Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026-27
279
Ayes
—
90
Noes
Passed · Government won
277 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened**: On 11 February 2026, the House of Commons voted to approve the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026-27. This is an annual government document that sets the limits above which English councils must hold a local referendum before raising council tax. The motion passed by 279 votes to 90. **Why it matters**: The approved thresholds determine how much councils across England can increase council tax without triggering a local referendum. Where a council wishes to raise bills beyond the set limit, it must put the question to local residents directly -- a requirement that acts as a check on the speed and scale of council tax rises. The vote therefore has a direct bearing on the finances of local authorities and the household bills of residents in England. **The politics**: The vote divided sharply along party lines. Labour MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour, providing the government with its majority of 279. The Conservative opposition voted almost unanimously against -- 87 Noes to zero Ayes -- while three Reform UK MPs also voted No. The Conservatives and Reform UK opposed the referendum thresholds, arguing they are too restrictive on councils' financial flexibility, while the government presented the limits as necessary democratic safeguards for taxpayers. The vote fell on the same day as approval of the broader Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026-27, which passed by a narrower margin of 277 to 143, reflecting sustained Conservative resistance to the government's overall local government funding settlement.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government's proposed council tax referendum thresholds for 2026-27, allowing councils to raise tax up to the set limits without a referendum
Voting No meant
Oppose the proposed thresholds, likely arguing they are too high (permitting excessive council tax rises) or too low (restricting councils' ability to raise revenue)
369 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 277 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
248
0
114
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
87
29
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
3
2
8
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
3
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
1
0
4
Green Party of England and Wales
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
0
1
Your Party
1
0
—
Defends the settlement as restoring fairness by reconnecting funding with deprivation after 14 years of Tory cuts; announces £740m additional grant funding and £2.6bn recovery grant for most deprived councils.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,666 words) →
Opposes the settlement as leaving two-thirds of councils worse off; criticises shift of funding from statutory services to poverty-based allocations and attacks removal of rural services delivery grant.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (3,187 words) →
Welcomes multi-year settlements and SEND deficit relief but cannot support the settlement; criticises removal of remoteness funding and excessive reliance on council tax to balance budgets.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,939 words) →
As Chair of Housing Committee, welcomes fairer funding formula and SEND support but urges deeper reform of council tax and fundamental review of mandatory service demand on councils.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,863 words) →
Supports the 31% funding increase for Harrow but highlights ongoing council mismanagement, service failures in children's and adult social care, and continued need for scrutiny and oversight.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,371 words) →
Rejects settlement as failing rural authorities; argues removal of remoteness funding and rural services delivery grant amounts to pork-barrel politics favouring Labour urban councils.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,053 words) →
Questions why food waste recycling costs not met with traditional new burdens funding; highlights unequal treatment between Conservative and Labour council areas in Worcestershire.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (460 words) →
Criticises insufficient support for Shropshire despite inherited Tory mismanagement; notes council tax increases don't offset core funding cuts and rural costs are unaddressed.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (133 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0