Grenfell Tower: Annual Report
Steve Reed Excerpts(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 was a preventable tragedy that claimed 72 innocent lives. This tragedy was the consequence of profound failures within the system of oversight. People should have been protected. This Government recognise those failures and is putting in place the reforms needed to prevent such a tragedy from ever occurring again, and to create the conditions for the safe, affordable housing that we need.
Throughout this work, we have listened closely to the bereaved, survivors and the wider community, whose experiences continue to shape our reforms. But we know there is more to do to ensure every resident feels safe in their home and can trust those responsible for building and maintaining their homes. In February 2025, the Government accepted all the inquiry’s findings and committed to taking forward each of the 58 phase 2 recommendations. One year on, my Department has today laid the first annual report, setting out the progress made on those recommendations and the wider programme of policy reform delivered during the past year.
Alongside the annual report, we have laid the construction products reform White Paper, the general safety requirement consultation document, and published a statement from the interim chief construction adviser.
These publications and announcements demonstrate the Government’s ongoing work and firm commitment to deliver the lasting, systemic change that we need—the foundation for the safe, affordable homes that people deserve.
Construction products reform White Paper
In February 2025, the Government published the construction products reform Green Paper and committed to system-wide reform of the construction products sector. Fundamental reform, ensuring robust and accountable oversight, is essential to delivering meaningful change; ensuring safe and high-quality homes, buildings and infrastructure; and maintaining resilient supply chains.
Today, we have laid a White Paper that outlines an ambitious programme of system-wide reform. We will address regulatory gaps and long-standing issues in the construction products sector, where too little has changed since Grenfell.
We will establish a trusted, proportionate regulatory framework that ensures construction products are safe, and used safely. This will support long-term growth and contribute to the delivery of more, safer homes in the years to come.
The White Paper confirms the direction set out in the Green Paper and provides further detail on a range of proposed reforms, alongside a pathway for implementation. These include measures to strengthen the regulatory regime for construction products; enhance oversight of testing and certification processes; improve information requirements, digitisation and traceability; and reinforce the role and powers of the national products regulator to drive effective enforcement.
Consultation on the White Paper will run until 20 May 2026. We encourage as many responses as possible and welcome continued engagement from across the sector to support the progress of system-wide reform of the construction products regime.
General safety requirement consultation
The White Paper also paves the way for the introduction of a general safety requirement. The aim of the GSR is to bring currently unregulated products into the construction products regulatory regime. The regulations will require that construction products placed on the market are safe and will set out specific obligations for businesses. They will also provide the national regulator for construction products with the enforcement powers necessary to uphold these obligations.
We are consulting on the detail of a proposed GSR to ensure that it is proportionate to risk, practical to implement, enforceable, and aligned with broader Government policy on product safety and growth. This consultation will run until 20 May 2026.
Guidance to support businesses in meeting their obligations will be issued by the national regulator for construction products.
Grenfell Tower memorial expenditure legislation
We have also determined that we need to ask Parliament to pass a law to provide the statutory spending authority to support the creation of a Grenfell Tower memorial. We will introduce this imminently. This does not affect any of the current work on the Grenfell Tower site, and the memorial commission and the community will continue to take the lead in shaping a fitting and lasting memorial.
Throughout this work, one principle will guide all decisions: the voices of the bereaved, survivors and immediate community must remain at the heart of decisions, now and in the future.
[HCWS1363]
Grenfell Tower Annual Report
Steve Reed Excerpts(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I start by acknowledging the presence in the Gallery of survivors and relatives of those who died at Grenfell Tower. They have the deepest sympathies of the whole House, and our most profound respect. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed 72 innocent lives, was a terrible moment in British history. We will not forget what happened that night. We must make sure that nothing like it can ever happen again.
The Government accepted all the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s findings, and committed to implementing all 58 recommendations. Everyone deserves a safe, decent home. This requires a new culture of transparency and accountability. Today I can report that we are on target to complete 70% of the inquiry’s recommendations by the end of the year. Since the inquiry published its final report, we have completed 10 recommendations from phase 2, and two outstanding phase 1 recommendations. Today, I will set out the progress that we have made on reforming the construction industry, strengthening fire and rescue services, and improving support for vulnerable people. We will complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. We are also publishing the construction products reform White Paper, building on the proposals we set out in December for a new single construction regulator. Our work goes beyond the inquiry recommendations, because we are determined to secure lasting change across the whole system.
Last summer, we ensured that the Building Safety Regulator had the leadership it needs to do its job well. Lord Roe reformed the London Fire Brigade and is bringing the same determination to making the BSR work. Over time, the BSR will evolve into the regulator the inquiry recommended. We are consulting on that today. We will replace fragmented regulation with clear accountability. Everyone will understand their role and the standards that are expected of them. We have already made changes to get our own house in order. Fire policy now sits within my Department, ensuring that oversight of housing, building safety and fire is properly joined up in Government.
The construction products reform White Paper sets out ambitious plans for modernising the rules. We will make sure that products are safe, and will ensure that everyone meets their responsibilities. These reforms will mean sensible regulation, fit for the future, and confidence in the safety of our homes. We will make sure that people working in construction have the skills that they need. We support the building professions, and there will be rigorous expectations relating to competence and ethics. We have also published a formal statement setting out the path to proper professional regulation of fire engineering.
One of the clearest lessons from the inquiry was the need for better fire and rescue services. I am grateful to the National Fire Chiefs Council and the London Fire Brigade for their work on improving fire and rescue standards. A new national college of fire and rescue will ensure that these improvements continue.
Protecting people means making sure that those most at risk are never left behind. New regulations requiring emergency evacuation plans for high-rise buildings will come into force on 6 April. These will mean that vulnerable people have a plan for safe evacuation in the event of a fire.
Making sure that everyone has a safe home also means tackling wider problems in social housing. Grenfell shone a light on so many wrongs that we are now putting right. Under Awaab’s law, landlords must make urgent repairs where there are serious threats to health. People have more power to hold landlords to account, and we are giving them better access to information, so they can have more involvement in how their home is managed.
Speeding up remediation is one of my highest priorities. Work to remove and replace unsafe aluminium composite material cladding—the same type as on Grenfell Tower—has finished on 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings, with work on most of the rest well under way. We are working with developers, freeholders and local authorities to remove other types of unsafe cladding as quickly as possible, and are monitoring thousands of high-rise residential buildings to make sure that they are making progress.
We have also strengthened local resilience and emergency preparations. All five local resilience forum trailblazers have been funded, and the four chief resilience officers have been appointed. We are also setting up a national system for local areas to learn from each other, so that the lessons of Grenfell lead to lasting improvements in crisis response.
It is only right that we are transparent about how we address the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s carefully considered recommendations. We will continue to inform Parliament each quarter about progress on those recommendations. Alongside this statement, I am publishing our annual report on gov.uk. We will continue with these reports until every recommendation is complete. The Government’s new public dashboards for inquiry recommendations will continue to be updated quarterly.
Throughout this work, the Government have acted on the inquiry’s findings to address the culture that allowed failure to happen, yet we recognise that for many, something is still missing. For the bereaved, survivors and the wider Grenfell community, the need for justice is deeply felt, including decisions on criminal charges. The Metropolitan police investigation, which is independent of Government, is one of the largest and most complex in the force’s history, but I know that the slow progress is painful for those who have already waited too long for the justice that they deserve.
Nothing can erase the grief suffered by the Grenfell community. Their loss, strength and determination to change things for the better guide all that we do. Failures of government under successive Administrations made this tragedy possible. That brings an enduring duty to honour the memory of the 72 men, women and children who lost their lives. As part of that duty, I can inform the House that we are introducing legislation to provide the spending authority required to support the memorial commission and the community in building and maintaining a lasting and dignified memorial.
I know that there is still much that we need to do, but there has been real progress. The foundations for lasting change are in place: a reformed regulatory system, empowered residents, accountable landlords, stronger professions and greater transparency. Our objective is clear, and we remain true to it: never again. Never again should people go to bed unsure that their home is safe. Never again should public institutions fail in their duty to protect. Never again should the voices of residents be ignored.
The actions that we are taking honour those who died at Grenfell, support those who survived and serve our shared obligation to make every home a place of safety, dignity and trust. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and join him in welcoming survivors from Grenfell who are with us today.
The events that took place on 14 June 2017 were an avoidable national tragedy that should not have robbed 72 people of their lives, and they must never be repeated. It is right that in consultation with the survivors, the bereaved and those directly impacted, a fitting and lasting memorial is put in place to remember the 72 lives lost that day and the wider Grenfell community. We welcome the new legislation that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon.
It is right that we remember the victims, and I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the opportunity to do that while he updates the House. The victims must be at the heart of how we remember Grenfell, and the Government must work with them in as sensitive a manner as humanly possible. We will support and scrutinise how the Government proceed with the memorial to ensure that the victims are at the heart of what he has decided. We believe that this matter should be cross-party, as it goes beyond party politics and it is simply the right thing to do.
The inquiry’s findings—decades of systematic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response last year was to accept all 58 recommendations, which is a step forward, and we welcome the commitment to action. I am glad to hear today that action on a few of those recommendations has already taken place.
The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long-overdue reforms. While we welcome the formation of a single construction regulator, can the Secretary of State confidently state that he believes it will be more effective and help to safely build the homes that we need? Can he confirm that we will not be left with the potential delays that we have seen under the Building Safety Regulator?
When we were in government, we took decisive action to initiate this public inquiry immediately after the tragedy to learn the lessons and prevent it from ever happening again. We strengthened the regulatory regime and implemented the inquiry’s recommendations following the report from the first phase. It was welcome that this Government also accepted the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State publish a detailed plan on how all the recommendations are being implemented and their status? He gave us the update that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. Will he update us with a road map for when the rest will be completed?
All building owners must step up, do the right thing and fix their buildings without delay, or face the consequences of their inaction. Those who intentionally cut corners on building safety must be held to account. The Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service should continue to pursue criminal charges against the small number of developers and contractors who knowingly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for greed and financial gain.
The Secretary of State has promised to complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. Will he lay out key dates for when key parts of that will be achieved? Will he update us on what stage he is at with the Grenfell site itself and future plans for it? How is he working with the victims’ families to support them?
Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines, but criminal charges where the evidence allows. We will support and scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the Government are putting forward to ensure that we get this right. I know that the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), want to get this right.
Grenfell must be a watershed with a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. Let me make clear the commitment of the Conservatives to work with the Secretary of State and the Government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and welcome the tone that he has adopted. It is quite right that we should all work cross-party on this matter to speed up the outcomes that we are all looking for and that we work together in a way that shows respect to the families and those who lost their lives in this tragedy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the single construction regulator. The BSR became a stand-alone body, separate from the Health and Safety Executive, on 26 January. Work is progressing on bringing into the BSR all the other aspects that will allow it to function in due course as the single construction regulator, which the inquiry identified as such an important part of fixing the building safety system. Lord Roe is overseeing rapid improvement in the performance of the BSR even as I speak.
The hon. Gentleman asked about remediation. It is welcome that 91% of high-rise residential or public buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have been remediated, but we recognise that there is further to go. Further acceleration plans are available, and I am happy to write to him if he would like access to that information.
Similarly, the hon. Gentleman asked about key dates in implementing further recommendations. We will continue to publish quarterly reports so that the whole House can scrutinise the progress that the Government are making with these recommendations. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), and I are meeting regularly with the families and affected groups to ensure that we hear their concerns directly and can feed them straight into the system.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—take your time.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
As we approach the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy, bereaved survivors in the community are still rightly advocating for truth, justice and change on behalf of the 72 people who lost their lives in an entirely preventable fire. I pay tribute to all those who have joined us again in the Gallery today and those who are watching this statement. I know that the whole House will agree with the Secretary of State that criminal accountability cannot come soon enough. In the meantime, I welcome this annual report and the progress being made in many areas, from building safety to social housing management.
We know that, too often, lessons have not been learned from public inquiries and the implementation of recommendations has not been transparent and accountable. I would welcome an update from the Secretary of State on the proposal for an oversight mechanism to ensure that recommendations are actually implemented.
When it comes to the performance of Kensington and Chelsea council, many residents are highly sceptical about progress given that, according to the independent regulator, it has a seriously failing housing department and, according to the local government ombudsman, the third worst record on complaints. On the Lancaster West estate itself, there is uncertainty over the budget for completing the promised works. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will remain under close central Government scrutiny and that he will do all he can to broker a solution so that residents of Lancaster West—the people who least deserve to suffer—do not wait years more for their own safe and healthy homes?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on being such a powerful voice for his constituents and all those who have suffered and died as a result of the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. He has rightly earned respect from Members across the House for the dignified way in which he has carried out his role as a representative for the community.
The Government are very keen to make sure that we learn the lessons and implement the report. We will continue to publish quarterly reports to update the whole House, and indeed members of the public, on the progress that we are making. Work is continuing across Government, including in my Department, on setting up a national oversight mechanism to make sure that the recommendations of this and other inquiries do not just sit on shelves, but get implemented and inform improvement in the way that we deliver public services, including, in this important case, fire safety.
I had the opportunity to visit the Lancaster West estate with my hon. Friend. The Government have made £25 million available to allow work to continue on upgrading and improving the estate. He will be aware that we have concerns about the council’s delivery capacity and cost control. I am in contact with the leader of the council about those concerns in the hope and expectation that we can address them together, but the interests of the residents of the estate must come first for all of us.
Gideon Amos
I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. My second question is about those excluded from the building safety fund. Tens of thousands of families are in buildings under 11 metres or living with products that might last an hour in a fire under PAS 9980—that is the wrong standard. We need all highly flammable materials and all buildings that have fire safety risks to be remediated. I ask the Secretary of State to address that question.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member for his questions and for his commitment, shared by the whole House, that we need to resolve the problems that led to the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. He asked about building control. We set up the independent panel under the chairmanship of Dame Judith Hackitt last year. That looks at decisions that may need to move into the public sector. The panel is due to report shortly, so I will not anticipate the findings that we can expect.
The hon. Member asked about the construction products White Paper, which was published today. I hope that he will take the opportunity to consider what it includes. I am sure that he will let me or the Minister for building safety know his thoughts on it. On remediation for buildings under 11 metres, it is important that we prioritise buildings based on safety risk, and that is what we are doing. We will of course keep that under review. There is a commitment to fund by exception those buildings under 11 metres where the risk is assessed to be high.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
In 109 days, on 14 June, the community and many of us will come together to remember the 72 people who tragically lost their lives. Almost nine years on, the Government’s acceptance of the 58 recommendations is an acceptance that the tragedy at Grenfell should not have happened. That tragedy was born out of systemic failure. I stand here today wearing my green heart to recognise the fact that the community had to come together in the aftermath of that fire. That fire happened because no one listened to them—no one believed them. I commend them on their ongoing campaign to get full justice, including criminal justice.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee had the Grenfell community before us, we heard about the valid concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) highlighted about the national oversight mechanism. It cannot be right that the Government will mark their own work on that. The community wants full transparency.
I also thank the Secretary of State for outlining the fact that the Government will lay papers with regard to the spending authority for the memorial. If we are really to allow the community to have a lasting and fitting tribute, it is important that the memorial is built and designed with them, working with the memorial commission. Most importantly, can he confirm that the funding has been ringfenced and there will be no issues when the funding is discussed?
Steve Reed
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions and comments. She raises perhaps the most important point in all this, which is that no one listened to the voices of the people living in Grenfell Tower when they raised their concerns. That must never happen again. That is why the Government are seeking to strengthen the voice of tenants in social housing. Awaab’s law is one example of the way that has been achieved. It is gratifying that that, too, was done with cross-party consensus and support.
On the memorial, the Minister with responsibility for fire safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), will introduce the legislation to the House this afternoon. We expect it to proceed at speed through both Houses, so that it can support the commission and the community in funding and securing a lasting memorial that will remind us all for evermore of what when wrong and why it must never happen again.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is very surprising to those of us who are not experts on this matter to hear the Secretary of State say that the police are undertaking such a vast and complex investigation, because the circumstances of this uniquely terrible tragedy do not seem terribly complicated at all. Why is the police inquiry taking so long? Will he at least assure the House, and the country at large, that there is a dedicated unit within the police that is determined to bring this matter before the courts?
Steve Reed
In fact, the police are investigating an incredibly complex set of circumstances. That is why one of the biggest teams in the Met’s history is focused on getting to the bottom of this and of whether there is a need to pursue any prosecutions. It is one of the biggest and most complex police investigations ever—rightly, because we need to follow culpability, find those responsible and bring them to justice. The victims deserve that justice, but so do the survivors and relatives, so that they can at long last have closure on this tragedy, which has affected their lives. The Government will ensure that we provide the Met with the resources they require to fund the team sizes necessary to deliver that justice.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I pass Grenfell on my way home every evening, and I see the green heart move lower and lower as the building is dismantled. I wonder what will happen when the building is gone. I think about the survivors, the families and the 72 lives lost. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but after nine years, nobody has been arrested—somebody should have been. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and I are often told about people who should have been arrested. The police need to arrest somebody and begin the process so that the community can begin to heal. Will the Minister push the Met to move faster?
Steve Reed
It is emotional to see the tower coming down slowly, brick by brick, but it is important for the community, and for all concerned about what happened, to know that the memorial commission is working with the community to secure a design for the memorial, which will be a lasting testament to what happened on that fateful night, and will honour the memory of those who lost their lives and their loved ones. My hon. Friend is quite right: nine years is a painfully long time to wait for justice. It is important, in such a complex investigation, that the police are given the time and resources they need to investigate properly, but we will of course encourage them to do that work as quickly as they can reasonably be expected to. We all expect them to bring to justice those who bear culpability for the deaths that night.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome the funding that the Secretary of State has announced to support the memorial commission. We have a shortage of skilled builders, plumbers, electricians and other construction workers in this country. Is he confident that we have a sufficiently trained workforce to carry out all the remedial works in the timescale that he has outlined? If not, what additional steps can the Government take to ensure that the works are completed on time?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to that concern, which we all share. In the most recent Budget, the Chancellor announced £600 million to fund skills training in the construction sector, so that we have the skills available not just to carry out work on the Grenfell site and remedial work on other sites affected by unsafe cladding, but to ensure that we can build homes to the higher safety standards now required right across the country.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The tragedy at Grenfell exposed the scale and devastating consequences of the building safety crisis in this country. We have heard today that survivors and families are still waiting for truth and justice. Sadly, that crisis is still unfolding: as we neared Christmas, over 350 households in the Stratford Halo in my constituency were forced to leave their homes because of serious structural safety concerns. They were told to leave immediately, and did not know when they could return—it was terrifying for them. What will the construction reform White Paper do to strengthen standards for safe and secure homes, so that residents like those in the Stratford Halo never again have to be evacuated from their homes because their buildings are too unsafe to live in, and to ensure that developers are held to account?
Steve Reed
I am aware of what happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency recently, and how worrying it has been not just for the people living there, but for people right across the country. Just as with what happened at Grenfell, it attests to the fact that the building safety regulations and system in this country were inadequate to meet the public’s expectation, which is rightly that their homes should be safe. We have today published the construction products reform White Paper, which I hope she will take the opportunity to look at. It outlines some of the changes that we will make to products themselves. We will also continue to work on other aspects of building. The independent panel on building control, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, is due to report shortly and will make further important proposals on how to improve the system.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Nothing can ever undo the harm caused at Grenfell. I was in Parliament on that day, swearing in, when we saw everything that had unfolded. Nobody in my city of Aberdeen can ever get over the Piper Alpha disaster of 1988, but the resulting safety case produced by the Cullen inquiry meant that we had a much safer North sea and such a tragedy could never happen again, which brought people some solace. Will the Minister join me in urging stakeholders in Scotland to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on fire safety guidance, as we update the Scottish building standards to ensure that that guidance is as good as possible and all those working in that area can comply with it?
Steve Reed
I am happy to support the hon. Lady’s call for all affected stakeholders to feed in their views to the inquiry, be they in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The legacy of Grenfell and other tragedies, such as the one she refers to, should be greater safety from fire for everybody.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Government are on target to implement the inquiry’s recommendations. Nearly nine years on from this awful tragedy, the families and survivors need truth and justice. Leaseholders in Battersea have been facing astronomical service charges, as well as costs for fire safety remediation works. In one case, leaseholders in a building below 11 metres in height are expected to pay approximately £8,000 a week for waking watches—that is shocking and unacceptable. What support and protections are in place for leaseholders? I believe that case is exceptional, so will he meet me and the leaseholders to find a resolution?
Steve Reed
I would be happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and the fire safety Minister so that they can discuss her concerns in detail, but she is quite right to point to the very severe concerns about leasehold charges. That is why the Government published a consultation last year on the costs for major works and other costs that fall on leaseholders, and we are due to publish our findings and our response to that consultation later this year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Reed Excerpts(5 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
On 27 January, we published the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, marking the beginning of the end for the feudal leasehold system and supporting millions of families with the cost of living. We are reinvigorating commonhold and capping ground rent. We are analysing the responses to our wide-ranging consultation to drive up transparency of service charges and make it easier for leaseholders to challenge unreasonable costs. We will implement these measures as soon as possible.
Mohammad Yasin
With service charge inflation rising by 50% and leaseholders, freeholders and tenants even facing 80% increases, this is a growing scandal. Too many of my constituents are trapped under charges they cannot afford, paying for defects caused by poor construction and stuck with properties they cannot sell. Will the Secretary of State strengthen the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill to require fully itemised transparency, to penalise landlords who refuse disclosure and to create a faster, cheaper way to challenge excessive charges without a tribunal?
Steve Reed
The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges place on leaseholders and tenants. On 4 July last year, the Government published a consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services, which included proposals to increase transparency of service charges and to scrap the presumption that leaseholders pay their landlord’s legal costs, thereby removing a significant barrier to challenging poor practice. The consultation closed on 26 September; we are analysing the responses and will publish our response shortly.
Mary Glindon
Leaseholders in Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend contact me regularly about extortionate service charges, saying that tribunals are slow and stressful and that, ultimately, they feel powerless. The Minister for Housing and Planning has previously set out that retaining variable charges is important, so that necessary funds can be raised for legitimate purposes. Is the Secretary of State confident that, without directly limiting their rate of increase, the Government’s reforms will address the issue of unreasonable charges making properties unsellable?
Steve Reed
We are determined to take action to address unfair and unjustified charges, and we are committed to implementing the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 as quickly as possible.
Sadik Al-Hassan
I commend the Government and my right hon. Friend’s reforms to the leasehold sector, particularly capping ground rents, which will make a real difference to leaseholders across North Somerset. I have been contacted by numerous constituents in Portishead and across my constituency living in leasehold properties managed by FirstPort. They report persistent failures, poor communication, and opaque and unjustified service charges. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government’s leasehold reforms will go further by introducing robust, enforceable regulation of service charges and professionalising property management companies such as FirstPort so that they can genuinely be held accountable for poor management practices?
Steve Reed
I recognise, of course, the situation my hon. Friend is describing and how unacceptable it is. The Government are committed to ensuring that those living in leasehold properties are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. On 4 July last year, we consulted on the introduction of mandatory qualifications for managing agents, and we are analysing responses right now. We are clear that this consultation is not the final step in the regulation of agents, and we will set out our full position shortly.
Apsana Begum
I have been working with leasehold groups in my constituency such as the aptly named Friends in High Places group. They inform me that the combined costs of the Building Safety Regulator’s fees, the purchasing of reports and various surveys, and the remediation works needed are giving rise to potentially enormous bills, which could lead to leaseholders becoming bankrupt and homeless, as the bills are not picked up by developers or freeholders for older buildings, or resident management companies. Will the Minister outline how upcoming legislation will clarify what counts as proportionate and/or reasonable costs that fall on to leaseholders in relation to the BSR’s work?
Steve Reed
I commend the work of the Friends in High Places group, which my hon. Friend has been working with. We are now seeing improvements in the performance of the Building Safety Regulator, but she is right that unfair costs should not fall on leaseholders. If it would be helpful, I will happily arrange a meeting between her and the relevant Minister.
Paul Waugh
Far too many homeowners in Rochdale are subject to fleecehold, whereby they are fleeced for estate management company fees in return for little or no service or accountability. The Government are taking action to prevent future homeowners from falling into that trap, but will the Secretary of State set out how he plans to help current homeowners to avoid this rip-off charge?
Steve Reed
I know the Housing Minister is looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his constituents next week. HorNets have been strong and vocal campaigners for homeowners’ rights, and I welcome their engagement. The Government are committed to ending the injustice of fleecehold. Leaseholders should not be subject to the kind of legalised extortion that they have experienced in recent years, and the Government remain committed to bringing these practices to an end.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Secretary of State for his response and welcome the support being given to leaseholders; however, many of the problems they face could be addressed through stronger regulation of managing agents. Persistent failings by companies such as FirstPort continue to fill my inbox. In Newbury, we have a block of flats where a lift has been out of order for two years, and one constituent told me that, because it was broken, her son had to carry her husband down the stairs when he moved into a care home. No family should ever have to face that. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government have taken to strengthen the regulation of managing agents and ensure that they are properly accountable to residents, who pay for their services?
Steve Reed
I recognise what the hon. Member says about FirstPort because Members across the whole House have been raising similar concerns for a very long time. He will be aware that we launched a consultation last summer that will include looking at how we can better and more tightly regulate managing agents so that leaseholders are not subject to the kind of abuses that he describes.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Many of my constituents live on new build estates where the roads and open spaces have never been adopted. Years after moving in, they are still paying private management charges on top of their council tax for basic infrastructure that homeowners should expect the council to maintain. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this gap between planning approval and adoption is fuelling the fleecehold scandal, and will the Government act to ensure that developers complete roads to adoptable standards and local authorities are supported to adopt them promptly?
Steve Reed
The hon. Member is right to point out the abuses of fleecehold and how disturbing and worrying this can be for the people living on these estates. The Government launched two consultations in December precisely so that we can properly understand and take action to prevent the kind of abuses that she describes.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Have the Government made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a mandatory standard service charge statement for leaseholders to ensure a clearer breakdown of costs and improve transparency in the administration of service charges?
Steve Reed
I recognise the situation that the hon. Member describes. We have launched the consultations to cover the circumstances he describes, precisely so that we can end that kind of practice.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
These sharp practices are not down to just one management company—a lot of companies are at it. A leaseholder constituent wrote to me to say he feels “abandoned and angry”. His property is leaking, but the freeholder is not interested in helping, and his ground rent will double in 2030. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that my leaseholder constituent will be protected from these unreasonable charges in the future?
Steve Reed
I hope the hon. Lady’s constituent will be pleased to learn that the reforms we have announced as part of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, launched recently by the Minister for Housing and Planning, will include capping ground rents so that that kind of abuse cannot happen in future.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I refer Members to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. An acute increase in service charges of 78% has knocked the residents of Phoenix House in my constituency. The council is the freeholder, and it has overseen a complex arrangement with a private head leaseholder and various commercial managing agents below it. Due to the complexities of these arrangements, the residents have no idea where this 78% increase has come from. Will the Minister commit to introducing a duty of candour so that leaseholders know exactly what they are paying for, and will he further consider a threshold for acute service charge increases?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman will have been able to make those points through the consultation, which we launched in order to get to a position where we can simplify the system so that leaseholders know what charges they are being asked to pay and what services they are receiving for them, and to give them greater powers to challenge unfair practices of the kind he has just described.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
According to the Government’s own statistics, 84% of respondents to their consultation said they felt that the system for challenging unfair charges for managing agents and other lease arrangements was not fit for purpose. The Conservatives agree—that is why we legislated to address this in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has had a few distractions recently, but he has told the House that he is committed to addressing this matter. Can he tell all our leaseholder constituents by when the Government will enact that legislation, which we passed with his party’s support?
Steve Reed
Of course, nothing is going to distract me from focusing on the needs of leaseholders, and we remain fully committed to ensuring that the provisions and powers outlined in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act are brought into force as soon as possible. It is important for us to go through the technical detail that is covered by the consultation, but we will bring forward those proposals in due course and as quickly as possible.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Many of the 5 million leaseholders were looking forward to being freed from the feudal leasehold system until they read the draft Bill, which left many disappointed. There is no restriction on the development value that leaseholders are going to be charged and no broadening of the mixed-use blocks that will be eligible for enfranchisement, while leaseholders will continue to pay the legal fees of landlords, and service charges are still not being capped. Given the commitments in the Labour manifesto and the King’s Speech to enact these recommendations from the Law Commission, should the Government not be more courageous, take on the landlords and give leaseholders proper rights to enfranchise, as they promised?
Steve Reed
I agree with the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but unfortunately he has a number of his facts wrong; if he would like to put those details in a letter, I would be happy to respond and bring him up to speed. We are, for instance, seeking to end the practice of leaseholders being required to pay their landlords’ legal fees. This is the biggest reform of leasehold in a thousand years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman writes to me and, after I respond, that he will be able to give the reforms his full support.
Gideon Amos
The Law Commission reforms are being enacted and there is no date yet for a Bill to be brought forward. I hope that the Secretary of State will provide one.
Moving on to leaseholders who are still living with unsafe cladding and building defects, hundreds of thousands of people in buildings under 11 metres tall are living with cladding that is recognised as highly flammable, but are not eligible for the building safety fund. Is it not time that they were given the peace of mind and the safety they thought their home was providing them?
Steve Reed
We are supporting these situations on a case-by-case basis, but I would be more than happy to arrange a meeting for the hon. Gentleman with the Minister for Building Safety, if that would be helpful to him.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister confirmed that 40 more places will join the Pride in Place programme. That means that nearly 300 communities—those most held back by the previous Government—will benefit from that transformational programme. They will receive up to £20 million each over 10 years—a transformational level of funding—and, importantly, local people will decide how that money is spent. This Government recognise that local people know best what needs to change to bring pride back to the heart of the place they call home.
Anna Dixon
Our politics are increasingly fragmented. There is a real threat that an extreme minority party could win a majority of seats with just a fraction of the popular vote at the next general election—the situation is urgent. Some 60% of the public now support proportional representation. Will the Minister meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections to discuss the case for a national commission on electoral reform?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend will be disappointed to hear that the Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary or council elections in England. Indeed, the last time a Government called a referendum on proportional representation, the public rejected it. The Government believe that although first past the post is not always perfect, it provides an important direct relationship between Members of this Chamber and their local constituents. I will of course ensure that she gets an appropriate meeting.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
An estimated 48,000 new entrants to the construction sector are needed every year to meet the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes. Apprenticeship starts come to about half that figure, and apprenticeship completions come to less than a quarter. Does the Secretary of State now accept that his target will not be met, that there is a growing crisis in construction skills under Labour, and that the Government have no credible plan to deliver the workforce needed to build those homes?
Steve Reed
The Government remain fully committed to meeting the target of 1.5 million new homes, and we are working with the sector to ensure that that happens. Local authorities now have housing targets again—they were sadly scrapped under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—and we are investing £600 million to increase vocational skills and training to ensure that we have the supply of workers that the sector needs. We are working closely with developers, which are themselves helping to fund the pipeline of talent to build the homes that the country needs.
Sir James Cleverly
As my hon. Friends have highlighted, under a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, house building in London has collapsed to less than 60% of the target. In October, the Secretary of State said:
“My job should be on the line if I fail to meet my target”.
As the 1.5 million homes will not be built, will he keep his promise and resign, or will he wait to be fired by whoever replaces the Prime Minister after the May elections?
Steve Reed
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, since he was a member of the previous Government, that house building across the country collapsed in 2023-24, and they chose to do nothing. This month the social and affordable homes programme opens for bids. London will get 30% of that, worth more than £11 billion, and that will help to provide the biggest increase in social and affordable homes in London and across the country that this country has seen.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I have another request from Walsall borough residents. Earlier today, the Secretary of State said that local people know best. I have sent him an invitation to a peaceful protest in Aldridge on Saturday; residents from right across the constituency are coming together to protect their precious green belt. Will he come and meet with them?
Steve Reed
I apologise, but my diary is already full up—I will be in another part of the country on Saturday. I am sure that the right hon. Lady’s constituents will also want to see the homes built that they and their children will need now and in the future.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
We need to improve the infrastructure surrounding new developments and existing developments while ensuring that highways in local government, which felt the full impact of austerity, have the resources to deliver. What conversations has the Minister had about expanding capacity in local government to ensure that highways have the appropriate resources to deliver the infrastructure that we need?
Local Government Reorganisation
Steve Reed Excerpts(5 days, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
On Monday 16 February, the Government wrote to the High Court, setting out that I had decided to withdraw my decision to postpone the council elections for 30 local councils due to take place in May 2026 in the light of legal advice.
I invited the Minister for Housing and Planning to reconsider the position afresh on an urgent basis, recognising the pressing timescales involved, and he decided that elections should proceed in May 2026.
I confirmed on 16 February that all local council elections in May 2026 will go ahead, and we have brought forward an order to revoke the previous postponement order laid on 5 February.
I recognise that many of the local councils undergoing reorganisation voiced genuine concerns about the pressure they are under as we seek to deliver local government reorganisation. My officials have been working with them to understand whether any practical support is required.
In addition, I am pleased to be able to confirm that we will provide up to £63 million in additional capacity funding to the 21 local areas undergoing reorganisation across the whole programme, building on the £7.6 million provided for developing proposals last year. I will shortly set out further detail about how that funding will be allocated.
This Government remain committed to ending the two-tier system—and the two-tier cost premium—and establishing new single-tier unitary councils. In many parts of the country, residents face uncertainty about which of their two councils is responsible for vital local services, while their council tax is spent on duplicated structures. This duplication is inefficient and costly, amounting to tens of millions of pounds that could be better directed towards frontline services.
Through this reform, we will build stronger, more effective councils that are equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services, and empower the communities they serve.
[HCWS1349]
Local Government Reorganisation
Steve Reed Excerpts(5 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on local government reorganisation.
This Government are taking action to repair local government, through a new fairer funding settlement based on need, through more powers being taken out of Whitehall and put in the hands of local leaders, and through our plans to reorganise councils to provide better services by eliminating wasteful duplication. Last month, as part of that process, I told the House that we would postpone local elections in councils undergoing reorganisation, where local leaders sought it and where they provided compelling, evidence-based justification. I was guided by two principles: first, that postponement should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances, and secondly, as a firm believer in local decision making, that we should be guided by local leaders themselves.
Following extensive consultation with the affected councils, many of whom shared their anxiety that a lack of capacity could lead to elections for councils that are due to be abolished delaying the reorganisation process, I concluded that those tests had been met in 30 cases. Councils across the political divide were engaged in the original assessment, and across party lines many called for postponement. Delay was granted in those cases, using a statutory power granted by Parliament—the same power that has been exercised by previous Governments. We were satisfied that the use of this statutory power in such circumstances was lawful and justified.
As is normal practice, lawyers kept the legal position under review and I received further legal advice. After considering that further advice, I took the decision to withdraw the proposal. We then rapidly reviewed the matter, recognising the urgency created by the electoral timetable. To confirm to the House, the decision made is that the elections in the affected areas will now go ahead in May 2026 in full, and we have laid a further order to bring this into effect.
We have already written to the relevant councils and we will continue working closely with returning officers, suppliers, the Electoral Commission and other sector bodies to ensure they are fully supported. I recognise that this is a significant change for affected councils. That is why, when further legal advice was received, we acted as quickly as possible to provide clarity for councils. We know that this change will mean additional pressure for councils and councillors across the country. That is why I announced last week up to £63 million in new capacity funding, on top of the £7.6 million provided last year for developing reorganisation proposals.
Our priority is now ensuring that local councils have the support they need for reorganisation. This extra money will help councils to complete reorganisation effectively and sustainably. We will continue working with councils across the 21 reorganisation areas to move to single-tier unitary councils. The people of Surrey specifically will just have elections to the new unitary councils.
Given the views expressed by Members from across the House following my decision, I recognise the importance Members attach to the framework governing ministerial powers over the timing of local elections. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill provides an opportunity to look again at that framework, and the Government are reflecting carefully on the amendments that have been tabled and the concerns raised.
Reforming local government is not optional. Councils are the front line of the state, responsible for the visible signs of whether a place is succeeding or failing. The public expect better local services and they are right to do so. It was important that we acted swiftly on these elections where further advice was received. I recognise that has been difficult for affected councils and I want to assure colleagues that we did not take this difficult decision lightly. I have spoken to many councillors and Members of Parliament in recent days and understand the scale of disappointment acutely, but ultimately the Government must act when legal advice says that we need to do so. We will continue to rebuild local government after a decade of neglect, so residents get the services that they deserve. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
The Secretary of State has caused chaos, confusion and a significant cost to the taxpayer by cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later and then seek to avoid responsibility for the fallout. This is not an isolated incident: it is yet another Government U-turn. The unavoidable conclusion is that this Labour Government are running scared of voters.
The original decision to cancel elections was taken by the Secretary of State. He repeatedly defended that position at the Dispatch Box. He said in The Times that these elections were “pointless”, yet when his decision fell apart, he recused himself from the process and left a junior Minister to pick up the pieces. My first question is simple: why was the retaking of this decision delegated? Was the Secretary of State so compromised by his own actions that he could not lawfully retake the decision himself? Will the Secretary of State now place in the House of Commons Library the full correspondence that he would have disclosed had this gone to court? And if not, why not? What new factors were considered that led to a completely different conclusion ultimately being drawn?
There are also questions of motive. Is it really a coincidence that the elections first marked for cancellation were overwhelmingly in Labour-run areas? I have been in contact with council leaders who describe being placed under intense pressure, repeatedly asked to restate capacity concerns, warned through multiple channels not to criticise the Secretary of State’s decision, and being left with the clear impression that future devolution, future reorganisation and future funding decisions depended on their compliance—a shocking state of affairs under his leadership. I believe that he acted inappropriately. If the Secretary of State is so confident that decisions were taken without political self-interest and without undue pressure being exerted behind the scenes, he should place all correspondence between his Department and local authorities in the public domain. If he does so, I will be more than happy to withdraw my accusation of inappropriate behaviour.
Does the Secretary of State now accept that there are strict limits on the power to delegate or delay elections outside exceptional circumstances, such as war or public emergency? If so, will he ask his colleagues to accept the amendment tabled by Conservatives in the other place to limit the Secretary of State’s power to cancel elections using secondary legislation, given that Labour MPs voted down the same safeguards on Report in the Commons?
The Secretary of State must tell the House what this shambolic episode has cost the taxpayer in legal fees, wasted preparation and the emergency expenditure now required to organise these elections at short notice. There is also a question about election pilots. What is their current status and why have the Government still not published the prospectus or provided it for parliamentary scrutiny? Specifically, how many councils that originally said that they had the capacity to bid to take part in these pilots later told his Department that they lacked the capacity to hold local elections? How many of the councils with restored elections are now expected to proceed with the pilots?
Ultimately, where does this leave the Government’s flagship reorganisation process? Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not a convenience to be switched on and off at the whim of the Secretary of State, which is why the Conservatives opposed these cancellations. The Secretary of State’s judgment has once again been shown to be fundamentally flawed. If he cannot or refuses to answer these questions, and to be open and honest about his behaviour, he should resign.
Steve Reed
I have received a letter from the shadow Secretary of State, and he will receive a response to that in due course.
The decision was updated following legal advice. We acted as promptly as possible after receiving that further legal advice, and that was the right thing to do. When decisions are revisited following legal advice, fresh ministerial consideration is perfectly normal and has happened before, and that was why that was done in that way. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long-standing principle that Government do not publish or comment on legal advice. I know he knows that, because his words—spoken in November 2023—in this Chamber, were as follows:
“In accordance with a long-standing convention in this House, we do not discuss the content or nature of legal advice to Government.” —[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 947.]
He was right about that.
The motivation of council leaders, who wrote to me to share their views, and indeed my motivation, was based on concerns raised across the political spectrum about the capacity to complete local government reorganisation on time, because of the benefits that that represents to voters in eliminating wasteful duplication and ensuring that the savings can be ploughed back into the frontline services that matter the most to local people.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about amendments tabled in the other place, the Government will consider amendments to these powers in the usual parliamentary way.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
If the shadow Secretary of State is going to call for the Secretary of State to resign, he should make sure that he has more than four people sat behind him; that would make him seem more credible.
I appreciate what the Secretary of State is saying about the importance of elections and how rarely these things should be cancelled. We in Derbyshire have a proposal and expectation to move to unitary authorities in 2027. Does he agree that it is not illogical not to have elections to authorities that very soon will not exist? Can he tell us what lessons have been learned and what this will mean for authorities that are likely to be moving down this path in 2027?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of reorganisation and eliminating duplication so that we can spend the savings instead on the frontline services that I know matter the most to his residents and all our residents. Election delays have happened before—there is precedent for them—but it is important to show full respect to legal advice when it is received. The decision was therefore revisited in the way that he is aware of.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Liberal Democrats believe that all authorities in England should be enabled to have the devolution deal and local government arrangement that is right for them.
The shadow Secretary of State asked whether this was an isolated incident; in the context of top-down reorganisation, this definitely is not an isolated incident. Under the last Conservative Government, top-down reorganisation was forced on to areas such as Cumbria and Somerset; it was bitterly opposed by local areas, yet it was forced on to those local communities against local opposition. Cumbria county council took the Conservative Government to court, and Somerset councils opposed the forced reorganisation. When opinion polls were taken across Somerset and the wide conclusion was that two authorities would be better than one, the Government forced those decisions on to Somerset. My first question is therefore this: if polls are taken in areas subject to top-down reorganisation, will the results from the public be supported by the Government?
Secondly, the Liberal Democrats opposed the postponement of these elections. We put down a fatal motion in the House of Lords that could have stopped the postponement in the first place, which the Conservatives failed to support. Given that nine authorities had their elections postponed in 2025, does the advice and rationale that apply in 2026 apply to the postponement that happened in 2025? If not, why not?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am unable to discuss the detail of the legal advice, although he will know the decision that we took after considering that legal advice. His earlier point is absolutely right; we should all be motivated by the interests of local people. It is in the interests of local people that we should get rid of the confusion of having two councils in the same area, so that people know which council to contact, and that we should eliminate the wasteful duplication of jobs such as chief executives, finance directors and so on, so that we can spend the savings on improving the local services that make a difference to local people and the communities that they care about so much.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The reorganisation of local government is very welcome in Exeter, as we are being held back by our county council on numerous fronts. Can the Secretary of State confirm that reorganisation and devolution will enable cities such as Exeter to pull away with our economic development, housing and strategic planning, and will benefit local residents across the city?
Steve Reed
I completely agree with what my hon. Friend says. It is very important that we move ahead with local government reorganisation, not just because of the savings it generates, which can be ploughed into frontline services, but because of the boost it can give to local economies. That puts more money into people’s pockets, provides more jobs in the locality and helps those communities to thrive.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Having decided that elections should go ahead after all, will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Conservative-run Broxbourne council on defending democracy from day one and never once considering delaying its elections? Will he confirm that this Labour Government will not use the same tactics to delay the next general election?
Steve Reed
I think that last point is a step beyond where anybody has gone previously. I am sure that there are many reasons to congratulate Broxbourne council.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Local government reorganisation in Derbyshire might see Amber Valley borough council split in half, along with the cost and difficulty of working out how to disaggregate the authority and the services and private finance initiative contracts it still manages, but an outcome is needed that will work for the next 100 years and that is based on the time it takes people to travel to work and the services they access. May I ask the Secretary of State to take a special interest in the circumstances of Amber Valley borough council and ensure that it gets the support that it needs so that it can be part of a new authority that can serve people’s needs effectively in the county?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend always ensures that I take a special interest in Amber Valley and the impact of decisions on the people who live in that beautiful part of the world. We have announced additional capacity funding to help councils to deal with the kind of challenges that he just described, recognising that reorganisation has a capacity impact on local authorities.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I realise now that it was simply fresh legal advice that led to this change of policy, rather than anything to do with the court case brought by the Secretary of State’s least favourite political party. Does he agree that the Government, in handling local government reform, should give at least an appearance of being impartial? Despite the Government’s consistent advice that the existing district and borough council areas should be seen as the building blocks for the new unitary authorities, Labour-controlled Southampton city council is still insisting on trying to dismember the New Forest East constituency by going for boundary changes that would strip off the Waterside, near Southampton, from the New Forest, to which it has always looked. Will the Secretary of State assure me that when he and his colleagues take decisions on this and similar issues, the fact that it is a Labour-led council asking for the guidelines not to be followed will not weigh on them in an appropriate way?
Steve Reed
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman on his latter point. I also reassure him that concerns have been raised across the political spectrum, including by council leaders from his own party, about the capacity to complete local government reorganisation. That is why we have announced additional capacity funding to support those councils to be able to complete this important reform. The consultations are still under way on the exact form of the reorganisation that will take place, and it would be wrong for me to comment on that today.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I have great respect for the Secretary of State; I believe that he is one of the finest Ministers on this Government’s Front Bench, and I have great sympathy for him. The reality is that at times, we have all been presented with advice that has proven to be poor. Frankly, the reality that a lot of us are aware of is that he inherited a mess when he moved away from the very fine job he was doing in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to his current Department.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will not publish figures to indicate the savings that this work will allegedly generate. The only figures we have available are those produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which have been quoted by Ministers previously. When we look through the figures at the geographical sites that we are talking about, we see that there are no savings through local government reorganisation, particularly when the wider public sector reform agenda is being taken apart by larger police areas and changes to the size of integrated care boards. On that basis, we are undertaking a situation in which there will be significant financial costs to the local authorities but none of the savings that are currently projected. If the Government have contrary figures, I welcome the publication of them and of the advice. The sizes that we are talking about are 14 times larger than the next largest authorities in Europe, with a greater diameter than Greater London and without any community of interest, so given that this will leave Labour communities at the mercy of right-wing councils—
Peter Lamb
Immediately, yes. Given that poor advice has previously been given by the Department to the Secretary of State, is it not time to pause and reconsider the evidence base for local government reform?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and of course recognise that he is one of the finest constituency MPs in the House—it was a delight to campaign for him, and it is a pleasure to see him in his seat now. We have had this conversation before, and it is quite right that we continue to have it, but I do not agree with his analysis; there are savings that will derive from local government reorganisation, and it will also make the system simpler for local people to understand. However, I know that the debate will continue.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Building on the point made by the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), the £63 million of new capacity funding is a drop in the ocean compared with the real cost of LGR across the country. We are talking about councils having to merge workforces, IT contracts and outsourced contracts, none of which has been properly funded by central Government. These are authorities that are highly leveraged and do not have the reserves to pay for it. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the true cost of local government reorganisation?
Steve Reed
I have announced additional funding. It is very unfair to describe it as a drop in the ocean, because it goes a long way towards supporting councils that need to go through local government reorganisation to remove anomalies, such as that people in two-tier areas have one council that is responsible for leaves above a drain and another that is responsible for leaves below a drain. If residents do not know which council to contact, it is very difficult for them to seek improvements in the services they are using, which is why it is so important that we continue with this process.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He mentioned Surrey, and he will know that my constituency is going to be in a unitary authority called West Surrey. I have received a huge number of representations from constituents who would like the Secretary of State to consider calling that unitary authority West Surrey and South Middlesex, to take account of the fact that Spelthorne has been in Middlesex for 1,000 years and has never really thought of itself as being in Surrey. Will the Secretary of State meet me, so that I can make further representations on my constituents’ behalf?
Steve Reed
I am always happy to consider proposals made by the hon. Gentleman, and I will ensure that he gets an appropriate meeting on the point that he has raised, either with me or one of my fellow Ministers.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I welcome the news that the people of East Sussex and Eastbourne will at last have the chance to vote to boot out a Conservative-run county council that has attempted to close a learning disability centre for local people, Linden Court; that has attempted to strip back services at Milton Grange for people with dementia; and that has the worst pothole compensation rate of any Conservative-run council in the country. However, will the Secretary of State pledge to not just me or the people of Eastbourne, but the people of East Sussex, that he will not disrespect their right to democracy next year when they are meant to have the right to vote for unitary councillors in our patch?
Steve Reed
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks. During recess, I had the pleasure of visiting East Sussex, and from my own experience, I agree with what he has said about the potholes in many parts of that beautiful county.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Secretary of State conveniently forgot to mention that he has been caught red-handed trying to cancel elections, and that he has restored them only because of the legal action of Reform UK. I do not expect him to thank us, but could he at least do the decent and honourable thing and apologise for the confusion and chaos caused to hundreds of council officers across the country, apologise to some 5 million voters, and then resign?
Steve Reed
I will not make any apologies for listening to local leaders or for respecting legal advice. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for things that people should resign over, how about the decision to appoint as the leader of Reform UK in Wales a man who was a traitor to his country, and who is now serving 10 years in jail?
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
What about the cancelled mayoral elections, such as those in Sussex and Hampshire? Do not the same arguments that the Secretary of State has made apply to those elections, or is he just afraid of our candidates, Katy Bourne and Donna Jones?
Steve Reed
That decision was taken under different legislation and in different circumstances. It is very important that local government reorganisation is completed before going ahead with the mayoral elections, to which we remain committed, so that this happens in an ordered way.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
West Sussex county council should never have been offered the opportunity to postpone for a second year running, effectively gifting the Conservative-controlled administration a seven-year term. Now, with democracy restored, there are just 74 days until the polls, so will West Sussex still be expected to work to the original timescale for the creation of unitary authorities and a combined authority that will sit with the mayoralty, or will that also be delayed? How much additional support will be provided to the council, and specifically to the staff at West Sussex, who are now working to a very tight schedule to deliver elections for their residents?
Steve Reed
We are proceeding to local government reorganisation on the agreed timetable, with no changes envisaged. We have made additional funding available to support capacity needs, to ensure that reorganisation can go ahead as expected, and I am not aware of any concerns from councils about their ability to deliver these elections. Indeed, councils have delivered snap general elections across the whole country in less time than remains between now and the date of the local elections in May.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
This has been a shamefully incompetent episode, and perhaps the most shameful part of it is that the Government have been forced to use taxpayers’ money to pay the claimant’s costs. Could the Secretary of State tell us exactly how much taxpayers’ money has been given to the claimant? Perhaps if he cannot do so, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) could let us know.
Steve Reed
That is certainly not an unusual circumstance in cases that end up in the courts in this way. The costs are still being assessed, so I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question at the moment.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
As recently as 22 January, this Government formally committed to delaying local elections again, but facing defeat in the judicial review, they suddenly realised that the delay was unlawful. This U-turn has cost £63 million at a time when my own local authority in Cornwall faces a massive funding shortfall. Legal advice does not usually suddenly change without a material change in facts, so did the Secretary of State ignore the Attorney General’s legal advice on this matter until it became obvious that the Government would lose, or did the Attorney General provide incorrect legal advice to the Secretary of State? Which is it?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am unable to discuss the detail of legal advice that was given to the Government, but there is nothing unusual at all about giving fresh ministerial consideration when decisions are revisited after legal advice is received. That is what happened.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Given that the Government have now reversed their decision to postpone the 2026 local elections following legal advice, can the Secretary of State confirm whether the same legal considerations also applied to the elections to Surrey county council—which covers my constituency—that were postponed last year? If he states that the Government do not comment on legal advice, do you not agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my Woking constituents have been unlawfully robbed of voting out an incompetent Surrey county council last year?
Steve Reed
As I said in my statement, the unitary council elections will be going ahead in Surrey this year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his endeavours. I note that this reorganisation is set to streamline services and save an estimated £2.9 billion over five years. However, from my experience—I am not better than anybody else, but I always try to be helpful—I issue a note of caution. With Northern Ireland 10 years on from our reform of councils, a 2024 Department for Communities report concluded that it is too early to determine whether those reforms have been cost-effective, with the new, larger councils actually spending more than their 26 predecessors. Has the Secretary of State taken into account that report and that uncertainty, and has he ensured that the Government are not promising billions of pounds in savings while actually taking more from taxpayers and ratepayers?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his observations, but I remain confident that eliminating duplication where residents are paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief executives and two sets of finance directors will save residents money, which can then be invested in the frontline services that matter most to people; for example, it can be used to fix the potholes that we heard about earlier.
Local Government Finance
Steve Reed Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026-27 (HC 1604), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026-27 (HC 1605), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.
Steve Reed
Before I begin, I notify the House that the local government finance report has been updated with small corrections on pages 7 and 13. These corrections have been passed on to the House in the proper way ahead of today’s debate. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its careful consideration of these reports.
I believe in local government, because I have lived it. As a councillor and as a council leader, I saw the difference that councils make to people’s lives. Local government is the part of our democracy that is closest to people and the things that they care about the most—their family, their community and their home town.
Labour took office after 14 years of ideological cuts imposed on local government. The Tories devolved the blame for their failure in national government by imposing £16 billion of cuts on councils and local communities. Even worse, they targeted the worst of those cuts deliberately on our poorest communities. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was filmed standing in a leafy garden in Tunbridge Wells boasting about how the Conservatives had stripped away funding from struggling towns so that they could play politics with public money.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Has the Secretary of State made an analysis of the division of Pride in Place funding between Labour and Reform seats versus Liberal Democrat and Conservative seats?
Steve Reed
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to stand up and apologise to the House for what his Government did in diverting money away from the poorest communities. I am very disappointed that he did not take that opportunity, and I suspect that I am not the only one—perhaps he will take the opportunity later on. I remind him and his colleagues that under the Tories, only three in 10 councils received funding that aligned with deprivation; with this Government, the number is more than nine in every 10.
Local people were forced to pay a staggeringly high price for Tory venality. High streets were hollowed out and boarded up. The number of people sleeping rough on our streets doubled. The number of families stuck in temporary accommodation doubled. There were more potholes on our roads than craters on the moon.
Mark Garnier
I was going to say thank you for the Pride in Place money, actually; I am very grateful that the Government have given £20 million to my constituency.
On the subject of funding for councils, the Government are requiring district councils to pay for food waste recycling. That is not an unreasonable proposition, but there was a principle under the previous Government of new burdens funding, whereby when a new burden was presented to a council, the Government would sort it out. Why have the Secretary of State’s Government decided not to support councils with new burdens funding?
Steve Reed
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s words about Pride in Place. I am glad that he has answered the question of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), because that money is being distributed to constituencies represented by Members right across the House. On the point that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) makes about food waste recycling, funding for that has been built into the settlement, so it is present. The new burden is being funded in that way.
Mark Garnier
The Secretary of State is being incredibly kind. He talks about the settlement, but the settlement does not work. Wyre Forest district council has had a 0% increase in core funding. Dare I say that across the whole of Worcestershire, where there is a district council with a Conservative Member of Parliament, there has been a 0% increase, but where there is a district council with a Labour Member of Parliament, there has been an increase of up to 5%. Can he explain why that has happened?
Steve Reed
The settlement follows a funding formula and takes account of the costs of delivering food waste recycling in the way that the hon. Gentleman described earlier.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Steve Reed
Let me return to my theme for a moment before I take any more interventions.
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and colleagues across the House will remember that the Tories used to belittle local councillors as part-time volunteers and took away their pension rights to deter people from risking a career on the frontline of local government. Today, it falls to this Government to fix the foundations that the Tories smashed apart.
We are rebuilding local government so that councils can rebuild their communities. We are making good on our promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements so that councils can plan for the future with certainty. We are reconnecting funding with need so that we can take off the Tory shackles that have held back so many of our towns and communities for so long. We are ending wasteful bidding wars for funding, freeing councils to focus on filling in potholes, not forms. We are putting fairness back into a system that the Tories bragged about breaking. We reject the decline that ripped the heart out of towns and communities up and down this country. We choose change.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Shropshire council is about to see a 10% cut in its core funding from central Government, having been terribly badly run by the Conservatives for the previous 16 years before the Lib Dem administration took over in May. The Government have given the council permission to put up its council tax by 9% without a referendum, but that does not even touch the sides of the cut in funding from central Government. How is Shropshire, which needs to receive exceptional financial support in this year, ever going to fill the ever-growing black hole unless the funding from Government reflects the costs of delivering services in rural areas?
Steve Reed
I believe the hon. Lady has had several meetings with my colleague the Minister for Local Government. It is right and very important that we should align funding with need; that is the only way to ensure that funding is fair across the whole country. That is what we promised to do in our manifesto, and that is what we are doing with this settlement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I have taken an awful lot of interventions so far, and I do not want to leave no time, but I will take one last intervention.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. Like him, as a councillor I saw appalling pressures put on our local council in Reading while funding went up in neighbouring Wokingham, which is a much better-off area and was then controlled by the Conservatives. I appreciate his work on readjusting the settlement to reflect need. That should be a fundamental point in any allocation of resources to local government. Would he like to say a little more about his work on this, and how it is going to benefit residents on the lowest incomes in the most disadvantaged communities?
Steve Reed
At core, what we are hearing from all parts of the House at the moment is people’s views on the fact that under the previous Government, the alignment between funding and deprivation was broken, and this Government are bringing it back. Because the previous Government did nothing about it for 14 years, funding became extremely detached from deprivation. We are putting that back in and making sure that funding goes where the need is greatest, so that stealing money from the poorest communities to pork barrel Tory areas—which the former Prime Minister bragged about—can no longer go on.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the Tories. The biggest cuts under austerity from 2010 to 2024 came from 2010 to 2015 when the Lib Dems were in coalition, so perhaps they should share some of the blame.
Steve Reed
I certainly agree that the Lib Dems should share the blame for austerity. I was a council leader while the Lib Dems and Tories were in coalition together. I think they cut our council by a third just over the first one or two years that they were in power. Now they have the chutzpah to stand up and complain that this Government are putting some of it back. I really think they should reflect on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I have taken an awful lot of interventions, more from the opposite side of the House than from my own side, so with your kindness, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a little progress.
I thank all who contributed to the provisional settlement consultation. We listened carefully to views expressed by councils and MPs, and today I am pleased to announce an additional £740 million in new grant funding over and above the provisional settlement. This means that by the end of the multi-year settlement, councils will benefit from a 15.5% increase in core spending power, worth over £11.4 billion, compared with 2025-26.
When this Government took office, we introduced the recovery grant, targeted on those areas held back the most by Tory and Lib Dem austerity. This year we have maintained that grant, so every upper-tier council that received it will see a real-terms boost. I can announce a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant over the multi-year settlement targeted at councils the Tories hit with below average funding increases. By the end of this Parliament, we will have invested a total of £2.6 billion in the most deprived councils through the recovery grant, over and above what they receive through the settlement.
I have also listened carefully to feedback from the sector about business rates pooling. As a result, I am compensating any authorities that would have lost funding this year so that they have time to adapt to the new arrangements.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I was council leader at St Helens for five years before coming here in July 2024. I just want to say thank you to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government, and the Ministers in post before them, for the engagement, because the relationship now is different from what it was before. The conversation we have had since the provisional settlement has been constructive—it has been good; it has been done in good spirit—and I am very grateful for the result that we have for St Helens. In 2010, St Helens got £127 million a year from the last Labour Government, but when the Conservative party opposite left office it was £13 million a year. Does the Secretary of State share my absolute shock at the brass neck of Conservative Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Brief interventions can be just as productive as lengthy ones.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he is seeing is the realignment of funding with deprivation, and that is as it should be.
Graham Stuart
The Secretary of State has been tremendously generous in giving way. He has also been making his usual barnstorming political knockabout speech, but perhaps he should start to act more like a Secretary of State, because low-income residents of the East Riding, of whom there are many in Beverley and Holderness, are going to have a £200 council tax bombshell. The smallest house is going to be paying £200 more in three years’ time and will have reduced overall funding to support public services after the increase in costs imposed by the Government. That is the reality. The Secretary of State said he wants to focus on need; why has rurality been removed from the category of need, when it is such a real issue?
Steve Reed
Well, the easy answer to that is that it has not been; it is still there.
Above all, this settlement is about fairness, because this Government reject the Tory belief that our poorest communities should be left to sink with less funding and worse public services than other parts of the country. That approach pulled our country apart; and, in doing so, was profoundly unpatriotic. Our settlement reflects a council’s ability to raise income locally, and it reflects the fact that it costs more to deliver services in different parts of the country, retaining rurality funding for social care, because we recognise that workers in those areas have to travel longer distances. We have used the most up-to-date data on deprivation to make sure funding accurately follows need.
We are introducing changes gradually over the period of the settlement so councils have time to adapt, and we are protecting councils’ income, including from business rates growth. Today’s settlement is a milestone in returning councils to a sustainable financial footing, and in restoring fairness to local government funding.
Lincoln Jopp
I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He calls it a milestone; I call it a millstone. He talks about fairness. Stanwell in my Spelthorne constituency hits the markers for the double deprivation criteria that would qualify for the Pride in Place funding, but that is diluted by the more affluent areas in my constituency. How is it fair to the people of Stanwell that they do not qualify for Pride in Place funding just because they are surrounded by more affluent areas? Rather than helping, is the Secretary of State not just going to engineer the continuation of pockets of deprivation?
Steve Reed
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood how it works. An area does not get diluted. The scheme looks at super-output areas on a very small level so we can ensure that the funding goes to those areas with the highest levels of deprivation. I would be happy to write to him about the process if it would help him to better understand how it works.
For the vast majority of councils, increases in council tax will be restricted to 3%, and 2% for the adult social care precept.
Steve Reed
I am going to make some progress, I am afraid.
There are a few councils facing extremely challenging financial pressures that the previous Government turned into a crisis by ignoring their problems for over a decade. In response to requests from those councils, I am giving them flexibility to increase their council tax above referendum principles next year. Unlike the previous Government, we will not agree any increases that could lead to households in these areas paying above national average council tax, but we will not let councils go to the wall and see their residents punished with failing services. These flexibilities will apply to Warrington, Trafford, Worcestershire, Shropshire, North Somerset, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. One fire authority will also be granted additional flexibility. These are caps, not targets, and no area with additional flexibility will see bills rise above the national average.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for making that point about council tax and flexibility for local councils. Does he agree with the Local Government Association, which is worried, stating that
“council tax is not the solution to the financial challenges facing local government. It places a significant burden on some households”,
including the poorest. Does he agree that we should now be looking at council tax reform?
Steve Reed
I agree with the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that council tax cannot be the only means to fix these problems. That is why we have increased the level of funding overall and reconnected it with the deprivation indices that tell us which areas have the greatest need, and should therefore get a fair share of the available funding.
The Home Secretary and I have also agreed an additional £3.50 council tax flexibility for six police and crime commissioners in 2026-27, where that was critical to financial sustainability in maintaining law and order. It is for councillors, mayors and police and crime commissioners to set their own council tax, and to take into account the impact on households when making those decisions.
Nationally, council tax will not increase by more than it did last year. Six local authorities set council tax bills between £450 and £1,000 lower than the national average because of the high value of homes in their areas. The previous Government made no adjustment in the funding formula for this, creating unfairness. It is not fair that people living in our poorest communities should subsidise rock-bottom bills in some of our wealthiest areas, so I am giving those councils additional flexibility to manage their budgets as we align funding with need, as we should.
For councils that need some support to balance their budgets this year, we will no longer just sign off borrowing or the sale of assets without a credible approach to reforming services to get back to financial stability. Later this month, I will confirm arrangements for supporting councils in the most difficult positions, but they will be expected to bring forward plans for more effective and sustainable services, built on sustainable budgeting into the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I want to make some progress, because I have taken quite a lot of interventions, but I will give way before I conclude.
Local government is still under pressure, and we will not bury our heads in the sand or dodge the difficult decisions. The adult social care system is in crisis, and we are facing up to that by transforming it. This settlement makes available around £4.6 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the sector’s first ever fair pay agreement. That means more carers getting better pay and having the time to provide the high-quality, compassionate care they want to give. It will get us moving towards a national care service that gives people better-quality care, joined-up services, and more choice and independence.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
We are very grateful for the settlement and the announcements that the Secretary of State has made today. Both Redbridge and Waltham Forest in my constituency are receiving significant uplifts from this Parliament, and Ministers have been excellent in listening to the arguments of both those London boroughs. Although this measure will not be enough to fill the immediate financial gaps left by the Tories, it is a step forward. However, given that temporary accommodation costs have risen so much in London—by about 75% over the last five years—will the Secretary of State set out how the Government are acting to expand the supply of socially rented homes?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that funding is now following deprivation. He will find the answer to his question in the homelessness strategy, which I will come to. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, you are indicating with your wrist that I need to speed up, so I will make some progress.
On children’s social care, the system was again left on its knees. That is why this Government are driving forward the biggest transformation of children’s social care in a generation by rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. We have backed the programme with nearly £3 billion over four years, including an investment of over £2.4 billion in this multi-year settlement. It gives local authorities, police and health partners the tools to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision towards early intervention and preventive support. It will help families stay together, divert thousands of children from care and transform the outcomes and wellbeing of children across the country.
The investment in the Families First Partnership programme marks a milestone in transforming the children’s social care system, but we recognise that the children’s social care residential market is fundamentally broken. Local authorities are being pushed to the brink, while some private providers are making excessive profits. This cannot—and it will not—continue. Instead, we are working to reduce reliance on residential care and move towards a system rooted in family environments through fostering. Last week, the Government set out a plan to expand fostering for 10,000 more children by the end of this Parliament. The evidence is clear that taking this approach will be better for children and better for the local authorities that provide the services. Using the new powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will explore the implementation of a profit cap in the children’s social care placement market to ensure that public money delivers value and care, not profiteering.
It is obvious that the current special educational needs and disabilities system is not working for children and families. We know that it is not working for councils either, as they are seeing funding for neighbourhood services diverted into a broken system. The Government are bringing forward ambitious reforms that will create a better and financially sustainable SEND system, built on early, high-quality support for kids with SEND to improve their time at school and maximise their potential throughout life. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will set out the details of those reforms in the upcoming schools White Paper.
Crucially, we are taking action now to support local authorities as we move towards that reformed system. We will deliver this in phases, the first of which will address historic deficits accrued up to the end of 2025-26. All local authorities with SEND deficits will receive a grant covering 90% of their high-need deficit up to the end of 2025-26. This is subject to local authorities securing the Department for Education’s approval of a local SEND reform plan.
On homelessness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) has said, we know that temporary accommodation is a growing financial pressure on councils, with near record levels of rough sleeping and declining social housing stock. The final settlement also provides a £272 million uplift to the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, taking total investment delivered through the settlement to £2.7 billion. On the ground, that will mean families off the streets; kids out of temporary accommodation and instead living in safe, secure homes; and people’s lives put back on course. We are matching that landmark investment with our national plan to end homelessness, led by the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, to put the full might of the state behind preventing homelessness before it happens.
Today’s settlement is about keeping a promise—a promise to repair the broken foundations of local government, and a promise to put the heart back into our communities. When the last Conservative Government slashed councils to the bone, the consequences were severe: the services people use every day were undermined, streets became filthy and people’s lives got tougher. The hard work of councillors, mayors and frontline staff kept vital services running during those hard Tory years, and we thank them for the work they did in those circumstances. Our aim is a future where councillors, working with their communities, have the freedom to innovate—rebuilding public services and investing in high streets, youth clubs and libraries. We are fixing the foundations so that councils and their communities can build the public services, renew the high streets and shape the future they want to see.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I will announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The Ayes were 362 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Local Government Reorganisation
Steve Reed Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government were elected on a promise to repair the broken foundations of local government. In 2024, councils were on the brink financially, while a third of the country was left paying for wasteful duplication as a result of having two tiers of councils in their area. That cannot be acceptable. Years of underfunding has led to a crisis in social care, the decline of our town centres and rubbish piling up in our streets. That visible failure contributes to a decline in trust, and it was caused by Tory austerity and 14 years of economic mismanagement.
This Government will not stand by and let that decline continue. We cannot just snap our fingers and reverse the last 14 years overnight, but we can act now to secure a better future. To get there, we have already announced fairer funding that realigns resources with need, but we also need to eliminate the financial waste of two-tier councils, so that we can plough the savings back into the frontline services that local people care about the most. Today’s announcement is part of that.
We must move at pace to remove the confusion and waste of doubled-up bureaucracy. Local residents do not know which of their two councils is responsible for which services. No one would ever design a system in which one council collects rubbish and another gets rid of it. In many parts of the country, residents’ hard-earned council tax pays for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief executives, and two sets of financial directors. That is wasting tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.
The previous Government sat back and ignored this problem, but this Government will not. We are committed to the most ambitious local government reorganisation in a generation. My priority is cutting out this waste, so that we can invest more in the frontline services that residents care about. That means moving as quickly as possible to the new, streamlined, single-tier councils that can make that happen. I have asked councils to tell me where holding elections this year to positions that will rapidly be abolished would slow down making these vital reforms, which will benefit local people, and I have listened to what councils told me.
In December, the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness wrote to 63 councils that were due to hold elections in May 2026, asking to hear their views. I have carefully assessed more than 350 representations from those councils that have elections scheduled for May, and from others interested in the outcome. I have carefully considered arguments made about capacity, reorganisation and democracy, and I am grateful to everyone who took the time to express their views.
I can now confirm my decisions to the House. I have decided to bring forward legislation to postpone 29 elections; I have deposited a list of those in the House of Commons Library. I received one further representation this morning, which I will consider; I will then report back to the House on my decision. In all other areas, council elections will go ahead as planned; many councils offered no evidence that elections would delay reorganisation in their area. That means that of the 136 local elections across England that were scheduled for May, the vast majority will go ahead as planned.
In areas where elections are postponed, councillors will have their terms extended for a short period. Once the new unitary councils are agreed, we will hold elections to them in 2027. I have written to councils confirming these decisions, and I will shortly lay the necessary legislation before both Houses.
I am not the first Secretary of State to seek to delay elections to speed up essential reorganisation. The shadow Secretary of State suggested on Tuesday that the previous Government had not done the same thing, but he has perhaps forgotten the postponements in Weymouth and Portland in 2018; in Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Buckinghamshire and Wycombe in 2019; or in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), but I do not expect him to walk in and start mouthing off the moment he sits down. I am sure that he would like to catch my eye, and that is not the best way to do so.
Steve Reed
Indeed. It was the right hon. Member, the self-styled new sheriff in town—now, of course, a member of Reform UK Ltd—who made many of these decisions.
To those who say we have cancelled all the elections: we have not. To those who say it is all Labour councils: it is not. I have asked, I have listened and I have acted —no messing about, no playing politics, just getting on with the job of making local government work better for local people.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
“This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 57.]
That is what I said on Monday, when I dragged the Secretary of State’s Minister—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—to the Dispatch Box. I say it again today, directly to him.
In his statement, the Secretary of State plays heavily on what he claims is a wasteful system. He has said publicly that he thinks these elections are “pointless”, so it is clear what he thinks and it is clear what he wants. He wants to cancel all these elections, so why does he not simply say so? Why does he not have the courage of his own convictions? Why did he write to councils asking them to ask him to cancel the elections? Why, when they did not give him the answer that he wanted, did he write to them again asking basically the same question? Why was his Department putting pressure on councils to ask for cancellations as late as last night?
I know why. He knows why. We all know why. It is because he wants to shift the blame. He wants to say, “I didn’t make them do it.” He wants a political gotcha. He is putting councils in an impossible position, squeezing them financially, imposing the costs and disruption of large-scale reorganisation on them, making promises about structures, timescales and funding, and then reneging on those promises. Then, to add insult to injury, he is trying to dump the consequences of his arrogance and incompetence on to the laps of the local councils.
It has always been the Conservative position that these elections should go ahead. The Secretary of State tried to claim in his statement that there were precedents, as his Minister did on Monday, but the scale and scope of these cancellations is totally unprecedented. I ask him directly: what was it about the Labour party’s collapse in the opinion polls that first attracted him to the cancellation of local elections? Is he as unsurprised as I am that the vast bulk of councils asking for their elections to be scrapped are Labour-run councils?
I give the Secretary of State notice that Conservative Members will vote against these proposals. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy, and when his Department puts intolerable pressure on councils, shifting the goalposts or pulling the rug from under them—whichever metaphor one chooses to use—he should have the courage to come to this House and say that it is his decision to cancel elections, rather than passing the buck to local government leaders.
Steve Reed
I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman’s case would be much stronger and would sound less self-righteous if he had not done exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons, when he was in government—only, unlike him when his party was in government, I have imposed nothing. This was a locally led approach. [Interruption.] He was a member of the Cabinet, and he is trying to claim that Cabinets do not take decisions collectively. He was in the Cabinet that took these decisions and he backed them to the hilt. Now, in opposition, he believes the opposite. He seems to think he has become a Lib Dem. He is supposed to have consistency in what he believes.
This is a locally led approach. I was guided by local councils, which came to me with their views. I respectfully suggest that his argument is with those Conservative councils and leaders who have requested postponement so that they can get on and deliver a reorganisation that will benefit their residents, but which he is now trying to block for party political reasons.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House with his statement. Although he has outlined that there is a clear precedent, from 2019 and 2021, for postponing local elections, he reassured my Select Committee back in November that these elections would go ahead. Residents in those areas will be disappointed that their elections are being postponed.
I want to challenge the Secretary of State on what he has outlined and on his talk about eliminating waste. I agree that we need to respond to local leaders, especially where they have valid concerns about the process of reorganisation. We all knew that this would be a resource-intensive process, and we are aware that all our councils are dealing with many demands—adult social care, children’s social care, temporary accommodation—but our councils should not have to face choosing between frontline services and elections. Democracy is not an inefficiency that should be cut out. Every council should have the resources to run local elections. Can he assure the House that councils that have applied for their elections to go ahead will still have the resources to manage frontline services?
I also want clarity from the Secretary of State on any potential legal challenge. I understand that the court has given a date on which it will consider a legal challenge. Is there any possibility that the elections will go ahead if the Government lose? That would leave little time for councils, councillors, political parties and the Electoral Commission to go ahead. Can he outline any contingency planning that has been done, should that happen?
Steve Reed
I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her questions. I reassure her that I have imposed nothing. I took representations and listened to local councils, and today I am merely responding to the representations that I heard. Most councils will go ahead. It is the councils themselves that have reassured me that they have the resources to go ahead with elections and deliver the reorganisation that is so important to improving frontline services for local people. I am acting on the information that they have given me; I am imposing nothing. She will, I hope, appreciate that it is not appropriate or possible for me to comment on legal proceedings.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Reed
I remind the hon. Lady that these postponements, which are at the request of councils, affect only those councils that will shortly be abolished anyway. They are happening so that we can more quickly have elections to the new councils that will replace them. I respectfully suggest to her, as I did to the shadow Secretary of State, that her argument is actually with those Liberal Democrat councils and Liberal Democrat council leaders who have requested postponement so that the reorganisation can go ahead on schedule. I have imposed nothing; I am merely responding to them. I suggest that she go away and perhaps have a cup of tea with some of them, so that they can explain to her how what they have requested does not damage democracy.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I should make it clear that local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes and that I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant, hard-working Labour councillors locally. One of the reasons for delaying the elections is the time it is taking to go through the local government reorganisation process. That affects elections, but it also affects the creation of the new combined authorities, which is happening in parallel. Given the delays, will the Department look at the fast-track programme for the combined authorities, and at whether it is worth adding areas that do not face the reorganisation challenges, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes?
Steve Reed
This is the biggest reorganisation in a generation, and it is very important that it be delivered with as much speed as we can muster, because of the benefits to local residents, who will see more money available to spend on things like fixing potholes and caring for older people—rather than paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief execs and two sets of finance directors, which the Conservative party was happy to see continue for all the 14 years it was in power. Of course, I will listen to my hon. Friend and others if they have suggestions about how we can further speed up the process and renew local democracy across the country.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that elections in Essex are going ahead; indeed, they should have taken place a year ago. However, he will be aware that elections have also been proposed for new unitary authorities next year, although we in Essex do not even know what the unitary authorities will be. Will he say whether it is still his intention that we should have elections for the new authorities next year?
Steve Reed
As I said in my statement, it is my intention that the elections to the new unitaries will go ahead next year.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I have to say that I find the bleating from the Conservative party—which delayed elections in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Somerset, as well as in several other areas named by the Secretary of State—pretty astounding. As welcome as the reforms are, they are taking up considerable time and capacity for local authorities, including Oxfordshire county council. The council is prioritising, among other things, economic growth, which this Government have said is their No. 1 mission. I urge the Secretary of State and his team to look at picking up the pace of these reforms, as welcome as they are, so that local areas and the councils that emerge from them can get on with delivering for their local residents.
Steve Reed
I completely agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. We want to go ahead with this reorganisation precisely so that we can improve public services and let councils get on with what they should be doing. Growing local economies and putting more money in the pockets of local people, including his constituents, is our priority.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I was very interested to hear what the Secretary of State said. I represent a two-tier local authority area, and I live in a two-tier local authority area, yet I seem to pay considerably less council tax than people living in neighbouring local authority areas that are Labour-controlled and single-tier. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how?
Steve Reed
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, his party fiddled funding to councils so that areas voting Labour were less likely to get funded. He does not have to take my word for it: the former Prime Minister was captured on video standing in a garden in Tunbridge Wells and boasting about how he was ripping money away from poorer communities to give it to wealthier communities. Perhaps it has something to do with that.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, I am a very strong supporter of local government reform, especially for cities such as Exeter. It is not just about waste; it is about being held back within a two-tier system. It is also worth pointing out that all parties represented on Exeter city council are in favour of unitary status for Exeter. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we are moving full speed ahead with local government reform and that unitary status for places like Exeter will improve services, reduce waste and deliver the sustainable jobs and growth in living standards that we desperately want in our city?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are proceeding with this reorganisation in order to eliminate duplication and the cost of that waste, so that the money can be spent on frontline services instead. I have asked councils for their views on whether postponement would speed up their ability to carry out the reorganisation and get the new, streamlined councils off the ground, and I have responded to their representations.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Somerset underwent local government reorganisation during the last Parliament, with an independent report citing that the Conservative administration’s business case was marked by poor decision making, while its reckless decision to freeze council tax for six years has seen over £330 million in lost revenue. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that new unitary councils, such as Somerset, are put on a fair financial footing? Will he reconsider the decision to remove the remoteness uplift, which will force councils to consider cuts to vital services?
Steve Reed
The fair funding review that we have announced is intended to ensure that, unlike under the previous Government, funding follows need. We took on board the new indicators on deprivation, and funding is now much more closely aligned with them. That is as it should be, because those are the areas that need extra funding. The hon. Lady will find that rurality is still taken into account in funding for social care, and given the distance that people may need to travel, it is important that such services remain available to them.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s Department issued very clear guidance on 6 February last year, which said that
“we expect local leaders to engage their Members of Parliament, and to ensure there is wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.”
My constituents are concerned that the proposal by Nottingham city council for reorganisation in Nottinghamshire fails to meet that test. Can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents in Gedling an assurance that his Department will firmly apply the guidance that he set on 6 February 2025?
Steve Reed
Yes, we will apply that guidance. Of course, we will listen to all representations about proposals for reorganisation, including my hon. Friend’s proposals for Nottinghamshire.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
A year ago, the then Deputy Prime Minister assured us and promised us that none of the delays would be for more than a year, yet five of the current 29 that are going to be delayed are from last year, and 21 of the 29 are Labour-controlled councils. The Secretary of State is aware that we have a judicial review that is due to be heard in February. I obviously do not want him to comment on the case, but can he confirm that, as this Government believe in the rules-based order, they will adhere to and comply with the rulings of the judge?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I cannot comment on legal proceedings—it would be entirely inappropriate. I think the best response to his question is to quote the “new sheriff in town”, the right hon. Member for Newark, who is sitting directly in front of him and who took exactly the same decision in exactly the same circumstances. This is a direct quote from him:
“Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters, and would be hard to justify when members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 23WS-24WS.]
For once, he got it absolutely right.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I take issue with the absolute brass neck of the shadow Secretary of State, who talked about the Government putting pressure on local government finances and then devolving the blame. Nothing could better describe the destructive austerity policies of the last Government, who devastated local councils across the country.
On the matter in hand, I welcome the decision to go ahead with elections in Hampshire and Basingstoke. That was the will of local councillors, though I accept that different areas have different circumstances. Are we still on track for the local government reorganisation process in Hampshire and Basingstoke? Can I impress upon the Secretary of State the importance of reaching a decision that endorses the proposal from Basingstoke, Hart and Rushmoor councils for a north Hampshire authority?
Steve Reed
I am seeking to ensure that we remain on track by responding to the comments I have had from councils, and ensuring they have the resources so that the process goes ahead as everyone intends it to.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I support unitarisation and the efficiency savings it brings, but may I caution the Secretary of State a little on his language? A lot of the waste he is talking about is people’s jobs. Many hard-working council workers, who have huge uncertainty about what will happen to them over the next couple of years, will be concerned to hear that sort of language used as we discuss this in the Chamber. What support is he giving local authorities to help those council workers find new jobs once the LGR process is complete?
Steve Reed
The hon. Member makes a very important point, and he is right to be concerned about people working for councils. Of course, the overall increase in funding for local authorities means they have more resources to support their staff members, who may be concerned about their jobs in these circumstances, and I urge affected councils to focus on precisely the issues to which he has brought to our attention.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As a former leader of Worthing borough council, I pay tribute to my councillor colleagues, who did not come to the decision they have made lightly. They were informed by the officers, and they have had 15 years of underfunding on the south coast. Pockets of deprivation in coastal towns have long been ignored, and I very much welcome the fairer funding formula, which now recognises that. As we are on the fast track in Sussex, could the Secretary of State please reassure us that unitary authority decisions will be announced as soon as possible, and that the boundary commission will make sure we have the right sized wards for our new unitary authorities at the earliest possible opportunity?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is of course a very pugnacious champion for her constituents and her constituency. She has had conversations with me about this very issue, and made her point very clear. We intend to make those announcements as soon as we can so that there is certainty, and we can move ahead to the new structures.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Having served as both a district and a unitary councillor, I actually support the Government’s move towards unitary authorities. My Brigg and Immingham constituency is served by two unitary authorities—North Lincolnshire council and North East Lincolnshire council—both of which want to continue as they are, and that position is supported by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). When the Secretary of State reviews the two-tier Lincolnshire county council area, can he give an assurance that he will leave the two existing unitaries exactly as they are?
Steve Reed
Unfortunately, I cannot prejudge the outcome of a consultation process, but I can perhaps say that I have been very impressed by the work done by North East Lincolnshire council, with no prejudice to the decision that will follow.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
First, would the Secretary of State stop saying this is a locally led process. The power rests solely with him, and each of these delays is his decision and his decision alone.
Secondly, the real question here is: why are elections to be delayed for a second year? When I was the Secretary of State, the legal advice I received—including from Sir James Eadie, the Government’s chief legal adviser —was that it was not legally sustainable to delay for a second year, hence we did not. Even during covid, we kept the elections going and did not delay for two years. What the Secretary of State is doing is almost certainly illegal. If he is so confident of his position, will he publish his legal advice and publish the legal advice that I and the then Prime Minister received when we decided not to delay for a second year? Then we might be able to have faith in what he is saying.
Steve Reed
As I say, the right hon. Member was of course the Secretary of State who failed to act on eliminating the waste that came from duplication and allowed this two-tier system to continue, with millions and millions of pounds of council tax payers’ money wasted on duplicate councillors, duplicate chief executives and duplicate finance directors, instead of ploughing that money into frontline services. On those few occasions when he was brave enough to take a decision, he imposed; by contrast, I have asked and I have responded. However, the reasons he gave were the right ones. In his words:
“Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 23-24WS.]
He got it right for once. He should be proud of himself.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I do have concerns about the undermining of democracy, not least in that some Members of the House who have always insisted on by-elections after defections now appear to be running away from the electorate. Will the Secretary of State absolutely dissociate himself from the comments made by a Member of the governing party who could not confirm, when asked three times, that the general election would never be delayed?
Steve Reed
There is no question in ordinary circumstances of a general election being delayed. That has only ever happened in cases of national emergency, and that remains the case.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I agree with the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle), who has said that these elections should go ahead. Indeed, democracy delayed is democracy denied. In the past, when there has been a delay to local elections, I cannot remember it ever being for longer than one year. When Margaret Thatcher rightly abolished the Greater London Council, the term of the GLC was extended by one year only. Any delay has never been longer than one year, and one of two or three years is a complete denial of democracy. It is quite clearly a way of Labour avoiding humiliating defeats on 7 May. As they are going to be delayed, would the Secretary State please consider allowing the people of Havering to have a choice about our becoming part of Greater Essex instead of Greater London?
Steve Reed
I remind the hon. Member that his party did the same thing in the same circumstances—I should say his “former party”, because he walked out on it last week. Proposals about what happens in Essex are currently subject to consultation, and he is more than entitled to make his views known.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He has outlined that the purpose is to save moneys, cut down on waste and improve efficiency. In Northern Ireland, we undertook the reorganisation of councils, reducing their number from 26 down to 11. Councils need only one chief executive, one head of each department and one council headquarters. Two or three councils together have greater buying power than one, so ultimately there are greater savings. However, seven years later, local people still feel disenfranchised from their local council. I am trying to be helpful in asking this question, but can he look at the Northern Ireland experience, and does he acknowledge that restructuring is a very delicate balance and must have public buy-in?
Steve Reed
I do agree with the hon. Member. I think it is very important that we get this right, which is why I was careful to listen to representations from councils due to undergo reorganisation to ensure that we do get it right. I want to see those savings made and to see council tax payers’ hard-earned money spent on frontline services, not wasteful duplication.
Chinese Embassy
Steve Reed Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This statement follows the decision I made today to grant planning permission and listed building consent for a new embassy in London.
The proposal is for the redevelopment of the Royal Mint Court site in the London borough of Tower Hamlets to provide a new Chinese embassy. It would involve the refurbishment and restoration of several listed buildings, and associated works.
The decision was in line with the recommendation of the independent planning inspector who held a public inquiry into this case between 11 and 19 February 2025.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers making planning decisions must follow a quasi-judicial process. This means they must make decisions fairly, based on evidence and planning rules.
The decision letter and associated inspector’s report fully explains the reasons for the decision and is available on the Government’s website. The decision letter comprises the Secretary of State’s letter, the inspector’s report, and the following annexes: annex A (Schedule of Representations); annex B1 (List of conditions for the listed building consent); annex B2 (List of conditions for the planning permission); and annex C (Consolidated Drawing Schedule and revised drawings). Annex C is a separate document. The relevant plans to which these permissions relate are secured by condition. I will deposit a copy of the decision letter in the Libraries of both Houses, including all annexes.
Representations received from parties as part of the reference-back exercise are listed in the decision letter and are available on request. For convenience, I will deposit a full set of the reference-back correspondence in the Libraries of both Houses.
All material considerations were taken into account when making this decision.
The decision is now final unless it is successfully challenged in court.
[HCWS1261]
Tower Hamlets Council: Best Value Duty
Steve Reed Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government will do what it takes to fix the foundations of local government. That includes taking prompt and direct action in the small number of councils that are failing their best value duty and not meeting the high standards expected by local residents. In that context, I would like to update the House on the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
On 22 January 2025 Ministers announced a statutory intervention for the London borough of Tower Hamlets, to be in place until 31 March 2028. The intervention was established to secure the council’s compliance with its best value duty following failings identified during a best value inspection in 2024. The statutory support package centred on the appointment of ministerial envoys to act as advisers and oversee improvement work that the council had already begun. The Government were clear that the council would need to drive forward changes at pace and that further action would be taken should it prove necessary. This was reiterated following the envoys’ first progress report in July. One year into the intervention, I welcome the early signs of progress and the council’s constructive engagement with the envoys. However, I am concerned that the council has not understood the severity of its situation or moved beyond planning for improvement into action and impact. These are concerns which have also been raised with the council by the envoys as part of their routine engagement.
I consider that the council is not sufficiently mindful of, or able to assess its own position. This is a view shared by the Local Government Association in its October progress review against the 2023 corporate peer challenge, where it describes the council’s “tendency towards optimism bias”. The council’s external auditor has also observed
“an ongoing reluctance within the organisation to fully acknowledge the scale of the challenge it faces”.
The council will not be able to move forward without a clear understanding of where it is now and how it needs to change.
This is slowing improvement. The council’s auditor has raised concerns about a lack of urgency from the council in response to its statutory recommendations issued in February, as well as a slow response to other significant issues such as the departure of the section 151 officer and investigating serious matters of non-compliance. Where the council has recognised issues and made plans for improvement, such as the developing continuous improvement plan, it is unclear that these are translating into measurable delivery. The Local Government Association also noted in its progress review that the council has “lots of plans” and “a plan for a plan”—but that “consistency, coherence and a strong delivery narrative’” and the “use of evidence and data” are needed to develop and demonstrate the fulfilment of any strategic vision for Tower Hamlets.
I also have material concerns about the council’s financial management and governance, which appears to be deteriorating. The significant weaknesses and statutory recommendations from the external auditor represent areas of serious risk and the auditor highlights the ongoing absence of an effective internal controls environment to safeguard public money. This is in the context of continuing allegations about leadership, governance and culture coming from a wide range of stakeholders. These risk weakening public confidence in the council. While not a best value issue, recent reports of councillors abandoning their constituents to stand overseas will only have further undermined the public perception of members’ commitment to the borough and to the improvement journey. This behaviour demonstrates an appalling lack of respect for residents and should not happen in any local authority.
Having carefully considered the auditor’s November draft annual report and interim value for money report for 2024-25, the Local Government Association’s October progress review against the 2023 corporate peer challenge and other relevant material, I remain satisfied that Tower Hamlets council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture and partnerships. I am also satisfied that the council is now failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to its use of resources.
I am therefore minded to exercise my powers of direction under section 15(5) and (6) of the Local Government Act 1999 in relation to the London borough of Tower Hamlets council to secure its compliance with the best value duty. Given the evidence of ongoing concerns, I believe that a strengthened and expanded version of the current intervention is necessary to get the council on track for sufficient improvement by the scheduled end of the intervention. This Government are committed to taking whatever action is needed to limit the length of statutory intervention to that which is absolutely necessary.
I am proposing a revised package of statutory support, which builds on the collaborative working to date between the envoys and the council, but recognises that the scale of challenge facing the council requires greater capacity for support and oversight. The proposal is therefore centred around increasing the powers available to the envoys and increasing their overall capacity, including through the appointment of an additional assistant envoy with expertise in finance. In detail:
I am minded to issue the envoys with powers to exercise council functions associated with governance, financial management and the recruitment, performance management and designation of statutory and senior officers. These powers are intended to safeguard the process and to be treated as in reserve, similar to the approach in Warrington borough council, to be used only where necessary to ensure compliance with the best value duty.
I am proposing to increase the allocated working days to 150 days for the ministerial envoy, and 120 days for each assistant envoy. This is commensurate with other interventions and proportionate to the scale of work required.
In order to strengthen the council’s finance function as part of its corporate core, I propose to expand the envoy team through the appointment of an additional assistant envoy with expertise in finance.
The envoys have written to Ministers outlining the terms of a new project designed to address the long-standing allegations made against the council, and unfavourable perceptions of the council’s activities which persist among its staff, stakeholders and the community at large. These perceptions are of real concern to the envoys. They are planning a series of “deep dives” regarding patronage in recruitment and staff promotions, resource allocation (community assets and community grants), housing allocations, licensing and planning decisions, and the structure, functions, activities and roles within the mayor’s office and mayoral advisory team. I share the envoys’ concerns, in particular regarding the mayor’s advisory team, and I am pleased that the council recognises this project as an opportunity to demonstrate transparency. However, considering issues faced by external bodies investigating non-compliance and the council’s tendency towards optimism, I propose to issue new directions requiring the council to support the project to the satisfaction of the envoys. This will ensure the project is appropriately independent and delivers its objectives comprehensively and in a timely manner. To that end, and to more broadly establish appropriate governance for this next phase of the intervention, I am also proposing to streamline all assurance mechanisms to sit under a single improvement board, to the satisfaction of the envoys.
In line with procedures in the 1999 Act, I am inviting representations from the London borough of Tower Hamlets and any other interested parties on the proposals on or before 2 February. The council is due to report to me later this week on delivery against the current directions. I have extended this submission deadline until the end of the representation period, should it wish to make changes. The envoys will also report during this period and I will carefully consider both reports alongside any representations before deciding how to proceed. If I decide to amend the intervention package in the manner described here, I will then make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and nominate a further assistant envoy. Any directions that I make will be without prejudice to making further directions, should this prove necessary.
This action is not proposed lightly. It is clear that there are some officers and members in Tower Hamlets working hard with the support of the envoys to improve the council for the residents of Tower Hamlets, and this announcement should not deter them from their commitment. Rather, I consider that the proposed package will provide them with the focused support and challenge necessary to hasten the pace of improvement and provide local residents and businesses with greater assurance that the council is on a path out of intervention and towards longer-term stability. This Government are committed to providing the London borough of Tower Hamlets with whatever support is needed to ensure its compliance with the best value duty and to realise sources of growth in the borough. Growth is the defining mission of this Government, and I expect all parties to continue to work in partnership to secure Tower Hamlets’ contribution to a stronger economy.
I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents I have referred to, and publish the relevant letters on gov.uk. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS1253]
Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Reed Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Government are committed to building the new homes people need so that we can end the housing crisis that we inherited. The method for calculating local housing need aligns with the Government’s ambition for 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. That reflects affordability, and there are no plans to change it.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. The housing formula has resulted in huge increases for parts of rural England, including a doubling of the number in my East Hampshire constituency, and it should be reviewed overall. However, this question is about one specific aspect, whereby in an unintended way, the mix of housing that is being delivered might be skewed. I have written to the Secretary of State’s colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, and all I ask is that the Department looks at that with an open mind and considers it fully.
Steve Reed
I am always happy to listen to suggestions from the right hon. Gentleman and ensure that he gets a response. I reassure him that housing targets reflect the baseline of local housing stock, but I will ensure that he gets the letter he has requested.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Mayor of London and I discussed the rate of house building in London as soon as I came into office at the beginning of September last year. House building in London is flatlining because the previous Government failed to take action when it was clear that it was happening from 2023 right across the country. Last October, the mayor and I launched a joint stimulus package to increase house building in London, and we and our teams remain in regular contact to ensure that we can get on and build the new housing that Londoners need.
Katie Lam
The Secretary of State mentions a countrywide problem, but numbers of housing starts in London are particularly pitiful. There were only about 370 new starts for every month of last year, which is the lowest level for almost any region for any year that I have been alive. There are nearly six times as many starts in the south-east, even though the housing crisis there is exported from London. It would be good to hear a little more about exactly what the plan involves, what number of starts the Secretary of State expects to see this year, and, if that target is missed, what will happen next.
Steve Reed
Because of the time it takes between submitting an application and getting spades in the ground, we are seeing the tail-end of what was going on under the previous Government. We have already changed planning legislation and passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will dramatically speed up the planning process to get more housing through the system faster, lowering the cost for developers of getting those homes built. We have made changes to the national planning policy framework to speed up house building in and around London and across the rest of the country, and we expect to see that upturn over coming months.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
In Battersea, we are delivering more affordable homes for people to buy and rent, and I welcome recent plans by the mayor, the council and Battersea power station to deliver more than 200 social homes. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming those plans, which show that Labour in London is delivering for local people?
Steve Reed
I am more than happy to add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend to Wandsworth council on ensuring that it is increasing the supply of affordable housing around Battersea power station, where we desperately need more. There is a fantastic development there, but on the Wandsworth side there were inadequate levels of social housing under the previous Conservative Administration.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
At the outset of the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), one could be forgiven for thinking that we had an entirely new Mayor of London. In fact, this year we celebrate, or perhaps more appropriately commiserate, a decade of Sadiq Khan’s tenure as London Mayor. In that decade, in the most prosperous city in Europe, Sadiq Khan has overseen not just stalling but consistently falling rates of private construction starts. Recent figures from Molior show that London began building just 3,248 new homes in the first nine months of 2025, leaving it on track to start building fewer than 5,000 in total in 2025.
Incredibly, the Government’s response has been to cut their floundering mayor’s housing targets by 11%, but skyrocket targets in outer London authorities, where the vast majority of greenbelt land is. That includes an increase of almost 400% compared with previously approved London planning targets in my local council area of Bromley. Will the Secretary of State please explain why people living in places such as Bromley and our local greenbelt must pay the price for Sadiq Khan’s decade of failure and uselessness?
Steve Reed
Of course it is not the Mayor of London who can change planning legislation but the Government, and despite knowing the problems, the previous Government did nothing for 14 years. It has taken this Government to make those changes, even though we have been in power for barely a year and a half. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bromley; the figures for Bromley show that it managed just 70 housing starts last year across the entire borough. That is entirely inadequate and it needs to do better.
Gareth Bacon
What the Secretary of State did not say is that local boroughs are not in charge of building out planning consents, and he did not acknowledge that London boroughs are subject to the London plan. The Secretary of State claims that he is working with the Mayor of London, who writes the London plan, to build more homes, but unlike the Secretary of State, the facts do not heed the mayor’s spin. According to Molior, there were just 3,950 new homes sold in London during the first half of 2025 and just 3,248 private housing starts in the first nine months of 2025, against a nine month target of 66,000. The Secretary of State said last year that his own job should be on the line if he fails to meet his housing targets, so why does he not practise what he preaches, do Londoners a favour and tell sorry Sadiq to pack his bags over his decade of failure?
Steve Reed
As the hon. Gentleman should know, changes to the London plan were part of the package that I announced with the Mayor of London, because this Government are prepared to work with the Mayor of London to get the homes built. The previous Government wanted to hobble the Mayor of London so that he could not get the homes built, in order that they could score silly little political points rather than giving people the homes that they need to live in. The previous Government were happy to sit back and watch homelessness double over 14 years. We are not: we are going to build the homes that this country needs, including in London.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government inherited a housing crisis, with the sector flatlining nationally since 2023. In October, the Mayor of London and I launched a joint package to speed up house building in London. In December, the Minister for Housing and Planning launched a consultation on reforms to the national planning policy framework to increase housing supply, including moving to a default “yes” to applications near railway stations. All of that will increase house building and help us to achieve our targets during this Parliament.
Lincoln Jopp
In my Spelthorne constituency, as a result of action taken by the independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green-led borough council, we have not had a local plan for a couple of years. It was finally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 November, but there has been a planning wild west in Spelthorne for the last couple of years, which I am keen to bring to an end. Will the Secretary of State use his good offices to influence the planning inspector to try to turn around this local plan as soon as possible?
Steve Reed
I certainly urge all local authorities to ensure that they have a local plan in place. When we came into government, two thirds of local authorities did not have a plan, but they need one to help developers know what they can build and where, and to speed up house building, which we all want to see.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
When we are building the new homes that we desperately need, it is important that we think about playgrounds and access to play. I have just audited all the playgrounds in Hastings and Rye. I found that many parents and children have to walk for over 20 minutes to get to a playground, particularly in new build estates, and housing associations have shamefully closed many playgrounds in recent years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss these findings, how we can ensure that new house building includes access to play and how we can put pressure on housing associations to live up to their duty to provide play?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes the important point that we are trying to build not just homes but communities. Those communities need the facilities and infrastructure that allow them to meet their wider aspirations for the places where they are located. Some of those points will be addressed in the new NPPF that we have brought forward, but I am more than happy to ensure that she gets the meeting that she wants to ensure that the detail of what her constituents want to see is included in the changes that we bring forward.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State talked about increasing the pace of build-out, but as we strive to achieve the target of 1.5 million new homes, quality is important too. Will the Secretary of State say whether he will use the powers in the Building Safety Act 2022 to make the New Homes Ombudsman Service mandatory, because only 60% of developers are currently signed up to that scheme?
Steve Reed
We are making changes to building standards and the Building Safety Regulator, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. I am happy to look at the proposal that he makes and to engage with him further if it would be helpful.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
In Blackpool, we have a waiting list of around 12,000 for social and council housing. Given the deprivation throughout Blackpool, we know that the quality of housing is below where it needs to be, and so many people are struggling with their health and other conditions. Will the Secretary of State outline for me and Blackpool council what more can be done so that we can build the social housing we desperately need and meet the 1.5 million target?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend describes a situation in Blackpool that I am sure Members across the House will recognise from many other constituencies, with the desperate need for more social and affordable housing. He will be pleased to be reminded that the new social and affordable homes programme of £39 billion, which will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in this country for a generation, opens for bids next month. I hope that his local authority will be keen to make applications to it.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
With a new year often come new year’s resolutions. Will the Secretary of State make a new year’s resolution to accept the truth that the Government will not meet their 1.5 million housing target, which he set out? Will he confirm that he still thinks his job is on the line if he does not achieve that? Huge focus has been placed on rural areas with no infrastructure, but cities—often Labour cities—have been left off the hook, so will he commit to changing the formula to make it fairer and, more importantly, more deliverable?
Steve Reed
If the hon. Gentleman’s party had not scrapped house building targets around the country, we might see more of the kinds of homes that we need in every single part of the country—urban, suburban and rural. As for our targets, the judgment of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government, is that this Government will oversee the biggest increase in house building for 40 years. That will put the key to their own home into the hands of people who were denied it under the Conservatives.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The death of Awaab Ishak, aged just two years old, was tragic and it was avoidable. Awaab’s law came into force for the social rented sector last October, and it forces landlords to fix dangerous damp and mould and make emergency repairs to fixed timescales. We have consulted on a revised decent homes standard, including proposing a new damp and mould standard, which will ensure that landlords keep properties free from damp and mould, and we will respond to the consultation shortly.
Liam Conlon
Social housing disrepair and neglect is one of the most common issues in my inbox, particularly in Penge, Crystal Palace and Anerley. In one case, a mum in Penge saw her two children develop breathing problems and be forced on to inhalers due to persistent damp and mould. We know that the health impacts of mould can take hold quickly, so can the Secretary of State set out the steps his Department is taking to guarantee the right of social housing tenants to immediate action in such cases, ensuring that the suffering of my constituent and her children is not repeated?
Steve Reed
I am very sorry to hear of how my hon. Friend’s constituent and her children have suffered in that circumstance, and I thank him for his question. Awaab’s law, which is now in force, will require social landlords to take urgent action to fix dangerous homes or they will face the full force of the law. As part of these reforms, landlords must now consider the circumstances of tenants that could put them at risk, including the presence of young children, or those with disabilities or other health vulnerabilities. Alternative accommodation must also be offered if homes cannot be made safe within the required timeframes. We all hope that these changes will save lives.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
My constituents, three single mothers, have suffered at the hands of builders who built substandard homes without crucial damp-proof membrane and damp-proof courses. That meant that my constituents’ homes were riddled with damp and mould, and the house builders have not addressed this serious fault for far too long. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that house builders can be held to account by residents, and that, if needed, local authorities can end relationships with underperforming house builders to protect residents?
Steve Reed
There are measures other than Awaab’s law in place that may be able to help, if I understood the detail of the case. I would be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. We could look, for instance, at warranties, or at building enforcement; those may be ways to get action taken. If he would be kind enough to write to me, I will ensure that he gets a full response on that point.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
House building in this country ground to a near halt in 2023 because the previous Government failed to reform our planning system, despite knowing that it is too slow and cumbersome and deters development. Our Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 18 December last year. It delivers fundamental reform to the planning system, speeding up the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. Thanks to this Government, young people who have been denied the chance of their own home will now get the key to their own front door at last.
Peter Prinsley
I am concerned about the villages in my most beautiful constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket; there, people tell me that they are increasingly concerned about the lack of affordable housing in rural communities. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the supply of affordable housing for local people in rural villages through reforms to the planning system, and how will those reforms support the rejuvenation and long-term sustainability of our villages?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just remind everyone that this is topicals? You are meant to set an example, Peter—come on.
Steve Reed
Our planning changes will support affordable rural housing by giving rural authorities greater flexibility to require affordable housing on smaller sites. Our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, which opens to bids next month, is available to rural authorities as well.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I am sure we all agree that we cannot have sustainable communities if we do not have sustainable high streets. Would the Secretary of State agree that a fourfold increase in business rates over this Parliament does not make high-street businesses sustainable?
Steve Reed
Of course high streets are vital to local communities. That is why it was so sad to see high streets up and down the country fall into severe decline in the 14 years in which the Conservatives were in power, during which the right hon. Gentleman served in the Cabinet. Units closed down; their shutters were pulled down, and the graffiti and litter in front of buildings deterred people from going to the high street. This Government are committed to restoring our high streets and protecting the businesses that operate there.
Sir James Cleverly
So many words, yet no answer. I asked the Secretary of State specifically about a fourfold increase, like the one that the White Lion on Streatham High Road in his constituency faces. We are talking about a 400% increase, even after transitional relief, from £3,000 a year to £12,000 a year. Will he urge the Chancellor to scrap business rates for businesses like the White Lion on Streatham High Road, and other hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street?
Steve Reed
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that the measures put in place during the pandemic were always intended to come to an end; his Government were going to do the same thing. The Chancellor is looking at the impact of revaluation. She is fully aware of the concerns raised by publicans in Streatham and across the country, and is reviewing the situation, and we expect an announcement in due course.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Steve Reed
Landlords will face the full force of the law if they fail to comply with regulations that have now come into force thanks to Awaab’s law. We expect social housing to get a lot better than tenants have seen over recent decades.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The local government settlement strips £27 million from East Riding of Yorkshire council. I learned today that there will be an additional £21 million cost over the next three years from the minimum wage and the jobs tax. Does the Minister really think it is acceptable that local residents should have sky-high council tax rises and falling quality of services?