On December 23, 2025, England’s local government landscape was shaken up by a stern warning from Local Government Secretary Steve Reed. In a move that’s stirred up debate among council leaders, public sector workers, and political watchers alike, Reed issued a letter to all council leaders across England, urging them not to implement four-day working weeks for council staff. The message, first reported by The Telegraph and confirmed by the BBC, left little room for ambiguity. Reed wrote that any council staff undertaking part-time work for full-time pay—without compelling justification—would be considered a sign of potential failure for the local authority.
"I hope I have made the government’s policy unambiguously clear to all councils," Reed emphasized in his communication, leaving council leaders in no doubt about the government’s stance. The letter went on to caution that the government could intervene in any council it deems to be failing, a power that’s rarely invoked but always looms large over local authorities.
The issue isn’t merely academic. Earlier in 2025, South Cambridgeshire District Council, led by the Liberal Democrats, became the first council in the UK to permanently adopt a four-day working week after trialling it since 2023. This bold move drew national attention—and not all of it positive. Reed, for one, expressed “deep disappointment” in the council’s decision. According to BBC News, he specifically cited a decline in the council’s housing service performance and questioned how the council planned to "mitigate" these issues. Reed’s letter made clear that such experiments with working patterns would not be tolerated if they were perceived to come at the expense of public service standards.
A Labour source echoed Reed’s concerns, telling 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.” The sentiment captures a widespread expectation among the electorate that local government should provide consistent, reliable services throughout the traditional workweek.
But the debate over four-day working weeks isn’t new, nor is it confined to local government. In 2024, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer rejected demands from civil servants for a shorter week, signaling that resistance to the idea runs right up to the highest levels of government. The rationale is straightforward: critics argue that a four-day week would reduce productivity and potentially slow economic growth, especially in sectors where public service delivery is paramount.
Yet, the evidence isn’t all one-sided. In fact, some recent trials have painted a more optimistic picture. Earlier this year, the Scottish public sector ran a pilot program to test the impact of a four-day working week. The results, coordinated by the Autonomy Institute and reported by the BBC, were surprisingly positive. The pilot found not only an increase in productivity but also significant improvements in staff well-being. A staggering 98% of staff involved in the pilot judged morale and motivation to have improved.
These findings have added fuel to a growing movement across Europe and beyond, where advocates argue that shorter working weeks could be a solution to burnout, stress, and declining job satisfaction. The Autonomy Institute’s report, commissioned by the Scottish government, concluded that the pilot “demonstrated clear benefits in terms of both productivity and employee morale.” For supporters, these results challenge the conventional wisdom that longer hours automatically translate to better outcomes.
Still, the government’s position in England remains firm. Reed’s letter made it clear that, in the absence of compelling justification, councils offering full-time pay for part-time hours would be flagged as potentially failing. This is more than a bureaucratic slap on the wrist; it’s a warning that could have real consequences for councils that step out of line. The government retains the authority to intervene in councils it deems to be underperforming, a move that could lead to direct oversight or even the replacement of local leadership in extreme cases.
The controversy surrounding South Cambridgeshire District Council is a case in point. After trialling the four-day week for two years, the council made the arrangement permanent in July 2025. The move was hailed by some as a progressive step towards modernizing the workplace, but Reed’s criticism centered on a reported decline in the council’s housing service. “How will the local authority mitigate this?” he asked pointedly, raising concerns that shorter hours might have a knock-on effect on essential public services.
For many in local government, the debate is about more than just hours worked; it’s about the very nature of public service. Supporters of the four-day week argue that improved morale and motivation can translate into better service for residents, even if staff are working fewer hours. Detractors, however, worry that any reduction in working time risks undermining the reliability and responsiveness that the public expects from its councils.
Political dynamics also play a role. While the Liberal Democrats in South Cambridgeshire have championed the four-day week, both Labour and Conservative voices have expressed skepticism. The government’s interventionist approach reflects a broader desire to maintain high standards in public service delivery—a theme that resonates with voters across the political spectrum. As one Labour source put it, “Residents get the best service possible five days a week.”
Looking beyond England, the Scottish pilot offers a tantalizing glimpse of what might be possible. The Autonomy Institute’s findings suggest that, under the right conditions, a shorter workweek can lead to happier, more productive employees without sacrificing service quality. But whether these results can be replicated in England’s diverse and often under-pressure local councils remains an open question.
As the debate continues, council leaders across England now face a clear choice: heed the government’s warning and stick to the traditional five-day week, or risk intervention by pursuing alternative working patterns. With public services under constant scrutiny and the stakes higher than ever, it’s a decision that won’t be made lightly.
In the end, the clash over four-day working weeks in England’s councils is about more than just hours and pay. It’s a test of priorities, values, and the willingness to adapt—or resist—change in the face of evolving workplace expectations. As Reed’s letter makes clear, the government is watching closely, and the future of the four-day week in English local government hangs in the balance.
