Local Audit Backstop: 27 February 2026

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Written Statements

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

When this Government took office in July 2024, one of our top priorities was to fix the broken local audit system it inherited, which was failing both local bodies and taxpayers alike. Determined to fix the foundations, restore confidence and put the system back on a stable footing, we took decisive action to introduce a series of statutory audit opinion backstop dates in autumn 2024. The backstops have successfully cleared the backlog of unaudited local body accounts and are now restoring a system of timely reporting and assurance. This progress provides a strong platform for rebuilding assurance and delivering wider reforms of the local audit system.

27 February 2026 backstop—financial year 2024-25

Unless exempt, all local bodies in England were required to publish their statement of accounts, including the audit opinion, for 2024-25 by 27 February 2026. The system has taken another significant step forward in returning to timely publication, with over 91% of opinions published by this date. This demonstrates a consistent improvement in timely publication since the introduction of the backstops, up from 84% at the first backstop and 87% at the second backstop. As of 9 March 2026, the publication figure for 2024-25 had subsequently increased to 93%.

Progress on rebuilding assurance

Due to the time constraints of the backstops and in line with expectations, approximately 45% of bodies received a disclaimed opinion at this backstop, and 9% of published opinions have moved from a disclaimed opinion to a qualified opinion. Almost 3% of published opinions demonstrate fully restored assurance by moving to an unqualified opinion. Approximately 44% of bodies received an unmodified opinion, with only a very small number receiving a disclaimed opinion for the first time. This represents encouraging progress, despite the ongoing challenges to rebuilding assurance that I set out in my statement on 2 December 2025.

Non-compliance

In total, 33 non-exempt bodies failed to publish their opinions by the backstop. A list of these bodies has been published on gov.uk, including where opinions were published shortly after the backstop.

Publication of prior-year opinions

In December 2025, I also provided an update on the status of the publication of audit opinions up to and including 2023-24. Since this update, further outstanding opinions for these years continue to be published as factors preventing the issuance of opinions are resolved. Over 99% of opinions have now been published for financial years outstanding, and 97% for financial years up to 2023-24. The non-compliance lists for the two previous backstops have also been updated.

The Department continues to engage with bodies with outstanding opinions to ensure that they are published as soon as practicable, and it will not hesitate to take further action with bodies demonstrating a pattern of continued non-compliance.

Looking ahead to the 31 January 2026 backstop for 2025-26 accounts

The deadline for publication of audited accounts for the financial year 2025-26 is 31 January 2027. In line with amendments made to the accounts and audit regulations 2015, bodies are required to publish their draft accounts for this financial year by 30 June 2026.

My Department will continue to work proactively and co-operatively with local bodies and audit firms to support a return to timely account publication and to drive the system-wide rebuilding of assurance.

[HCWS1474]

Local Government Reorganisation

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Where is he?

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for the—[Interruption.] I am always happy to be at the Dispatch Box; I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to set out the latest steps in local government reorganisation.

For too long, many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. The Government’s aim on local government reorganisation is simple: clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. We are getting on with delivering that aim.

Yesterday the Secretary of State announced the next steps on local government reorganisation in six areas of England. He has decided, subject to parliamentary approval, to implement proposals for 15 new councils in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth; Norfolk; and Suffolk. In addition to the Isle of Wight, that will see 16 councils operating across these areas in place of the current 44. The proposals are supported by two thirds of councils within these areas and many local communities. They will help to expand key towns and cities, deliver housing and growth, and simplify public services for residents. We will bring forward the secondary legislation to implement the proposals for the new local councils in due course.

On East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and West Sussex, we have carefully considered the four proposals submitted alongside the views expressed during the consultation, but no final decision has been taken at this stage, reflecting the need to address a number of important matters. Proposed modifications will form the basis of a further technical consultation to be carried out after the May local elections, which will allow councils and partners to provide focused views before any final decisions are taken. Taking the time to get this right now provides the strongest foundations for delivery, supporting improvements to people’s lives in the places where they live and enabling councils to operate effectively from day one.

We have set out the timetable, with elections to new unitary councils taking place in 2027 ahead of them going live in April 2028. Reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour, and we will continue to work with councils to see that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at heart.

[Sir James Cleverly]

People will ask whether this is an act of gross gerrymandering and political opportunism or an act of gross incompetence and stupidity, but I can inform the House that it is both. There is no mandate for this; there was nothing in Labour’s manifesto. It is an imposition from Whitehall. If the Government were so proud of this work, why did they try to sneak it out in a written ministerial statement and have to be dragged to the Dispatch Box to justify their decisions?

Unlike the hon. Lady, I have spoken to local government leaders in the areas affected. They were presented with a plan and told to comply—the outcome was predetermined. This is a stitch-up. Labour is redrawing boundaries from the centre and overriding local identity and local consent to maximise party political advantage.

The Government have announced £63 million for this transformation, yet it turns out that that is the same £63 million that they have already committed to deal with the consequence of their botched attempt to cancel local elections. How can they now claim that that money will fund wholesale reorganisation?

The Government are telling well-run councils to subsidise poorly run councils. Money that should be filling potholes will actually be filling black holes; resources that should be for collecting waste and supporting vulnerable residents will instead be diverted into restructuring and bureaucracy. Estimates point to a borrowing requirement because of these changes running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially approaching £1 billion, all to fund their vanity project, and the cost will fall on local people.

I have some questions for the Minister. How can she claim that this reorganisation is locally led when it is being imposed on communities? Why are Ministers determining the boundaries rather than the independent boundary commission? What estimates will be made of the total borrowing requirement? How much money has been set aside for the inevitable judicial reviews that will flood out after this announcement?

This is not reform, but vandalism; it is not empowerment, but imposition. It is local people who will pay the price for this Government’s incompetence and arrogance.

[Alison McGovern]

Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not saying what he really thinks about the proposals; I am glad that he had the opportunity to do that. He asked about proposals being locally led. Of course, all the proposals have been put forward by the areas they affect. Residents and others had their chance to feed into the consultation, and we weighed those consultation responses alongside other factors that he will be aware of. He mentioned some of them, including finances.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Boundary Commission. Officials have engaged with it extensively. I have met it to talk through the process, and I am confident that it can do the work needed to make the process a success. Finally, on finances, I have spent the past six months or so listening, day after day, to councils that have deficits caused by a failure in the special educational needs and disabilities system, a failure in children’s care and a failure in adult social care, presided over by a Government of which he was an active part, so if I was him, I would be cautious about lecturing other people about council borrowing.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to let people know, normally Front Benchers would not speak during an urgent question, but for those whose constituency is affected by this issue, and who have direct involvement, there is a dispensation today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s move to reorganisation, which will benefit cities such as Exeter. Yesterday, the Minister may have seen official communications from Devon county council that said that reorganisation will

“put the lives of vulnerable people at risk”.

Notwithstanding the fact that, according to Ofsted, children’s services and SEND services in Devon have been failing for many years, does the Minister agree that such comments are irresponsible and not true? Should reorganisation happen in Devon—I hope that it will—will it not be up to authorities to ensure that services are safely and effectively moved to new structures?

[Alison McGovern]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I have been working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), and other Ministers in the Department for Education to improve our children’s services. We will ensure that we do that through this reorganisation process. Nothing matters more than the fortunes of our kids, and it is up to us in central Government and local government to work together to deliver good childhoods for all of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is deeply disappointing that this matter is being addressed today through an urgent question, and was not addressed yesterday through a proper statement from the Government. As I have said, the Liberal Democrats support devolution and reorganisation where that strengthens communities, but changes must be locally led, properly consulted on, adequately funded and never top-down.

In recent months, I have spoken to local government leaders across the country, and their really clear and consistent message is, “First, trust us. Secondly, work with us to fix the broken local government funding system,” which is leaving councils struggling to meet rising costs and needs. While the decisions announced for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk provide clarity—even if areas remain concerned about viability and sustainability—they fail to address those fundamental issues. In the case of Sussex, the Government have essentially dismissed the local proposals, and have instead chosen to consult on their own plans, leaving the county in another period of uncertainty. Does the Minister recognise that that approach undermines trust between national and local government? Has her Department fully assessed the financial consequences of the proposals for reorganisation in those areas and across the country? Will she commit to a cross-party piece of work, carried out with local leaders, on creating a fair, adequate and long-term funding settlement for councils?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for those points. On the announcement process, we followed the precedent set by the previous round of reorganisation in 2021, under the previous Government. In relation to Sussex, it is really important that we get this right. We had concerns about the proposals not sufficiently addressing the criteria, particularly on economic growth, service disaggregation, community identity and financial sustainability. We will work quickly with Sussex, so that we can enter into that period of intense discussion and consultation after the local elections. That will not affect the overall timings of the programme, with new unitaries going live in 2028.

The hon. Lady also mentioned working with local government on its overall finances. Having just dealt with the fair funding review, I can honestly say that in the months since I was appointed, I have spent most of my life talking in detail, along with Members from across the House, about financial sustainability for councils. I have no doubt that she and I will engage on the subject many times in the future.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I genuinely welcome the fact that my hon. Friend stresses the need for locally led decision making. She will know that there is widespread support across the Thames valley for a foundation strategic authority for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, and that a bid along those lines is with her ministerial colleagues at the moment. She will also know that there is genuine concern about a different proposal, wholly unacceptable to local leaders, that is being mooted. Will she reassure me and colleagues across the House that when it comes to FSAs, MSAs, SDSs or any initialism that she chooses, there will always be priority given to locally led decision making?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for making his way through the alphabet soup of devolution. I will make sure that the Minister for devolution hears his points. She will have read his letter and I am sure will respond to it. The next stage of our plan is to make sure that all places in this country have a plan for growth, and we will listen to what he says as we move forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Lincolnshire is such a huge county geographically that there is no enthusiasm for abolishing districts. Be that as it may, the Government are determined to override local residents. There is a rumour coming out of the Labour-controlled City of Lincoln council that the Government will go with a Greater Lincoln. That would be a disaster for West Lindsey, and would leave Gainsborough out on a limb and carve us out of the county. Before the Minister makes any final decision, will she please meet me, so that I can put to her the concerns of West Lindsey district council? We could live with the central Lincolnshire idea—the whole of Lincolnshire—but not Greater Lincoln.

[Alison McGovern]

I am always glad to meet the Father of the House. We will just make sure that it is done within the process for taking decisions.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

How does the Minister expect local authorities in Essex to be ready for elections for unitaries in a year’s time, while at the same time undertaking local government reorganisation, creating a new Greater Essex integrated care board for the NHS, dealing with unprecedented demand for social care, and implementing the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill? As Essex county council has said, the breakneck speed of change across the board is simply unmanageable. Will the Minister even now rethink this proposal, and call off elections for the new unitaries next year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

We are committed to the timetable that I have just set out to the House. We are working very closely with colleagues right across government on reorganisation, including the Department of Health and Social Care, to address the issues that the right hon. Member has mentioned. I have already responded to the point about the importance of children’s services.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Eighty-four per cent of the people in Christchurch voted against being forced into a unitary merger with Bournemouth and Poole, and they are still living with the consequences of that merger; a formerly debt-free council is now burdened with enormous debts and inefficiency. This year, the Minister agreed that it could increase its council taxes by even more than 5%. That is what happens when areas are forced into unitary reorganisation, against the wishes of the local people.

[Alison McGovern]

I think it is safe to say that people have a range of views on this topic. I am happy to listen to them all, but in the end, we need to move forward and improve services.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

The children with SEND in my constituency are being let down and ignored by the too-large Lancashire county council. Those of my constituents who are also served by Blackpool, a much smaller unitary, are getting the SEND services that they deserve and need. Does the Minister agree that making things smaller and getting away from the two-tier system helps our constituents by making services better, and looking after our children and our elderly?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us back to the most important people in this—the people who are the future of this country, our children. I was very pleased to meet her and representatives of Blackpool only recently to hear about the work that they are doing.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I draw Members’ attention to my interest as a serving county councillor. May I thank the Minister for seeing through Norfolk Conservatives’ self-serving scheme for a mega-council for Norfolk? The three-unitary model will ensure that my residents get the efficiencies of joined-up services, and that decisions are still made as locally as possible. The Conservative county council will throw yet another strop, but the Conservatives will be gone in May, and the transition work needs to start now. Can the Minister confirm that adequate funds will be made available to cover the cost of authorities transitioning, and will she rule out expecting them to make cuts to services to fund the transition?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting on the record his point of view, which is different from others that we have heard this morning. I can confirm that we are supporting councils through the transition. If he has any specific concerns, he knows that he can come straight to me.

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

May I inform the Minister that the previous Conservative Government listened to the people of Essex, and the MPs and county and district councillors for Essex, and cancelled any plans for LGR? That is because county government in Essex predates the Norman conquest. It is more embedded in our history than almost anything else, except perhaps our churches and ancient buildings. Nobody in Tendring district or Colchester city wants to live in an amorphous area called “North East Essex”. What is more, people there know that this upheaval and reorganisation will cost public services, inflict damage on continuity and push up council taxes—and it is good for us, because we will simply blame this wretched gerrymandering Labour Government.

[Alison McGovern]

Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not having an opinion on this subject. I hear what he is saying. Close to me is the county of Cheshire. It was reorganised some years ago, and nobody would say that Cheshire no longer exists. We will move forward with these proposals. In the end, there is nothing that we politicians like more than discussing the architecture of power, but our job is to never lose sight of the wellbeing of the residents we represent.

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

When the hon. Lady achieved her present promotion, I wrote to her to explain why the independents, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Greens on New Forest district council had co-signed, with me, a letter to her predecessor, explaining that out of the four options on offer, the one option that they should not choose was the only one to split up constituencies and interfere with boundaries. The only thing it had going for it was that Southampton city council, led by Labour, wanted to do a land-grab across constituency boundaries. I entered into this process in good faith, and I was prepared for the possibility that, out of the four options, the one selected might not be the one I preferred, but the one thing I thought that the Government would not have the sheer effrontery to do is choose the one option that was disastrous and went against their own criteria. I am ashamed of this, and I bitterly regret supporting Hampshire being part of the first tranche. I should have known better.

[Alison McGovern]

I do hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I respect his views. The five-unitary proposal offered financial stability, balanced with care for rural and urban needs, and it creates the building blocks for successful devolution. I understand that we will respectfully disagree on some of these proposals, but I none the less thank him for sharing his opinion so clearly.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Government’s approach to devolution and local government reform has been chaotic and costly; the delay of the mayoral election in Norfolk and Suffolk is costing our counties £50 million in investment funding. Can the Minister confirm that the Government believe that the three-unitary model for Norfolk can be delivered sustainably, and can she guarantee that funding will be there to ensure that is the case?

[Alison McGovern]

We think that this option reflects Norfolk’s communities and local identities, and the proposal also had wide support, which is important. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on the need for investment in this country. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed to secure investment for housing, public transport and across a whole range of other areas, which we need to help this country grow. Our record on investment is a strong one.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak from the Back Benches on this issue, which has profound consequences for my county and my constituency.

I am appalled by the Government’s proposal to break up the great county of Essex into five unitary authorities. That is simply not acceptable. My constituents do not want this at all and they were not part of any engagement. Will the Minister tell my constituents across Witham how much more they will pay in council tax—she has already said that she has been forensically looking at the finances—and outline the impact of council tax harmonisation? What level of Government grant funding will there be for each new council? How much of the countryside will be at risk? My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) has already mentioned the impact on social services and education. What about planning? This will lead to a major upheaval in Government planning policies. What does that mean for Essex and my constituents? How on earth can the Minister justify to constituents across Essex county why they should pay more in council tax for a policy they simply do not support?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Lady for setting out her views and concerns in the way that she has done. I will happily write to her with further detail on the finances, because there are issues with previous decisions in Essex that are of great concern to me. As I mentioned before in relation to Cheshire and other counties, the counties remain—they are part of our history and our culture; we are looking to have effective unitary authorities.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your dispensation to speak on behalf of my constituents.

Not once in six years in this House have my constituents written to me saying that we need to cleave West Sussex in two, with two educational catchment areas, two different highways authorities, two social care services and two expensive town halls and council offices. Will the Minister, at this late stage, listen to my constituents, reject the proposals put forward by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to cleave our ancient county in two, and join me in saving West Sussex?

[Alison McGovern]

Well, it’s always worth a try! As I mentioned in response to others, this is not about the identity of our historic counties; it is about effective councils. If I may say so, the hon. Member’s point on what his constituents write to him about gives the game away. The reason we are doing this is to improve services and deal with the things that people really care about, and to make sure that councils are able to give people a good quality of life, wherever they are in England.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is absolutely right: Essex has existed since before the Norman conquest, and during those years, everything from the River Lea to the North sea was part of the great county of Essex. Yet today, the people of Havering and my constituents in Romford are not included in any discussion or any consultation; they have no meaningful way of participating in discussions about how we want to go forward. Does the Minister agree that it is time that the people of my borough were given the right to also become a unitary authority, free of the control of the Greater London Authority and City Hall? Will she at least allow Havering to become part of the ceremonial county of Essex so that our identity as part of the ancient county of Essex remains strong?

[Alison McGovern]

It is good to hear somebody on the Opposition Benches speaking in favour of reorganisation. The hon. Member raises an important point about ceremonial counties. If he would like to write to me about it, I will respond, as he would expect.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

There was only one voice demanding the sacrifice of part of the rural New Forest district—it was Labour in Southampton, wasn’t it?

[Alison McGovern]

It was not.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Following on from the reference to Lincolnshire by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I warn the Government that this will come back to bite them. It is over 50 years since northern Lincolnshire was put into County Humberside, and it is still an issue that divides local opinion. We have two unitaries that were carved out of Humberside when it was put to death: north and north-east Lincolnshire. They both want to stay the same. As the Father of the House said, we do not want change in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister get on with making a decision so that we can have the certainty we need?

[Alison McGovern]

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, given that I grew up in the Wirral where for many years people have been in a heated debate about whether it is Cheshire or Merseyside. I will take account of his views as we move forward.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Labour is causing chaos in local government in East Sussex. After firing the starting gun on tearing up our local government boundaries—something that no resident in East Sussex wanted and that was not in its manifesto—the Government now will not let us out the blocks. My residents are absolutely clear that they do not want to be lumped in with Labour-run Brighton and Hove city council, which will dominate any new unitary authority, sucking up all the money, resources and attention. Is it not true that the only reason the Government are not letting us get on with an East Sussex proposal is because they want to help out their Labour mates in mismanaged, disastrously-run Brighton and Hove city council?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member for putting his views on the record. As I have said on Sussex, it is important that we get it right. We want to ensure that we achieve our objectives on economic growth and ensuring that services can be delivered well. We will move forward quickly, but this next intensive period of consultation will not affect the overall timetable.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The criteria for choosing the Government’s preferred options for local government reorganisation seem to have been applied differently in Surrey than in Hampshire and Essex. Will the Government release their reasoning behind it? Let me be clear: when it comes to Hertfordshire, I do not want any reorganisation at all, but if this is forced upon us in Broxbourne, I favour the four unitaries option. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this so that I can put forward my case for my constituents, as it was wrong how many colleagues found out yesterday about their options from the media?

[Alison McGovern]

There were a couple of questions there. I have met the hon. Gentleman before and, in compliance with the process we are undergoing with reorganisation, I will happily meet him again. He has put his views clearly on the record and they will be taken into account.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The local government reorganisation consultation for Devon closes today. It has had many responses that have all been completed in good faith. Can the Minister reassure Devonians that responses to the consultation will be digested and taken fully into account, especially in the light of the strength of feeling against the plans put forward by the Labour-controlled cities in Devon to expand into Devon’s beautiful green belt, which is surely a land grab to deliver the Labour Government’s housing targets?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for putting her views about Devon on the record. I reassure her that the views of the consultation are taken fully into consideration and that our team at MHCLG have worked extremely hard to do that, and I want to use this opportunity to thank them for doing so.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

As the Minister well knows, the consultation for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire closes today, and I urge all my constituents to have their say and ensure that they fill that out by midnight tonight. The Minister knows my feelings clearly about option E and Huntingdonshire unitary authority because she sat through my half-hour debate on the topic, but can she reassure my residents that the feedback given will be taken on board? At the moment, there is a real fear locally that Huntingdonshire will be split in two, and that the identity and character of our historic county will be lost forever in favour of the northern half of Huntingdonshire being merged with Peterborough in option D. Option E is very much the option that the district council wants to go for. Can she reassure me that Huntingdonshire will not be split in two?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for his question but for giving me the opportunity to hear him speak about the wonders of Huntingdonshire on a couple of occasions. I cannot comment on those proposals specifically, but he has never shied away from putting his views on the record, and he has done so again today.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the Minister referred to the importance of local identities. As she knows, in the local government reorganisation, my Spelthorne constituency will be subsumed into something called “West Surrey”. I am very much looking forward to meeting her on 22 April to make representations about why it should be called “West Surrey and South Middlesex”, to take account of Spelthorne’s special circumstances. If she is to commission her officials to do any research work in advance of that meeting, may I recommend a book called “The Real Counties of Britain”, written by Mr Russell Grant, which would set the context for our discussion perfectly?

[Alison McGovern]

By reading such a book, I hope that I might be able to see the future! [Laughter.] I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting me, and for allowing us this pre-meeting so that we can make best use of the time.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will appreciate this question. Labour-run Southampton city council has huge debts, and Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh has £800 million-worth of debt. Given the proposal for them to be merged, will the Government do anything about that debt, or will they allow the new council to fall immediately?

[Alison McGovern]

As I have said to other Members, local authority debt is a serious concern for the Government. We will work through the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions in the transition process, and I am happy to provide him with more technical detail on that. The overall picture of local authority debt is not a happy one. It arises from policy failure emanating from this place, and we have a collective responsibility to put it right.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure whether you are being dragged into a devolved matter, Minister, but go ahead if you are happy to answer.

[Alison McGovern]

It would not be the same if I did not get to answer the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mr Speaker. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, before and throughout my time in Government, I have always considered what is happening in Northern Ireland to learn lessons from it. I thank him for making that point.

Proposed Visitor Levy

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing today’s debate on the proposed visitor levy in England. It has been an absolute pleasure to hear from—I think—nine Members on the Back Benches about their constituencies, all of which, I am certain, are equally lovable and great places to visit.

As Members have set out, this is an extremely important issue across the country. I respect the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who speaks for the Opposition. He has a passion for the tourism and visitor economy, and he is right to say—as other Members, including the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, set out—what an important part of our economy the tourism industry is. I agree with the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham on that.

I will focus some of my remarks on devolution, because the approach we are taking is based in the strengthening of devolution. We now know that mayoral devolution works in terms of economic growth. From the construction of the Elizabeth line here in our great capital to Greater Manchester’s integrated transport, devolution has delivered results in getting the infrastructure that we need for growth.

I just say to hon. Members that I am not immune to the arguments they have made about the challenges to economies in different parts of the country; those points have been well made. If somebody had told 13-year-old me that one day people would go for a mini-break on Merseyside, I would have thought they were barking up the wrong tree. But, believe it or not, tourists and visitors of all kinds have saved the city I love, so I am not remotely immune to the arguments Members are making. It is extremely important that we consider carefully how to grow those parts of our economy that really need it, and particularly coastal areas. I take what Members have said very seriously, and I will consider it as part of the Government’s consultation.

When I was listening to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire describe very effectively the effect of tourism on our economy, I wrote down the word “Brexit”, given the effect it has had. It is too late in the day for me to become grumpy now, so I will just crack on, because this is a serious subject. The truth is that our country’s economy needs to grow at a faster rate than it has over the past decade and a half or so. The question is how we make that happen. The truth about our country is that power is extremely centralised, which means we have historically taken decisions for those places with the most power—largely the south-east.

However, recent decades of devolution—under both parties that have been in power—have begun to show a different story: when we give local leaders real powers, they can take better decisions, invest for the long term and change their fortunes. That is what devolution is all about. Mayors already hold levers for growth, from transport to planning, skills and housing.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he first allows me to give a little shout-out to my local mayor, Steve Rotheram. The Centre for Cities recently found that over the past decade under his leadership the employment rate in Liverpool has gone from 61% to 71%—a 10-point increase. That is a miracle, and I pay tribute to Steve Rotheram for his work on that.

[Tom Gordon]

I completely agree, and as Liberal Democrats we want to see devolution and the handing-down of powers. But, again, I come back to the question whether it is really meaningful devolution if, when I ask the Labour Mayor of York and North Yorkshire about removing the 9 o’clock time limit on disabled bus passes, his answer is that he does not have the funding to do it. These are not real choices if the funding settlements are not there in the first place.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to respond to a point that a number of Members raised. We have just concluded the local Government funding settlement for the next three years, so we have set the path for local Government funding. This question before us is a separate conversation; it is about whether, in theory, as part of devolution, we should enable mayors—if they choose to, and they do not have to—to use this power to invest in and grow their economies. That is a completely separate question from local government funding, which I could bore this Chamber for England on, but I am not going to.

In her speech last week, the Chancellor set out that if we are serious about growth across the country and not just in a few places, we must go further. Giving towns and cities more say over their revenue is essential. Our international counterparts give city leaders real fiscal powers, and we want to begin to make progress in closing that gap for English mayors. That is the context for the proposed visitor levy we have been discussing. Its purpose is to address the gap between the responsibilities we place on mayors and the funding they have in order to meet them. A modest levy can provide a reliable income stream that mayors can reinvest in local infrastructure, transport and the visitor economy itself.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked me to spell out what will be in primary legislation, which I am obviously not able to do at this point. However, I have heard what Members have said and I understand where they are coming from, and we will take that on board as we move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) also asked about that issue, and we will set out the legislative process as we move ahead.

[Emma Lewell]

When I was looking through the guidance, it seemed to indicate that mayors will have to consult local authorities and local industry before they come to any decision, but there is no requirement to hold discussions with local MPs, who arguably know their constituencies far better than any mayor ever could. Could the Minister look at that for me, please?

[Alison McGovern]

If mayors are not talking to their local Members of Parliament, they are missing an opportunity and an important part of their role. I will certainly take what my hon. Friend says into consideration as we move forward with this.

We have seen internationally how well-designed visitor levies can support growth, making places better to live, work in and visit, while also strengthening tourism and local businesses. Visitor levies have been used internationally for tourism, promotion and marketing, sustainable tourism projects, public transport, parks, public facilities, cultural heritage, restoration and so on.

The principle is very straightforward: visitors who benefit from local services and amenities make a fair contribution to maintaining and improving them. That is fiscal devolution. Mayors will be best placed to judge whether a levy is right for their area, reflecting different priorities, their own economies and local democratic accountability. That is the point I want to emphasise. Hon. Members have mentioned different parts of England and different economies, a point I accept entirely. That is the whole point of devolution. If decisions about the economy are taken only in this postcode, they will not be right, because England’s economy is extremely diverse.

I want to turn briefly to questions about exemptions, specifically scouts and guides. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) who spoke passionately about the campaign run by his constituents is sadly not here, but I hope he might find out that I applaud the civic responsibility shown by those young people.

The consultation proposed that the levy would apply to commercially let short-term accommodation, not a main residence, as queried by a couple of hon. Members. This is obviously a consultation, and we will say more when we bring forward proposals.

Several national exemptions were also proposed, such as stays on registered Gypsy and Traveller sites where it is a primary residence, which a couple of hon. Members mentioned; charitable or non-profit accommodation for shelter, respite or refuge; and certain types of temporary accommodation. I take the point about scouts and guides very seriously. Final decisions will be set out in the Government’s consultation response.

A number of Members mentioned the cost of family holidays, and I want to flag that that issue is worth bearing in mind, particularly as we did not do all that work on the child poverty strategy to improve family incomes if they cannot afford a break, which many families up and down the country truly need right now.

The devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales have already legislated to introduce visitor levies and we are learning carefully from their experience. We also want to learn from those who would be affected by a levy in England, which is why we have taken a thorough and open approach to consultation. We received more than 1,000 responses from mayors, local authorities, hospitality representatives, independent accommodation providers and many others. Those responses covered a wide range of views, and they will continue to inform our thinking about the design of this power.

On the use of revenues, any money raised through a visitor levy should be reinvested in those places where it is generated. That is why we propose that the decision on how those revenues are spent should sit with local leaders, who can best understand local needs, pressures and opportunities. The levy must be fair and proportionate, which is why we consulted on the different types of accommodation to which it should apply. We asked whether there should be a threshold below which providers are not liable, and proposed a small number of national exemptions, which I have spelled out.

We also sought views on how the levy should be charged. In the consultation, we asked about a percentage-based rate, which would scale with the cost of a stay, but we also recognise the potential benefits of alternative approaches, such as a flat-rate model. Recognising that local leaders know their area best, we asked whether mayors should have the flexibility to set levy rates locally, reflecting local priorities. Those questions, alongside many others, are being considered carefully by my Department and the Treasury as part of the next stage of policy development. I will ensure that other Ministers involved receive a copy of Hansard that covers this debate.

The Government will set out their legislative priorities for the second Session of this Parliament in the King’s Speech, which we expect to provide the framework for local leaders to introduce a visitor levy before the end of this Parliament. Between now and then, we will continue to engage closely with all those who may be affected to ensure that this policy is well designed and locally led and that it delivers for communities as well as for visitors. I take it as read that Members who have contributed know that my door is always open to them if they want to discuss this issue.

The proposals we have discussed reflect a clear direction of travel for this Government. We want to give leaders the powers and tools they need to support growth, to introduce policies that can help shape their communities and to give their place the strongest possible future. By strengthening devolution and giving communities a greater say over their own revenues, we can build a system that is simpler, more accountable and better able to deliver for the people of this country.

Again, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for securing this debate. I look forward to continuing to work with Members from right across the House and with local partners as we move forward in developing this policy.

Local Government Best Value: Nottingham, Croydon, Warrington and Woking

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Written Statements

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

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

Nottingham city council

On 4 February, I informed the House that the Secretary of State is satisfied, having considered the fourth report from the Nottingham commissioners, and other information, that the council has made significant improvement in many aspects of its operation and is now meeting its best value duty across most, but not all, themes. I proposed an ongoing intervention package to provide support to the council to ensure that momentum is maintained and that remaining challenges are addressed by reforming critical public services. I invited the council and others to provide representations by 11 February.

The Secretary of State received two representations which he has carefully considered. He remains satisfied that the council is not yet meeting its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, and service delivery. The Secretary of State has concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for him to exercise powers in the Local Government Act 1999 as I proposed. Today, he has issued directions under section 15(5) of the 1999 Act to implement the proposed intervention package.

The package, taking effect from today and due to be in place until 30 September 2027, comprises specific actions the council is required to take, and appoints ministerial envoys to support the council and oversee the improvement work. The Secretary of State has today appointed Sharon Kemp OBE as ministerial envoy. He is confident that her extensive knowledge and experience will help the council to build further on the improvements already under way. A second envoy appointment will be made in due course. The envoys will report to the Secretary of State after six months.

The intervention package represents a de-escalation of the previous arrangements, reflecting the substantial progress the council has made to date and the strength of its leadership. It is designed to build on and reinforce that progress, enabling the council to continue driving its own improvement with the necessary support from the ministerial envoys.

In summary, the directions issued today require the council to:

Work with the ministerial envoys to establish a continuous improvement committee with appropriate membership, including external leads for adults social care and children’s services.

Work with the ministerial envoys to prepare a continuous improvement plan within three months, and respond promptly and in public to any committee recommendations on the plan and its implementation.

Continue to work with other councils in the Nottinghamshire area for unitary local government.

Co-operate with the ministerial envoys and provide assistance and access to them as set out in the directions and required to deliver improvement.

Pay the ministerial envoys’ reasonable expenses and such fees as he determines.

The Secretary of State has reduced the number of days of support the ministerial envoys can provide compared to commissioners, with a maximum of 75 days each per year, reducing the level of oversight and the cost to the council.

The Secretary of State will review the directions and the ministerial envoys’ roles after 12 months, to ensure that Nottingham has the support required to accelerate recovery and protect the public purse. Subject to clear and sustained evidence of improvement, the intervention may be de-escalated further ahead of the expiration of the directions.

I would like to place on record my thanks to Sharon Kemp OBE, Tony McArdle OBE, and Margaret Lee OBE for their invaluable work in supporting the council on its reform and recovery since February 2024.

I remain committed to working in partnership with Nottingham city council and colleagues across Government to test how public service reform can drive Nottingham’s recovery, including developing an innovative targeted support offer alongside the statutory intervention, to deliver the best possible outcomes for residents.

London borough of Croydon

The London borough of Croydon has been in intervention since January 2021, and commissioners were appointed in July 2025.

I have today published the commissioners’ first progress report, received in February this year, alongside my response. I am pleased that the commissioner team have established a constructive working relationship with the council, and it is encouraging that the political and corporate leadership have committed to addressing the serious challenges that Croydon continues to face. It is right that the council recognises that there are more steps it can take at a local level to transform its services and operation and improve its financial sustainability to help it move out of best value failure. Delivery of the council’s transformation plan and associated savings is now essential to help move Croydon away from an unsustainable reliance on exceptional financial support. It is now vital that both members and officers drive forward at pace the necessary changes to help return longer-term financial sustainability to Croydon and improved service delivery for residents. I am confident that the support and oversight of commissioners will help to place the council on a stronger footing for the future.

I look forward to receiving the commissioners’ next report in the summer, after the local and mayoral elections in May, and I will keep the House updated on progress.

Warrington borough council

Warrington borough council has been in intervention since July 2025, involving a team of ministerial envoys working with the council to oversee and support the required improvement work. The expectation is for the council to drive its own improvement with the support, challenge and advice from the ministerial envoys, some of whom have powers to exercise council functions that are treated as held in reserve.

Today I have published the ministerial envoys’ first report, received in February, which identifies early progress in a number of key areas. It is encouraging to hear that the envoys’ advice has been welcomed, that key leadership appointments have been made, and that steps are being undertaken to improve governance arrangements.

The council will need to maintain this open approach as the scale of the challenge is becoming clear through this early stage of the intervention. The envoys’ report clearly sets out the council’s sobering financial situation, including a significant structural deficit, major commercial liabilities, and a £130 million four-year budget gap. Addressing these issues will require the council to overhaul its past approach to transformation to improve its efficiency and the services that residents deserve.

I look forward to receiving the envoys’ next report later this year, once key appointments at the council are more established and it has further strengthened its capacity to lead the recovery work with the envoys’ guidance and oversight. I expect the council to maintain a sustained focus on delivering the improvement and recovery plan and the fundamental transformation needed to strengthen financial sustainability.

Warrington’s improvement is essential not only for the council itself but also for the wider region, given its critical role in devolution and the establishment of the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority.

Woking borough council

Woking borough council has been in intervention since May 2023. I have today published the commissioners’ sixth progress report, received in February this year, alongside my response. I welcome commissioners’ assessment that the council remains committed to delivering its improvement and recovery plan and that progress continues to be made across governance, finance and transformation.

I recognise that the council faces continued challenges as it recovers from failure and welcome the progress that has been made in delivering the asset rationalisation programme. This, alongside our unprecedented commitment to repay £500 million of the council’s debt in 2026-27 as a first tranche of support, will be crucial to reducing Woking’s unsupported debt and providing value for money for taxpayers.

The council will be abolished in April 2027 as part of local government reorganisation in Surrey. I am grateful for commissioners’ focus on readying the council for reorganisation, and the collaborative work undertaken so far with local partners to ensure an effective handover. I am clear that transition readiness will be of the utmost importance for the final year of intervention.

Conclusion

I recognise the serious challenges facing councils under best value intervention, including in some cases the need to address substantial debt burdens. I am committed to working with these councils to ensure they are delivering the high standards that local residents rightly expect. My Department will continue to take action to support improvement where needed, alongside targeted financial support and reform of the system itself, to secure sustainable recovery across the local government sector.

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

[HCWS1442]

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The Government are delivering long-overdue funding reforms for English local government and introducing improvements to realign funding with need and deprivation as part of the first multi-year settlement in a decade. A key element of the reforms is the reset of the business rates retention system, which is a central component of the local government finance framework. Under the business rates retention system, English councils retain a share of the business rates they collect and benefit when their local business rates income grows. Resetting the system realigns funding with need while maintaining the incentive for authorities to promote growth.

In parallel with reforms that reset how business rates are used for funding, the Government are also reforming business rates tax policy. As a result, technical amendments are required to the framework through which business rates fund local government, in order to mitigate the impact that the changes would otherwise have on local government funding. The business rates retention system is built on straightforward principles, but it necessarily requires complex administrative arrangements that are underpinned by legislation that must be kept up to date as the system changes. The amendment regulations before the Committee provide the updates that are required this year to give practical effect to the reset and wider reforms that are being delivered through the settlement, in addition to the adjustments needed as a result of changes to the tax. Although technical in nature, the purpose of the amendments is clear, as I will now outline.

The instrument changes two sets of regulations: the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013 and the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013. The levy and safety net regulations set out how councils are protected from significant reductions in business rates income by the safety net, and how that protection is funded by a levy on business rates growth. The rates retention regulations cover the day-to-day operation of the system and set out the full process for allocating business rates income between billing authorities, major precepting authorities and central Government.

To balance risk and reward over the multi-year settlement, we are introducing changes this year to both the safety net and the levy to ensure an appropriate balance of risk and reward within the business rates retention system against the backdrop of wider reform. We are increasing the safety net from 92.5% of baseline funding levels to 100% for 2026-27. That will provide authorities with improved certainty over their incomes for 2026-27 budgets as they know that they will receive their full baseline funding level—their assessed need to be provided via business rates income—offering stronger protection across the delivery of the reforms.

The Government are introducing a new approach to the levy based on a marginal tax-style system, similar to the structure of income tax, that will apply to all local authorities. The approach balances the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections. It will better support growth across the sector by applying a lower levy rate to early growth and a lower top rate than the current 50% levy faced by many authorities.

The regulations also change the classification of grant compensation that local authorities are paid in lieu of business rates that they would otherwise have collected. These amounts will be treated comparably to business rates to streamline local government accounting under the business rates retention system.

The reform programme has established new key values related to the business rates retention system, delivered through the recent settlement. Some of the values are used in safety net and levy calculations, which means we need to ensure that they are adjusted in the regulations to reflect their new values. As such, the instrument specifies new baseline funding levels and adjusted tariff and top-up values for local authorities. For most local authorities, the top-up or tariff figures set out by the settlement are the same values that we use to calculate their eligibility for the safety net or the requirement to pay the levy for a year. In such cases, we simply point to the settlement values.

However, for authorities operating under 100% retention arrangements, we specify alternative top-up or tariff figures for the purposes of the levy and safety net. That ensures that councils operating at the standard 50% retention level do not bear additional costs that might arise in supporting authorities with 100% arrangements, should they require safety net payments. The top-up and tariff values for the coming year are interim figures that reflect the latest available data, but they will need to be updated next year once the final data is available.

Another change stemming from the reform programme is the need to update formulae that have been replaced in the wider system. In the business rates retention system, we use factors representing the relative costs of operating in different areas, or area cost adjustments, to calculate a modest allowance of rates that each billing authority can retain to support its costs in administering business rates, otherwise known as a cost of collection allowance.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

The Minister raises the cost factor, and Bromley’s cost factor has been set at 1.038, which is above the average. What work has been done to ensure that authorities such as mine are not impacted by setting the cost factor above the average, in terms of their ability to collect business rates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Department conducts significant work with local authorities to understand their costs, precisely so that we can make the adjustments I am talking about. If he has specific questions relating to Bromley, I encourage him to drop me a note at the Department so that I can get him a technical response.

The City of London has a long-standing bespoke funding arrangement known as the “offset”, the administration of which is set out in the retained rates regulations. For 2026-27, it has already been agreed that the offset will remain in place, and that its value will be uprated from £13.5 million to £14 million in line with established precedent, to ensure that its value keeps pace with inflation.

Finally, we are making a number of small amendments to manage complexity where possible, including disapplying provisions that no longer apply, future-proofing routine calculations and streamlining major funding mechanisms in the system.

These regulations make a series of important technical changes to the administration of the business rates retention system, and they implement what is required to update the system as a result of local government funding reforms and changes to the tax that have already been announced. If approved, the regulations will ensure that councils receive the business rates income that the system is designed to deliver.

I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his speech. As ever, he made considered points and asked very reasonable questions.

[David Simmonds]

I apologise, but I meant paragraph 5.13, not paragraph 5.6, of the explanatory memorandum. I had turned over the page and misread my record.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in making sure the Committee is absolutely clear on what he was referring to. I will write to him and circulate that response to the Committee, so that we all have absolute clarity on that point.

On the reset, the Committee will know that the business rates retention system was always designed to be reset periodically. It needs to redistribute locally raised business rates, so that we get a balance between aligning the funding system with need and providing local authorities with the incentive for growth, as I mentioned in my speech. As a matter of fact, it has been over a decade since we assessed how much business rates authorities can raise, which means that retained business rates have accumulated over that period. That is the point of the reset, which was always designed to be in the system.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the effect will be, and obviously it is part of the overall spending power that we set out as part of the settlement. Local authorities should now have a clear line of sight on their spending power and how this affects them. If any Members have concerns that they would like to raise with me directly, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill did, I would be very happy to engage with them on a one-to-one basis. As I said, I will write a note in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on the explanatory memorandum.

In conclusion, these technical amendment regulations are essential to the system. As I have just set out, we want to allow local authorities to grow and to feel the incentive of keeping local business rates. However, from time to time, the system needs to be reset to make sure that local council funding aligns with need, as it must.

Question put and agreed to.

Rough Sleeping: Families with Children

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate. She has been dedicated to tackling homelessness for many years, including in her work as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. Rough sleeping and homelessness are issues that scarred our city region for many years, and I know that everybody at home is very proud of her and the work she does.

As many hon. Members from a number of parties have mentioned, we do not want to be here talking about this issue, but it is so serious that we must. Like all hon. Members, I was extremely concerned about recent reports of families with children sleeping rough. To be absolutely clear, because there ought to be no ambiguity, this should never, ever happen.

Let me say, for clarity, that a household with a child has a priority need for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996. That means that if a household with a child is homeless and is eligible for homelessness assistance, the household must be provided with temporary accommodation until suitable settled accommodation is secured. Where households do not meet the criteria for homelessness assistance, local authorities have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need, including by providing them with accommodation where necessary. Let me say, for absolute clarity, that that applies irrespective of the child’s immigration status.

The law is absolutely clear that where a local authority believes that a household does not have a local connection to the district, it remains under a duty to accommodate until a referral to another district has been accepted. It is only when a referral has been accepted that the receiving authority must fulfil any duties to accommodate. There should never be any reason for families to be refused accommodation while there is a dispute about which authority owes that household a duty. There is no grey area here: families with children should never be left without accommodation.

[Jim Shannon]

That is very clear for everyone, and I thank the Minister for it. One example from Northern Ireland that I did not get a chance to mention in my speech was the case of a mother with two children who were sleeping rough in the square. The reason they could not get temporary accommodation was that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive had none at the time. However, because of its duty of care, which the Minister outlined, it made accommodation available in a local hotel until such time as temporary accommodation became available. Is that something that the Minister advocates?

[Alison McGovern]

I am not quite sure that I caught all the details of the case that the hon. Member raised, but if he sends me them I will happily respond to him. He will know that we do not want children to be in B&B accommodation. That is one of the main planks of our strategy, which I will come to later.

As has been mentioned, I wrote to local authority leaders and chief executives last month to remind them of their duties and to ask that they take personal responsibility for making sure that no child in their area is ever left to sleep on the street, in a car or in any other location not designed for living in. I am conscious of the case raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). I am sure that he has made every effort to sort that out with Kirklees, but if he has further problems, or Kirklees has specific issues that it wants to raise with me, I trust that he will write to me directly.

We must support councils to meet their obligations, and my Department has been in contact with the councils mentioned in the report to understand how this was able to happen and to ensure that it will not happen again. More broadly, hon. Members will be aware that we recently completed the local authority finance settlement for the next three years, reconnecting council funding with deprivation. That should aid the councils that are more likely to face these issues to deal with them.

The Government are providing more than £2.4 billion this spending review period in support of the Families First Partnership programme, which is introducing reforms to children’s social care. It will ensure children and families can access timely support so that they can get ahead of this problem, as many Members have suggested. Local authorities should use that ringfenced funding to meet their duties under the Children Act. It has been great to speak to many Members and their local authority leaders about how they will do that.

We are providing record levels of investment in homelessness and rough sleeping support, including more than £3.6 billion over the three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a funding boost of more than £1 billion compared with the previous Government’s commitment, and I pay tribute to the Chancellor for taking that decision. It is right that we are investing that much, because we inherited a homelessness crisis. Members have set out just how bad things have got.

Our long-term vision is to end homelessness and rough sleeping and ensure everyone has access to a safe and decent home. The statistics that we have heard today show that, for far too many people, that is not yet the case. We published our national plan to end homelessness last December to shift the system from crisis response to prevention and to get back on track to ending homelessness.

Our plan is backed by clear national targets to increase the proportion of households who are supported to stay in their own home or helped to find alternative accommodation when they approach their local council for support. That is the prevention goal, and it should underpin everything we do. For reasons that have been mentioned—not least the experience shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher)—we must prevent first. Homelessness is too big of a trauma; nobody should experience it.

By the end of this Parliament, we want to eliminate the use of B&B accommodation for families, except in absolute, dire emergencies, and halve rough sleeping. Of course, we want everyone to have a roof over their head, but some of the problems that we are facing and the experiences of rough sleepers go deep, so we have to go to the toughest of problems.

Our plan is backed by £3.6 billion of funding, including £2.2 billion that councils are free to use to design effective, locally tailored services to deliver better outcomes and reduce reliance on emergency interventions. A number of Members asked about ringfencing. There is tension between allowing local innovation, for which ringfences are unhelpful, and putting clear ringfences around funds to ensure that all councils can tackle homelessness. It is a balance, and that is the way we have taken the decision about the funding.

Our plan sets out how we will tackle the root causes of homelessness by building 1.5 million new homes, including more social and affordable housing than has been built for years. We are also lifting 550,000 children out of poverty through the measures in our child poverty strategy, including by lifting the two-child limit.

Public institutions should lead the way in preventing homelessness. Our plan sets a long-term ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness, and we have cross-Government targets to start that change and reduce homelessness from prisons, care and hospitals.

A number of Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), were kind enough to say that they believed in my will to get this done but expressed scepticism about other Departments. I hope I can reassure them that they do not need to be sceptical. My experience of working with Ministers in other Departments has been positive.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister briefly give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I was just going to respond to the shadow Minister. The interministerial group will meet quite soon, and we have been preparing for that. Our expert group of advisers met me yesterday, and we got a great deal of things done and discussed. I will come on to some of those, but I want to reassure Members that we have active participation in the interministerial group and across Government.

[Paul Holmes]

I knew the Minister would give me a straight answer, but may I push her a bit further on the remit of the interministerial group? Will she confirm her intention for how often it will meet? Is it constituted to meet a certain number of times during the year?

[Alison McGovern]

The interministerial group will meet regularly.

There are interconnections between homelessness and violence against women and girls, because the third biggest cause of homelessness is people fleeing domestic abuse, so we will do some of what we need to do via our work as Ministers through the violence against women and girls strategy. As a number of Members have highlighted, there is clearly a connection between homelessness and poverty. We are about to take forward the delivery of the child poverty strategy, so some aspects of what we are considering will be taken forward through that discussion among Ministers. I am very conscious that we should have meetings not for the sake of it, but to get things done. We will deliver our objectives through those three interconnected strategies, and Ministers will certainly meet regularly.

[Paula Barker]

I thank the Minister for the contribution she is making. Will she commit to publishing the minutes of the interministerial group?

[Alison McGovern]

I was going to come on to that. I will certainly commit to providing an update. It is beyond my procedural knowledge exactly what we are allowed to publish from ministerial groups, but I will certainly commit to providing an update. I was going to suggest that we might have a meeting with the APPG shortly after, so that we can provide an in-person update, because I think it would be far better for parliamentarians to be engaged in this process.

I will quickly provide an update on the work of other Government Departments, in response to the questions raised. The Treasury is leading on the value for money review of homelessness support, which should pick up the precise point that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley made on the cost of temporary accommodation. We have talked about the disaster this is for families, but what is going on at the moment is also a disaster for taxpayers. The Treasury is working with us and the DWP on that and is actively engaged.

I am working extremely closely with the Department for Work and Pensions on incomes and the homelessness system overall, and it has been very active. With regard to the Ministry of Justice, the Minister for Prisons and I have been working very closely on people leaving prisons; he has exacting targets for reducing the number of people who leave prison to no fixed abode. I have also worked very closely with Home Office Ministers, and I will ensure that they receive a copy of the report of this debate, because I am sure Members want their opinions to be heard by them.

On health, we need to ensure that neighbourhood health services support people who have experienced rough sleeping, particularly in relation to addiction and the trauma that children who have experienced homelessness might go through. On education, Members will know the disaster it is when children have to move schools because of temporary accommodation. The Department for Education has been working closely with us on that. I hope that reassures Members that this is a cross-Government effort. None the less, we will introduce a legal duty to collaborate, to compel public services to work together to prevent homelessness.

As the shadow Minister pointed out, building more homes takes time, but our plan takes immediate action to tackle the worst forms of homelessness now. Alongside the work that the Minister for Housing and Planning is doing to bring forward much more social housing than we have seen in this country for a heck of a long time, we will increase the emergency accommodation reduction pilots into a programme backed by £30 million of funding to tackle a wider range of poor practice, including B&B and unsuitable out-of-area placements. As I mentioned, I met our expert group yesterday, and we intend to move very quickly on the toolkits that we need. Much of the information exists already; we just need to get on and do it.

We are helping more vulnerable people off the streets and into stable housing by investing £150 million in supported housing services and £15 million in our long-term rough sleeping innovation programme, to help councils with the greatest pressures to deliver more personalised and comprehensive support for people with complex needs. I could talk about that for a long time, but I will not. Members here will understand that, sometimes, complicated personal circumstances sit behind someone’s homelessness, and we need really skilled caseworkers to support people with those. Likewise, we want to get on with the work on allocations, which is under way, and I am making sure it moves quickly.

The latest data showed progress against two of our new targets. The percentage of duties owed where homelessness was prevented or relieved with accommodation secured for six or more months is up 3.7 percentage points year on year to 46%. That means a higher proportion of households at risk of homelessness or already homeless was helped to secure accommodation than over the same period the year before. That includes an increase in households helped to find accommodation before experiencing the traumatic experience of homelessness—that is the target that I really want to see go up.

The quarter in question also saw a reduction in the number of families in B&B accommodation over the statutory limit of six weeks, to 1,670. That number is still far too many, but it is the lowest since the beginning of 2023 and down 55% year on year. I am confident that we are going in the right direction on B&B use, but we need to go faster and do more.

The figures do not mean the job is done—far from it—but they show that prevention is improving and that fewer families are spending long periods in unsuitable accommodation. I have confidence that we can achieve the targets we have set ourselves, but we need to make sure that we maintain focus and, as Members have suggested, keep working right across Government to deliver.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree for securing this debate. As I said, our city is very proud of her. I hope we will never have cause to discuss families with children sleeping rough again, but I trust that Members here will secure other debates so that we can keep our focus on our homelessness strategy and make progress, as I have suggested, over the years to come.

Local Government Reorganisation: South-east

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing today’s debate on local government reorganisation in the south-east. It is a very important issue for residents and businesses across the region and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, the progress that is being made and the opportunity that change presents.

Local government reorganisation is an opportunity to modernise how councils operate. For too long, many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, duplicate cost and blur accountability. Residents often struggle to know which council is responsible for which service. I note the various contributions that have been made on that point. I think we would all agree that councils can always do better to help residents engage with them, but there is no doubt that there is evidence out there that the two-tier system does seem to add to confusion and a lack of accountability. Decisions to build and grow our towns and cities can take longer, with resources spread more thinly. We need clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. By moving to single unitary authorities we can create councils with the scale, leadership and authority to grow their economies, create jobs and opportunities, and deliver for communities, particularly in the services where pressure is greatest, including children’s services, adult social care and housing. Those areas were mentioned by a number of Members; I appreciate the contributions that they made.

I just want to make one point on identity, because I am sure we will debate the finances of the situation. As he often does, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) raised the very serious situation that that council has been through, but identity is also important. I hope Members will forgive me if they have heard me say this before, but before I was born, my own area was in a two-tier system, with Birkenhead and Cheshire as a two-tier council area. In 1974, before I was born, we became the Wirral in Merseyside. Now, we are the Wirral in Liverpool city region. Those different identities are complex and interconnected. There are some people I represent who would say that they are still Cheshire all these years later.

[Damian Hinds]

Yeah!

[Alison McGovern]

There are! And there are some people who identify as Birkenhead and many people who, as I do, think of themselves as Wirralian. These issues of identity are complicated. We need to take account of them and listen to what residents tell us, but my experience is that there is never one right answer.

Across England, the programme is progressing quickly. Proposals have been submitted and consultations undertaken, and the first decisions are now being implemented. The south-east is at the forefront of this work. It is home to cities such as Brighton, Southampton, Oxford and Portsmouth, which have a vital role to play not only in their local economies, but in our national growth story.



I turn first to Surrey, the most advanced area. Parliament has considered the order to establish two new unitary authorities, East Surrey and West Surrey, with elections taking place this May and new councils formally assuming responsibilities in April 2027. Alongside structural reform, we have committed unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking borough council, reflecting historic capital practices at the council and the value-for-money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. A couple of Members with Surrey constituencies rightly pointed out the consequences for other Surrey residents; I agree that there are consequences for all citizens in the UK when that sort of thing happens. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about financial sustainability. We are keeping that closely under review as we move forward with this process. The support that we have agreed is a first tranche, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point.

A number of Members asked about modelling. In this process, it is for councils to bring forward their analysis of costs and benefits to make the case under the criteria. I add one word of caution: we have all discussed the situation with spiking demand in particular areas of cost. I am working with other Government Departments on that; as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said, local government is a complex mix when it comes to central Government policy. I spent three years on the Treasury Committee poring over the modelling on Brexit and other matters. It is not a precise science, as Members who have experienced Government know only too well.

[Damian Hinds]

As with many projections, some things are more uncertain than others. Typically, in business, revenues are really hard to project, but costs are a lot easier. Can the Minister share with us what the costs of the reorganisation are anticipated to be?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman; that is exactly the point that I am making. I am very conscious that I have spoken to many council leaders and finance officers in recent weeks who have experienced significant cost pressures in areas where we are in quite an uncertain policy environment. The right response to that is to work with the Department for Education, particularly on children’s costs, and others, to get the policy in the right place so that we can get those costs down.

[Damian Hinds]

I meant reorganisation costs.

[Alison McGovern]

I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point about reorganisation costs; I will think about whether I can say more to him in writing about that—otherwise we will just go over this forever.

I now turn to the really important point made by the hon. Member for Woking. I probably cannot respond in this context to his specific question about honours, but I will take it away. I have immense sympathy with the points he raised, but I am conscious that investigations are ongoing. I will leave it there, but he was correct to make his case.

The removal of the Audit Commission—and what happened to local audit under the Government from 2010 to 2015—was in my view an absolute disaster. We will put it right with the reintroduction of local audit and much greater constraints on the sort of behaviours we have seen not only in Woking, but elsewhere. I will leave that there, too, but I could go on about it for hours.

I turn to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight. The Government have received a number of proposals and representations from councils. Across those areas, different authorities have put forward different visions for the future, some favouring multiple new unitary authorities while others, such as the Isle of Wight, have been clear in their preference to remain stand-alone. Those views, alongside the evidence submitted by other councils and stakeholders, will be assessed carefully against the criteria of sustainability, geography and public engagement.

I turn briefly to Sussex. Proposals for reorganisation have been received and the consultation has now closed. The Government are considering all the evidence submitted and will take decisions guided by the statutory criteria and what will best support effective and sustainable local government.

I turn to Oxfordshire. The Government have now launched a statutory consultation on proposals for unitary reform across the country, which closes this month. A range of options have been proposed, including a single county-wide authority, a two-unitary model and a three-unitary configuration, including a Greater Oxford council.

At this point, I note the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). He will appreciate that I cannot comment on the specifics, but he asked for a meeting on finance with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), which I am very happy to arrange. Oxford is a vital cog in helping to grow our national economy, but that is exactly why the consultation and the process are so important. Decisions must be informed not only by structural and economic arguments made by local councils but by the views of residents, businesses and communities themselves.

Across all areas undergoing reform, the Government’s priority is that change must not come at the expense of vital decisions to keep building homes and delivering frontline services. We are also providing practical support to councils delivering reorganisation to help with this capacity, including up to £63 million nationally to help manage implementation pressures alongside expert advice from across the sector and the Local Government Association. I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) about parish councils being responsible for their own services and so on. If she has particular concerns about that, I will welcome a note from her.

Reorganisation also sits alongside wider action to place local government on a stronger financial footing. Earlier this year, the Government confirmed the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, which has been welcomed by Members from across the House because it provides councils with greater certainty and ensures that funding better reflects needs and deprivations.

We should remember that the benefits of strong unitary councils are not theoretical. For example, where they already exist, we are seeing results. In South Yorkshire, four unitary councils working with the mayor are helping places such as Barnsley and Doncaster not only to grow their local economies but to translate that into higher wages for local people. South Yorkshire is one of the places that has suffered worst with unemployment in our country’s history, but it is now making serious and significant progress. That is the real economic growth that improves living standards.

Newer unitary councils such as those in Buckinghamshire and North Yorkshire are delivering millions of pounds of efficiencies through streamlined structures that have reduced duplications, delivering savings that will be reinvested in frontline priorities such as supporting vulnerable children and funding local transport. The hon. Member for Woking made his point about vulnerable children very well; I will alert the Minister with responsibility for children’s care to his comments so that he can get a response.

[Zöe Franklin]

I want to return to the Minister’s point about how mayoral authorities are making such economic progress, and to my question. When foundation authorities are formed on the journey to reorganisation, they do not get the same funding support as a mayoral authority. They are therefore losing out on essential kick-starting resources to help them on their journeys to successful economic growth. Will she clarify what support is coming?

[Alison McGovern]

When my own area in Merseyside started off on the journey to get a mayor, it was really unclear how to build the right resources; the time it took to do that should not be underestimated. The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities started 20 years before the city had a mayor.

The right way is to get the foundation strong first: get the unitary authorities in place and then move forward from there. I know that the hon. Lady will have more conversations with my hon. Friend the Devolution Minister, who will talk to her about the specific process for Surrey. It is important to me, as Minister for Local Government, to get the foundations strong so that we can build devolution up in that way.

I recognise that Members have raised a number of specific concerns about the implications of reform in their own areas, and those concerns matter. They are being carefully considered. Whether the issue is financial sustainability, which we have discussed, local identity, which I went on about again, or the impact of potential boundary changes, decisions will be taken carefully, transparently and in the interests of residents.

Although they are out of scope of our reorganisation programme, town and parish councils will continue to play an important role in representing their communities. New unitary authorities will also be expected to develop strong, local, area-based working, so that decision making remains close to the communities that it affects. As we look ahead, the next steps are clear: the Government will move forward with decisions and continue working with councils across the region to ensure that change is delivered smoothly and responsibly.

In conclusion, local government reorganisation offers an opportunity for the south-east: an opportunity to give local areas the capacity to grow, build the homes their communities need and see better public services; an opportunity to replace complex and outdated structures with councils that are simpler, stronger and more accountable; and an opportunity to ensure that local government is fit for the future.

I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath again for securing this debate. I look forward to continuing to work with Members across the House and with local partners to make changes that will benefit communities right across the south-east.

Supported Housing Advisory Panel

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Written Statements

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

Supported housing helps people to live as independently as possible in the community. With good quality care or support and the right accommodation, some of the most vulnerable people in society can thrive.

I am delighted to confirm that the Supported Housing Advisory Panel has now been formally established, marking an important milestone in delivering the requirements set out in section 1 of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.

The panel will play a vital role in offering valuable insight and expert advice on the implementation of the Act, helping to ensure that the changes introduced have a meaningful and positive impact on the quality of supported housing. In addition, the panel will provide guidance on wider issues affecting supported housing, contributing to stronger oversight and improved outcomes for residents.

Further details about the panel, including its full membership, can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/supported-housing-advisory-panel

I very much look forward to working with the panel and to hearing their insights as this important work progresses.

[HCWS1388]

Slough Borough Council: Best Value Duty

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Written Statements

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

I have previously updated the House on the Government commitment to reset our relationship with local and regional government, to fix the foundations of local government, and to support the sector to build resilience. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking to support Slough borough council’s recovery and reform.

Slough has been in intervention since December 2021, with the intervention extended in November 2024 until November 2026. I am today publishing the latest commissioners’ report, received in October, which outlines that the tentative progress identified at Slough borough council in the commissioners’ previous report does not appear to have been sustained. Some progress has been made, with the internal audit plan being delivered and the internal audit and counter-fraud teams increasing visibility, targeting training, and becoming an indispensable part of good governance within the council. However, the council is still working to improve the implementation of audit recommendations and procurement compliance through better data use. There remain significant in-year budget pressures and a lack of strategic focus and delivery of transformation plans and programmes.

The Government remain committed to working in partnership with Slough borough council to support compliance with the best value duty and ensure the high standards of governance that residents rightly expect. I also want to acknowledge the diligent and hard-working members of staff at the council who do their utmost to provide essential frontline services for residents.

Nevertheless, I am concerned with the pace of improvement, four years into intervention. Progress remains slow and the council lacks resilience to withstand unforeseen changes. Slough remains far from where we expect it to be at this stage of the intervention, with the council still facing significant budget challenges and requiring transparent governance, and strong, corporate leadership. It remains imperative that the council does not lose sight of the scale of the improvement journey in front of it. I expect the council to continue to put in place all necessary measures required, and I am grateful for the ongoing support of commissioners in ensuring the council’s stability.

In light of this slow progress I am today commissioning an external review, led by Dame Mary Ney with support from Will Godfrey. The review will assess Slough borough council’s improvement trajectory under intervention and identify what if any further support is required to drive immediate progress and to put the council on a long-term sustainable footing. The role of commissioners at the council will remain unchanged during the review period. I expect the review to report back by May.

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

[HCWS1378]

Funeral Premises: Environmental Health Inspections

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

As ever, Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on introducing the debate and thank all Members who have participated in it.

First and foremost, I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents. We cannot imagine what they have been through, and I find their bravery to seek support from their Member of Parliament, meet with Ministers and try to make a difference for other families inspiring. Through my hon. Friend, I thank them wholeheartedly, as I do all those around the country who have experienced some of the horrendous things that Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and others—have discussed this afternoon for doing likewise.

The loss of a loved one is one of the most difficult things to go through in life. We will all experience it at some point, and I know that, in our hearts, we would all want to make sure that our loved ones are kept safe and treated with dignity after death, wherever and however they are cared for.

Hon. Members will be aware that the independent Fuller inquiry published its phase 2 report in July. That report was unequivocal. It found serious weaknesses and inconsistencies across settings—not isolated failure, but systematic gaps in how we protect the dignity of our loved ones. The inquiry chair, Sir Jonathan Michael, said:

“My overall conclusion is that the current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking.”

That is a challenging statement for us all to hear and read.

The report makes 75 recommendations, including the introduction of statutory regulation for all settings that care for the deceased. I want to be really clear on this point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is leading the Government’s response. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned several Departments that are involved. I reassure him and other Members that the Ministers who, collectively, are involved have discussed this issue, and we will continue to do so because it is extremely important. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who has taken an interest in this matter. It sounds as though she has supported the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley, and I am glad about that.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care published an interim update on 16 December 2025. He has already accepted 11 recommendations in full and a further 43 in principle, subject to further work. That leaves 21 that the Government are still considering, including those on regulation of the sector. The Department of Health and Social Care will respond to the report in full by the summer.

On regulation, we need to strike the right balance between boosting public assurance, for all the reasons that Members have mentioned, and getting it right for the more than 6,500 funeral providers, many of which are small family firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley explained very clearly that many of them take great pride in their work and do it extremely carefully. The vast majority of funeral directors provide compassionate, professional care for our loved ones, and 85% of providers are already members of a trade body offering guidance, codes of practice and voluntary inspection.

The Government will think through the options very carefully. This is a sensitive and meaningful area of public life; when things go wrong, the harm is profound and long-lasting. At this point, I want to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He pointed out the importance of including all of our faith communities in this work, which is extremely important to all of us.

In December, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), informed the House that he is

“working closely with the NHS, local authorities, the Human Tissue Authority, the Care Quality Commission, and other partners”—[Official Report, 16 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 59WS.]

to examine how “robust and consistent standards” can be applied across all settings. I am sure that part of that work will consider the possible role that local authorities will play in the future.

As the Minister for Local Government, I am a huge supporter of local authorities. They deliver essential services up and down the country every day. Their hard-working staff do a brilliant job serving their communities, often in very difficult circumstances. They are independent of Government, directly elected by their communities, and they often take difficult decisions every single day. In relation to this issue, councils are only too aware that they do not have powers of inspection or the power to enter funeral premises. If the Government decide that that is the right approach, we will need to consider how to make that work. We are not automatically assuming that role for councils or environmental health officers, but we need to do the work to understand, if that is the route, how we would make it work. I do not want to pre-empt consideration of that; the work is ongoing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked me about the feedback from the work that was undertaken previously. The MHCLG had a roundtable with the LGA in January to discuss the issue that he mentioned, and the information from the work that he described was fed back into the MOJ. That just shows the importance of working across the ministerial team, which I can assure everybody we will do.

As I mentioned, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has promised a response to all to the inquiry’s recommendations by the summer. I will ask the Health Minister to meet the APPG, because he will know better the right moment to do that, given the forthcoming response. Between now and then, the Government will carefully consider the potential regulation. That work is under way and we will see the results this summer.

The issues raised by the Fuller inquiry demand a response that is serious and, most importantly, grounded in dignity. The Department of Health and Social Care is leading that response on behalf of the Government. I will work very closely with my colleagues in that Department, the Ministry of Justice, the DBT and any others with responsibility to make sure that we take those recommendations in the serious way that they deserve, given the subject matter. We want to make sure that the care of the deceased is treated with the seriousness, respect and humanity it deserves. I pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley for the work that he has done to ensure that this issue is progressed.

Question put and agreed to.