Birmingham Bin Strikes

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the Government’s response to the Birmingham bin strikes.

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

Members will be aware of the continuing disruption caused by industrial action in Birmingham. I want to be clear that Birmingham city council is an independent employer and that this dispute is between the council and Unite the trade union. The Government are rightly not a party to it, but of course we have an interest in it, recognising the impact on local residents. This Government’s priority remains Birmingham residents, and we will continue to support the council to keep Birmingham’s streets clear while the dispute remains ongoing. Thousands of tons of waste have been removed, and routine collections have been restored. The council continues to monitor the situation closely to ensure that waste does not build up again.

The background to the dispute is the historical equal pay issues the council has faced, which have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, and that has to be front of mind. The council has been in negotiation for many months, making a fair and reasonable offer to Unite and being clear about the need to protect its equal pay position. The union rejected the council’s offer. The council has worked hard to offer options to affected workers, including a transfer into other roles in the council on the same grade and, in some cases, to upskill those workers in scope. An enhanced voluntary redundancy package is also available for those who wish to leave the service, and there has already been significant uptake.

Given the union’s rejection of the offer, as of last week, the council is now entering a period of consultation to resolve the dispute while protecting its equal pay position. I urge the union to work with the council on a sustainable way forward that is fair to workers in the council and to the residents of Birmingham.

Finally, hon. Members may be aware that earlier today Max Caller announced that he is retiring as lead commissioner in Birmingham, and I wish him well for the future. Tony McArdle OBE has today been appointed by the Secretary of State as the new lead commissioner, and he will take up his position tomorrow. Tony brings a huge wealth of expertise, and I am confident that he will continue to deliver on the recovery plan to secure improvements for Birmingham’s residents.

[Ayoub Khan]

The bin strikes in Birmingham have now dragged on for over four months, and Birmingham’s 1.1 million residents are paying the price. The Government have repeatedly scapegoated bin workers, yet they refuse to address the root cause and real reason why residents have seen their public services crumble and their council tax bills rise by 21%. At the heart of this crisis lies 13 years of mismanagement and incompetence under a Labour-run council. The Minister wants to blame the equal pay settlement for cuts, but conveniently forgets that the council has had this settlement looming for over a decade. Over 13 years, there has been endless council waste: an athlete’s village that housed not a single athlete sold off at a loss of £320 million, £216 million spent on an IT system that failed, and £53 million spent on consultants. Now the Government stand idly by while their own council cuts up to £8,000 from bin workers. This Government should be defending frontline workers, not their own incompetent council.

The biggest betrayal is the Government’s deliberate downplaying of their involvement. For months, Ministers claimed that this was a local issue, yet it is now clear that Government-appointed commissioners must approve any deal. Just last week, the commissioners rejected a deal that could have ended the strike, despite the council’s managing director being inclined to accept it. The misery in Birmingham has been prolonged not by the workers, but by the commissioners and therefore the Government. This Government have the power to end the strike, and yet they have actively dragged their heels in reaching a deal. That raises serious questions about the Government’s commitment to workers’ rights. The council’s action amounts to fire and rehire. With the Government’s role in these negotiations, we must ask: are they complicit in aiding and abetting the very practices they are legislating to ban?

Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Government have the power to remove the commissioners who are blocking a deal? Will he personally commit to opposing the fire and rehire practices that the council is using?

[Jim McMahon]

I hear the hon. Member’s charac-terisation of the issue, but it bears no relationship at all to the reality of the situation. The council is an independent employer. It is not for the Government to go council by council negotiating trade union disputes or terms and condition changes. It is for the councils themselves as the employers to negotiate with their workforces, and that is exactly the same in Birmingham as for other councils, as he knows. The commissioners are of course appointed by Government and have to act with professional expertise in giving advice to the local authority on whether its plans are affordable and lawful, but the negotiations are taking place between the council itself, and Unite the trade union and the council’s workforce.

On this idea that we are scapegoating the workers in this dispute, no party has done more for workers’ rights than Labour. No Government have done more on workers’ rights in a generation than this Government, headed by the Deputy Prime Minister. When I hear Members of this House talking in a way that degrades that, that is a complete and absolute failure to accept not just the legacy we inherited as a Government—that includes, by the way, Birmingham city council and its local taxpayers—but our determination to put that right.

Finally, of course Birmingham could and should have made some big financial decisions much earlier. That is a matter of fact, and that is why commissioners are in there today. But the local government finance settlement had an increase in core spending power of 9.8%—that is, £131 million of additional money into Birmingham. That included the largest settlement through the recovery grant of any council in the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

As the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) alluded to, the House knows that the origins of the dispute in Birmingham are in the 2017 settlement of the equal pay arrangements, which created a £760 million liability for that local authority under the Labour party, and which have been undermined at every turn by the relationship between Labour’s administration in Birmingham and the unions. It is clear that that local authority and its leadership have been dodging scrutiny and accountability at every turn. They refused even to debate the local authority Conservative group’s proposals for a plan to end the strikes and clean up the city.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. What guidance will he give his seven-strong commissioner team to bring about an end to the strikes? What public health assessment are the Government carrying out of the impact of more than 21,000 tonnes of uncollected rubbish and a huge increase in the rat population in Birmingham? Will he consider withdrawing the facility time for Unite the union, which is currently refusing to go about the process of bringing an end to the strikes? Will he tell his commissioners—including Tony McArdle, whose appointment has been announced today—that Birmingham’s besieged households must not be held to ransom by the unions for a day longer? Will he tell the House who he thinks has failed the households of Birmingham more? Is it the Labour council, in leaving rats on the streets and 21,000 tonnes of uncollected rubbish in a heatwave, or this Government, who have failed to intervene to bring an end to this blight on residents’ lives?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which I will try to answer in turn. Let me say, though, that we will take no lectures at all from the party that was in government for 14 years and saw the downgrading of local authorities across the country, including in Birmingham.

Although these are our commissioners, as the hon. Gentleman says—that is correct: they are Government appointed—let us not forget which Government appointed them. They were appointed on the watch of the previous Government. Today we are just announcing a change in the lead commissioner. We need to be careful not to politicise those people, who believe in public service and are helping out the local authority and supporting the Government in trying to turn that council around. Let us leave the politicisation of the commissioners to one side and deal with the facts.

Last time I was in the Chamber, the Conservatives were talking down the role of bin workers, as if somehow that work was degrading. At that time, I think they were suggesting that the armed forces might be brought in to collect waste and that that would somehow degrade their role. That was never going to be the case, but it was a glimpse into how the Conservatives view the workers who are affected. One thing that is absolutely certain is that the Labour party believes in the power of frontline workers and in the importance of these frontline roles. We absolutely value the role of refuse collectors, and we see the implications of waste not being collected. But we have got to be clear, too, that whatever settlement is on the table has to be lawful and affordable, and it cannot cross the red line of undermining the equal pay negotiations that are taking place. I hope that we can agree at least on that basis.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s work to maintain vital collection services for residents, who want to see their city cleaned up rather than another summer of this, given the recent heatwave.

Strike action has now passed the six-month mark. As the Minister just outlined, it is important that we consider the hardship felt by many of the striking workers. Many of them do not want to politicise this; they just want to do the right thing by their families. One recently told the BBC:

“Morale’s quite low… Everyone’s trying to stay strong and together, but it is very difficult. The union has tried to help us out with strike pay, but for a lot of people it doesn’t cover their…bills. It puts a massive strain on our family. Kids, money—money’s tight, credit cards are maxed out”.

Nobody should be put in that position. I hear the Minister’s calls for the commissioners, Birmingham and the unions to resolve this issue, but what more can he and the Government do to bring everyone around the table so that we can finally bring an end to the dispute?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her comments—we agree on much. She speaks to why a resolution on this issue is so important. At the heart of this, there are working people with rent and mortgages to pay, who want a resolution. To be clear, the council has been in negotiations over many months and has made a fair and reasonable offer to Unite, which, unfortunately, the union rejected. The council has also worked hard to offer options to affected workers, including their transfer to other roles in the council at the same grade, and, in some cases, has agreed to upskill in-scope workers. A generous redundancy package is available for those who wish to leave the service; we have seen an uptake in that. In the end, none of us wants this to roll on indefinitely; we want to see a resolution for the affected workers and for the taxpayers of Birmingham, who quite rightly expect their local public services to be delivered to a good standard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Birmingham wants its refuse and recycling service back as quickly as possible to end the risks to public health and the environment, especially in the most densely populated parts of the city. The Liberal Democrats pay tribute to the volunteers and emergency services, who were out there cleaning up the city by dealing with refuse, waste pile-ups and fly-tipping while the council and unions could not agree and continued clashing hammer and tongs.

For years under the previous Conservative Government, councils were expected to do more and more with less and less, and that has borne fruit in Birmingham and many other places. The Government must now grasp the nettle and tackle that funding crisis, particularly in social care and local government generally, so that what is happening in Birmingham does not spread across the country. Given that one-off clean-ups have cost the council £3.9 million already, is it not time for the Government to fund a complete clean-up of the remaining refuse so that residents do not have to foot the bill and spend the rest of the summer living alongside disgusting rubbish. Will any clean-up ensure that waste is properly dealt with and recycled where possible, given that the city is already ranked third from bottom in waste recycling?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman makes fair observations about the funding crisis in local government, but it would be remiss of me not to take him back to the coalition years, which started austerity in local government. The Liberal Democrats were not just casual observers of the demise of local government but active participants in it. In those very first years, when the cuts really bit for local authorities, they aided and abetted.

Our job, after 14 years of the impacts of those decisions, is to find a way through, and we are getting on with that. We are rebuilding the foundations of local government. We have announced a consultation on the fair funding review, which will see a redistribution of funding across the country towards the areas of high deprivation that need it most. We are taking into account all the different service pressures. We are grasping the nettle on the structural changes needed in devolution and reorganisation to ensure that the sector is fit, legal and decent at the end of the process, and we are repairing the broken audit market alongside that. We are getting on with repairing the foundations of local government, but we need to be clear that this is a localised dispute, and of course we do not want to see it impact on local people.

I say to the House—because I have heard this a number of times and should have called out the first example—that there are not tens of thousands of tonnes of waste accumulating on the streets of Birmingham. That was the case, and it was dealt with efficiently. In most cases, collections are taking place for most households at most times, and there is not the accumulation of the type we saw earlier. Clearly, the situation is fragile and we do not want it to return to how it was, which is why we remain in regular contact with the council.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the appointment of the new lead commissioner. As the Minister knows, we have had many discussions about the intervention, including at times from a place of concern. I look forward to working constructively with Tony McArdle on behalf of the citizens of Birmingham. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB and Unison unions, which are the claimant unions in the equal pay case in Birmingham.

I feel compelled to round out the partial account that we have heard today in the Chamber. Will the Minister confirm that by far the largest share of Birmingham’s equal pay liability of more than £1 billion was incurred when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats ran the city, and that over the past decade to 2024, Birmingham suffered the sharpest reduction in spending power of any unitary authority in the country, with devastating consequences for every constituency in Birmingham?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

That is a fair point. I forgot that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) had a brief stint as a Liberal Democrat councillor. Actually, the people of Birmingham want us to put the party politics to one side. I think what matters to local people is, first, that they are treated fairly when it comes to local council tax levels and, secondly, that they get a good level of public service for the tax that they pay.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) rightly says, there has to be accountability. It is a matter of fact that some of these big decisions should have been taken much earlier, and that goes back to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat-run council. His fundamental point about the importance of equal pay and the liabilities, which are big numbers because of the size of the council and the historic issues there, cannot be undermined. The worst outcome of this dispute would be that a decision is made for the short term that does not address the medium and long term, completely unravels the equal pay negotiations and, by doing that, undermines the women workers in scope.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I commend my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for bringing this urgent question to the House before it rises. I also pay tribute to Max Caller, whose retirement has been announced in the last few hours; he has dispatched his Herculean task with considerable distinction.

The Minister will be aware that Labour is now imposing the contract, which the Conservative Opposition leader, Councillor Bobby Alden, urged the Labour leadership to do a year ago. Does he understand that my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, who come under Birmingham for local government purposes, have had their patience tried beyond endurance by this bankrupt Labour council? Is he aware that recent polling suggests that only 5% of Birmingham residents are likely to vote Labour next May? My constituents—and, I have no doubt, those of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr—are counting the days until next May comes and we can get rid of this dreadful council.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the right hon. Member for taking my advice and not making this party political—a bit more refining and we will get there in the end.

Surely the right hon. Member would expect that the local authority would enter a trade union negotiation in good faith and would go as far as it can lawfully go in making a settlement offer that respects the workers who are losing pay as a result of equal pay, because that is surely the right thing to do. I hope he would not expect the council to disregard that entirely. The council rightly cares about its workforce, not least because many of them will be Birmingham city residents themselves, and it wants to make sure that it supports that process. The council, like us, was not happy that the offer was rejected by the union, but that is not to say that we cannot use this time for the conversation to continue, so that we can reach a resolution that puts the people of Birmingham first.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Could the Minister explain this? I understand the issues of equal pay, and I think equal pay is essential, important and legally necessary, but what we have here is a reduction in pay for a significant group of workers. How can they possibly be held responsible for the financial problems that Birmingham city council has? Is their case not entirely justified—that they are protecting their own wages and conditions, as any good trade union would do in any negotiations? Cannot he simply accept and understand that, and that be the basis on which a settlement is agreed, so that they can return to work?

[Jim McMahon]

The way the right hon. Member starts is where I would hope most local authorities do when looking at equal pay, but the reality is that there will always be winners and losers in equal pay where women have been underpaid for a long time. Councils have options here: they can either compensate and pay upwards for all the female workers in post to the comparable male worker, which for most councils in most circumstances will not be affordable, because there are huge sums attached to that; or, to make a package affordable, they have to equalise it out in consultation with the trade unions. That is exactly what has happened in Birmingham.

The issue in Birmingham is very particular to the waste service, where a previous agreement was reached that honestly does not hold when assessed against equal pay in terms of the tasks that are carried out by those workers. In the end, it does not pass the equal pay test, but that is not to say that we are not urging the council and Unite the trade union to continue negotiations to resolve this. We absolutely want the right outcome for the workers and the residents of Birmingham.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for tabling this urgent question. I also thank the Minister for his answers, and I sympathise with his position, but replacing this workforce, policing the dispute and paying the legal fees has cost the already overstretched council £4 million. All the while, the good people of Birmingham—the very people who voted in a Labour council and many Labour Members of Parliament—are living in foul misery. Does the Minister agree that it would save millions of pounds, improve our relationship with the dedicated bin workers and restore a basic necessity to the people of Birmingham if he intervened to get us out of this stink?

[Jim McMahon]

Our starting point, of course, is that we want all parties to negotiate in good faith, and we want the local authority to do its best to table a deal that goes as far as it can go, but the red line has to be that it cannot compromise and completely unravel the equal pay negotiations that have taken place, to which all the trade unions—not just Unite—have been a party. Therein lies the issue.

The hon. Member could rightly say—I think this is what he indicates—“Surely you just pay what it takes to resolve the issue with the striking bin workers,” but for the equal pay package to hold, a comparable payment would need to be made to all the female workers in scope, so the numbers he talks about are fantasyland. They are not single-digit millions; they are tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, which goes above both legality and affordability for the local authority. We have urged the council to negotiate in good faith with the trade union and to go as far as it can go, provided that it is lawful, affordable and does not undermine the equal pay liability so far.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on tabling this urgent question and thank the Minister for his response. The Birmingham bin strikes are not just about waste. They are about what happens when the state retreats from local services without proper reform. The UK must confront the legacy of austerity, rethink how local government is funded and run and treat frontline workers with the respect and fairness they deserve. Failure to do so risks further breakdowns in public services and public trust not just in Birmingham but all over our country. Will the Minister explain what steps the Government are taking to analyse how we got into this mess in the first place and to ensure that no other council faces the same situation anywhere in our country?

[Jim McMahon]

We have to accept that there are some issues here that are unique to Birmingham. For instance, many councils across England dealt with equal pay over a decade ago, and Birmingham did not, which is why the liabilities have escalated in the way they have.

On the hon. Member’s fundamental point about fair funding and ensuring that local public services can be rebuilt, we can agree. We believe that most people’s local neighbourhood services have been impacted so heavily by not only austerity but the growth in demand in adult’s, children’s and temporary accommodation that we have to completely rethink both how we fund local government and how we reinvest back into prevention and early intervention to prevent that crisis management model.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers and wish him well in his endeavours to enable a solution to be found. The Government have stated that they are committed to a “sustainable resolution” to the severe backlog of uncollected waste and the ongoing pay dispute. The workers state that they face cuts of some £8,000 per year, which would be a devastating loss for those with families and responsibilities. Will the Minister acknowledge that reducing current wages is not the way forward and that the Government must intervene now, to make workers feel worthwhile and to sustain trust between the council and the workers?

[Jim McMahon]

Whoever is negotiating in this environment will have the same guardrails as the local authority does. The local authority has to be mindful of the equal pay package that it has agreed with all the trade unions, and it cannot do anything in this very narrow dispute—however impactful it is on the workers and local residents—that means completely unravelling the equal pay package. I share the hon. Member’s concern about the impact, but it is important that the local authority and Unite the trade union continue those talks and try to find a resolution. With that being the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and other Members of the House a peaceful recess?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Thank you.

Local Government Best Value

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

As I have said in previous updates to the House, this Government are committed to resetting the relationship with local and regional government, and taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking in partnership to support four councils to recover and reform: the London borough of Croydon, Thurrock council, Dudley metropolitan borough council and Liverpool city council.

London borough of Croydon

On 12 June, I informed the House that I was satisfied, having considered the latest report from the improvement and assurance panel and other information, that the London borough of Croydon is failing to comply with its best value duty. I proposed an intervention package to secure the council’s compliance with that duty and asked the council and others to provide representations by 25 June.

I received 35 representations, which I considered carefully. I am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, leadership and use of resources. I have concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise powers in the Local Government Act 1999 as I proposed, with minor amendments.

Croydon remains one of the most financially distressed councils in the country. Failing to change course would condemn Croydon’s residents to a worsening position without a recovery strategy. I am satisfied that the scale of the financial difficulties facing Croydon, the failure of the council to adequately respond to these difficulties and the assurance required means that a short and sharp reset, with fast action, is required to shift the dial on the council’s recovery. I believe this is best achieved by escalating the statutory intervention to a commissioner-led model to ensure the council can achieve sustained change at the pace needed.

Today I issued directions under section 15(5) and 15(6) of the 1999 Act to implement the proposed intervention package. The intervention package—to be in place until 20 July 2027—comprises specific actions the council is required to take alongside the appointment of three commissioners appointed to exercise specific council functions and a political commissioner. I am confident that this package will address the issues identified and is necessary for the council to secure compliance with its best value duty.

I have appointed Gerard Curran, Debra Warren, Jackie Belton and Councillor Abi Brown OBE as commissioners. I am confident that their extensive knowledge and experience will help to deliver the necessary improvements for Croydon.

I have issued directions which, in summary, require the council to:

Continue to develop and implement the London borough of Croydon stabilisation plan and transformation programme to the satisfaction of commissioners.

Fully co-operate with the commissioners and take any reasonable action within the authority’s functions to prevent further failure, as reasonably determined by the commissioners.

I expect the council to drive its own improvement with the support, challenge, and advice from the commissioners. To safeguard the process, some commissioners will have powers to exercise certain functions to ensure compliance with the best value duty:

To ensure the council has the leadership, structures and systems in place to drive and sustain improvement, including governance and scrutiny of strategic decision making, oversight of strategic financial management and decision making, and the appointment, dismissal and performance management of senior and statutory officer positions.

To support financial sustainability and enable transformation of the authority’s operating model and services to deliver value for money and long-term financial resilience.

The commissioners’ appointments and directions take effect from today. The commissioners will provide their first report in six months, with a second report before summer 2026 and further reports every six months or as agreed with the commissioners. I will review the directions and commissioners’ roles after 12 months to ensure that Croydon has the support required to accelerate recovery and protect the public purse. Subject to clear and sustained evidence of improvement, certain functions may be returned to the council ahead of the expiration of the directions.

As with other statutory interventions led by my Department, the council will meet the costs of the commissioners, and provide reasonable amenities, services and administrative support. The fees paid to individuals are published in appointment letters on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise being brought and the scale of the challenge.

Finally, I would like to place on record my thanks to Tony McArdle OBE and all of the improvement and assurance panel members for their work in supporting the council on its reform and recovery.

Thurrock council

On 19 June, I informed the House that I was satisfied that Thurrock council is not yet complying with its best value duty. I proposed to issue new directions to Thurrock council to extend the statutory intervention until 30 April 2028, and asked the council and others to provide representations by 2 July 2025.

I received three representations, which I considered carefully. I am satisfied that the council is not yet complying with its best value duty. I have concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise powers in the 1999 Act as I proposed, with minor amendments.

I have today issued directions to the council under section 15(5) and 15(6) of the 1999 Act to implement the proposed intervention package. These come into effect immediately and will remain in force up to and including 30 April 2028. The directions issued on 2 September 2022 —updated on 16 March 2023—are revoked with immediate effect. This package, to be in place until 30 April 2028, comprises specific actions the council is required to take alongside the appointment of three commissioners with powers to exercise functions. I am confident that this package will address the issues identified and is necessary for the council to secure compliance with its best value duty.

The success of Thurrock is important both for its own benefit and that of the region, with its critical role in local government reorganisation and devolution across Essex, which offers significant opportunities to drive growth, improve transport connectivity and build new homes, as well as raise living standards for its population.

I have today appointed Gavin Jones CBE, Denise Murray and Dr Dave Smith as commissioners.

I have issued directions which, in summary, require the council to:

Continue to implement and report on plans for the authority’s improvement and recovery, to the satisfaction of the commissioners.

Develop and maintain a revised corporate plan that includes the necessary work to ensure the authority’s compliance with the best value duty.

Ensure that the authority has personnel with sufficient capability and capacity, including access to appropriate specialist expertise where required; works with commissioners on the work with other councils in the Greater Essex area for unitary local government and the devolution priority programme on implementing any such proposals later agreed upon; and fully co-operates with the commissioners and takes any reasonable action within the authority’s functions to prevent further failure, as reasonably determined by the commissioners.

Commissioners will be able to exercise functions:

Associated with the governance, scrutiny and transparency of strategic decision making by the authority.

Associated with financial sustainability and delivering financial governance and scrutiny of strategic financial decision making by the authority.

Associated with the authority’s operating model and redesign of services to achieve value for money and financial sustainability; and those that ensure the council has the right skills, capacity, capabilities and structures to make improvements.

I intend to review the proposed arrangements by summer 2026, when I expect there to be further clarity on broader plans for devolution and local government reorganisation across Greater Essex.

As with other statutory interventions led by my Department, the council will be required to cover the costs associated with the commissioners and provide reasonable amenities and services and administrative support. The commissioners’ fees are published on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise that is being brought and the scale of the challenge.

Dudley metropolitan borough council

I am also updating the House on steps we are taking in relation to Dudley metropolitan borough council.

After carefully considering the relevant evidence, my Department has today issued the council with a best value notice. This is not a statutory intervention but a formal notification of the Department’s concerns. We found no evidence of current best value failure at the council, but recent progress must be sustained and embedded to ensure that the council meets its best value duty.

The council is expected to continue driving its own recovery and is asked to engage regularly with the Department for assurance of improvement. Progress against the notice will be reviewed after 12 months. I am pleased that the council already has the support of an independent improvement board and the Local Government Association, and am hopeful that it will continue to make good progress. I urge the council to make full use of its board’s expertise, and the Department will seek updates from it.

Liverpool city council

The statutory intervention in Liverpool city council concluded in June 2024 when the council established its own improvement and assurance board. I have welcomed the council’s engagement with me and the Department, and the progress reports from the council and board chair. We have been pleased to provide ongoing support.

The board has now concluded its successful work with the council, and I am pleased to hear that the council can now lead its own recovery, continue to drive continuous improvement and respond to future challenges. I do not underestimate the work it has taken to reach this point, and give my thanks to the council’s leadership, staff, and the improvement and assurance board for their efforts.

I welcome the council establishing an ongoing improvement committee in place of the board, and I encourage the council to seek some independent, external strategic support. I am now ending the departmental support provided since last June but have asked to stay close to developments, with periodic engagement with the Department continuing. I thank Councillor Liam Robinson for the leadership he has shown together with Members, officers and colleagues within Liverpool, and thank the improvement and assurance board for its dedication to ensuring the best possible services for the people of Liverpool. I look forward to seeing Liverpool’s journey continue.

As a council that has been through the best value process, it has insights and experience that the Department and wider sector would take value from.

Conclusion

I am committed to working in partnership with these councils to provide the necessary support to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect, ensuring they are fit, legal and decent, with a Government in active support of recovery and improvement.

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

[HCWS845]

Future of the Church of England

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) for securing this important debate on the future of the Church of England. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government.

The hon. Member has often spoken very powerfully about the importance of faith, its role in public life and the benefit it brings. Today, he has spoken eloquently on the positive role that Christianity plays in our wider society, which I believe is a sentiment shared across the House. Anyone involved in local life knows just how essential are Christian places of worship and the people who support them. They run schools and toddler groups, support food banks and reach out to those facing homelessness. They offer comfort and companionship to those who are isolated, grieving or just struggling to cope. The truth is simple: without them, much of our local life simply would not function. Their contribution is not just appreciated, but indispensable.

The Christian faith has played a central role in public life and it continues to do so. The hon. Member is but one of a number of examples of good public servants motivated by their Christian faith in the cause of the common good. Our society is enriched by those contributions. It is equally enriched by people from a wide range of backgrounds, heritage and, indeed, faiths and beliefs. Right across this House, I see members of the Protestant, Catholic—like myself—Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faith communities, and those of other faiths and indeed none, who are all motivated towards the betterment of the people we serve.

For the benefit of the House, I will briefly outline the constitutional arrangements between the established Church, Parliament and the Executive. These arrangements have deep roots and have evolved over many centuries. Much of our constitution is based on a combination of common law, statutes, conventions and principles. As the established Church, the Church of England has historically been subject to parliamentary legislation. However, since the enabling Act of 1919—the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919—much of its governance has been delegated to its own body, the General Synod. While the Synod manages its internal affairs, its Measures still require Parliament’s approval and Royal Assent. As hon. Members will know, the Lords Spiritual, bishops of the Church, sit in the House of Lords by right. The Government believe they offer a unique and valued spiritual perspective.

There are still many ways in which the Church and Parliament remain closely connected. The Government reflect that a great example is the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Act 2025, which was skilfully steered through the House last year by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare). The Act, requested by the Church of England, extends for five more years the arrangements allowing female bishops to sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. In fact, it recently enabled the Right Rev. Sophie Jelley, the new Bishop of Coventry, to take her seat in the other place. The Church also has a presence in this House through the Second Church Estates Commissioner. I am pleased that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) does so much work in that regard, serving as a vital link between Parliament and the Church, and ensuring that the Church Commissioners remain accountable to the House.

The Executive, in particular the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, play a key role in appointing senior clergy. While bishops are formally appointed by the sovereign, that is done on the Prime Minister’s advice, following recommendations from the Crown Nominations Commission. The sovereign, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, remains central to those arrangements. In highlighting some of the ways the Church, Parliament and the Executive are intertwined, I hope to provide assurance to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that, on the importance of the Church of England and the Christian faith more generally, Parliament and the Executive are by no means washing their hands.

The Church is streamlining its national governance, with plans approved by the Synod earlier this week. The proposals will soon come before Parliament. This marks another step in a process begun in 2020 to create better governance structures that better support the Church’s mission and its work. Regarding the Church’s future, its day-to-day operations are of course not a matter for the Government. However, the Government look forward to the Church continuing to evolve to meet the challenges of our time, and to play an active role in public debate on the most important issues we face as a nation.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) referred to the importance of the local parish. Across England, the parish is central to everything. The church and the local vicar are a part of our community. In fact, we are very lucky in Romford to have the Church of St Edward the Confessor. We have a new vicar, the Rev. Jordan Palmer, who has just joined our church. Does the Minister agree that the parish is vital? It is not just about the church community, the members of the church; it has a wider responsibility to all people of all religions and no religion, not just Church of England members. The Church of England should cherish the importance of the parish as a part of all our communities in the constituencies we represent.

[Jim McMahon]

I believe that very strongly, actually. Even Members who are not church attenders will take part in civic life at a local level that is closely linked to their local parish church. I think about Remembrance Sunday and the role parish churches play in those reflections. I think about our own Mayoral Sunday, which is celebrated every year, where the mayor of the borough of Oldham is the honorary church warden in the parish church. Regardless of individual faith and belief, I think it is accepted and celebrated that parish churches are a significant part of local identity and a place for all people to come together. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s new church leader on that basis.

That is a reflection of the value that we as a Parliament place on the Church of England, which is why bringing the debate to the House today was so important. I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for doing just that and I hope he appreciates the response on behalf of the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Devolution Priority Programme

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

In February this year the Government launched the devolution priority programme, taking forward proposals to create mayoral strategic authorities in the great counties and communities of Cumbria, Cheshire and Warrington, Greater Essex, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Sussex and Brighton.

This programme—one of the largest ever single packages of mayoral devolution in England—delivers on the Government’s commitment to widen devolution, with areas given sweeping new powers, putting them on the fast track to deliver growth, opportunities, transport and housing for local communities.

Following the announcement, public consultations were undertaken in each area. I am grateful for the responses received from local people, councils, businesses and wider stakeholders, which we have now carefully assessed. It is clear that, like us, communities care deeply about the future of their area and the benefits that devolution can bring. Today, the Government are also publishing summaries of these responses.

Following an assessment, I am pleased to confirm that the relevant statutory tests to establish mayoral strategic authorities in all six areas have been met. Subject to the constituent councils’ consent, legislation will be brought before Parliament in order to establish each of the six institutions early in 2026, devolving further powers to local leaders and those with local knowledge, to drive economic growth and empower communities with investment to support their work.

These ambitious next steps in our devolution revolution represent one of the greatest transfers of power from Westminster in a generation, bringing another 8.8 million people under mayoral devolution, which will now cover close to 80% of the country.

Four inaugural mayoral elections will take place in Greater Essex, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Sussex and Brighton, and will be held in May 2026. Following a request from the local authority leaders in Cumbria, and Cheshire and Warrington, the Government have agreed to align inaugural mayoral elections with the vast majority of local elections in May 2027, simplifying the elections for voters and saving taxpayers’ money.

The confirmation on the timing of these elections will not affect the speed of establishment of the combined authorities in these areas, with legislation to create the new authorities being laid alongside all others in the devolution priority programme, providing for strong foundations and positive partnership working, as well as early delivery of key local investment ahead of mayoral elections.

Mayoral elections held in 2026 will take place under the first-past-the-post voting system, as is currently the law. The recently tabled English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill would move future mayoral elections —and police and crime commissioner elections—to the supplementary vote system, which was in place prior to 2023. Subject to parliamentary approval, this would be relevant for the proposed 2027 mayoral elections onwards.

We will continue to work with councils over the summer, including to confirm funding for these new strategic authorities and to secure their consent to the establishment of secondary legislation.

We understand that these mayoral strategic authorities will also need funding certainty to be able to plan for the long-term and get maximum impact from their spending. As stated in the “English Devolution White Paper”, the 30-year investment funds will remain a core part of the offer to devolution priority programme areas, which will receive this funding on their creation. We are standardising funding for new institutions to increase transparency and fairness.

As devolution progresses, we value and expect the engagement of local Members of Parliament, local council leaders, police and crime commissioners, and other local stakeholders, with the constituent authorities.

Subject to Parliament, these areas will also benefit from the changes included in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which was introduced to Parliament last week. With access to the devolution framework, all six areas will have the powers they need to deliver more jobs, easier commutes and new homes for local people.

With power rebalanced from Whitehall, local leaders will finally have the tools they need to power up our regions, rebuild local government and empower communities.

[HCWS848]

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

4. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of reductions in council tax revenue from student houses in multiple occupation on local authorities.

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

The Government believe it is right that students are disregarded for council tax. If the only residents of a household are full-time students, the dwelling will be exempt. In the recently published fair funding review 2.0, the Government proposed to fully account for the impact of student exemptions in the distribution of the settlement.

[Wera Hobhouse]

In 2013, my Bath council received £31 million through the revenue support grant. This year, it is just around £1 million. Students, who are exempt from council tax, are not being counted. Will the Minister ensure that, through the fair funding review, the issue is urgently addressed, and that councils such as Bath and North East Somerset are not missing out entirely on central Government support?

[Jim McMahon]

The fair funding review will do what it says on the tin: it will make sure that, for the first time ever, all component pressures that councils face in delivering public services, and in raising money locally, are taken into account. It is wrong that while this Parliament can decide on national exemptions that councils have to apply, which limit their ability to raise council tax locally, we do not account for that in the distribution of funding that follows. For the first time, we will do that.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Liverpool is a university city, and I have three universities in my constituency. Liverpool city council is estimated to lose £9 million in council tax revenue each year due to student exemptions. Will the Minister explain when and how those anomalies will be dealt with, so that the council does not lose that amount of funding every year?

[Jim McMahon]

The fair funding review 2.0 is out to consultation. We welcome contributions to the consultation from Members, local authorities and others. At heart, we want to fully account for the ability of an area to raise income locally. Nationally, there are 245,000 student exempt dwellings and 77,000 halls of residence. It is quite right that we take that into account when we assess how much council tax can be raised locally. In some cities and towns, that will make quite a material difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

18. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that areas with higher levels of deprivation receive adequate funding.

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

We are committed to improving how we assess need to ensure that central Government funding is distributed fairly to the places that need it most. We began at the last settlement with the £600 million recovery grant, and subject to the fair funding review 2.0 consultation, our proposed reforms mean that the most relatively deprived places will see larger increases in income than the least deprived places.

[Adam Jogee]

Newcastle-under-Lyme is at the heart of our industrial heartlands. In communities such as Silverdale, Knutton and Cross Heath, we see higher levels of health inequality and lower levels of life expectancy than in many wealthier areas. These communities were let down by those who went before us and were left behind. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how best to support industrial communities like mine in Newcastle-under-Lyme, so that we can finally tackle this entrenched inequality?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. There are two aspects to this. First, we must make sure that places get the investment they need to realise their full potential. We are working on that with our plan for communities, which the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) is engaged in. But that has to be built on fair funding at the base of what the local authority does. There was nothing fair at all about the previous Government impoverishing councils in the most deprived communities, sending many to the wire. We are putting that right.

[Dr Tidball]

I am grateful to the Minister, who has named Barnsley’s local authority in the £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods. The spending review has confirmed neighbourhood-level investment for 350 deprived communities. However, Chapeltown and High Green in my constituency have communities in the bottom 10% nationally in the indices of multiple deprivation, while Dodworth has a community within the bottom 20% nationally. These areas would benefit significantly from neighbourhood-level investment to build a sense of pride in place for my constituents. Will the Minister consider including these three communities among the 275 areas that are yet to be announced?

[Jim McMahon]

I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley has heard those diligent representations. It is true that many parts of our country have talent and potential that are not being met by opportunity. This fund is about making sure that every area has seed investment to begin to rebuild, supported by fair funding for the local authority. We cannot underestimate the effect of the 14 years of constant hits and attacks from the previous Government. There is a reason why many communities have the resilience to stand up for themselves regardless of all that: the power of their unity. Finally, they now have a Government on their side.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is often harder to see because it is more sparsely spread across larger rural areas, but I remind the Minister of what I know he knows: deprivation exists in our rural areas. Can I urge him to ensure that this does not become an issue of north versus south or urban versus rural, but that the Government use taxes to address deprivation wherever and whenever it arises, including in my constituency?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the former Minister for those representations. On the point about fair funding and unpicking where money is needed, there is a lot of commonality on this issue in the Chamber. We absolutely accept that in rural areas the cost of service delivery is higher in some cases, such as for refuse collection and adult social care. It is common sense that if people have to travel further to pick up bins or make a home care visit, it will cost more money as a result.

However, that is not the only thing we need to take into account. We must take into account deprivation and the ability of a council to raise money at a local level. Daytime visitor numbers are also a factor, where a council is not getting a tax take from those visitors but there is a public service take on the other side. Importantly, we must consider the ability of a local authority to raise tax at a local level to meet the demand. It is the Government’s job to act as an equaliser in the system.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is absolutely right that funding follows need, but may I gently urge the Minister to look at how the proposed new funding formula for local authorities affects boroughs across London, given that it does not consider housing costs, which we know are the biggest driver of poverty and deprivation in London?

[Jim McMahon]

We are in a consultation now, so we are willing and ready to hear representations, but many people—I am not accusing the hon. Member of this—have jumped to conclusions based on headlines that are not supported by the evidence when we track where money ultimately goes. All the matters that she rightly said need to be taken into account are taken into account. In the consultation, we have included the cost of temporary accommodation in the base formula for the first time ever, so she will find that outer-London boroughs in particular will benefit from that. So far, they have been underappreciated for the cost of that pressure.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

12. What plans she has to increase community involvement in the planning process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Hard-working traders at Stockton’s historic Shambles shopping centre were shocked to receive letters from Stockton’s Labour council telling them that they were to be evicted and inviting them to a meeting with less than 24 hours’ notice. I have been along to meet them and they are devastated, fearful for their futures and for their livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that councils should be backing small independent businesses, not making them homeless without alternatives?

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is Labour councils that are leading the charge at a local level to regenerate local communities and invest in local businesses—the evidence is there. They are supported by the plan for communities and the community right to buy; there is a real effort in this area. He did not give prior notice of his intention to raise the particular issue that he mentioned, but if he wants to follow up in writing, we will certainly look into it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Eastbourne’s streets are being blighted by severely overgrown grass verges that attract litter, antisocial behaviour and crime. Will the Minister join me in urging Conservative-run East Sussex county council to urgently get a grip on verge maintenance in Eastbourne in order to help make our grass great again?

[Jim McMahon]

The real issue for most councils is that the Liberal Democrats did not make hay when the sun was shining in their coalition years. Let nobody in local government forget that the seeds of the erosion of local neighbourhood services started in those coalition years, when the Liberal Democrats more than ably abetted the Conservative Government at the time.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Perran Moon.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Cornwall is desperate to access the highest level of devolution, but because of our national minority status, Cornwall cannot and will not join a mayoral combined authority. Before this House is asked to vote on a devolution Bill that discriminates against the people of Cornwall, will the Secretary of State meet me and colleagues to discuss a Cornwall-only devolution deal?

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend will know that, for the right reasons, we have put a significant amount of energy and time into meeting parliamentarians from across the House to discuss those local issues. Absolutely, we will meet; that will probably be the sixth meeting that we have had with Cornish MPs on this issue. We understand, respect and are investing in the Cornish identity, but we also need to ensure that the devolution agenda moves on at pace and that every part of England can realise its full potential. I am more than happy to meet on that basis.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

A new report by Crisis shows that only 2.6% of rental properties in my area of Leicester South are affordable to those on local housing allowance. That is a real-terms cut as rents soar, because the Government have frozen housing benefit until 2026. Will the Secretary of State explain how that freeze aligns with the Government’s aim of reducing homelessness, and will the Government urgently review the cap so that people can afford to keep a roof over their heads?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is my understanding that South Hams district council is in an arguably more sound fiscal position than the neighbouring Plymouth city council. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure me that local government reorganisation will not mimic either a forced marriage or a bad marriage where the fiscally prudent one bails out the other?

[Jim McMahon]

We are now in a statutory process for local government reorganisation, and Devon will submit its final proposals to us by the end of November. We do not want to pre-empt those or say anything that will direct them, but I assure the hon. Member that there will be a consultation on the proposals that meet the threshold, and we will hear from that what local people say.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

I know that reducing deprivation is a cause close to the hearts of all Ministers. What view do they have on the extent to which high housing costs contribute to deprivation and should be taken into account when we consider funding for our local councils?

[Jim McMahon]

We are in the consultation period for the fair funding review 2.0 until 15 August. The issue of housing costs being taken into account when we judge deprivation has been raised by Members previously, but I encourage all Members of the House and people beyond it to submit their responses to the consultation.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that no Muslim Brotherhood affiliates will participate in the consultation on the definition of Islamophobia?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

City of York council is the lowest funded unitary authority, but under the fair funding review we do not fare any better. Can the Minister extend the consultation guidelines? These are complex issues. Will he meet our council to look at the impact of the review?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work she has done to champion fair funding across local government, particularly for York. I absolutely understand the issues. The fair funding review is meant to do two things. It takes into account the need—the cost pressures driving local authorities—set against the resource, which is how much local authorities can raise in council tax at a local level. It is the Government’s role to be the equaliser to ensure that every local authority can afford decent local services, but I absolutely take into account her representations.

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

In reply to an earlier question, the Planning Minister said that he wanted to increase the number of people who engage in the preparation of local plans. He will know that even if that number was doubled, it would still be a small proportion of the local community. When applications are being considered, local communities want them to be decided and determined by local authorities with minimal central input. Will the Minister guarantee that local authorities will continue to have that power?

Draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 9 June 2025. This Government have emphasised our commitment to transferring power out of Westminster into local communities, and this instrument provides for the implementation of the devolution agreement that was confirmed on 6 March 2024 between the previous Government and the three councils concerned. I am pleased to say that in May 2025 all three councils consented to the making of this instrument.

The regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provision in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. The regulations will come into force the day after they are made and confer housing and regeneration functions on the respective local authorities, as agreed in the devolution agreements. Accompanying the regulations, we have laid a report, under section 17(6) of the 2016 Act, providing details about the public authority functions, including regeneration functions held concurrently with Homes England being devolved to the authorities.

Additional funding will be available for the areas through the adult skills fund, devolved to the councils from the 2026-27 academic year, as well as the education skills functions. The Department for Education will work with the councils to support their preparations and ensure that they meet the necessary readiness criteria. We will legislate in due course when the Secretary of State for Education is assured that they are operationally ready and is satisfied that the required statutory tests have been met in each of these areas.

In December 2024, the three councils submitted supporting information on their potential use of proposed functions, including feedback gathered through their engagement with local stakeholders. The outcome of that engagement demonstrated local support for the conferral of the new functions upon each of the councils, and in laying this instrument before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests in the 2016 Act are met, namely that making the regulations is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant local authority areas.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Can the Minister outline for the Committee, where these powers will sit, once councils have gone through devolution talks and appointed metro mayors? Will they still sit with the unitary councils, or will they go to the metro mayor? Can the Minister explain where the powers will sit when they get a new devolution agreement?

[Jim McMahon]

In a sense, these are legacy agreements made under the previous Government that we are keen to honour. We know that councils worked in good faith when preparing their devolution agreements with the previous Government, and we want to ensure that—notwithstanding the transition period following the English devolution and community empowerment Bill—we can honour those arrangements as much as possible. It is accepted that we are in a period of significant transition for local government in England, both in reorganisation and the creation of new combined authorities in these areas, but we do not think that is a reason in itself to hold back powers.

If the point comes when these areas receive a mayoral strategic authority, as it will be known under the new Bill—the Houses of Parliament need to go through the process of confirming that position—the powers will be conferred, alongside a range of other powers, which would be quite normal. I should say that nothing will be presented to Parliament in the English devolution Bill that cuts across what we now consider to be the foundational agreements that are in place. We would encourage willing local authorities to collaborate and come together, even if that is without a mayor being in place, so that further powers can be devolved to current local authorities.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a Surrey Member of Parliament, and my constituency of Spelthorne is the northernmost borough of Surrey. Can I just confirm whether the changes that we are making today still require Spelthorne borough council to give permission for compulsory purchase, when we have handed those powers to Surrey county council?

[Jim McMahon]

I can check that particular point about the role of district councils in authorising. It may be that we follow up with officials on that point. I would also add that areas in Surrey are part of the accelerated timetable for local reorganisation, and we are now out to consult on the final proposals that have met the statutory test that we set out. We are in that statutory process and that will move to shadow elections for the new unitary authorities as early as May next year. At that point, there will be a transfer of power and responsibilities across to the new unitary councils, and at that point we will consider new SIs that transfer the powers from the existing council structures to the new unitary councils as they come into force. It may well be that, later, there is a devolution agreement set across that bigger geography that we then return to as part of a second SI. We are in a period of transition, and it will take time. We did not believe that it would be right not to fulfil the agreement of the previous Government with the councils that have acted in good faith, notwithstanding those transitional arrangements.

That brings me back to the statutory tests. It is our belief that the economic, the social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant areas will be met. I thank local leaders and their councils for their hard work in the Government’s critical mission to widen and deepen devolution in their areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the shadow Minister for his usual approach, which is to be supportive of devolution, and for his recognition that when we make a commitment to a local area, it is important that we act in good faith, notwithstanding the changes we have seen. In a sense, that is how we have tried to approach the most recent elections, with some quite significant change in some parts of England, in the make-up of councils and in the priorities of the leadership of those councils. I can confirm, however, that in the cases we are discussing, consent was sought from the councils before the elections, but we received notification afterwards that they were content to proceed. On that basis, we confirmed the position.

On the district councils, it is important to say that the district councils in the areas under consideration are the planning authority. Their role as the planning authority does not change, notwithstanding the powers being granted for things like compulsory purchase. I confirm for the record, however, that those powers can only be used with the consent of the district council; they cannot be used if the district council does not agree. We expect—it is not an unreasonable expectation—that local authorities will work together with the new powers to ensure that local people feel the benefits. I hope that is helpful.

On the point about the transfer of existing powers, it is easiest for us to refer to them as a foundation agreement—the start of an agreement of devolution and the first rung of the ladder. We of course encourage all areas to come forward that expressed an interest in further devolution. We are in a period of transition and are about to table the English devolution and community empowerment Bill in Parliament. We will need to allow Parliament to run its course and to consider the Bill in the usual way, but notwithstanding that, we want to see a standardisation of devolution across England.

I will be careful not to be too critical about what we have had before, because I do not think that devolution would have grown the way it has were it not for the flexibility in reaching agreements. That was part of a necessary process to develop, to get people to support it, but it is also fair to say that as we build out devolution, there needs to be consistency in the type of powers, the duties and responsibilities, and the funding arrangements, and there needs to be transparency about how much is given to each area.

That will give clarity to areas that are trying to assess whether they believe that mayoral devolution is the right move for them. Some might well decide that it is not the right time and that they want to stay longer with a foundation agreement. From a Government point of view, we will support that, if it is the right thing for that area. Likewise, however, they might well see the powers in the new Bill and say that those are worth accepting a mayor for, even if at the moment there is not yet such agreement.

This is very much a Government who are open to listening and working with local areas. If there are any places that want to have conversations about further and deeper devolution, our door, here and everywhere, remains open for that. We will say more about the expansion of devolution in England over the coming days on that basis.

With your permission, Sir Edward, I think I have covered the points that have been made. I can confirm to hon. Members that this instrument delivers a commitment made in the devolution agreements with Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire to confer housing and regeneration functions on each local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Government Best Value

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

I have previously stated when updating the House, this Government are committed to resetting the relationship with local and regional government, and we will take the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government and to support the sector to build its strength. Today, I am updating the House on the steps that we are taking in partnership to support three councils to recover and reform: Warrington borough council, the London borough of Tower Hamlets and Slough borough council.

Warrington borough council

On 8 May, I informed the House that I was satisfied, having considered the best value inspection report, that Warrington borough council is not complying with its best value duty. I proposed an intervention package to secure the council’s compliance with that duty and asked the council and others to provide representations by 22 May.

I received 18 representations, which I considered carefully. I remain satisfied that the council is not complying with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, leadership, governance, culture and use of resources. I have concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise powers in the Local Government Act 1999 as I proposed, with minor amendments.

I have today issued directions under sections 15(5) and 15(6) of the 1999 Act to implement the proposed intervention package. This package, to be in place until 31 July 2030, comprises specific actions that the council is required to take, alongside the appointment of four ministerial envoys, some of whom will have powers to exercise functions, which are treated by the envoys as held in reserve. I am confident that this package will address the issues identified and is necessary for the council to secure compliance with its best value duty.

The success of Warrington is important for both its own benefit and that of the region, with its critical role in devolution, which offers significant opportunities to drive up growth, improve transport connectivity and build new homes, as well as raising living standards for its population.

I have appointed Sir Stephen Houghton as ministerial envoy and Harry Catherall, Carolyn Williamson and Phil Brookes as ministerial envoys with powers to exercise functions. I am confident that their extensive knowledge and experience will help deliver the necessary improvements for Warrington.

I have issued directions that, in summary, require the council to:

Prepare and agree an improvement and recovery plan within six months, with progress reports to the ministerial envoys after the first three months and ongoing reporting thereafter;

Undertake recruitment for a permanent appointment to lead the improvement work in the authority and progress against the directions;

Review, in the first 24 months, the roles and case for continuing with each subsidiary company and investment of the authority;

Work with the Local Government Association to agree a suitable time for a follow-up review to their 2024 corporate peer challenge; and

Fully co-operate with the ministerial envoys and take any reasonable action within the authority’s functions to prevent further failure, as reasonably determined by the ministerial envoys.

I expect the council to drive its own improvement, with the support, challenge and advice from the ministerial envoys. To safeguard the process, some ministerial envoys will have power to exercise the following functions, to be treated as held in reserve and intended to be used only as a last resort to ensure compliance with the best value duty:

To ensure that the council has the leadership, structures and systems in place to drive and sustain improvement, including governance and scrutiny of strategic decision making, oversight of financial management, and the appointment, dismissal and performance management of senior and statutory officer positions;

To address the root causes of Warrington’s challenges by strengthening the authority’s approach to commercial decision making, property management, procurement and the management of commercial projects;

To support financial sustainability by closing short and long-term budget gaps, reducing reliance on high-risk commercial income, and strictly limiting further borrowing and capital spending; and

To enable transformation of the authority’s operating model and services to deliver value for money and long-term financial resilience;

The ministerial envoys’ appointments and directions take effect from today. The ministerial envoys will provide their first report in six months, with further reports every six months or as agreed with the envoys.

I will review at the appropriate time the directions and the ministerial envoys’ roles, to ensure that Warrington has the support required to accelerate recovery and protect the public purse. Subject to clear and sustained evidence of improvement, certain functions may be returned to the council ahead of the expiration of the directions.

As with other statutory interventions led by my Department, the council will meet the costs of the ministerial envoys and provide reasonable amenities and services and administrative support. The envoys’ fees are published on gov.uk. I am assured that this provides value for money given the expertise being brought and the scale of the challenge.

Tower Hamlets

Statutory intervention in the London borough of Tower Hamlets began on 22 January and is centred on a team of ministerial envoys working in partnership with the council to oversee and support the required improvement work. Today I am publishing the ministerial envoys’ first report, received in May, which identifies progress in a number of key areas. These include reconfiguration of the council’s transformation and assurance board, which is already drawing on the external expertise and challenge of its members, the creation of outline plans for continuous improvement and programmes for cultural change and political mentoring, and recruitment of a permanent strategic director of change who will lead the council’s improvement work going forward.

Although I welcome this early progress at the council, I share the ministerial envoys’ concerns that wholesale political and staff buy-in and involvement in the council’s improvement journey is not yet in place. This report clearly sets out the ministerial envoys’ expectations for further progress and I expect to see the council’s improvement work being embedded into “business as usual” council practices in the coming months, along with clear evidence that the political and officer leadership are gripping and proactively driving change.

When I met the council and ministerial envoys, I set out that the ministerial envoy model is a new approach to statutory intervention that reflects the Government’s genuine desire to work in partnership with the sector; that the council should treat the ministerial envoys as they would Ministers, and though we hope and expect improvements to be made, if this is not secured the option of escalating intervention to commissioners remained.

I look forward to receiving its progress report later this summer.

Slough

Slough has been in intervention since December 2021, and I extended the intervention in November 2024 for a further two years. I am today publishing the commissioners’ latest report, received in April. It highlights progress in a number of areas, including the appointment of a permanent corporate leadership team, improvements in audit and scrutiny functions.

However, with the intervention three and a half years in, a clearer articulation of the future vision is still required and a substantial transformation programme still needs to be designed and delivered, including a target operating model to evidence that the council can live within its means. It is clear that the council must now accelerate its development and it is vital that officers and members continue to work together to deliver the full range of reforms required to meet the best value duty. I look forward to receiving the commissioners’ update in September.

Conclusion

I am committed to working in partnership with these councils to provide the necessary support to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect.

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

[HCWS796]

Local Government Reform: Cambridgeshire

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this debate on local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. His speech was very thoughtful. He covered quite a lot of ground, including ICB boundaries, devolution and the fair funding review, so it might not be possible to get through all of it. However, I am sure that we will communicate further—maybe in writing—as a follow-up on matters that we cannot cover here today.

This debate is an opportunity to look ahead to what the future holds for the hon. Member’s constituency, and indeed for local government across England. The Government are committed to resetting the relationship with local government, empowering local leaders to make the right decisions for their communities. We will work together to grow an inclusive economy, to reform public services and to secure better outcomes for local people.

As the Deputy Prime Minister said in her speech at the Local Government Association conference last week, true reform of local government means taking a long, serious look at the plumbing of local government, and we will not shy away from shifting local government on to a stronger footing. It is clear that the two-tier system of local government just does not work. We have heard from many councils that unitarisation or council mergers can help to strengthen local leadership, improve local services, save taxpayers money and improve local accountability.

Our plans for reorganisation will create structures that are simpler, more efficient and clearer to the public that local government is there to serve. This means that residents can access good public services without paying, as they do today, the two-tier premium. We must take the brilliant leadership being shown by district and county councillors across the country, and move it into local government structures that are simpler and more sustainable.

Local government reorganisation is already well under way. In March, we received interim plans for the 21 counties in the two-tier system that will undergo reorganisation. We have provided feedback to all areas as they develop their own proposals. Councils in Cambridgeshire and neighbouring Peterborough have a deadline of 28 November for final proposals to be submitted to Government. After that date, the Government will consult on selected proposals, before making a final decision on which proposals to implement. The fastest possible timetable has elections to new authorities in May 2027 and the new authorities will then go live in April 2028.

I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment now on the specific boundaries that he mentioned or the proposals that have been developed at a local level, because that would run the risk of pre-empting decisions that are being made later in the statutory process. However, I can give clarity on some of the specific points that he raised.

First, the consultation that is taking place at local level by the councils as they develop their proposals ahead of submission to Government is important. Many councils are conducting such consultations. To be clear, such consultation does not replace the statutory consultation that the Government will conduct with the public in those areas that are affected, to ensure that we can gauge the public view on the range of proposals that are viable and meet the criteria.

On the question of whether elections will take place, which I know is an issue affecting many district councils, there is no intention, as things stand, to cancel or postpone any of the 26 programmed elections.

I suppose there is a challenge, and perhaps even a tension, about the degree to which Government here in Westminster should dictate to local areas across 21 counties—covering a third of the population of England—what is right for their area. However, we have said that we will reset the relationship, and that we trust local people to know their areas better. So, we want local councils and councillors to lead local government reorganisation in their area.

Of course we have a statutory role, and we will make sure that the criteria are adhered to and the consultation takes place. Surely, however, the hon. Member will agree that it is for local people, who know their area better than people outside it, to determine what type of councils, in terms of their size and coverage, are right for their area. That should not be determined centrally.

[Steve Barclay]

If it is the Minister’s argument, as he has just set out, that it is not for Government to dictate the territory that would be covered, why do two different Government Departments appear to be dictating two different things? On ICBs, there is one geography, and then from his Department there are three options that cover a different alignment.

I will just take the example of transport. In Cambridge, there is the Greater Cambridge Partnership, which covers transport. Also in Cambridge, there is the metro Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, who covers transport, too. Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council also cover transport. The Oxford to Cambridge authority is looking at the rail link between the two. There are so many different bodies dealing with transport into Cambridge. We should avoid that situation for health, and make sure that health organisation aligns with local authorities.

[Jim McMahon]

I think we can agree on that, which is why the White Paper published in December said that we need to reconcile things now and have a much simpler system of regional government in this country. The truth is that because it has been so fluid—some might say ad hoc—it has been allowed to develop in different ways in different parts of the country where there are overlapping boundaries when it comes to transport, the economy, the health service and local government. It does not make sense and makes it difficult for local people to know who to hold to account politically for decisions made on their behalf.

The White Paper is clear that we want to see boundaries aligned with ICBs and other public services. There is a role for local government in reorganisation. New unitary authorities will be created where workforce transfers take place, but there is no reason why authorities cannot work in partnership. There is no reorganisation taking place in Greater Manchester, for example, but the local authorities in Greater Manchester are today working on building a better model for children’s residential care because they recognise that across the 10 councils they can provide a better service at a better cost with better outcomes. So we encourage partnerships to align across boundaries, and over time that will develop.

We recognise that a lot of boundaries across England have never quite made sense; they have always overlapped and been a bit disjointed, but we are starting from the founding principle that alignment makes sense. We should be careful, though, not to conflate. I find that quite a lot of conversations in Parliament conflate or amalgamate the conversations about mayoral devolution and local reorganisation. They have a relationship, of course, but they are quite separate processes.

On reorganisation, it is important that local people and local councillors are given the freedom and flexibility to do what is right for their area and put their best foot forward to make a submission to the Government. We will then consult on the proposals that meet the criteria in good faith. We will listen to what local people say, and that will be taken into account. There are a range of factors that we need to consider, which I will come on to shortly, but I think it is the right approach. This is not the Government letting go. We have defined the criteria in this round of local government reorganisation in far more detail than any other round of reorganisation in the last 20 years, because we know how significant it is to that reorganisation’s covering 21 counties. But within those criteria and that process we have to allow for local areas to determine what is right for their area in partnership with local people. That brings me to another point.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned how disconnected Members of Parliament feel from the process. In every consultation and communication that we have had in webinars, written confirmations and statements to Parliament, we have been absolutely clear—this is a minimum expectation—that when local authorities, particularly lead authorities, are developing proposals, going out to consultation, firming up their evidence base, and testing founding principles themselves, it is a minimum expectation that Members of Parliament will be part of that conversation. It is not acceptable, regardless of political affiliation at a local or national level, for MPs who have been democratically elected, and of course have an interest, not to be part of those conversations. I am happy to put that on the record, and to follow up with local authorities that Members of Parliament should be included. That does not mean that Members of Parliament will have the ability to prevent a submission. A local authority has to follow the statutory process. There could be points where there is disagreement, but at the very start they should at least be in good faith and discussions should take place. We extend that, by the way, to police and crime commissioners and other interested parties at a local level, too.

On the criteria that the hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned, in the invitation that went out to local authorities on 5 February we set out the statutory guidance to support councils informing their submissions. The first was on population size. We said that as a founding principle 500,000 was where we wanted councils to start from, but it is clear that some have gone lower than that. If it is right for their area, they can make the best case in that context. Some have gone higher, and we want to allow that flexibility in the system.

On the point that the hon. Member mentioned about population size and population forecasts, it is for the local area to determine what their own housing growth forecasts are. If they want to take that into account as part of their submission, we would be open to that. I say that only because different areas are at different points in the process. Some have local plans, for instance, and some do not have local plans, but efficiency and financial sustainability, local public service delivery, community engagement and devolution should be supported, too. We are taking a partnership approach.

Of course we shall give guidance, and we have set that out clearly. We have been clear about what the Government’s role is and what the local authority’s role is. We believe that is the right thing to do. Ultimately it leads us to sustainable public services that are there to serve the public, who we are all here to serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Audit Backlog

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

Local audit is the bedrock of local accountability and transparency, and of trust and confidence in councils to spend taxpayer money wisely. But 14 years of neglect took the system to breaking point and damaged a key part of our early warning system over local government finances at the time we need it the most. We are determined to rebuild the foundations of local government so that it is fit, legal and decent. The Government have taken swift and decisive action to clear the backlog of unaudited local authority accounts in England and put the local audit system on a more sustainable footing. This has included setting a series of statutory backstop deadlines for the publication of audited accounts. These proposals were enacted via legislation in autumn 2024, and two backstop deadlines have now passed. This failure of the system has resulted in poor value for money and additional costs, with some £49 million of grant committed to support bodies with the cost of building back assurance in 2024-25 and 2025-26. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/overhaul-of-local-audit-will-restore-trust-in-broken-system

This statement updates on the outcomes of the second backstop on 28 February 2025, confirms publication of the non-compliance list on gov.uk, gives details of the support available to bodies affected by the backstop measures, and updates on the Government’s longer-term plans for reform of the local audit system.

28 February 2025 backstop—for financial year 2023-24

Local bodies, unless exempt, were required to publish their audited accounts for financial year 2023-24 by 28 February 2025. Over 92% of bodies have published audited accounts for financial year 2023-24. Just under 50% of bodies published a disclaimed opinion due to the backstop, while 41% published unmodified—clean—opinions. The 13 bodies were exempt from the publication requirements; however, exemptions no longer apply for three of these bodies, and they have now published their audited accounts. Taken together, the publication figures continue to demonstrate a significant improvement in the overall publication of audited accounts, despite the proximity between the two.

Non-compliance list

I can confirm that the Government have today published a list of bodies that failed to meet the publication requirements at this backstop. The list indicates whether bodies published their draft accounts by 16 January 2025—the latest date on which the 30 working day inspection period could commence for it to conclude by the backstop; whether the audit opinion was delivered by the backstop; the date on which it was delivered; and whether bodies published subsequently audited accounts by 20 May 2025.

All bodies and their auditors included on the list have been contacted, and the Government will continue to engage to ensure that outstanding audited accounts for all outstanding financial years are published as soon as practicable. This includes further engagement with a small number of bodies to better understand their reasons for failing to publish draft accounts sufficiently ahead of February’s backstop and the actions that they are taking to publish audited accounts as soon as practicable to be in a position to comply with future backstops. The release of funds to councils to support bodies with the cost of building back assurance will be contingent on the publication of audited accounts and audit fees being paid.

27 February 2026 backstop—for financial year 2024-25

The deadline for publication of audited accounts for financial year 2024-25 is 27 February 2026. In line with amendments made to the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, bodies are required to publish their draft accounts by 30 June 2025. The Government will monitor compliance with this deadline with a view to ensuring improvements to the overall system of compliance and timeliness. The Government continue to consider the appropriate incentives and sanctions for the overhauled local audit system and have already set out that the local audit office, once established, will take on oversight in relation to the quality and timeliness of accounts preparation and publication of audited accounts.

Systemic reform

In December 2024, the Government published their ambitious strategy to overhaul the broken local audit system. This strategy set out a clear purpose for local audit and its users, proposals for simplified and proportionate financial reporting, improvements to the market’s capacity and capability, and ways to build strong relationships between local bodies and auditors. The establishment of a new single body, the local audit office, to oversee local audit will radically simplify and streamline the currently fragmented system. The LAO will be proportionate and focused on local audit matters, ensuring efficiency, transparency and value for money. The Government also published in early April a response to their consultation, which included 16 further commitments to reform the system.

[HCWS784]

Internal Drainage Board Levy Support Grant

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

Following the local government finance settlement on 3 February 2025, the Government confirmed a £5 million grant to support local authorities facing significant increases in special levies from internal drainage boards. This represents a £2 million uplift from the originally announced £3 million, reflecting the Government’s recognition of the continued financial pressures on local authorities affected by these special levies. Services provided by internal drainage boards are energy-intensive and have been particularly impacted by rising energy costs and adverse weather conditions over the past three years.

Today I am confirming the allocation of this funding to the 18 local authorities most severely affected. Councils and internal drainage boards are encouraged to continue to work together to deliver services efficiently and to ensure good value for money for the public.