a second ministerial envoy. I am today appointing Sir Stephen Houghton CBE as political envoy in Nottingham to provide support and guidance to the council leadership to help build further on the improvements already under way.

Conclusion

I am committed to ensuring that the standards expected of local government are clear, and to working with these councils to ensure their compliance with the best value duty. I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. Ministers will update the House in due course.

[HCWS267]

Local Government Reorganisation

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 local government reorganisation.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Nearly 21 million people in our country are served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. The Government’s aims for local government reorganisation are clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services. We have set out the timetable and we are on track, which includes making announcements on the remaining areas this week. My officials have written to councils to confirm that the announcement will take place this week, and I am pleased at the progress made so far, with unitary councils announced for five areas and elections held in Surrey. Structural changes orders are being brought forward as planned, and we are on track for new councils to go live in April 2028.

Some £63 million of funding is available to support transition costs, which we are paying directly to councils, and each new council will receive at least £900,000. This is the first time that funding has been made available by central Government for that purpose, because we need to get the reforms right. Local government reorganisation offers an opportunity for our communities to give local leaders the funding, powers and capacity to grow their economies, build the homes their communities need, and create better public services, improving the lives of the people we serve. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to set that out.

[Sir James Cleverly]

We have all watched this film before. The Secretary of State, who once again scurries away to avoid scrutiny, tried to cancel local elections. He was caught putting his thumb on the scales and forced into an embarrassing climbdown that cost time and money, and undermined confidence in politics and local government. He is setting about the biggest reorganisation of local government in more than half a century, and doing so with no mandate for a change of this scale. Ministers now appear to be desperate to avoid scrutiny, by announcing these decisions on the final sitting day before the House rises for the summer recess—a pattern we have seen before.

The Minister insists that elections for the new shadow authorities will take place next year. We also heard that elections for county mayors would take place in May this year, but—spoiler alert—they did not happen. In many areas there are still no agreed authority boundaries, no ward boundaries and no legislative timetable. How are councils, candidates and electors supposed to prepare for elections without those key details? Why are Labour councillors allowed to redraw the boundaries of the very authorities that they hope to represent, before any independent review by the Local Government Boundary Commission? If the process is not about narrow party political advantage, why were Labour MPs and councillors briefed before this House? If the elections are to happen next year, the Government must bring forward the necessary legislation before the House rises. I ask the Government to break with tradition, to be open and transparent, and to avoid diktat from the centre—or is it really the legacy of the Secretary of State to leave things in such a shambles?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He said I was desperate to avoid scrutiny—

[Sir James Cleverly]

I said “the Secretary of State”.

[Alison McGovern]

I am a Minister, too, and I can answer. I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree with me that I have answered a number of Westminster Hall debates on this subject, and we have also had debates upstairs on statutory instruments, as is absolutely right. Members of this House will have an opportunity to question the Government and put their views forward, as they already have done in Westminster Hall debates and on other occasions.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman missed what I said, which was that we will make announcements on the remaining areas this week. [Interruption.] The day will be decided by the usual channels; I will not presume to say what the usual channels and Mr Speaker will decide. If the right hon. Gentleman has a little patience, he can give me another go at this when I make the announcement very soon.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her very important contribution. I meet regularly with the leadership of the LGA for all the reasons that she mentions. These reforms matter so much because councils do very important things. Both the child poverty strategy and the Milburn review made clear the cost of fragmented services to some of the most vulnerable children and young people in this country, so getting this right really matters. As I have said, we have already allocated £63 million to supporting councils, and I will have more to say on that very shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, because decisions are better made closer to the communities they affect, yet this Labour Government’s approach has been top-down Whitehall diktat from the very start. Councils have been undermined, residents have been barely consulted, and communities have been left in the dark about the future of local services, all while councils continue to face significant financial pressure.

With the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) expected to saunter into No. 10 within days, I am deeply concerned that Members of this House, councils and residents have no clarity about the approach to local government reorganisation that he will take, whether the parameters will change, and whether future local elections will be cancelled yet again. What discussions has the Minister had with the right hon. Member for Makerfield about his plans for reorganisation, and will she commit to no further local elections being cancelled?

[Alison McGovern]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asks me what conversations I have had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield; I am afraid that they have been mainly about Everton and Liverpool football club. [Hon. Members: “Resign!”] Indeed.

The work of this Government to secure devolution and reshape local government, so that we can grow our economy, build homes and serve our constituents properly, has been thought through carefully and is proceeding in line with the timetable. I am sure that all of us in this House, whatever our views, want that to succeed.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Perran Moon. Oh, he is not standing now; he has changed his mind. Are you standing up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question, especially given the state of public transport in many parts of this country. I will take his question as a request that I include certain things in the statement later this week.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I draw the Minister’s attention to a poll conducted and published by YouGov? It shows that local government reform in Essex is really unpopular. What is more, the more people are questioned about it, the more unpopular it becomes. Why do we not have a referendum in Essex to find out whether we really want local government reform, instead of it just being imposed by politicians who think that they know better?

[Alison McGovern]

Obviously, like all politicians, I pay close attention to opinion polls.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her listening ear throughout this process. I know that she will make a bigger statement on Thursday, but while she is giving these matters consideration, may I make a last-ditch attempt to convince her to keep Burnley and Blackburn very separate? Will she prioritise devolution in Lancashire, so that we can have a mayor and enjoy the things that cities enjoy, such as cheaper buses and business investment?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his representations. I cannot respond directly to them, but as ever, I keep the views of Members of this House under close watch.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

In four days’ time, we will mark exactly two years since I first explained to Ministers how much the people of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be part of a greater Stoke local authority, do not want devolution forced on them, and want their say on who makes decisions about what happens there. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), may I implore the Minister for a referendum? We do not want this imposed on us in north Staffordshire; we want to have our say.

[Alison McGovern]

I am sorry to disappoint experienced and knowledgeable hon. and right hon. Members, but having referenda is not part of the local government reorganisation process. It is very important that we hit the milestones in the timetable that we have set out.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, several options are being put forward for local government reform, which could benefit Peterborough greatly. Will the Minister reassure us that we will get the announcement, whatever it is, sooner rather than later, so that we can prepare? Did she hear Opposition Members say that Labour MPs have been briefed the details of what is to come? That allegation has been made against me, but I put on record that I have not been briefed, and no information has been leaked to me. That is a scurrilous rumour. Will the Minister put on the record that no MPs anywhere know the outcome or result yet?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Be careful that they do not accuse you of protesting too much.

[Alison McGovern]

It is fair to say that I am champing at the bit to make this statement, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support in helping us to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) has made his point clear.

[Mr Speaker]

To be clear for the record, there have been a lot of accusations that people have been briefed. I can assure the House that I know of no briefing—not even to me, although I had hoped to have one.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrat administration on Hertfordshire county council has made huge strides forward in improving special educational needs and disabilities provision. We were delighted when the Government lifted the improvement notice, which had been imposed when the Conservatives were running the council. Just as families are starting to feel the benefit, we are really worried that local government reorganisation could disrupt the delivery of SEND and social care provision. What support will be given to ensure that those essential services for the most vulnerable people will not be disrupted by local government reorganisation?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for her important and serious point. I have been working very closely with my colleagues in the Department for Education on this issue. A big change process is under way, and I would be happy to speak to the hon. Lady further about it.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s reassurance that an announcement will be made this week. Two proposals have been put forward for reorganisation in Warwickshire; like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), I put on record my support for the two-Warwickshire proposal, because it most accurately reflects how people consider services. Would she say that that the only people who seem to support the one-Warwickshire solution are the Reform administration in Warwickshire, which has failed to improve the situation regarding potholes, buses, SEND or children’s services, and that people in my constituency would therefore really welcome elections taking place in accordance with the schedule?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She will understand that until we have made the announcement, there is little I can say in response to her point, but I will just say that councils deliver very important public services. We are introducing the local outcomes framework so that we can see transparently what councils deliver and what they do not.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Minister and I have had many exchanges on this topic, and she knows that I am focused on securing the best outcome for my constituents. We know that reorganisation in Hertfordshire is coming, but the uncertainty is not helping my residents or local councillors, so can the Minister confirm whether an option for Hertfordshire will be included in her announcement on Thursday? Can she also confirm whether MPs will be informed before any public announcement is made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the many exchanges we have had. I know that he just wants the best for his constituents, as we all do. It might help the House if I explain the process we go through. We provide Members of Parliament in affected areas with a short briefing before the announcement is made. That is done for all Members of Parliament; it is what has happened to date, and what I anticipate will happen as and when I am able to make the statement. We will be able to talk more openly once that decision is in the public domain.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Does the Minister believe, as I do, that if local government reorganisation is done correctly, it has the potential not just to reshape local government so that it is fit for the 21st century, but to help us secure much-needed economic growth?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. This is not just about constitutional niceties or the importance of councils to government in this country, crucial though they are; it is about having the right-sized authority to grow our towns and cities, and to give young people and everybody else in this country the opportunities they deserve.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

In a week’s time, we will have a new, unelected Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield. Can the Minister confirm whether the right hon. Member supports this local government reorganisation, or is he going to reorganise the reorganisation?

[Alison McGovern]

Last time I checked, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield had, in fact, been elected.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The Minister will know the strength of feeling in Newcastle-under-Lyme in support of a Newcastle-only unitary. Will she confirm that Members of this House have not been told about any proposed boundaries or confirmed plans? The idea that some members of the LGA have been notified of some confirmed proposals before this House beggars belief. Also, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that local identity, civic heritage and a sense of community will be protected? In my view, we should support local communities like mine in establishing town councils to do just that.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have set out the process by which this House will be updated on the decisions, but if my hon. Friend has evidence of anything else that he is concerned about, he may well want to write to me to share that information directly.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

In recent weeks in West Worcestershire, I have met local police and the police and crime commissioner; the police and crime commissioner is being abolished, and the police are being reorganised. I have met the local health commissioners; they are being reorganised, and Healthwatch is being abolished. I have met district councillors; they are being abolished, and their ability to make determinations on planning applications has been taken away. Can the Minister explain how any of this throwing everything up in the air is actually going to help my constituents, particularly the most vulnerable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

The approach we are taking is to put power in the hands of people and communities so that they can take decisions for themselves, because all the evidence is that if people with skin in the game take the decisions, we get better decisions, growth and better public services.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

To add to the list of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), people who support a single unitary for Warwickshire include me as the MP for Rugby and the political parties at Rugby borough council and at Warwickshire county council. As the Minister considers her statement on Wednesday, could she give a little bit more thought to two important stakeholder groups in the new local government reorganisation world? One group is MPs—what role are we going to have when so much more power and responsibility is devolved? The other group is towns; we need to make sure that they have as much representation as possible. I know she has considered those things, and I would love to hear a little more about it.

[Alison McGovern]

I suggest to my hon. Friend that once I have actually made the announcement, perhaps we can have a chat about those things. As somebody who has had mayoral devolution in my area for more than a decade now, and who represents the great town of Birkenhead—recently shortlisted for town of culture—I have a lot of thoughts about this issue, which I will happily share with him.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Torbay council is the most deprived local authority in the south-west of England. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances that rearranging the deckchairs with this local reorganisation will not detract from regeneration, which is a core driver for that local authority. The new Prime Minister is set to move No. 10 a further two hours away from the west of England. How will he be supporting the south-west?

[Alison McGovern]

I am not sure that all the hon. Gentleman’s questions were central to the subject of this statement, but he makes an important point, which is: what is the objective here? The objective is to grow our economy, so that we can deal with deprivation, particularly in seaside and coastal places, and have better quality public services to support people. That is the objective, and that is what I think we will achieve.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I join you, Mr Speaker, and other Lancastrian MPs waiting in apprehension for the announcement on Thursday. Blackpool has put forward its proposal for four unitary councils in Lancashire, based on us achieving the best possible outcomes for people in Blackpool after losing £1.8 billion under the previous Government. I know the Minister will not be able to comment on the decisions until Thursday, but can she outline the situation with Lancashire and the mayoral pathway? We are falling so far behind Greater Manchester and Merseyside. We desperately need that investment today, so can we ensure that the train on that track keeps going?

[Alison McGovern]

As a fellow north-west MP and fan of Blackpool, I say to my hon. Friend that he is absolutely right. We need to stick to the timetable and get on with this, so that we can invest in Lancashire, in Blackpool and in everywhere else.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I would like to think that if this Minister were Secretary of State, we would not be in a situation where 23,000 people were signing an online petition protesting against the carve-up of the New Forest in this local government reorganisation. Can she tell me: is there any truth in the report in The Times on 18 June that the Secretary of State had overruled professional advice from civil servants in three separate Departments to impose a gerrymandered solution on Essex county council?

[Alison McGovern]

I am sorry to say that I have not seen that report in The Times, but I would be very happy to write the right hon. Gentleman with a response to his question.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that Ministers will be considering representations from councillors and MPs on the interim warding arrangements? There is some concern in Basingstoke and across North Hampshire that urban areas could be disadvantaged by having a smaller number of councillors, as has been proposed.

[Alison McGovern]

Yes, we will consider representations from all stakeholders through this process.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Most areas that will have local elections next year know what their local authority boundaries will look like, but residents of West Sussex are still completely in the dark. Those in, specifically, Bersted and Pagham are worried about being put into a coastal authority that risks being bankrupt on day one. When the Minister comes to the House on Thursday, will she lay out how a deficit of, potentially, £45 million will be plugged, and will she also rule out using one authority to pay for the deficit of the other?

[Alison McGovern]

I take the hon. Lady’s question as a kind of pre-alert for what she would like to know on Thursday. That is helpful, and I thank her for it. Let me make the general point that local government finances are very challenging, and when a council cannot make its finances work, all of us in the country pay the price in the end.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

As a former councillor on Chesterfield borough council—and given the excellent record that Labour has had there over the last 15 years—I think it will be a shame when the borough council ceases to exist and we move towards unitary authority status, but I have never met someone in a unitary authority who thought it would be better if we returned to a two-tier system, so I think that ultimately we are on the right route with this approach. Can my hon. Friend confirm that when she reaches her conclusions —of which none of us Labour Members representing Derbyshire are currently aware—she will be sticking strictly to the criteria that the Government originally laid out?

[Alison McGovern]

Yes, I can confirm that. Let me add, as somebody whose area was reorganised in 1974, that there is yet to be a campaign to undo the creation of the Wirral.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Is it true that a statement was made in private to Labour councillors and activists in Essex at the weekend? I know this for a fact, because I was told by one of the Labour members who were there, but will the Minister confirm that it is true? Is she also aware that a YouGov poll has shown that, by 56% to 24%, the people of Essex do not want Labour’s plans for local government reform? Let us have a referendum.

[Alison McGovern]

I am now aware of the opinion poll because the right hon. Member mentioned it to me a few moments ago, for which I am grateful. He has mentioned a meeting, which I certainly did not attend. I am sure that if he forwards the details, the Department will be able to look at them, but I certainly was not present at any such meeting.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Two-tier government may have worked in the past, but it is not working today, and it is certainly not working for cities like Exeter. We have a two-tier waste authority, and Devon county council is cutting homelessness funding while we are experiencing an acute homelessness issue in Exeter itself; I could mention many other areas as well. Will the Minister confirm that we will be moving ahead with unitary local government across the country, including Devon and Exeter—I realise that she will not be able to comment on the specifics of any proposal—in order to ensure that cities like Exeter can grow economically, and that local government does serve local people?

[Alison McGovern]

As I mentioned earlier, there is evidence from the Milburn review of child poverty that fragmented services are very bad for vulnerable people living in poverty. There are other examples as well, and I have heard from my hon. Friend about his worries for his city. Dealing with that is the real purpose behind these reforms.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Before the hon. Lady makes her statement on Thursday, will she, when reflecting on the arrangement in Wiltshire that would embrace Wessex—although we have been told that that is not the Government’s view—address the prevailing concern that the people of rural Wiltshire will be considerably worse off without having the opportunity to embrace that mayoral region, to the tune of £240 per head? In the context of the wider reduced funding for rural England, those people need reassurance from the Government that they understand the shortfall.

[Alison McGovern]

Let me see if I have understood the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The fair funding review was put in place to reconnect funding with need. We think that we have done so in a way that meets the needs of nine tenths of councils now, which is much better than it was before. We take into account the additional costs of providing services for rural areas, but when it comes to poverty and deprivation, improvements in data now allow us to identify much more closely pockets of poverty that are surrounded by greater wealth. I hope that we will be able to do that much better for his constituents in the future.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is one of the Government’s flagship regional growth priorities, with a ministerial champion in Lord Vallance to ensure joined-up delivery, yet if reports that option D is being taken forward for Cambridgeshire are correct, the Government will be choosing a structure with no realistic path to viability, right at the start of that corridor. Will the Minister confirm what assessment has been made of option D’s viability within the corridor, and whether Lord Vallance was consulted before the decision?

[Alison McGovern]

There is obviously a limit to what I can say, given that the decision will be reported to Parliament later in the week. Perhaps we can come back to this issue then, but I am very happy to say that I have met with Lord Vallance and work very closely with him.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The Government’s proposed carve-up of Hampshire ignores their preset criteria, has no mandate and splits up East Hampshire. The benefits, if there are any, will come way off in the future, whereas the costs and the disruption happen now. Does the Minister think that the advent of a new Prime Minister is a good moment to stop in its tracks something that would otherwise make his fiscal task harder?

[Alison McGovern]

I do not, because councils have worked extremely hard to follow the timetable that we have set out, and I think it would be a mistake to interrupt that. Councils’ costs have spiked terribly in recent years because of central Government failure. We are putting that right.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

As the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned, there is a very wild rumour in Wessex that a Labour MP has undermined the four councils against the will of the councils, which have been democratically elected, and without discussing it with any of the MPs. Apparently, the Wessex combined authority, which was ready to go, is not happening. Is the Minister able to deny this rumour today, so that I can reassure my councils?

[Alison McGovern]

I could spend all my time at this Dispatch Box confirming or denying rumours, but I think I would be here until Thursday if I did that. I am sure that we will have further interactions when I make the statement shortly.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

In Devon, local government reorganisation is taking up a great deal of bandwidth and detracting from what councils should be doing. My constituents want to know whether the announcement on Thursday will hold beyond the week. The Minister has avoided this question from multiple Members today: does the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—the future Prime Minister—agree with the proposed timelines and delivery for local government reorganisation in Devon?

[Alison McGovern]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I am not here to answer questions on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). We have set out a clear timetable for local government reorganisation, and we should all stick to it, because that is the best way to help councils to get on with their jobs.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

My residents in Bicester and Woodstock are deeply concerned by rumours that the Cherwell and West Oxfordshire district councils will be hollowed out in order to create a Greater Oxford combined authority at the behest of Labour councillors in that city. I know that the Minister will not respond directly to that point, so I ask her to respond to this: in Oxfordshire, is it true, as she just said to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), that the original criteria set out by the Government will be followed? Is it true, as she has said in response to the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), that growth will be a priority in the decisions made by the Government?

[Alison McGovern]

As the hon. Member has indicated, we have set out a process and are sticking to it.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Nobody asked for this, and the lack of a mandate has been compounded by councils like Rutland county council refusing to engage with any opposition councillors. I want to make it clear that the responses of the Lib Dem-run Rutland county council do not represent the views of Rutlanders or indeed the entire council; that in Leicestershire, we do not want the Leicester city land grab; and that rural Lincolnshire and Stamford do not want to be run by urban Lincoln. Will the Minister consider delaying the process to make sure that all councils have engaged with all councillors? They might be telling her that they are doing so, but they are certainly not.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Lady has made her points very clear and they are on the record. The one thing that I do not want to do is delay, because the longer this takes, the less our ability to get on with the problems that councils face in looking after our children and our older people and in growing our economy.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

There are a number of options on the table for Kent, and no matter which one the Minister chooses, we will need to do some tidying up of ward and division boundaries, because there are vast disparities between the number of electors and some of the current county council boundaries. Will that be announced alongside the option chosen on Thursday, and if not, when will that information be given?

[Alison McGovern]

I will take away that point and endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman that information as soon as we can.

Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion, and all hon. Members who have participated in this important debate.

I wholly agree with what the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said about terrorism. All those who bear the scars, the pain and the trauma of political violence know that the value of our democracy is not just good government, but the right of us all to peace. I feel proud every day of the work my predecessors did in office to bring about peace on these islands, and I am glad the hon. Member reasserted the value of that peace through this debate.

Democracy depends on public participation, so it is only right and fitting that I acknowledge and thank the more than 200,000 people who signed the petition, which calls for a ban on anyone convicted of terrorism offences from standing for public office. The Government recognise the concern that underpins the petition: public confidence in our democratic institutions matters, and terrorism represents one of the gravest threats to our society, as Members have said. Although the House clearly understands that the threat of terrorism is serious, the question is whether a further electoral disqualification is the right, proportionate and effective response, and how any such change would sit alongside both the current and wider proposed legal frameworks.

In my response, I will set out what the Government are doing, but first I want to respond to what Members have said by repeating the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis)—now the Defence Secretary—from Question Time on 8 June. In response to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), he said:

“the defending democracy taskforce…is looking carefully at the issue…The Government are considering whether further action is required, and I should be happy to work with him on it.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 10.]

I will make sure that the Defence Secretary sees a copy of the debate we have had today, and I again extend that offer to Members to work with the defending democracy taskforce on these issues. I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for his offer, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) for her interest. I know that the Defence Secretary will be grateful for the points they have raised.

It is worth noting, as Members have, the wider context in which the petition has come before the House. As has been set out, during the May local elections there were reports about an individual standing for local office who had previously been convicted of terrorism offences overseas. As we all know in this House, elections are democracy in action. The community considered the candidates before them and made its choice at the ballot box, and that individual was not elected. I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said about Birmingham, and he is right to stand up for the good sense of the people of Birmingham. I look forward to being in the fine city of Birmingham on Thursday to hear more about issues we are working on there.

Our system places trust in not only legal thresholds but the judgment of the electorate. People will ask whether somebody with a serious terrorism conviction should be able to stand at all, even if the electorate do ultimately reject them.

[Robbie Moore]

Before we move on from Shahid Butt, I want to be clear that he was allowed to stand for local elections. The Government have said they currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria for those standing for election. Why is that? At the moment, somebody convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand. Why would the Government not want to change that?

[Alison McGovern]

As I set out to Members at the beginning of my contribution, the now Defence Secretary has said that the defending democracy taskforce is keeping this under review.

I will now discuss the disqualification framework and set out the current position. In England, a person is disqualified from being elected to, or being a member of, a local authority if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for three months or more, including a suspended sentence, within the previous five years. Candidates are required to declare that they are not disqualified when they submit nomination papers, and making a false statement is a criminal offence. Where eligibility is disputed, that is a matter for the courts. That would be particularly true where the issues may involve historic convictions or offences committed overseas. Clearly, returning officers cannot make subjective judgments over the suitability of eligible candidates.

The phrase “standing for public office” covers a wide range of roles, each with different responsibilities and existing disqualification rules. Changing those rules would mean carefully considering whether the same approach should apply to not just councillors, but mayors, police and crime commissioners, and Members of Parliament and devolved Governments. Any exclusion such as that proposed must be principled, proportionate and legally robust. A lifetime or indefinite ban is the most serious restriction. If Parliament chooses to create such a bar, it must be precise about who it captures and why it is necessary, and safeguard against unfair or unintended consequences that prevent citizens from engaging in our democracy.

Let me turn briefly to the counter-terrorism framework. The threat from terrorism is always evolving, which is why we always keep our broader counter-terrorism framework under review and ensure that our operational partners have the tools they need to mitigate risk to the public. Independent of disqualification from elected office, the UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world. That includes a range of specialist counter-terrorism powers that support detection and disruption of terrorist risk, as well as a robust toolkit for managing terrorist offenders upon release. That is supported through the independent scrutiny provided by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Electoral law determines who may stand for office; counter-terrorism law exists to provide the police and other operational partners with a toolkit to disrupt, investigate and prosecute terrorism-related activity. Alongside both, the Government are taking action to strengthen our democracy and electoral integrity, and to protect those who participate in our democracy—I just came from the statement that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), whose was responsible for the Representation of the People Bill, gave in the Commons Chamber.

Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, are totally unacceptable and have a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. Impersonation and fraudulent nominations reduce the trust integral to democracy. That is why this Government have introduced the Representation of the People Bill to take decisive action to secure our elections against those who threaten them, to protect those who participate, to ensure that our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.

Requiring candidates to submit ID and sign a declaration to confirm that they understand the legal consequences of providing false information will strengthen public confidence without creating unnecessary barriers to standing. The Bill will empower courts to give tougher sentences to those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. The measures will be supported by working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning and improved safety for returning officers and candidates.

From the moment a candidate puts themselves forward and asks the public to place trust in them, they are subject to public scrutiny. Disqualification rules decide whether someone is legally allowed to stand for election; they do not decide whether that person has the character, judgment or conduct to serve—that is for the public to decide at the ballot box. Once elected, Members are expected to uphold codes of conduct based on the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, which are the foundations of trust in public life.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I want to pick up on the Minister’s point that it is for the electorate to decide. In the case of Northern Ireland, we made the decision—it was a bitter pill—to allow people who were terrorists to get out of jail early as part of a wider peace process. Where some of those people have gone on to attain elected office, which is their right, we have seen a rewriting of history. Therefore, it is not just the people who are there to decide; we as a state retain the right to make sure that past terrorism is regarded as wrong and that those who continue to propagate it by other means are held accountable.

[Alison McGovern]

There is no excuse or justification for terrorism. I repeat those standards, which we must all uphold in public life, for that reason. The hon. Lady made her point clearly and directly on the record.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way very briefly—I do not want to detain the House.

[Jim Allister]

The Minister talks about standards in voting and public life. As I indicated in my speech, weekend after weekend, we have people in public life glorifying terrorism and saluting the memories of their fallen colleagues, as they call them, who were vile, vicious terrorists. How is that upholding any standard in public life?

[Alison McGovern]

I simply say again that there is absolutely no justification for terrorism. All of us who seek elected office are responsible for upholding the standards I just read out.

We are all too aware in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that the current local government standards framework does not have the teeth it needs. Where elected members fall short of the standards the public rightly expects, there must be meaningful ways to hold them to account. Specifically in English local government, the vast majority of councillors serve their communities with dedication and integrity. Poor behaviour, though rare, can have a profound impact by damaging trust, undermining the performance of local government and deterring good candidates from contesting elections. If we want high-quality candidates to come forward, they need the confidence that local government is a serious, respectful and safe environment in which to serve.

That is why we will introduce a framework that commands public confidence, which will include a mandatory code of conduct for local government; appropriate sanctions, such as suspension and disqualification for multiple breaches; and fair processes, such as a clear appeals route for complainants and members. Last year, we published the response to the consultation on strengthening the standards framework for local authorities in England. We have a substantial and ambitious legislative programme, and there was no capacity for a dedicated Bill to enact those reforms this time, but we remain committed to strengthening the framework and intend to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The 200,000 people who signed the petition raise a serious and legitimate question about whether the current framework is sufficient, and as I mentioned in opening, the defending democracy taskforce is considering it. Existing disqualification criteria, candidate declarations and public scrutiny, alongside our wider counter-terrorism powers, provide significant safeguards from immediate threats. However, we are going further, and we will strengthen our systems to protect our democracy, embed high standards of Member conduct and rebuild trust in public office. Any change in the law would need to be workable for electoral administrators, fair to candidates, robust in the courts and clear to the public and, most importantly, to uphold the values of democracy that we hold dear. I am sure Members in this House will continue to engage with this most serious of issues.

Repeal of Vagrancy Act

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Written Statements

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

Today I am confirming that the Vagrancy Act 1824 has been repealed.

This Government are drawing a clear line after over 200 years of criminalising people for sleeping rough.

The moral case is clear: no one should be punished for having nowhere safe to sleep, and people facing homelessness deserve dignity and support, not criminalisation.

This change allows us to focus on what really matters—preventing homelessness, intervening earlier, and making sure people receive the right support at the right time, as set out in “A National Plan to End Homelessness”.

We have also been clear that repeal needed to be implemented responsibly, without leaving gaps in the law where community safety issues arise. Replacement measures have been introduced alongside repeal. These are narrow and targeted. They do not criminalise rough sleeping or target people simply for being destitute. They are focused on specific issues including exploitative organised begging and trespass with intent to commit a crime.

Repeal is not the end of our work to prevent homelessness and support people away from the streets, but it is a significant step forward. We will now focus on delivering that shift in practice—through earlier intervention and ensuring people get the right support at the right time.

[HCWS156]

Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on 14 May 2026.

The order makes a small but important change to existing arrangements that govern significant financial decisions made by councils during local government reorganisation, including those on land disposals and contracts. The Government’s programme of reform, as set out in the English devolution White Paper, will move power out of Westminster and strengthen the foundations of local government. A key part of that programme is local government reorganisation, replacing two-tier councils with single-tier councils that are simpler, clearer and more accountable to the communities that they serve.

The Government’s long-term aim is to create local government structures that make it easier for residents to understand what group is responsible for local services and decisions, while enabling more strategic choices that support growth and improve public services. To meet that ambition, the transition must be orderly and legally sound, and must properly protect the public interest. Existing councils must continue to discharge their functions while new councils are being established, and decisions taken during that period should not undermine the position of the successor councils.

For that reason, the framework includes safeguards, which are set out in section 24 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Those provisions allow the Secretary of State to issue directions that control certain land disposals and significant contractual commitments. Where a decision could have implications for the successor council, councils may, in certain situations, be required to secure consent before proceeding. In practice, that consent will usually come from the relevant shadow council. Those controls ensure that major financial decisions taken during the transition will not adversely affect successor councils. Specific consent will be required for larger decisions, while general consent can be used to enable day-to-day activity to continue.

The order, made under section 29 of the 2007 Act, makes a targeted change to the way that those safeguards apply. As the framework currently operates, councils may need to take account of previous land disposals and contractual dealings when assessing whether the relevant financial thresholds have been reached. The starting point of that aggregation period has remained fixed at 31 December 2006, which could require authorities to examine almost 20 years of historical activity. That was not the intention of the policy. The controls were intended to focus on recent and relevant activity in the period leading up to reorganisation, rather than to create unnecessary retrospective burdens.

The order updates the beginning of the aggregation period to 31 March 2025, to ensure that the framework captures relevant activity without requiring unnecessarily extensive historical analysis, while leaving the underlying safeguards on disposals of land and contractual dealings unchanged. The Committee should note that the order does not represent a change of policy, and does not alter the underlying safeguards.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am a little unclear on the implications of what the Minister just said. If, for example, Barratt Redrow and the Jockey Club submitted a planning application, under the new national planning policy framework, to flatten Kempton Park racecourse to build 2,000 homes on that land, would no one be able to consider what had happened in retrospect? Would they be allowed to consider only what happened under this Government’s current NPPF?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman asked about a specific example, which sounds like it relates to a specific concern.

[Lincoln Jopp]

indicated assent.

[Alison McGovern]

He is nodding, which is helpful. In that case, I will write directly to him about that important local issue. I am not overly concerned that the example the hon. Gentleman raised is engaged by this change, but I will write to him to confirm that, because it sounds like an important issue in his constituency.

The clarification in the order is designed to make sure that the existing safeguards operate as intended and can be applied with greater consistency across councils. The order preserves the balance between enabling councils that are due to be abolished to continue to operate effectively, and protecting successor councils, residents and taxpayers’ money.

Although the amendment in the order was first identified through engagement with Surrey, it has been tested more widely with local government representatives, including engagement with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Department’s local government reorganisation advisory group, which brings together senior officers and experts from across local government. It is therefore not a measure designed only for Surrey, but an update that will apply across the local government reorganisation programme.

This statutory instrument supports a legally robust transition by reducing uncertainty in the operation of the framework and promoting consistent application across the reorganisation programme. It makes a small but necessary technical change to ensure that the safeguards that govern significant financial decisions during transition work as intended, thereby supporting the whole local government reorganisation programme.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I am afraid I am finishing.

The SI reflects engagement with councils and wider consideration with local government representatives, and will help to support the safe, orderly and effective delivery of our programme of reorganisation. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

[The Chair]

Before I call the shadow Minister, may I suggest that Members should not be tempted into a wider debate about the merits of any particular boundary changes or council abolitions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank members of the Committee for their contributions to this debate. Before concluding, I want to address some of the points raised.

The shadow Minister asked about disputes between councils. I want to be explicit that councils remain responsible for their decisions during the transition and must act in line with their legal duties. We expect councils to act transparently and have regard to their fiduciary duties and wider public responsibilities when taking such decisions as local authorities do week in, week out—and local authority officers know that. Decisions regarding ongoing service delivery and the medium-term financial strategies of existing councils should not compromise the future sustainability of new councils—I say that just for clarity.

We have published an explanatory note to councils undergoing reorganisation about financial decisions before reorganisation and we continue to work with councils to support orderly and effective transitions. However, decisions on individual assets are the responsibility of local authorities. I will happily circulate the explanatory note to members of the Committee if that would aid them. The officials in my Department are in touch with councils on a regular basis. This framework tries to create safeguards to make sure that significant actions taken during transition do not adversely affect successor authorities.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Alison McGovern]

I will do so in a moment.

The shadow Minister makes a very reasonable point on councils in receipt of exceptional financial support and the disposal of assets. He knows that the number of councils in EFS is a great concern of mine. We liaise with those local authorities week in, week out to do all we can to support them. It serves none of us to have exceptional financial support become normalised, and we are in touch with them.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Lady in a moment once I finish responding to the shadow Minister.

On arm’s length management organisations and academies, this depends on the specifics of the contract and the transfer that has taken place. Again, we are working actively with councils. On the value of sites and the issue that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned with developers being able to garner extra value from their sites, we have provided councils with checklists and much information about things that they should be wary of. Nevertheless, I thank him for raising it. I will double check that it is on the checklist.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am also conscious of the Chair’s prohibition on stretching the envelope and referring only to the Minister’s own words. She said that the purpose of this whole procedure today was to make local government reorganisation easier for residents to understand and for a safe, orderly and effective transition. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for his expertise in this area.

The Minister and I have privately discussed the powers of shadow unitary authorities and their ability to propose name changes: in my case to the “West Surrey”, and if I had my way, “and South Middlesex”, unitary authority. Would she like to put on record the fact that, if the newly elected shadow unitary authority makes a proposal with a majority for the renaming of that unitary authority, she would be bound to accept it?

[The Chair]

Order. That is way beyond the scope of the order before the Committee, but if the Minister wants to comment on it, I will allow her to do so.

[Alison McGovern]

You are very generous, Mr Vickers. The hon. Member knows that I am sympathetic; it is a matter for the authorities themselves, of course, but he makes a good case.

[Zöe Franklin]

The Minister spoke about exceptional financial support. I was interested to hear her say that we do not wish EFS to be normalised. I suggest that we are in circumstances in which it is normalised, given that so many councils require it and so many of them expect to have to use it. A lot of councils are struggling to balance their annual budgets on that basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. I will happily come to this House and spend hours talking about local government finance any time anybody wants—

[The Chair]

But not today.

[Alison McGovern]

I fear that it would test your patience, Mr Vickers.

Let me make a final point to the hon. Member for Broxbourne. He makes a reasonable point, but the issue is that local government finances are in such a state—I am thinking particularly about the situation in Woking. All of us, up and down the country, will pay the price for that, so there is a sense in which responsibility is always collectively shared. I will say nothing further, Mr Vickers, in case you tell me off.

In conclusion, the draft order will make a small but necessary technical amendment to ensure that existing safeguards on disposals operate effectively during local government reorganisation. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting it.

Question put and agreed to.

Temporary Accommodation: Tackling Poor Conditions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Written Statements

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

I am grateful to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for their report published on 22 April 2026, and our response, laid and published today, sets out the actions Government are taking to improve the quality and supply of temporary accommodation. My long-term priority remains to prevent homelessness and tackle the root causes, but where temporary accommodation is necessary, it must be safe, decent and stable. Today I want to set out the wider steps Government are taking to ensure this is the case.

We are making encouraging progress against commitments we set out in December 2025 in our cross-Government child poverty strategy and national plan to end homelessness. First and foremost, we will continue to focus on the most harmful forms of homelessness, and particularly the unlawful use of B&B accommodation for families where essential facilities, such as kitchens and bathrooms, are shared. We have achieved a 63% fall in families with children staying in B&Bs beyond six weeks, compared to the same time last year, and remain on track to eliminate this by the end of the Parliament. More widely, the latest homelessness statistics show some signs of stabilisation, with numbers of households in temporary accommodation falling for the first quarter since 2022. We are also helping councils invest in good-quality temporary accommodation, through delivery of the £950-million fourth round of the local authority housing fund, and through exploring options for partnerships with social impact and institutional investors.

Councils work extremely hard to find suitable accommodation, but we know performance varies between different councils. Through the national plan to end homelessness, we are establishing routes to escalate and intervene to address poor performance. We will not shy away from calling out councils if they are not taking adequate steps to improve. To aid this, in May we published the first of the toolkits committed to in the national plan on local performance and accountability. This includes detail on the requirements, via grant conditions, for local authorities to produce a policy to ensure temporary accommodation is suitable, and to set out how the local authority will mitigate disruption and avoid multiple moves, ensure access to support services (particularly where safeguarding issues exist), and ensure access to key facilities—including cooking and laundry facilities, storage and wi-fi. Action plans must be published by December 2026, and will be an important tool to identify and tackle poor practice.

But we are not waiting until December. In our national plan, we committed to engaging with the sector to assess what urgent action is needed to address the worst outcomes in the short term. During this engagement, we have heard about a wide range of issues, including poor physical quality, multiple moves, a lack of facilities, out-of-area placements and overcrowding.

Our progress on B&B reduction shows what we can do with a clear national focus. Today I have announced allocations for the first year of our newly expanded £30 million emergency accommodation reduction programme. In year one, the vast majority of the £10-million funding will be targeted on reducing B&B use, but we will then expand the programme to address wider poor practice. We are also taking wider action to improve quality, suitability and support for households, while also improving the evidence base to inform future policy.

We are improving quality and increasing protections against poor housing conditions. Our guidance is clear that accommodation must be free of the most serious category one hazards, and local authorities must now set out in their temporary accommodation policies how they will ensure this is the case. We will soon be consulting on extending the scope of Awaab’s law from the social rented sector, so that it includes temporary accommodation occupied under licence and tenancies in the private rented sector. We intend to apply the reformed decent homes standard to temporary accommodation wherever possible, and will publish guidance by the end of 2026 to help landlords prepare for this. We have recently achieved Royal Assent to the Renters Rights Act 2026, which introduces a new power for local authorities to issue fines of up to £7,000 where a category one hazard is found in private rented homes, and are considering extending this to other forms of temporary accommodation.

In keeping our focus on moving families out of B&B, we must not see them moved into other unsuitable alternatives. I have heard concerns about unsuitable out-of-area placements, and of failure to provide notifications to receiving areas. Requirements to notify are clear in law, and we are actively engaging with stakeholders to improve practice and make expectations on placing and receiving local councils clear. Safeguarding risks must be minimised across all forms of accommodation. This is why eliminating B&B has been our core focus, but we will review wider models of shared accommodation, and consider whether further action is needed as part of our wider work to improve quality. Our guidance is clear: local authorities must provide adequate space for cots and support where families do not have one. Concerns have been raised that this is not happening, and we will work with local authorities to ensure this is the case.

We are making progress on our cross-Government commitments to improving the health and education outcomes of families in temporary accommodation. I am delighted we have now reached Royal Assent on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which, from September, introduces a new duty on local housing authorities to notify health and education bodies when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. We will provide guidance on this in the coming weeks. We committed to ending the practice of discharging newborns into B&Bs, or other unsuitable housing, and are working with the NHS on safe and robust pathways.

To complement this action on improving suitability, we are working with the sector over the coming months to develop and share a consistent evidence base to support local authorities in making risk-based assessments based on suitability for specific household needs. This includes wider work to review child mortality data, and working with the NHS on their commitment to improve clinical data collection for children in temporary accommodation, to ensure we understand risks and take the right preventative action. My Department’s local artificial intelligence division are also using data to explore how an AI tool could be used to assist in the matching of homeless families with appropriate accommodation, using a transparent weighted-scoring algorithm. If taken forward, Match¹ would join a suite of AI-backed tooling for case workers in local government across England, including Local Transcribe² and upgrades to StreetLink³. We hope to say more on this work in the autumn.

I am committed to continuing to work together to protect households and improve their experience in temporary accommodation while our long-term strategy enables us to get back on track to ending homelessness for good.

¹https://mhclgdigital.blog.gov.uk/2025/12/12/how-collaboration-and-innovation-came-together-to-tackle-homelessness-and-rough-sleeping/

²https://mhclgdigital.blog.gov.uk/category/local-ai/

³https://thestreetlink.org.uk/

[HCWS133]

Legacy of Jo Cox

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the legacy of Jo Cox.

It is an honour to move this debate on behalf of the Government. I thank Jo’s family for being with us yesterday in Downing Street, and for their incredible leadership and friendship. Throughout the past decade they have all been an inspiration. Their tenacity and guts have given us all strength, and Jo’s children are more than a credit to her.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater)—she is my friend—for everything. I thank her for her sheer unrelenting energy. I thank her for deciding to come here, stepping into public life in circumstances that most of us cannot comprehend. I thank her for her dogged persistence on everything from the importance of physical activity for all and of addressing loneliness and community, to access to green spaces. I thank her for building Jo’s legacy and for securing this debate today.

I am conscious that we meet today with events in Belfast causing fear and distress for affected children and their families. Hateful rhetoric is never just words; it has consequences. I think of all those who are dealing with the consequences: those who are hurt and those who are helping to care for people who need it.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I did not serve in this Parliament at the same time as Jo Cox, but I have served here at the same time as my friend, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). I recognise on my behalf, and that of a number of MPs who she and I engage with cross-party, that she really embodies the legacy of her sister—that, cross-party, there is more that unites than divides us—and it is an honour to be here today.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for her words, which are spot on.

Ten years ago next week, I was in Portcullis House next door when I received a message from the now Chancellor of the Exchequer telling me that our friend Jo Cox, the then Member for Batley and Spen, had been murdered in her constituency. It remains the worst moment of my life in politics. That someone so courageous and strong, someone small in stature but enormous in spirit, should be killed like that is as horrific today as it was in that moment. At the time of her killing, her loved ones and friends decided that it was she who should be talked about, not the person who killed her. Her life, her work, her beliefs are important; helping her murderer achieve any notoriety is not. Today, we meet to put her legacy on the record again.

Jo was a parliamentarian for just a year, yet her life before becoming an MP had been so adventurous and full, and she had already seriously influenced politics. There is therefore much about her whole life to talk about.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister for leading the debate. I recall well the Friday morning in my constituency office when the news broke. I immediately penned a letter because at that stage, Jo was still with us, although injured. I had hardly finished the letter when, unfortunately, the sad news came through that she had passed away. To her sister, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and to all her family, I will say that we very much think of them and our prayers are with them as well. We always remember, as the Minister said.

I cannot be here for the whole debate, as I am leading another debate in Westminster Hall, so I want to put these words on record. I admired Jo for her courage and for her advocacy of her constituents. No one doubted her determination, and when she spoke we were always moved by what she had to say. Today, 10 years later, we still remember her with fondness.

[Alison McGovern]

On behalf of us all in this House who have ever received the kindness of a letter from the hon. Gentleman, I say to him that he embodies the “more in common” spirit and we are so grateful to him for doing so. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Whether someone is inspired, as we all are, by Jo’s work in international development—travelling around the world to stand up for women in the most dangerous environments—the impressive physical challenges she undertook, or the manner in which she included people, whatever their background or beliefs, this is the story of a woman whose life may have been cut short, but whose contribution will be remembered and will continue always. Members from across the House will share their own stories today, and I encourage them all to do so with joy.

For my part, I will never forget sitting on the Opposition Benches during a turbulent time in Labour politics, when Jo showed leadership on the horrors in Syria while far too many others equivocated or looked the other way. I will never forget her sense of humour and fun, or her unrelenting hope that there was always something we could do.

Much has been achieved in Jo’s name and in that spirit in 10 years. From the Jo Cox Women in Leadership graduates to the thousands of people who have been along to a Great Get Together, her impact on the people of this country has never weakened.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

Jo was a shining star of our 2015 intake; she was loved by us all, and is missed and remembered every day. I am pleased that the Minister mentioned Jo’s work on Syria, which the Minister was herself involved in. We worked together on that. The fact is that Jo is remembered not just by people in this House but by people around this country, including the Syrian diaspora community in Manchester. I know through my work with the community that they remember Jo very fondly, as do all the vulnerable communities she stood up for so passionately and brilliantly.

[Alison McGovern]

I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention, because it is not possible to visit the Syrian community in Manchester without talking about Jo, given the impact she had on them.

Jo’s foundation has led the way in campaigning for decency and civility in politics and taking forward her pioneering work to achieve a public policy response to the loneliness epidemic. The foundation has also worked in West Yorkshire to maintain the local constituency community work that Jo did in Batley and Spen and beyond.

As we have said, Jo’s concern for civilians in the face of horrendous war led her to become the co-chair of the friends of Syria all-party parliamentary group, alongside the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). In her 104 contributions in the House of Commons, she was a constant voice for the child refugees pouring out of the hellhole that Syria had become. She pioneered the use of urgent questions, particularly from Back Benchers, to harry the Government into action. With terrible conflict raging, threatening the lives of children and other civilians, we can only imagine how much more forceful the response of the House of Commons to these horrors would have been if Jo had remained here. Notwithstanding that, there are Syrian refugees alive and safe today because of Jo. That is a lesson to us all about the opportunity we have to speak up in the face of outrage and indignity.

In the form of the Jo Cox memorial grants, her legacy reached around the world, helping 85,000 people, empowering women and preventing identity-based violence. At her home, Batley and Spen, the 10th Run for Jo will bring people together again for a day of fun and celebration.

All those good things happened because of Jo. They did not happen because she died; they happened because she lived. Her love was felt so far and so wide, and so is her legacy. I look forward to hearing all the contributions that Members will make today, with the memories and moments they wish to share. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley once again for securing this debate, and all those across the country who are determined that Jo’s legacy will go on, always.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Opposition spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a privilege to follow the wise words of the hon. Members for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who have done a great job of embodying the various aspects of Jo that we are in the Chamber today to talk about. I join all the other Members who have spoken in paying tribute to Jo’s sister. She is a great parliamentarian—she is admired across the House for the way she works so diligently and courageously on so many issues, many of which I have in common with her. I am grateful to have learned today that we also share a legacy of dancing around to Wham! with our sisters. I will also be definitely trying the Great Get Together beer, but only after I have voted. I am so appreciative of every single one of Jo’s friends who are speaking today and who shared their parliamentary careers with her. I feel so sad, but so warmly towards them all. Their fortitude and the work they have all done in securing her legacy are huge.

In June 2016 I was not an MP, but I was a London Assembly member working at the old City Hall by Tower Bridge. I remember how I heard about Jo’s murder, like everybody, but I remember in particular seeing Jo and her young family speeding across the Thames in what I called later their plucky remain boat. I have a lovely photograph—I did not know it was of her until days later—of her and the family with an “In” flag whizzing about on the Thames as part of Bob Geldof’s rival flotilla in the final days of the referendum campaign. I remember feeling so delighted that day to have seen this example of good-spirited, memorable campaigning just outside my workplace. Obviously, all that changed.

Politics is supposed to be a way of resolving our differences creatively through communication, not violence. Losing Jo was a harrowing sign that that consensus, which many people were trying to keep going, had been somewhat shattered. We could have done, and can do, so much better in the UK in politics, in the media, online and in our communities by investing in what I call the real resilience—the real antidote—to hate, which is by keeping communities feeling valued and invested in. The most shining part of Jo’s legacy is undoubtedly the foundation, which works towards that goal. It embodies her spirit and her work, as does the incredible work carried out by the More in Common Network to build up communities and to call for connection over division. Ten years on from losing her, Jo’s “more in common” message feels more vital and urgent than I can say. The awful scenes we have witnessed this week, which other Members have mentioned, alone serve as a brutal reminder of how quickly anger can evolve into violence when people are turned against one another in our communities.

Finally, I turn to the question of how the anger that killed Jo was seeded and how it grew. It is a question that my predecessor, Caroline Lucas, thought a lot about. It led her to travel around the country in the months following the EU referendum to talk with people whose political views differed vastly from her own. Through that experience, she proved that Jo’s now infamous words from her maiden speech in this place were absolutely correct. Caroline has said about those conversations:

“More often it was refreshing and reassuring because there was so much more that we agreed on than held us apart. Many people were angry. Of course they were. But if you took the time to go, and paid them the courtesy of listening, then common ground could emerge.”

As MPs, we do not and certainly cannot agree on everything, but we must always strive to seek common ground.

[Alison McGovern]

I worked with the hon. Lady’s predecessor at that time. If I may, I send through the hon. Lady my very best wishes and thanks to her predecessor. I thank the hon. Lady for reading those words into the debate. It was a difficult time, and her predecessor played a full part.

[Siân Berry]

I thank the Minister for that, and I will certainly pass on that message. As MPs, we do not always agree on everything. It is our job to disagree, but to disagree well, with standards, compassion and ethics. We must always seek to find common ground where we can. When we disagree, we should do so with patience and respect, as Jo always did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend highlights just how much Jo meant to the people of Tower Hamlets and to our local party, along with her husband and her family. Jo and her family, as she points out, have a special place in our hearts and our diverse east end community.

I first met Jo in October 2011 when I was a newly elected Member of Parliament serving as shadow International Development Minister. Jo, Brendan and I were at a reception celebrating the work of international development leaders. Jo and her husband were among the “40 Under 40” individuals listed among a new generation of global leaders by Devex. She was standing there across the room holding her baby son in her arms while meeting and greeting those of us around her. There was an instant warmth, that big smile, and a connection that left me feeling like we were long-lost friends, when we had only just met. That was her gift.

Following Jo’s election in 2015, we would meet and talk about the conflict that was raging in Syria. I had visited Lebanon a couple of years earlier and met Syrian refugees—there was a million of them by then—who had escaped the war. By 2015, that war had raged on for a number of years. Jo was a passionate advocate for Syrian refugees, working hard to highlight the plight of all those who were suffering. Her internationalism brought together many of us who care deeply about global conflict, poverty and global emergencies. For years she worked as a board member of the Burma Campaign UK, working to support the struggle for human rights and democracy in that country.

When speaking in favour of Lord Dubs’ amendment on refugee children, Jo said,

“Syrian families are being forced to make an impossible decision: stay and face starvation, rape, persecution and death, or make a perilous journey to find sanctuary elsewhere. Who can blame desperate parents for wanting to escape the horror…? Children are being killed on their way to school…I know I would risk life and limb to get my two precious babies out of that hellhole.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1234.]

Jo cared deeply about children around the world, as much as she loved her precious babies, as she said.

Jo also cared deeply about her constituents and her constituency. While speaking in this House and working tirelessly for her constituents, she always saw the bigger picture—the global picture. As a Member of Parliament, a humanitarian and a former aid worker, she continued to use her agency in this place to speak up for those suffering here at home and globally. Her work with Oxfam, the Gates Foundation and Save the Children shaped her politics and informed her work in this House.

Jo was an internationalist in the truest sense of the word. She was the living embodiment and definition of internationalism. She shared a belief in humanity, strong institutions, and collaboration between Governments and peoples to tackle hunger and famine and to build a more peaceful world.

We have heard in this debate and over the years the famous quote from Jo’s maiden speech on 3 June—she said that we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than that which divides us. It serves as her epitaph, and it is reflected on her coat of arms in this Chamber. We should also reflect on the words that preceded it. She said:

“Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration, be it of Irish Catholics across the constituency or of Muslims from Gujarat in India or from Pakistan, principally from Kashmir. While we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 674-675.]

Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration. That was her view then, and she was right. It rings even more true now, and we must redouble that commitment to being an inclusive society when we face challenges such as those we have seen in recent days, weeks and months. Had Jo lived through these past 10 years, I am sure that her conviction would have remained undimmed. She would have taken the fight to whoever sought to sow discord and division, whether that person was from here or abroad. She would have taken on ethno-nationalism and extremism in all its forms. She would have made the case for a confident, outward-looking, tolerant and inclusive Britain, because that is who she was. That should always inspire and motivate us to speak up.

Jo’s murder as she was heading to her constituency surgery to help people who trusted her and elected her is something that affects so many of us here and across the country. Like many colleagues here, I remember that day vividly. I was in Parliament. In the minutes that passed, we hoped and prayed that she would survive. To this day—and, I suspect, for the rest of my life—I will wonder whether we could have spoken out more about the harassment, intimidation and threats towards elected representatives that some of us experience, and whether we could have warned others. Perhaps that warning might have allowed more awareness. But we will never know—I will never know.

[Alison McGovern]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her words. She has been an incredible champion for all that she stands for in this House. I agree with all that she says.

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the Minister, who knew Jo very well—much better than I did. We experience that loss deeply, but I am heartened by the work that my hon. Friend and others across this House, including in other parties, continue to do in Jo’s memory.

We must never forget that Jo was murdered by a far-right terrorist who believed in white supremacy and was obsessed with fascist and far-right groups. She was a target because she stood for everything that the far-right hates: community, understanding, compassion, love. The sad truth is that there is more anger, hostility and hate a decade on in our country. There is more disinformation, more lies, more racism, more misogyny and more hate. There are more people making money from sowing discord—monetised hatred made possible by social media algorithms and pernicious AI fakery. Deepfake content and disinformation are infecting our online space and spilling over into hate, hostility and violence on our streets. Online hate, with its real-life consequences, has cost us dearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

With the leave of the House, I will close the debate on behalf of the Government.

Before I respond to the points that have been made, I just want to make one very brief point, which is to thank all those who participated in the Speaker’s Conference on security. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to put on the record, perhaps on behalf of all of us, our thanks to all those who participate in Operation Bridger to keep Members of Parliament safe, and to all those who look after us on the estate. On the way into this debate, I spoke to a few of the Doorkeepers who looked after us in the days after Jo was killed. I know that they will be thinking about this day with as much poignancy as all of us in the Chamber, so I put on the record my thanks on behalf of the Government. I also agree with colleagues who said that today we are thinking of Sir David Amess’s family, the difference Sir David made across this House, and the great parliamentarian that he was.

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate, not least my friend, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell)—the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, as I have learnt to call it. [Interruption.] I missed a west midlands joke there. The right hon. Member and I worked together after Jo was murdered and have done so since. With his participation in the debate today, he has truly earnt his stripes as an honorary sister. I was particularly taken by his addition of highchairs to the cafeteria, which we all welcome.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I want to put on record my appreciation for the incredible work that Jo did for the people of Syria, and for the incredible work that the Minister and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) did after she was murdered. They took forward that cause at a moment when they were both experiencing the great grief of Jo’s murder. The Syrian people are grateful for the work that Jo did, and that they continued to do, during that very difficult period.

[Alison McGovern]

I truly thank my hon. Friend and agree with what he said about the importance of that issue.

Of course, we must all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Words do not feel enough to describe the manner in which she has carried her sister’s legacy forward. She has made this House a far better place than it ever could have been without her, and I hope that she has felt the love today.

The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) talked about community, as so many others did. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) nearly got away with making a speech without dropping herself in it, and talked most powerfully about friendship and the loneliness that we feel, to which Jo was a singular antidote. I thank my hon. Friend for that and for her friendship.

I was glad that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) spoke about her predecessor, and I know that she is carrying forward the work of Caroline Lucas in that same spirit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) talked about our country, and I am glad that he did, but he also mentioned for the first time his personal experience of losing Jo. It is important that we are able in our grief to recognise that part of that grief comes from love, and the love that we have for each other. It is okay to talk about that.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about being a good parliamentarian, which is important for us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) talked about the 2015 intake—as a 2010-er, I now feel like I missed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) is another 2015-er; I have never felt more disappointed to have been elected five years earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) talked about the Great Llanelli Get Together, which sounds wonderful.

My fellow 2010-er, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), knows about the subject of this debate more than most, and I am proud of her today, as I am every single day. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler): respect—that’s all I can say. We all support my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and the way she speaks up. I agree with so much of what she said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) told the House about the Pompey Belles, which I am excited about. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) sounds like she has done amazing things on loneliness in Leicestershire. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) to please give Evie my best; it was a cracking speech—well done.

It was wonderful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) tell her story of friendship with Jo. I know that Jo’s legacy is not just here in this country but in around every corner around the world, and it is wonderful to hear that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) also showed just what an impact Jo had in every way on bringing women forward in our politics. Through all the contributions today, we have heard about the length, breadth and depth of Jo’s legacy, and why we need it now.

I want to make just make one slightly party political point and say that I am sorry Jo was not here with us to see this Labour Government elected, because although much of today’s debate has been cross-party in spirit—and rightly so—Jo was Labour to her core. Her love and determination is in all her friends on the Labour Benches. A feisty feminist, she was the first elected chair of the Labour Women’s Network. She would have been so proud of all the graduates of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, of whom there are 18 in the House—I will not name them all for reasons of time, but they are an incredibly impressive girl gang, and I would not mess with any of them.

I like to think that Jo would have approved of our work to stop violence against women and girls. As a campaigner for children, and having spoken in the House about her educational attainment in her Yorkshire home, I suspect she would also have liked free school meals, new playgrounds, our investment in schools and the child poverty strategy, which will lift half a million children out of poverty.

I want to relay some words from the Foreign Secretary. Thinking of Jo as a West Yorkshire neighbour and friend, she recalls that Jo was a true force of nature who radiated purpose and determination and took sheer delight in the joy of life, which is why it is so devastating that she lost her life so young. Our first female Chancellor of the Exchequer added that it falls on all our shoulders to take forward Jo’s work, as she said in the Chamber after Jo died, and we have—most of all my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

What Jo might have made of the fact that my party is yet to elect a woman as its leader, I cannot say. She was a proud trade union member and would have relished voting for new rights at work along with the rest of us.

On 16 June 2026, next week, it will be 10 years since Jo Cox was murdered in her constituency. We all remember her words, which are forever etched on the wall of the Chamber, just below her coat of arms, which is to the left of the Speaker’s Chair; designed by her children, it features intertwined Yorkshire and Lancashire roses, a mountain and the colours of the women’s suffrage movement. The words underneath, “More in Common”, have become a political movement among all of us who believe that the idea of community comes from our values, and not where we happen to be born or what we happen to believe.

At this moment, when some politicians are stirring division and hate, Jo’s legacy has never been more important. In the aftermath of her killing, people were inspired by not just what Jo did, but how she did it. She recognised that the curse of loneliness unites us all, because it could happen to us all, and saw the value in physical activity that would provide a language and connection however different people thought they were. Her activism for Syrian civilians united and corralled people of all political persuasions and none, because there is nothing more obvious and uniting than the fact that children made homeless by falling bombs should have a roof over their heads. Ten years after she was murdered, this type of politics has never been needed more.

If democracy is to succeed at all, it must be on the basis that it is for everyone. Stirring up fear tells people that politics is just for the powerful—just for those who can tolerate abuse or worse. That is not democracy; it is politics by intimidation, and it is the law of the bully.

Ten years after Jo was murdered, “More in Common” cannot just be words on the Chamber wall. It must be the operating principle for all of us who want to sit in the House of Commons. It is the standard to which we hold ourselves, not just a nice idea.

Ten years have passed, but in that time the case for Jo’s arguments has only strengthened. We desperately need people in every part of the UK to feel a part of their community. The hateful rhetoric that is now rife can be stopped only with a proud campaign inspired by Jo and all she stood for—to support our diversity and the idea that we are all equally part of our country, deserving to be heard.

That campaign is this. First, do not hate. No one needs to hate anybody. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley told us earlier, as they say in Yorkshire, “If you can’t say anything good, keep your gob shut.” Secondly, be a neighbour. Go to the coffee morning, volunteer, join the sports team.

Thirdly, be brave. I am different from Jo. She was the life and soul of the party, but I am the one in the kitchen talking about econometrics. I never felt, when faced with a challenge, her instinctive ability to just say yes and go for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley reminded me this morning, it is about jumping in at the deep end and finding the shallows afterwards. I learned from Jo to be brave—that’s how you get things done in politics.

The fourth part of the campaign has to be for all of us to fight for our country. The United Kingdom is full of wonderful and good people. They need homes and jobs, and they need some joy in life. They do not need bitterness and hate. They need Jo’s love. If there is a fight to be had in this country, it is a fight for that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the legacy of Jo Cox.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today an honourable man has resigned, on a matter of principle, from a Government in disarray. The former Defence Secretary, as he now is, has resigned over the Government’s continuous failure to publish the defence investment plan or even to fund it. In his letter to the Prime Minister he said,

“your DIP financial settlement—which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week—falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time…it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030”.

That is four years from now.

We have a war in Ukraine, continued instability in the middle east and a Department in total limbo. The man with day-to-day responsibility for overseeing the nation’s defence has just quit. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you been given any indication that the Government will come to the House before we rise at the conclusion of business today and make a statement on this chaotic situation and who is now in charge of the Ministry of Defence? Similarly, have you been given any indication as to when the Government will now finally, at last, publish the defence investment plan, which is essential for the security of this country? As the first duty of the Government, above all others, is the defence of the realm, they must surely come to the House in the next few hours and explain how this dreadful situation will somehow be rectified.

Local Government Reform

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Forster]

We missed the hon. Gentleman at yesterday’s meeting. I agree; I fear that it will not save any money. The lack of evidence and a business case is a concern for me and the Liberal Democrats, and we expressed that at the Committee yesterday. I am sure he will be able to do the same next week when he joins us.

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

Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue with the rest of what I said?

[Mr Forster]

I can do, but obviously I am going to pass over to the Minister in a bit.

If there are to be such monumental changes to the way we operate and run our society, we need to consult local people. Repeatedly, through this entire process, local views have been disregarded. Back in April, hundreds of people staged a protest against plans that would split the New Forest area into two mega-councils, as has already been referred to. More than 13,000 unhappy residents signed a petition calling for New Forest district council to take legal advice and pursue a judicial review. Local government reorganisation should be driven by councils and local areas, not dictated to by London. We are told that LGR is about efficiency and a fresh start, but the reality on the ground looks like absolute chaos. If anything, it is a setback.

We need look no further than Woking. Surrey county council was planning to make Arnold Road and Eve Road in Maybury safer and nicer, but the scheme has been kicked into the long grass and the council will not engage with me or the local residents it consulted about the plans. It has been palmed off on West Surrey council, which is being created next year. That is shocking. The situation is a prime example of how local government plans are grinding to a halt. Essential infrastructure is on pause as Ministers and civil servants reshuffle the system. LGR is causing delays and frustrating the lives of local people, who should not have to watch their community services decline while councils try to guess the future. That is all happening with no leadership or direction from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The issues are rife elsewhere too. Shropshire council spends 80% of its budget on social care. It is a prime example of the financial pressure facing local services. Alongside underfunding, it has also had its funding cut. Care for the elderly is such a huge burden, because 25% of its population is over 65, and the lack of transport and other local services makes the provision of social care even harder.

The Government’s LGR is making it more difficult for areas to build homes, as councils are having to concentrate on LGR rather than the national housing crisis. My local authority, Wokingham borough council, has just started to draft a new local plan where local people get to decide where we build the homes we need. But next year it will be abolished. Labour’s manifesto pledged to build 1.5 million homes. Now it is making it more difficult for local areas to build and risk reneging on that manifesto promise.

Alongside the local plan, since coming to power in Woking, the Liberal Democrats have been trying to fix the mess left by others. Last year I helped secure a £500 million debt write-off from Woking’s debt that we inherited from the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I add my own congratulations on your important anniversary. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate on local government reorganisation. I know that he has strongly held views on the future of his constituency, as we have heard today. For reasons of time, I will not repeat the names of all those who have spoken, but it has been a joy to hear so many Members describe their communities.

I say to all Members that I know we disagree on this topic. The point of this House is disagreement, so our disagreement is not only expected but welcome. However, someone listening to hon. Members might think, “There is no problem in local government and everything is okay—if only we were not proceeding with local government reorganisation!” I simply say to Members that the problems in local government, particularly those related to finance, have arisen because of the age of our population, the burden on local government in adult social care and other things, and a suite of failing policy areas, including special educational needs and disabilities, homelessness, adult social care and children’s care, which have meant that local government has carried the can for policy failure in this place. It now falls to those of us in this House to try to put that right.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will make some progress.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned £0.5 billion of debt write-off for his community. The words he was looking for were, “Thank you”. He is perfectly at liberty to quote me selectively, as is any Member of the House, but selectively quoting a Minister is not an argument—it is not a case to be made. This Government put £5.6 billion of grant funding into local government at the spending review. We have committed £4 billion to SEND as part of the White Paper. We are investing in local government to try to get it out of this situation.

As I did yesterday, let me repeat what I have said before to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): although the Department’s analysis of the finances of this change is important, given the high and spiking costs that local government currently faces, the priority must be to deal with those cases. I challenge anyone to come up with a perfect cost-benefit analysis in this environment. That is what I said yesterday, and I repeat it again for clarification.

That said, I will do as a number of colleagues have asked by setting out why we are ending the two-tier system of local government. In two-tier areas, services and functions are split across county and district councils. That slows down decisions as different councils try to agree, and it leads to fragmented public services, meaning that it is unclear who does what and who is responsible. In Leicestershire, the area of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, the county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support.

The Government are committed to local government reorganisation, for clarity and other reasons that I will set out, and to the timetable that we have set out. We want stronger local councils, equipped to work with strong mayors and strategic authorities, for the purposes of economic growth, improved public services and empowered communities. That is the point of reorganisation: councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than lines drawn on a map 50 years ago.

I might not have been alive in 1974, but I was born in 1980 into the relatively newly created area of the Wirral. At the time, it was part of the county of Merseyside. We subsequently became part of the Liverpool city region. Of course, administrative boundaries change, as Members know, but the identity of the place I am from—the village of Bebington, where I was born in hospital, and the village of Bromborough—is still as strong as it ever was, and we take part in the Liverpool city region with all the benefits that it brings.

[Edward Argar]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I am short of time, but I will give way.

[Edward Argar]

Can the Minister confirm that only the three proposals for Leicestershire—from the boroughs and districts, the county and the city—will be considered, and that no new fourth proposal that has not been put forward locally will emerge from officials?

[Alison McGovern]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I cannot respond directly on Leicestershire because the decision has not yet been taken. To clarify, the Secretary of State can modify submissions or reject them entirely, and he can invite proposals for councils, which is what we have done, but he does not have the power to draw up completely new proposals from scratch. I am happy to engage with the right hon. Gentleman to make that absolutely clear, but that is the position.

Local government can help councils to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and ensuring that everywhere and everyone is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving and attract new investment. It also has social and public services benefits. Most of the Government’s key objectives, whether to get more young people into work or lift children out of poverty, rely on co-operation and integration between our public services. I have heard from hon. Members about how the split in the two-tier system is preventing their councils from working together on homelessness, for example. That is why we want to bring services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof, with one council able to see the full picture and spot problems early—for example, supporting a family in need of housing and then supporting the children to stay in school.

I am pleased with our progress so far. Decisions on councils for five areas have been announced and elections have been held for the new councils in Surrey. On the Leicestershire council areas of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, we remain on course to announce decisions before the summer recess in July. We are on track for the councils to go live in April 2028, as planned. That applies to all areas awaiting an announcement.

I listened to the debate with interest, as I always do. Members have put their views on local government reorganisation in their areas on the record, and I will try to answer their questions, but I am conscious that I have little time, so I ask them to bear with me.

The shadow Minister asked about local consultation and listening to people. We do that. Members should consider this debate to be part of the consultation process; I will ensure that the Department is aware of their concerns. The shadow Minister also asked about considering the interests of the whole country. He will know that the previous Conservative Administration introduced the Office for Budget Responsibility for the purposes of transparency on related matters. We take decisions based on the evidence in front of us. He will also know how advice given to Ministers in that way is treated by all Governments for the purposes of FOI and other things.

Hon. Members were keen to ensure that their constituents have the opportunity to participate in the consultation. I reassure them that decisions on the appropriate option for each area will be judgments in the round, having regard to the criteria and the statutory guidance.

Some hon. Members made a point about bigger being better. There are good councils of various sizes, and the evidence we have is that the primary factors in council failure are governance, leadership and culture. It is not the case that bigger is always better; councils of various sizes can perform well or less well.

We are confident that the decisions we announced before the Easter recess will enable strong, sustainable local government that is connected to the community it serves. I accept that reasonable people can and will disagree on our decisions; I also recognise the work that is now required to ensure that the transition to new councils is done safely, especially in those key social care services on which some of our constituents rely. I reassure hon. Members that the Department is working very hard, in lockstep with councils, to ensure that the transition goes well.

I will have to leave it there, but I know that hon. Members will be in touch with me directly on further issues.

Draft Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026.

It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. The draft regulations were laid on 16 March 2026. When referring to the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority, I will use the term “strategic authority” hereafter, unless there is a reason to be specific.

This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England, and the English devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, as mayors and local leaders are best placed to take the decisions that benefit local communities. Much of the White Paper has now been taken through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.

The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. In February 2025, following an expressions-of-interest process, we announced six places on that programme, including Hampshire and the Solent. The regulations will establish the strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In so doing, they represent substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best.

The Government have worked closely on the regulations with the constituent councils in Hampshire and the Solent. The constituent councils are: Hampshire county council, Isle of Wight council, Portsmouth city council and Southampton city council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of the regulations, and I personally thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.

If Parliament approves, the regulations will be made under the enabling provisions of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The amendments made to those provisions by the 2026 Act do not apply for the purposes of these regulations because of transitional and saving provisions made in a separate statutory instrument: the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (Transitional and Saving Provisions) (England) Regulations 2026. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which the regulations are made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028, and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 for a four-year term.

The regulations provide for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council appoints one of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with Hampshire county council appointing a further member. The mayor will also be a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote. Before the mayor takes office, there will, by the unanimous request of all constituent authorities, be specific interim governance arrangements for decisions on certain matters, as set out in the regulations. Once the mayor takes office, the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting. That majority must include the mayor, or the deputy mayor acting in place of the mayor.

The regulations provide some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the 2026 Act. On its establishment, the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are reserved specifically for the mayor. That is why the regulations confer fewer functions than previous statutory instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that they do confer, which are focused around local transport and economic development, are designed to support the work of the strategic authority before all provisions of the 2026 Act are in force, and to enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one. 

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February 2025 and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted through social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events, and the distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post.

A summary of responses, which were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies, has been published on gov.uk. The Government carefully considered the responses, and on 17 July we confirmed to Parliament that the statutory tests to establish a strategic authority had been met. Subject to the making of the regulations, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding, including for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support local priorities.

The regulations represent clear progress on our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England, and will make it a reality in Hampshire and the Solent. That will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives of, and opportunities for, their residents. I look forward to the debate, and I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for Eastleigh, for their contributions, which were, as ever, helpful and thoughtful. Before we conclude, I will address a couple of their points.

Both Members mentioned local government reorganisation. It is important to say that it does have a purpose. Unitary councils are more effective and able—

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will finish my point. Unitary councils are able join up services and improve how they respond to the needs of residents. The hon. Member for Broxbourne is free to disagree if he so wishes.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister set out the evidence for her statement that unitary councils perform better?

[Alison McGovern]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard me say this before, but I grew up in the Wirral. Previously, it was one small council operating under Cheshire county council—nobody has ever campaigned to divide our council again. The same is true just down the road, where Cheshire West and Chester council went through the process back in the late 2000s. Once unitarisation happens, it tends to be supported, with limited calls for its reversal. Sadly, we can see the impacts of the two-tier system today, but we have rehearsed that argument many times, so I will not detain the Committee with it.

[David Simmonds]

Let me pick on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made about the evidence on performance. People might feel a certain way about such local authorities, but following reorganisation, Cheshire West and Chester council and Cheshire East council, which the Minister just mentioned, both suffered significant problems with Ofsted inspections and Care Quality Commission inspections of children’s and adults’ social care, requiring significant intervention. It was clear that the disruption inherent in reorganisation had been a major factor in the emergence of those problems. The same was true in Somerset, in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and in a number of other authorities. It would be helpful if the Minister set out the evidence for the performance improvement that she cited.

[Alison McGovern]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and his point, but I will not detain the Committee by debating that topic, which does not relate directly to the regulations. I gently say to him that under the previous Government, a lot of the accountability measures for local authorities were taken away. We will reintroduce an outcomes framework and much more transparency about performance, precisely so that we can guard against the issues that he mentions. Reasonable people can disagree, but I will not detain the Committee any further on that matter.

The hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for Eastleigh both mentioned changing the date of elections. The shadow Minister also mentioned confidence and trust, which we will have to bear in mind when making any further changes.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked a couple of specific questions about powers and other things. I will write to her about those matters, if that is okay. She may not be aware, but strictly speaking, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), would ordinarily have taken this debate, but unfortunately she is elsewhere in the country today. I will ensure that she responds to the hon. Member’s points. In the meantime, I assure the hon. Member that district councils have been fully involved in the local government reorganisation process, and that we have listened and will continue to listen carefully to their representations.

I will not detain the Committee any longer. We have discussed the issues relating to this topic, as we have done before and will do again. I thank all Committee members for participating in the discussion on this incredibly important matter, and I hope they will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.