England’s local councils are facing mounting pressure from the central government over proposals to introduce four-day working weeks for their staff. On December 23, 2025, Local Government Secretary Steve Reed wrote to council leaders across the country, warning them not to implement the controversial policy, regardless of evidence suggesting it could benefit workers and even save money. The government’s stance is clear: councils offering full-time pay for part-time work, without compelling justification, could be considered failing authorities and face intervention.
According to The Telegraph, Reed’s letter was unequivocal: “Council staff undertaking part-time work for full-time pay without compelling justification would be considered an indicator, among a wide range of factors, of potential failure.” He continued, “I hope that makes my position on this matter and the Government’s policy unambiguously clear to all councils.” The letter also stated that further details would be provided in the upcoming Best Value Guidance, which is currently being updated by Labour after its last revision under the Conservatives in 2024.
This stern warning comes as 25 English councils are actively considering the move to a four-day week. South Cambridgeshire District Council, run by the Liberal Democrats, became the first to permanently adopt the policy in July 2025, following a year-long trial. The council’s leader, Bridget Smith, has defended the decision, describing her authority as “exceptionally high performing” despite criticism from Westminster. The council estimates annual savings of around £400,000, attributing this to reduced staff turnover and less reliance on costly agency workers. The new working pattern covers a range of employees, from desk staff to bin collectors and cleaners.
However, Reed’s letter cited concerns about declining performance in South Cambridgeshire’s housing service, specifically noting a deterioration in rent collection and repairs. Earlier in 2025, he had written directly to Bridget Smith, expressing his “deep disappointment” and questioning how the council planned to “mitigate” these issues. Smith, for her part, was “extremely disappointed” to receive the letter, insisting that her council remained high achieving. Still, the government’s power to intervene looms large; while central authorities have limited direct means to force councils to abandon the policy, the Secretary of State can send in commissioners to take over certain functions if an authority is officially deemed to be failing—a step intended only for exceptional circumstances.
Opponents of the four-day week within government are not mincing words. A Labour source told The Telegraph, “Voters deserve high standards and hard work from local councils, and seeing council staff working a four-day week just won’t cut it. They should get on with the job and make sure residents get the best service possible five days a week.” Many ministers worry that the policy could slow productivity and economic growth, especially as almost all authorities are set to increase council tax up to the five percent cap over the next three years, leaving residents with higher bills for potentially reduced services.
This isn’t the first time the four-day week has ruffled feathers at the national level. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer rejected calls from civil servants to implement a four-day working week in the public sector just a year prior to Reed’s letter. The government’s concerns are not without precedent: Reed has repeatedly emphasized that councils should not offer “full-time pay for part-time work,” and has made it clear that such practices will be closely scrutinized under the new guidance.
Still, the debate is far from one-sided. Proponents of the four-day week, including advocacy groups like the 4 Day Week Foundation, argue that the traditional nine-to-five, five-day schedule is outdated and ill-suited to the realities of modern life. They point out that British workers log some of the longest full-time hours in Europe, yet the UK’s productivity lags behind many peers. Advocates suggest that a four-day, 32-hour working week—with no loss of pay—could actually enhance performance and reduce costs. They cite a 2022 trial involving 70 companies, where a staggering 92% chose to continue with the model after the pilot ended.
There’s also the Scottish example. A public sector trial coordinated by the Autonomy Institute and commissioned by the Scottish government reportedly boosted productivity and staff well-being. According to the Institute, 98% of staff surveyed said morale and motivation had improved. These results have been seized upon by supporters as proof that the four-day week can deliver real benefits for both employees and employers.
Yet, the evidence is not universally accepted. Reed and other critics argue that while some staff may feel happier, there are tangible risks to service delivery—especially in critical areas like housing and repairs. The government’s position, as outlined in Reed’s letter, is that any move to reduce working hours without a compelling, evidence-based justification could signal broader management failings. The warning is clear: “The provision the current guidance makes in relation to the four-day week remains in force and that I take this issue very seriously, in particular that ‘council staff undertaking part-time work for full-time pay without compelling justification’ would be considered an indicator, among a wide range of factors, of potential failure.”
As the debate rages, the stakes are high for councils considering the shift. South Cambridgeshire’s experience is being closely watched, both by those eager to replicate its perceived successes and by those determined to avoid its pitfalls. The council’s projected savings and claims of high performance are countered by government warnings about declining service standards and the threat of central intervention. Meanwhile, with council tax rates set to rise and public finances under strain, the optics of staff working fewer days for the same pay are unlikely to win much sympathy from cash-strapped residents.
The broader question—whether the four-day week is a bold step towards a more modern, efficient public sector or a risky experiment that could undermine essential services—remains unresolved. What’s clear is that England’s councils are now on notice: any move towards shorter working weeks will be met with intense scrutiny from Westminster, and the consequences for getting it wrong could be severe.
For now, the future of the four-day week in local government hangs in the balance, caught between competing visions of progress and caution, innovation and accountability.
