Across England, councils experimenting with a four-day working week are under closer attention than ever. What started as a way to help staff avoid burnout and make jobs more attractive has become part of a national debate about whether these shorter weeks affect how well local services work.
Government guidance from the secretary of state makes the rules clear. Councils can adopt a four-day week, but if service or financial performance drops, it could be seen as a warning sign that the council is failing. It’s not a ban, but it is a signal: working fewer hours comes with added responsibility to show results. For councils already juggling tight budgets and high demand, this turns a simple staff schedule choice into a matter of accountability.
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.
Why central government is drawing a line
Local authorities have freedom over staffing policies, but ministers can step in if a council isn’t performing well. Under “best value” rules, councils need to show they use public money efficiently and effectively. If performance dips, the government can intervene. The updated guidance doesn’t single out working patterns alone. Instead, it treats the four-day week as one factor among many when judging council performance. If things like housing repairs or rent collection slip, shorter hours could count against a council.
The focus is on managing risk. Services like housing, planning, and waste collection affect people’s daily lives. Anything that might reduce capacity catches attention, especially since public money is involved. Politically, it’s sensitive too. With tight budgets, ministers want to make sure services deliver results. Fewer hours for the same pay, even if well-intentioned, raises questions about efficiency and fairness.
The South Cambridgeshire case
South Cambridgeshire District Council is at the center of this debate. It introduced a four-day week to help staff recruitment and wellbeing. Earlier this year, the government wrote to the council, pointing out declines in rent collection and housing repairs after the schedule change. While this doesn’t prove the shorter week caused the drop, it was enough to trigger a warning.
Council leaders disagreed, saying the council still performed very well and that reduced hours weren’t the reason for any changes. This shows how tricky it is to judge performance: many factors affect outcomes, not just staff schedules. Still, the warning makes the four-day week a visible issue in national discussions about council accountability.
This is no longer an internal workforce debate; it has become a measure through which councils are judged.
Productivity, hours, and the public sector question
The debate is partly about productivity. British workers have long hours compared to other European countries, but national productivity has stayed low. Some argue that cutting hours could make staff work smarter, not longer. Supporters point out that shorter weeks can improve focus, lower burnout, and help councils keep experienced staff. In trials in other sectors, productivity stayed the same or even improved.
But local councils aren’t private companies. They have high demand for services and strict legal obligations. Critics worry that fewer hours could cause delays in housing, planning, or other essential services. Supporters counter that efficiency gains could balance shorter hours, especially if staff turnover falls. The evidence is still limited. There haven’t been many long-term studies in councils, so it’s unclear exactly how shorter weeks would affect public services.
What the updated guidance signals
The updated best value guidance makes the government’s position clear. Councils can try shorter weeks, but they must maintain or improve performance. If a council runs a four-day week and keeps up results, it will likely be fine. If performance dips, the shorter week could be used as a warning sign.
The guidance highlights outcome-based accountability: staff schedules matter only if they affect results. The wording also frames reduced hours in a moral light, not just practical — implying that paying for fewer hours without justification is a potential problem. Residents noticing delays might connect them to the working week, even if the link isn’t proven. That perception matters in politics as much as actual performance.
Workforce pressures driving experimentation
Despite warnings, councils face real staffing challenges. Jobs in planning, environmental health, and social care are hard to fill, and pay often lags behind the private sector. Some councils see the four-day week as a way to keep staff happy and reduce turnover. Losing experienced employees costs more than filling vacancies with new hires or temporary staff.
Shorter weeks can improve morale and attract younger workers looking for balance. The challenge is balancing staff wellbeing with service delivery. Central government looks at results, while councils weigh inputs like staff availability and retention.
Reduced hours are being weighed against visible outcomes, not staff morale alone.
Balancing autonomy and accountability
This debate is about how much control ministers should have over local councils. Councils are independent until they fail, but “failure” is hard to define. Many factors affect performance: contractor shortages, economic conditions, or even seasonal fluctuations. Staffing patterns are one piece of a complex puzzle.
By highlighting the four-day week as a potential risk, the government influences council decisions. Some may avoid experimenting altogether. Others may proceed carefully, tracking results closely. The long-term impact is uncertain. Avoiding experimentation could worsen workforce challenges. Moving ahead without monitoring could hurt performance.
What happens next
More detailed guidance is expected soon. Councils will look for clarity on how reduced hours will be judged. For now, the message is simple: innovation is allowed, but it comes with scrutiny. Councils must show that shorter weeks don’t reduce service quality. The debate will continue, reflecting larger questions about how public services can balance productivity, staff wellbeing, and meeting residents’ needs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is a four-day working week in councils?
A: A four-day working week typically involves staff working fewer hours, often around 32 per week, while maintaining full-time pay. Councils adopt it to improve retention and wellbeing.
Q: Why is the four-day working week controversial in local government?
A: Concerns focus on whether reduced hours affect service delivery, responsiveness, and value for money in taxpayer-funded services.
Q: Can the government stop councils using a four-day working week?
A: Councils retain autonomy, but central government can intervene if performance declines and an authority is judged to be failing.
Q: Which council has already adopted the policy?
A: South Cambridgeshire District Council has implemented a four-day working week and remains central to the current debate.
Q: Does evidence show productivity improves with shorter hours?
A: Some studies suggest productivity and retention improve, but evidence specific to local government services remains limited.
Q: Will updated guidance change council behavior?
A: Clearer guidance may discourage experimentation or encourage stronger monitoring of outcomes where reduced hours are adopted.
External Sources
- UK Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Best Value Guidance for Local Authorities.
- OECD. Hours Worked and Productivity Statistics.
- UK Government. Guidance on Four-Day Working Week in Local Authorities.
- UK Parliament Hansard. Statement on Four-Day Working Week and Best Value Duties.
- 4 Day Week Foundation. Evidence from UK Trials of Reduced Working Hours.
Disclaimer:
Some aspects of the webpage preparation workflow may be informed or enhanced through the use of artificial intelligence technologies. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy and clarity, readers are encouraged to consult primary sources for verification. External links are provided for convenience, and Honores is not responsible for their content or any consequences arising from their use.
