Stoma: Public Toilet Provision

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, especially on what I think is your birthday—thank you for choosing to spend your special day talking about public toilets with us. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for calling this important debate. Not only is he the most industrious contributor to debates and question times across this House, but he champions matters that really cut to the heart of why we are here and that really matter to people in their everyday lives.

Anyone who has supported a loved one, family member or friend who has gone through the process of requiring a stoma will realise that you often do two things together: laugh and cry. If you do not do the laughing, you will just spend all your time crying. As hon. Members can probably already tell, this is quite a personal subject for me. A little irreverence and humour is a good way of dealing with the issue of stoma care and inflammatory bowel disease. In fact, I would say it is essential. It also helps to break down the barriers and the embarrassment of talking about the subject in the first place.

We have had a good explanation of what a stoma is, namely a surgical opening to allow waste to leave the body. It usually comes at the cost of having significant amounts of intestine, or in many cases the entire colon, removed, which is as painful, damaging and difficult to recover from as you would imagine. However, the conditions that often lead to someone requiring a stoma involve—let us be honest—talking about poo, and the British public are not particularly comfortable talking about. So although the hon. Member for Strangford has outlined what a stoma is, most people are embarrassed about them. As I said, one way people get around that is by having a sense of humour. I have met many people with stomas; a very close loved one has a stoma, and I have met many of the friends she has made over the years during her many hospital stays.

Among the things I have picked up on is what you call a stoma once you have one. The names are quite creative, and the naming process is, first, quite humorous and, secondly, about a degree of taking ownership of it. I will run hon. Members through some of the names that people come up with for stomas, so that we get beyond just a “surgical opening”. Some are ones that I have seen in research, and some are from people I know who have a stoma. Most of the names are a play on words, such as a rhyme with stoma, or references to poo or pumping—apologies to Members in advance, but hopefully there will find something in this for one of you.

As an opening gambit, there is Paloma Faith, which is a good name for a stoma. Winnie the Poo is another one. Another favourite of mine is Vladimir Poopin, just because it takes the mick out of a dictator. To take something straightforward and simple, there is Windbag, which is pretty much what we are talking about. Captain Craptastic is another good one. Others include Donald Trumps and Bilbo Baggins. Finally, my favourite is Louis Shitton, which I think is excellent—I am delighted to have got that into Hansard. I hope that that gives a bit of insight. People who have had to have a stoma because of their suffering have been through difficult times, but they are remarkably resilient people, many of them with a great sense of humour.

Every Member in this House will have a constituent who has inflammatory bowel disease, colonic cancer or another of the conditions that leads to a stoma, and we will all have constituents with stomas—that is beyond doubt. Many conditions can lead to people requiring a stoma, although that will depend on how controllable a condition is in any individual person—whether they get Crohn’s or colitis flare-ups or whether the cancer is caught and treated early enough. Given all those things with a similarity of issues, Members will have hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents who have a stoma or who know someone directly affected.

The conditions themselves are embarrassing. It is not just about having a stoma, when you have got to that point; by the time you get to having one, you have usually been through years of having to deal with a condition and having to suffer it in silence, because you do not want to talk about it. There is also a lot of misunderstanding; a lot of people think that Crohn’s and colitis, for example, are some form of irritable bowel syndrome. Even well-meaning people suggest eating less spicy food or not eating brown bread, because they do not realise that the condition generates internal ulcers in the most painful place they could possibly be, and that those bleed internally, creating internal blood clots that need to pass through your system urgently, in an incredibly painful way—whether you had a Madras on Friday night makes absolutely no difference to that condition.

Toilet provision is so important for people with stomas as well as those with the conditions mentioned. That is important to remember, because we can look at the number of people with stomas—Colostomy UK has provided a helpful briefing ahead of this debate—but that would give you a very distorted view about the total number who require access to toilets due to health conditions.

As other hon. Members pointed out, when someone who has a stoma goes to the toilet, they are either going to empty it or change it. Changing it is not a quick thing and if there is a leak, which is something anybody with a stoma lives in absolute fear of, that needs to be urgently dealt with. Visualise where that would be on your body. Even if just emptying it, the proximity to the toilet means also getting very close to the floor and the toilet itself. People suddenly become experts in the cleanliness of toilets and which companies keep clean toilets and which do not. It goes back to remembering the human in all of this, and not just taking it from a purely clinical and public health perspective.

Imagine going through years of dealing with a health condition that leads to needing major surgery that is life changing and life threatening in its own right and results in a stoma. Regardless of your age, but especially for younger people in this hyper body conscious world, that is not something that you want—it is not something that you are proud of—and it is something that you are often embarrassed about and will try and conceal and hide. Imagine having been through all of that and having recovered and just about psychologically coming to terms with having a stoma—and you want to go out. You want to pick up the courage to go out. You find some clothes that for the first time you think cover it so you do not feel self-conscious about it. You go out, you feel sexy, you feel confident. It is a big boost. Then you either need to empty the bag or have the dreaded leak, and there is nowhere to do anything about it.

As one of my friends—I apologise in advance, Chair, but I am quoting—said:

“Imagine getting dressed up for date night and then having to go and crawl around on a piss covered floor simply to change your bag.”

Would that do anything other than knock your confidence, dignity and self-respect? It is not fair.

There seems to be a general consensus among forums and things I have read that we men need to have a little more care and attention in toilets than women do and that the standard in male toilets is often significantly lower. However, it is a point none the less. That is what I want to get across in this debate; I do not want to talk about the stats, figures and percentages. Every one of those numbers has a human being behind it who is trying to get on and rebuild their life under immense physical, psychological and emotional damage. That is what makes this so important.

There are also other issues including access to private toilets. All of this cannot fall to local councils. I have been working and campaigning on this since I was elected as a county councillor in 2017. I moved a motion in full council—those were the days—around access and the card that people can carry that says they need access to the private toilets in a commercial facility.

We have our own experiences of that in our family. These are pre-stoma but they highlight the conditions as well. When shopping you suddenly feel the urge to go, and, as we have already established, you are not having a poo or a pump but are passing blood clots in an incredibly painful way and your body is trying to get them out of your system and you cannot contain it, and poo will come out with them. You are shopping and have decided to go out—even though, as hon. Members have already highlighted, a lot of people plan their journeys around that—you show your card to a member of staff and they point-blank refuse to let you use the private toilets. You soil yourself in the middle of the shop, and then you do not go out for a long time afterwards because of the embarrassment.

I do not want to name or shame any individual companies that may have been involved in that example, but if I say that their slogan is “You can do it if you…it”, Members can draw their own conclusions. That chain was horrific. From my lobbying, I believe it has got an awful lot better of late. It is about raising understanding in organisations of what the cards are and why people carry them. That goes back to stigma and the “Not every disability is visible” campaign, which I pushed to be rolled out across Lancashire all those years ago. These conditions are not visible. Someone may look physically well but experience that urgency. We must make sure that people with stomas, advanced Crohn’s, colitis and so on know that they can get a RADAR key.

People need to know where the toilets are. Lots of different people have tried this in lots of different ways. We already accept that councils cannot be responsible for providing a toilet in all places at all times. If someone is going to go out and they are dependent on toilets being nearby, they need to know that there is a network of companies and commercial organisations that will let them use their toilets, even if there are not a lot. It is just about pubs and hotels knowing that sometimes, someone may need to come in. I know it is really annoying when non-paying customers come in and use the toilets, but having those apps is important so that people can plan their days out and their journeys with confidence.

There are knock-on benefits to the NHS and public health of helping people to have and maintain normal lives post traumatic bowel surgery and helping them with the psychological recovery. If they had to quit work, that could help them to get back into work. Stomas can be noisy. They rumble and pump. They are bowels, just on the outside of the body, or moving to the outside of the body. Dealing with that is hard enough. Therefore, people may not wish to empty or change a bag at work. They may wish to go somewhere near work to do it. They may work on the tools, in an outdoors job where they do not have routine access to toilets.

There are knock-on benefits to the Government and to the Treasury of helping people back into work, stopping people becoming ill with mental health issues from lack of confidence and emotional damage, and helping people to manage their condition better so that they are not continuously spiralling and going back into the NHS. It is not just about doing the right thing and the moral obligation to those people.

The hon. Member for Strangford has already outlined Colostomy UK’s requests for things that could be advanced through building regulations to make toilets more stoma-friendly and the general need for more public toilet provision. I am sure it will continue to lobby effectively on that. A lot of the time, this is about the role the Government can play in creating awareness among public bodies and organisations about why this is important—the human element that I have tried to outline. This is about people’s lives and the quality of life of some of people who deserve our support the most. It is about simple things, such as making sure that councils have nice, clean toilets, that toilets are open and that people can access information about where public and IBD-friendly toilets are.

I am about to start repeating myself, so I shall end my speech, which is probably a personal best for inappropriate Hansard contributions—I look forward to reading them back. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate. This really is an important topic, and I know the debate will mean a lot to people. As I said, a lot of people with these conditions do not want to talk about it. They want to hide it. They suffer in silence. Their voice will not be heard. They will not contact their MP to ask if they can have better public toilets as they have a stoma or IBD, because they do not want people to know. It is therefore really important that we, as their elected representatives, are their voice. I hope that we can be their voice today, and I look forward to what the Minister and shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), have to say.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate.

It is great to follow the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who did better than I did in my maiden speech, when I managed to mention Shitterton and Happy Bottom—and I have now done so in Hansard for a second time. By the way, they are both places in my constituency. When I first stood for Parliament in 2015, the closure of public toilets was one of the key issues raised with me by local people. In fact, we pretty much had a whole hustings on it at Canford school.

Since arriving in this place I have repeatedly sought opportunities to improve provision, whether through debates or legislation. I am therefore delighted to speak today in a debate focused on people living with stomas, although many of the issues we are discussing apply equally to people with other conditions or disabilities or, indeed, other sections of our community. For many people, the worry about whether a public toilet exists, is open, clean and has the facilities they need is lifechanging. It is the difference between participating in public life or staying at home.

This issue is close to home for me, as one of my close family members needed a stoma last year. It stopped them travelling into London to watch me speak in Parliament and it will even stop them travelling to see their grandchild perform in the west end in a few weeks’ time. I know they desperately want to enjoy those experiences, along with the rest of the family, but they feel trapped close to home and close to the facilities they know they can rely on.

Following the hon. Member for Fylde, I will have to ask my family member what they call their stoma. Given the prevalence of bad jokes that emanate from their home on a daily basis, I am sure they will come up with something. I may need to catch the hon. Member in the Tea Room and let you know what they come up with. Simple changes, such as shelves, mirrors, disposal bins, hooks and space to manage the stoma with dignity, can cost such a small amount but make such an enormous difference.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to support further research into the adjustments that could promote the dignity, comfort and independence of people living with stomas. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views about potential changes to part M building regulations, as suggested by the hon. Member for Strangford. Too often, these small facilities are absent or even removed for fear that they might be misused for other purposes.

It is shocking that more than a third of stoma users report being challenged or criticised for using accessible toilets because their condition is invisible. Two thirds of all disabled toilet users have experienced disapproving looks and almost half have been verbally challenged. Imagine how distressing it must be, particularly for someone recently diagnosed with a life-changing condition who might already be worried about getting to a toilet on time, to face the judgment of strangers.

For people with stomas, older people, those managing disabilities or continence conditions, pregnant women and parents caring for young children, access to an appropriate toilet is not just a convenience; it is essential. With the new EHRC guidance, those who are transgender, non-binary or do not conform to gender stereotypes—for whom the disabled loo is not their preferred choice, and nor should it be—now find that the disabled toilets may be the only way to protect their dignity and stay safe. Public toilets are becoming even more of an issue for more people.

There is also a widespread assumption that men’s toilets do not need sanitary bins, but they are essential for many men living with stomas. I was also delighted to join Matt Forde in Parliament last year as part of the prostate cancer “Boys Need Bins” campaign. For people with continence issues, the absence of bins can have a completely unnecessary effect on their confidence, dignity and independence. This includes people with stomas or bladder, bowel or digestive conditions.

Liberal Democrats are therefore calling on the Government to ensure that all public toilets are equipped with sanitary bins and to update workplace guidance to reflect the needs of men as well as women. There has been progress thanks to organisations such as Colostomy UK, as well as retailers such as Morrisons and B&Q, both of which made their toilets stoma-friendly, possibly after the experience the hon. Member for Fylde shared earlier. We want the Government to work with national retailers to ensure that accessible toilets are routinely made stoma-friendly. As some businesses have shown that it can be done, the challenge should be to make good practice the norm.

On access to toilets more widely, the British Toilet Association estimates that the number of public toilets has fallen by around 40% since the turn of the century. Its estimates suggest that only 4,000 public toilets remain in England—one public loo for every 14,000 people. We call them public conveniences, but they are in fact a public necessity. Their decline is happening as our population is ageing and more people need the confidence that facilities are available when they go out. If we want thriving high streets, vibrant parks and successful tourist destinations, we need decent public toilets.

The needs of other groups, including homeless people, refuse collectors, postal workers, delivery drivers, community nurses, social care staff, taxi drivers and highway maintenance crews, are also forgotten. I know that from personal experience, because about 10 years ago, I worked a full eight-hour shift alongside refuse collectors, starting at 5 am. When I climbed into the cab with my bottle of water and my can of Coke, they said, “You can’t drink; you can’t eat. There’s nowhere we can go.” I thought it was ridiculous that those people, who worked for us, had absolutely nowhere on their route where they could go. There was no way that we could go into a supermarket or a petrol station; we absolutely stank. It would not have been reasonable for us to go into a private business and expect to use its toilets. Thankfully, the local council addressed the issue with changes to its workplace facilities, but that sort of thing should concern us all.

The Government rightly speak about healthy ageing, thriving town centres and reducing inequalities, yet all those things become harder to achieve if people are not confident about finding a toilet. If the problem is so obvious, why has it continued to get worse? Part of the answer lies in the law. Currently, councils have a power to provide public toilets, but not a duty to do so. When budgets are stretched, discretionary services are often among the first things to disappear. I do not blame councils; I used to lead one, and I know that the system is so stretched and that few options are available when budgets are getting smaller and smaller.

I propose a change in approach, and I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will give it serious consideration. Councils should have a statutory duty to ensure sufficient public toilet provision within their area. That does not mean that every council must directly own or operate those facilities—community toilet schemes and partnerships with businesses, libraries, leisure centres, churches and town councils can all play an important role—but there should be a duty to assess local need, identify gaps in provision, and ensure that facilities are available when people need them and reflect a local population’s health profile. I am sure that the Minister will refer to the Pride in Place scheme, which is great for the areas that have it, but thousands of communities around the country will not have access to that capital. There needs to be a way for those areas to ensure that their residents are also protected.

The Liberal Democrats also believe that Governments must support local authorities to reverse the decline in public toilet provision. Councils cannot be expected to deliver improved services if they are being continually asked to do more with less. Alongside the duty should come expectations for accessibility, maintenance and cleanliness. A toilet that does not lock, or is filthy or unusable, is not really a toilet. Where facilities are built or refurbished, they should be genuinely inclusive, including by being stoma-friendly. We should also think carefully about signage. Not every disability is visible, and the current image of a wheelchair may itself drive the perception that someone is “not disabled enough.” The adjustments required are small, simple things: shelves, mirrors, hooks, disposal bins and signage.

This is a public health issue because people who choose not to go out will become more isolated, and that will affect their mental health. Those who restrict fluids to reduce the risk of getting caught short can develop other conditions. Those who are forced to change their stomas on filthy floors, or change their disabled child behind a bush, will not only face distress but risk serious infection.

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member touches on a point that I started but never finished in my walkthrough of life with a stoma, and it relates to children. I have a four-year-old. I have read the stories of parents trying to deal with children who are months old, not years old, and require stomas. As parents, we know what it is like managing a day out, but imagine trying to manage it for a child with a stoma. Imagine trying to give that child as normal an upbringing as possible. Unfortunately, the reality for that child is that they could face bullying and self-confidence issues from everything that goes with having a stoma. Those parents should be able to plan normal days out and provide normal lives for their children, so ensuring that schools and councils manage public toilets in a way that is friendly to people with stomas is important. I cannot feel anything other than real heartache for families who have to deal with that as they try to do their best by their child.

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I worked for Diverse Abilities, which looks after disabled children and adults in Dorset. The number of times that we could not ensure that the children in our care had suitable facilities was really frightening. I spoke at the Backbench Business Committee earlier this week, where the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), put in a pitch for a debate on a new strategy for Changing Places toilets. That is hugely important, and I would absolutely support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nesil Caliskan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

I begin by paying tribute to Members from across the House for the incredibly thoughtful and personal stories that they have shared. I am very conscious that Members speak on behalf of their constituents, and that some Members speak from personal experience. Although I do not have that personal experience, I have a very close family member who does, and I have heard Members speak in the Chamber before about their own experiences and have reflected very carefully on the power of those remarks for those beyond the House who hear them. I thank Members very much for their contributions.

I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this very important debate, and for his continued interest in this issue. I know that he is a committed advocate for public toilet provision, including for those with non-visible disabilities such as stoma use.

I recognise the importance of the provision of good-quality, accessible public toilets more broadly. For far too many people, access to clean and safe public toilets can be the deciding factor in whether they feel able to visit a town centre, a high street, a park or any local attraction. As others put it so eloquently, such facilities support the dignity and independence of people with disability and accessibility needs. Of course, accessibility to a decent facility encourages everybody to spend more time in their local areas, and to use the shops, services and attractions in them. I do not need to detail the benefits of that in itself.

It is true that for many people, it is just too difficult to access the facilities that the rest of us can access so easily every day. Members have correctly pointed out that that is a challenge not only for those with a stoma, but for many other people, including those with ulcerative colitis or irritable bowel disease. The list is much longer than that; the point is that many people are impacted by the lack of accessibility facilities.

However, this debate is focused on stomas, and I want to place on the record the Government’s recognition that this is absolutely a real challenge. Approximately one in 335 people of all ages in the UK is estimated to be living with a stoma, and each year more than 13,000 people in the UK undergo stoma surgery. For people living with a stoma, access to suitable toilet provision is not simply a matter of convenience; it is fundamental to their dignity, safety and independence. Many people living with a stoma feel anxious about leaving home, particularly in the period after surgery.

The Government recognise that being able to live well, to work, to enjoy days out, to shop and to socialise requires access to appropriate public toilet facilities. However, as Members across the Chamber have said, standard public toilets may not always provide that facility for everybody in a safe and dignified way. It is important that we recognise the specific experience of people with invisible disabilities, who are often uneasy about using a disabled facility for fear that it may be a challenge to do so—assuming that the disabled facility would even meet their needs.

In recognition of the importance of this subject, at the last spending review, in 2025, the Government committed more than £5 billion over the next three years for essential local services, including public toilets, and we continue to provide 100% mandatory business rates relief for stand-alone public toilets, which is helping reduce ongoing costs for local authorities, but I absolutely accept that the facility needs to exist in the first place. I recognise that, for stoma users, practical features such as clean shelf spaces and discreet disposal bins can make a significant difference. I thank Members for raising the issue of facilities in male toilets, which are so frequently overlooked.

It is worth highlighting that all building work must meet the functional requirements of the Building Regulations 2010, which address accessibility and provide guidance on meeting those requirements, including the installation of shelves, sanitary disposal units and accessibility toilets. However, I accept that the very fact we are having this debate means that the reality on the ground is very different.

The Building Safety Regulator has a duty under the Building Safety Act 2022 to keep the standard of buildings under review, and I welcome the fact that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), drew attention to the £30 million Changing Places programme, which supported the targeted installation of almost 500 new disabled toilet facilities. I learned much about that programme when I served as a council leader—if I learned anything from my days in local government, it is that bins and toilets are two topics that people get very passionate about.

The role of local authorities is central to this conversation. It is the Government’s view that local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities, and to make decisions about the provision that is right for their areas. I take careful note of the important arguments made about statutory requirements and regulations, but I say gently that local authorities might not think that is the best approach. I am yet to come across a local authority that does not want to do the best for its area, and I think there is a conversation to be had about how we can better support them to do that.

[Mr Snowden]

Having been a councillor and served on the front bench of a council, I know about delivering these facilities, and I feel for councils when it comes to doing so. As has been said, the reality is that even if councils want to do their best, and they know what is best for their local areas, funding is tight. We all know that ever-increasing adult social care bills and so on are creating bigger burdens on local government finances, and statutory requirements will always take priority over other things. I do not want to create a system that ends up costing more than opening the toilets themselves through its complexity and bureaucracy, but it is really important to place some greater requirement on councils to understand the provision and fill the gaps. If the Minister is looking for a commissioner for the crappers in the future, it may be a role for me!

[Nesil Caliskan]

I absolutely take the point. There is a conversation to be had with the sector, local authorities and the Local Government Association about how we can best support local authorities to do that. I think there is a real willingness among local authorities. I accept the point about statutory services, but there are great examples of local authorities providing services that are not statutory because they recognise the importance of public provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

Absolutely. I am very happy to meet any campaigning organisation to discuss this important issue. I note that other hon. Members have also made that request. If charities would like to contact me, I will happily meet them to talk about how we can better support the needs of all our communities.

On the important point the hon. Gentleman makes about the NHS plan and healthcare support, he is absolutely right. It is all the more reason why we need a joined-up approach to what local authorities and NHS local boards are doing. I take the opportunity to highlight health and wellbeing boards across the country, which will play a really important role in making sure that, as one part of the local authority is delivering something, it is making the most of what it is doing so that it meets the objectives of a different part. In the case we are talking about, health is a really obvious example.

To return to my general point about local authorities thinking outside the box and doing things differently, one area we should encourage them to consider is how they conduct procurement. There are many examples across the country where public toilets in parks and open spaces have fallen into disrepair. Some local authorities are addressing that through procurement processes by stipulating, for example, that the owner of a new café must look after the toilets in that space. Those are good ideas that should be encouraged and will ultimately make it easier for our communities to access facilities.

[Mr Snowden]

The Minister is being incredibly generous with her time. She probably entered this room and, having seen only one Back-Bench Member, thought this debate would not get close to 4.30 pm—but here we are.

I have two points. First, is there a greater role for section 106 moneys, potentially through planning processes, in supporting public toilets? The Minister gave a really good example of creative thinking around ownership of toilets in parks and cafés. My sister will kill me for saying this, but when she was growing up she had a phobia of metal toilets. I think it was actually just a phobia of unclean spaces. A lot of people would rather use a well-kept toilet in a private business, where they will not be judged for using it—provided it is not at the far end and they do not have to walk past all the tables with everyone looking at them—than use a public toilet that, by its nature and because it is not in a manned location, cannot always be guaranteed to be as clean. I think that is a great example. Will the Minister work with colleagues in local government to see whether that can be rolled out more, and consider how section 106 moneys might help to create more of an incentive for commercial operators who might not otherwise be able to afford it, or for whom it might not be viable?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Section 106 moneys are often thought about in terms of big infrastructure money, but for a very small amount of money we can make a big public impact; the grant funding of £1,000 to a business is a good example of that. I am very happy to take that back. There are lots of examples across the country of where this is being done well, and we should, as a Government—I will take this back—find a better way to communicate some of that best practice.

I also want to comment on the very important point the hon. Gentleman makes about lived experience. Too often, Governments and councils design and deliver schemes with good intentions, but they do not necessarily meet the real needs of communities. That is why lived experience must be at the heart of policymaking. He referenced his sister’s experience, and I will join him: my sister’s experience is not dissimilar. As he said, many people who live with such conditions develop great resilience over their lifetime. My sister, too, is incredibly resilient, because of her experience of living with her colitis, which was diagnosed as a teenager, as it is for many people. It is a very particular experience to be diagnosed with a lifelong condition as a teenager.

People who experience that are some of the most resilient individuals in our community, and their lived experience is central to making sure that our councils and the Government design provision and services that meet their needs. In that spirit, I welcome continued dialogue with Members. I know that there are others who are not in this Chamber who also feel very strongly about this topic. Local government, MHCLG and partners can work together to deliver more accessible, well-maintained public toilets. We should look at existing schemes and new schemes that can encourage such provision.

I thank hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this important debate and for his warm words in welcoming me to my place; it was very generous of him. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that public spaces are accessible, inclusive and supportive of people’s dignity and independence. I welcome further representation from hon. Members, the brilliant charities that do fantastic campaigning on this issue, local authorities across the country and other partners who want to see the provision of public toilets improve.

Points of Order

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member will know that I am not responsible for the inner workings of the Cabinet Office—that is a matter for the Government. I would, however, say that I know the House awaits with interest further disclosure of material under the Humble Address. I gently encourage Members to wait and see what is released, and should they require further advice at that time, the Clerks will be available.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February, I submitted a named day written question to the Cabinet Office asking if any taxpayer-funded Government payment would be made to Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan, both of whom had just resigned in the wake of the Mandelson scandal. It was due for answer on 12 February, but the question was ignored.

I tried again to solicit an answer as to whether Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan would, or will, receive a payout by asking a further written parliamentary question on 17 March, asking specifically when an answer to the original question would be provided. This written parliamentary question was due for answer on Monday. Again, the deadline came and went, and that question was ignored. Ignoring scrutiny at Prime Minister’s questions is routine for this Prime Minister, but it appears that the broader Government are also showing total contempt for their responsibilities to be open and transparent with Members of this House. Can I please seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what recourse is available to Members whose written parliamentary questions are stonewalled by the Government?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is of the utmost importance that Ministers take their responsibilities to this House seriously. I would always expect timely answers to written parliamentary questions. They should be within scope and within the deadline, obviously. The Treasury Front Bench will have heard his concerns. The hon. Member may also wish to raise this issue with the Procedure Committee, which is running an inquiry into written parliamentary questions.

Draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 General Committees

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The draft order was laid before the House on 14 January and, if approved by this House and the other place, will implement a proposal submitted by Elmbridge borough council, Mole Valley district council and Surrey county council for two new unitary councils—East Surrey council and West Surrey council—on a geography covering the entirety of the county of Surrey.

As I have said in the House before, we need to set local authorities on a clear path to financial sustainability. Local government reorganisation is a vital part of that journey. Having layers of councils is both ineffective and inefficient. Reorganisation is not a bureaucratic exercise or tinkering with lines on a map. With one council in charge in each area, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and reconnect people to opportunity. Residents will see more preventive care and will benefit from more financially stable councils, with combined services delivering for a larger population providing efficiencies and better value. That is why reorganisation—with stronger local councils equipped to generate economic growth, improve public services and empower communities—is a vital part of our change.

I thank colleagues in this place and councils across the country for working with the Government on this process. To this end, on 5 February 2025, councils in the 21 areas of England that still have two-tier local government, including Surrey, were invited to submit proposals for unitarisation. Two proposals for reorganisation in Surrey were taken to consultation: one for two unitary councils and one for three. Following the close of the consultation, on 28 October 2025 I announced the Secretary of State’s decision to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the two-unitaries proposal.

In reaching that decision, we considered the proposals carefully against the criteria set out in the invitation letter, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and all other relevant information. In our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better met the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believed that it performed better against the second criterion, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. Putting Surrey’s local authorities on a more sustainable footing is vital to safeguarding the services residents rely on, as well as to investing in their futures.

If Parliament approves the draft order, there will be two unitary councils for Surrey from 1 April 2027. To deliver the new unitary councils, the order requires elections to be held in May 2026 for the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils, which will assume their full powers on 1 April 2027. These elections will replace the scheduled county council and some district council elections. The elections will be on the basis of East Surrey having 36 two-member wards and West Surrey having 45 two-member wards. Subsequent elections to the unitary councils will be in 2031 and every four years thereafter. We expect the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to review the wards in time for the 2031 elections. Implementing this proposal and establishing these new unitary authorities will help deliver our vision of having stronger local councils in charge of all local services and controlling local economic powers, to improve local public services and help grow economies.

Before I outline the content of the draft order, I want to bring attention to related issues in Surrey: the level of unsupported debt in Woking, and devolution for Surrey. The Government recognise that Woking borough council holds significant and exceptional unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. We have committed to unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking council, reflecting historical capital practices at the council and the value for money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. This is a first tranche of support, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point, including following greater certainty on the rationalisation of assets in Woking. Any support will need to consider what further action can be taken locally to reduce debt and ensure value for money for the national and local taxpayer. We are committed to providing the new unitary with interim financial support, such as capitalisation support, until this process is complete.

On devolution for Surrey, there is a plan that we are taking forward. On 12 February, we set out our intention to deliver a new wave of foundation strategic authorities across England as the next step forward in the Government’s devolution agenda. In Surrey, the Government are working with partners, which will include the new unitary authorities, to establish a foundation strategic authority for the area. This will ensure that relevant functions held at the county level, such as transport and adult skills, can continue to be delivered on that geographic footprint where possible.

We have also proposed that a spatial development strategy should be produced for the Surrey geography, which would be a function held by the foundation strategic authority. The establishment of a strategic authority will be subject to the relevant statutory tests being met, and to local consent. The Government will also ensure that fire and rescue functions continue to be governed on the same geography.

We prepared the draft order having considered the information in the proposals and the representations invited from all the councils concerned on specific matters. The order provides that, on 1 April 2027, the county of Surrey and the districts of Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking will be abolished. The councils of those districts and county will be wound up and dissolved. In their place, the functions will be transferred to the two new unitary authorities, East Surrey council and West Surrey council.

The draft order also covers electoral matters, which I have set out, and provides for appropriate transitional arrangements. On transitional arrangements, it places a duty on the existing councils to co-operate with each other, the shadow authorities and the shadow executives, and to create joint committees for East Surrey and West Surrey, which will be dissolved after the first meeting of their respective shadow authorities.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Minister referenced £500 million of debt repayment support off the back of Woking’s unsupported debt. That rings a bell with me; my neighbouring authority in Blackpool has £500 million of debt, while my Fylde borough council carries no debt. How much do the Government think they will pay in debt support as they look at the other councils going through this process, and have they budgeted an amount for that? Will the debt be paid off before the new authority is created, or will it be transferred to it?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is very important. Dealing with the significant debt that local authorities have built up for a range of reasons is extremely important. He will be aware that we have dealt with the special educational needs and disabilities issue in recent days. He raises his point in the context of reorganisation, and those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is very important that we get this issue right, and I look forward to discussing with him the details of the case he mentioned on many occasions, I am sure, as we move forward with Lancashire reorganisation.

I am pleased that Surrey leaders, members and officers have already commenced and implemented on a voluntary basis some of the transitional arrangements in the draft order to support delivery of the two new unitary councils. As such, the required joint committees have been set up and the implementation team agreed, and work is under way on the required implementation plan.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the Surrey councils and everyone involved in this process for their continued hard work and collaboration for local government reorganisation in Surrey. I know that this is not easy, and I reiterate my commitment to continue to support councils through the process. As part of that, we have confirmed £63 million in new funding for all 21 areas going through reorganisation, including Surrey, to help make the change.

In conclusion, through the draft order we are seeking to replace the existing local government structures in Surrey with two new unitary councils that will be financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality public services to residents. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Local Government Finance

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I am incredibly proud to have been a councillor until last year, because local government is the foundation of so much that matters in people’s daily lives. It keeps our streets clean, supports vulnerable families, funds social care, maintains roads, protects our environment, ensures that our children can get to school safely, keeps our bins emptied and keeps our potholes filled, but not everywhere. When councils are stretched to breaking point, it is residents who feel the strain.

I welcome the move to a multi-year settlement, which we have long argued for. Councils need certainty and to plan beyond a single financial year. That stability matters, but let us be clear: a longer settlement does not in itself fix a broken system. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that deficits could reach nearly £4 billion a year by 2027-28, and that is not sustainable.

On top of that, we now have rising demand, inflationary pressures, increases in the national living wage and the hike in national insurance contributions, and councils are expected to absorb all of this. Further, making any material changes—for example in the assumptions about the level of business rates pooling and effectively reducing councils’ funding allocation between the provisional and final settlement—will cause serious challenges for many councils, including Stratford-on-Avon district council, which could see a big cut of 5% or more of its total spending power. If I heard correctly, the Secretary of State pledged to refund those councils affected by this material change, and I would like those on the Treasury Bench to confirm that. Our constituents are the ones who are going to be impacted, and the provision of valuable local services will be affected.

I am deeply concerned about the impact on rural areas like mine. The shift to a need-and-demand model risks overlooking the real costs of delivering services across large, sparsely populated areas. Rural councils often receive less grant funding yet face higher transport costs, greater recruitment challenges and weaker public transport networks. That reality must be properly recognised in any fair funding formula.

In my constituency, I see the pressures on local government every day. Stratford-on-Avon district council, led by the Liberal Democrats, has shown what responsible local leadership looks like even in tough times. It has delivered the third highest recycling rate in England. It has rolled out natural flood management. It has installed solar panels on leisure centres to cut running costs and reduce emissions. It has allocated £600,000 to a cost of living mitigation fund to support our most vulnerable families. That is practical, sensible, community-focused governance. That is what can be achieved when councils are run competently and with a clear sense of purpose.

We can contrast that with the chaos we have seen at Warwickshire county council, now run by Reform. Last week, after a gruelling 10-hour meeting, the minority Reform administration failed to pass a budget. The Liberal Democrats put forward an alternative that would have invested £20 million in tackling child poverty, protecting youth services, improving home to school transport, and investing in infrastructure for the future. For an extra 39p a week, we could have protected services for thousands of young people and vulnerable residents. Instead, Reform doubled down on cuts that would hit families hard, including changes that could leave children walking up to five miles to school, often along unlit rural roads. Reform and the Conservatives combined to block that investment, and then still could not agree a budget of their own, leaving the council in limbo. This Tory-Reform stitch up is costing residents in Stratford-on-Avon and across Warwickshire. As we look ahead to local reorganisation in Warwickshire, these choices matter even more.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On the point about Reform councils and the promises they made and the reality of that, in Lancashire they are trying to balance the books by initially consulting on closing 10 care homes and day centres and narrowing that down now to just the day centres. Does the hon. Member share my surprise that Reform MPs are not here to defend their record on what they promised versus the reality of a Reform-led council?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Yes, the Reform Benches are empty, as we all can see and as the British public can see, and this is really important because, as I have said, local government is the foundation of our places. It gives us our civic pride in our areas and is on the frontline of delivering services, so this is really disappointing, and there is chaos in Warwickshire; we are still without a budget. Stratford-on-Avon district council has made a clear case for a south Warwickshire unitary authority that reflects the real communities and keeps decision making closer to residents. Reform is pushing for a single county-wide super-authority that would centralise power, moving it further away from local people. At a time when trust in politics is fragile, we should be strengthening local democracy, not weakening it. We must keep local government local.

Local authorities are ready to play their part in delivering growth, tackling the climate emergency, insulating homes, improving air quality and building the infrastructure that our communities need, but they cannot do so if they are permanently firefighting. If we are serious about having strong communities and a strong economy, we must get local government finances right and not defund rural councils. We need to support them, so that they can deliver for their residents, rather than leaving them to pick up the pieces of national Government failure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I will not go through every detail of this settlement. There is always a balance to be struck in local government settlements, and Ministers have to make their own judgments about that. It is the overall impact that I want to judge the settlement by. For me, this is a fairer settlement for those authorities with high levels of deprivation and some of the worst cuts in the years of austerity.

[Mr Snowden]

It is all very well to say that this is a fair settlement. On balance, councils that have Labour constituencies benefit from it, and councils that are represented by Conservative Members do not. The fairness can be derived from that.

[Mr Betts]

First, there are many more councils with Labour MPs. It might be the case that Labour MPs represent councils with higher levels of deprivation. That might be the simple explanation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brash]

I would say that if we want there to be trust in politics, we need to be accurate in what we say in this place, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s correcting the record.

The Minister understands exactly what I am going to say. I know how sympathetic and supportive she is in this respect, and I hope that in the coming days we will be able to deal with the issue that I am going to raise. I thank her for her support in recent weeks.

I want to be clear about what Hartlepool is facing, and about why I cannot regard the current settlement to be fair and also believe it to be self-defeating. Hartlepool now has the third highest number of children in care in England. That pressure has been made worse by other local authorities placing families in my town, leaving us with a £6 million overspend in children’s social care alone. My brilliant Labour council has already taken decisive action, halving that projected deficit in-year and establishing a robust, credible plan to eliminate it entirely. That plan is exactly what the Government say they want to see: it means fewer children coming into care, more early intervention, stronger families and better outcomes. It includes strengthened early help and family support, a dedicated edge-of-care team, a refreshed in-house foster care model, safe reunification pathways, wholesale SEND reform, enhanced support for care leavers, and better workforce planning. This is a serious, preventive change, not a sticking plaster solution.

But here is the problem: these reforms require short-term stability to succeed. The settlement does not recognise the sheer number of children in care in my constituency. It undermines prevention, which means that we are likely to see more children in care, more long-term costs, and worse outcomes. That is why I see this settlement as self-defeating. Ministers will rightly point to percentage increases in funding, but those percentages mean far less in Hartlepool than they do almost anywhere else, because our baseline is already so low. The cost of a child in care is exactly the same in Hartlepool as it is anywhere else.

When we look at it in cash terms, the reality is stark. The increase in the Government grant for Hartlepool this year is just £3 million, which is equivalent to funding around six children in care. After weeks of discussions and representations, the final settlement for Hartlepool has remained unchanged, yet down the road—this sticks in the craw for me—Reform-led Durham county council has received an additional £3.7 million this year, which means that it is reducing the amount by which it is increasing council tax. The increase in Durham’s final settlement is more than our entire increase this year. I cannot describe that as fair funding.

As we have heard from many Members from across the House, the unfairness is compounded by a broken council tax system. Hartlepool has one of the weakest tax bases in the country, with a high proportion of homes in band A. A 1% increase in council tax in Hartlepool raises a fraction of what it raises in wealthier areas, yet our residents already pay far more, both in real terms and as a share of their income, than those living almost anywhere else in the country. The settlement simply does not change that reality.

Governments of all stripes talk about core spending power, but half of that core spending power is achieved by raising council tax. That hammers the poorest communities the most, and it is a regressive tax. That is not fairness; it is entrenched inequality. To make matters worse, changes to deprivation measures and population assumptions mean that Hartlepool’s needs are being systematically underestimated. Official forecasts put our population at under 94,000, yet the Office for National Statistics data shows that it is already closer to 100,000—growth that is driven in large part by other councils discharging their homelessness duties into my constituency. Hartlepool is not asking for special treatment; we are asking for support to deal with a problem that is not of our making.

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member is touching on an important issue that affects a lot of councils across the north of England, including Blackpool, which neighbours my constituency. Larger metropolitan areas are effectively exporting their children-in-care problems to much cheaper areas, such as Blackpool and Hartlepool, which the hon. Member represents. Some kind of restriction on how far councils can move children who are being put into care might stop the dumping of children in care in areas where housing is cheaper.

[Mr Brash]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I endorse them wholeheartedly. I have heard stories of London boroughs and Birmingham city council putting families in taxis with the threat, “Get in the taxi, or you’re homeless.” They do not know where they will get out at the other end, and they discover that they are in Hartlepool only when they arrive. It is left for our council to deal with the pressure and the additional SEND needs, and for our council to deal with the children, who sometimes end up in care. It is a disgraceful practice that should rightly be cracked down on. I know that the Minister is alive to this problem, and it needs to be dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brash]

I absolutely endorse all that; part of that work needs to be taking a very close look at the funding settlement. We need to look at whether councils that may have done very well out of the settlement are still moving people out of their areas, even when they have extra finances from this Government.

[Mr Snowden]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, as he gives me a chance to respond to the Minister as well as to himself. As a former police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, I saw at first hand the impact on communities of cities miles away in effect dumping children into high crime, high deprivation areas simply because the housing is cheaper. Dealing with the damage that has on children’s life chances—let alone the impact on communities already struggling with regeneration by adding to the problems—is paramount. I would be more than happy to meet the Minister and the hon. Member to discuss how we take forward this issue not only on the Fylde coast, but across the north.

[Mr Brash]

I will take up the hon. Member on that invitation. He mentioned Blackpool, and I know that the Members who represent Blackpool and Stoke—in the top three areas for the number of children in care—would also be very interested in his offer.

Without support to deal with the gap in our in-year funding for children’s social care, the risks are clear: prevention will fail, costs will rise, and vital community services such as youth provision, libraries and community hubs will be under threat. I fully support my Labour council colleagues, who have been clear that they are not prepared to make those cuts, which would be so self-defeating in the round.

This is a moment of profound seriousness for my constituency. Hartlepool has a plan for children’s social care that is aligned with the Government’s agenda, but we now need a settlement that gives us a fair chance to deliver it. I have spoken today with our council leader and colleagues in Hartlepool, and they are distraught, despondent and profoundly worried about what the future holds—in just a matter of days, when the budget is due to be set in Hartlepool—so I appeal to the Minister for any piece of support she can give me.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner, for what I think is the first time.

As the Minister outlined, the purpose of the draft regulations is to round off the otherwise larger increases in business rates, but it is important to put that in context. A short time ago, we had a general election, in which the Prime Minister said that there would be a new regime of “permanently lower business rates”. I appreciate that the Treasury is currently hiring a new business rates tax adviser, but this issue is not going away.

In Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) referred to a 2,000% increase in the business rates applying to one of the pubs in her constituency. Previously, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) had reported that a survey showed an average increase of 41% for hospitality businesses, 44.4% for music venues and 27% for independent shops in her constituency. The body that represents the United Kingdom’s gym and health providers, ukactive, reports an average increase of 60% in the business rates for which its members are liable. The National Pharmacy Association has reported that its members are having to remortgage their homes and put their life savings into their businesses to meet the business rate increases proposed by the Government. To date, over the last 12 months, there have been a net 200,000 job losses in the retail sector, which businesses report are primarily due to increases in business rates and national insurance contributions.

It is clear that that reflects a very substantial, permanently higher rate of business rates and an unwelcome U-turn by the Government. All of us can see the practical impact in our communities, and I would bet that there is not a Member in this room who has not been lobbied by local pubs, cafés and shops about the impact that this is having on their business.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that this is creating a perfect storm and that the reason so many people are getting in touch with us—many MPs on both sides of the House will have owners of pubs, restaurants and bars getting in touch with them—is that this business rates change will crystallise that? In coastal areas like Fylde, people have less money in their pockets, so there are fewer visitors to hospitality venues to start with. Those businesses already face significant cost increases because of changes to national insurance and other changes in the tax system. As a result, these 40%, 50% or 60% changes in business rates will be the final straw for many of those businesses.

[The Chair]

Order. We have an hour and a half to debate the regulations, but interventions must be a bit shorter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am here replacing another Member. When they told me the subject, I said, “Great! It is the first time I have ever actually known something about the subject.” They said, “For goodness’ sake, don’t let the Whips hear you say that”—such is the time in which we live. At the risk of incurring the wrath of Members who would clearly like to get out of this room as quickly as possible, I hope I might be of service to the Government on this issue.

For almost a decade I ran a local authority that collected one of the highest levels of business rates in the country. We are seeing the second highest increase as a result of changes being instituted now—such is the consequence of having a major airport in our patch. However, I am aware that we are likely to hold a vote on this topic, so I would like to frame in people’s minds exactly what is being debated before we get to a vote.

The current system of discounts for the hospitality industry is running out; no additional money has been put forward to fund it—it was not in the Budget. Currently, these things are not done through legislation or statutory instrument, but operate through guidance, with local authorities essentially given discretionary relief and paid back by the Government. If we do not put another arrangement in place, that collapses.

The proposed system delivers a lower rate than the previous system. If Members do not vote in favour of it, a system will come into effect that has a higher level of rates for the hospitality industry—with its level of interest in this—and for businesses that are struggling at the moment than is currently the case. This is the only proposal on the table at the moment.

[Mr Snowden]

If that is the case, would it not have been better if the Government had had the foresight to put a new system in place to deal with the discounts that existed before, and made some choices about where the pounds are spent—rather than on higher welfare, maybe on supporting businesses?

[Peter Lamb]

I would be delighted to have a different system in place. In fact, I spent many years as a local authority leader, lobbying the last Government to try to do anything on that front to resolve a system that, frankly, is still Elizabethan in design and in no way reflects the changing nature of local economies. It requires a fundamental review, and I understand from the Minister that we are looking at various changes at the moment, and further measures are being put in place to support people. However, I say to Members in this room today that if this proposal goes to a vote and they vote it down, they will in practice be voting for higher rates on these struggling businesses.

A second thing will happen. During covid, I was leader of my local authority, and businesses were suddenly unable to pay business rates. The liability around business rates is such that, regardless of what we have coming in as a local authority, we have to pay that money to the Government or they will take legal action; that is technically the requirement. My largest donor was Gatwick airport—[Interruption.] Rather, my largest contributor was Gatwick airport; it has not donated any money to me at all. It suddenly found that because aviation was hit so hard, it could not afford to pay its business rates at all. We faced a situation where local authorities in the area could not make payroll under the existing system. When Members vote today, they must therefore be very clear that they are voting to bankrupt not only the hospitality industry, the retail industry and other struggling sectors, but their own local authorities. That is all I will say on that.

If Opposition Members would like to propose something else in the House, we would be more than happy to debate it. However, if this proposal goes to a vote and they vote against it, they will have voted to put a higher rate of taxation on the hospitality industry.

Property Service Charges

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing this important debate. I understand more than most the issues with property service charges, because I am a leaseholder where I live in Hoddesdon. A quarter of my constituents live in flats or maisonettes, and 25% of property transactions in Broxbourne last year involved leasehold properties, but shockingly, as we have heard, it is hard to find any leaseholder who has a good word to say about their landlord or their service charge.

Landlords and solicitors do not provide enough information to new residents, and far too often prospective residents are not properly informed before they move in about how much service charges have increased in previous years. They are then hit with huge rises down the line. It is also unclear where the money is going.

A resident in Waltham Cross told me:

“The service charge has skyrocketed from around £800 to £6,000 for each leaseholder, yet living conditions remain extremely dire. Residents here face ongoing issues including trespassers, mould, broken security doors, mice infestations and squatters. Our building also has several defects, including weak floors, fire safety issues, and ongoing leakages. At one point my flat became uninhabitable after a severe leak that took months to resolve”.

I hear these stories again and again from constituents who come to me as the contact of last resort after months and sometimes years of neglect to their property. In that case I met the management company involved, RMG, earlier this year, but nothing has changed. Whether it is RMG, FirstPort, Bamptons, EN8 Homes or Warwick Estates, leaseholders deserve better from their landlords and management companies, who focus purely on collecting ever higher charges for worse services.

However, by far the worst treatment of leaseholders in my constituency has been at the hands of—I hope the Minister is listening to this point—Labour-run Enfield council. I was first contacted by residents on the Whitefield estate in May last year, and what I heard left me outraged. Completely out of the blue, Enfield council was demanding up to £50,000 from each leaseholder for “urgent” repairs. Roofs that had never had a leak were earmarked to be replaced, and windows would be fixed, even though they had been used for years without issue. Understandably, my residents immediately asked, “What about my service charge?” Well, as the Leasehold Advisory Service says, many landlords collect money out of the service charge for a sinking fund, to help cover the cost of exactly these kinds of major works. But not Enfield council. No, it expects my constituents to stump up all the cash, even after raising the service charge that year and, as far as the residents are concerned, having not spent a single penny on the estate in decades.

The Whitefield estate tenants association, and in particular leaseholder Nicky McCabe, have worked incredibly hard to bring the community together in response to this issue. They simply demanded straightforward answers to straightforward questions, but they were met with confusing statements from Enfield council representatives, who found it far too easy to say, “That’s not my job.” I attended the meeting. There were a number of directors from Enfield council there, all of whom earn significant sums of money, and they could not answer basic questions from my constituents about how much they would have to pay, and what was going to change on the estate. The communication was shocking. My constituents’ fight is still ongoing, and they have my full support.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I am sure that many Members have attended meetings with groups of residents who, in trying to resolve issues that are causing them so much anxiety, are at their wits’ end. We have an example in Fylde that is actually pre the management company. An estate has been developed, but it flooded during the construction and twice since, and now the estate company is desperate to get it into a management company, and to transfer all the flood risk liability to that company. Does my hon. Friend agree that kind of thing will just cause further problems down the line?

[Lewis Cocking]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point in standing up for his constituents. This is an important point. All MPs across the House have probably attended such meetings, and these companies are unable to answer the most basic questions. They are paid considerable amounts of money, and they cannot answer simple questions from constituents about how much money they will have to pay, where the liability sits, and what work they are going to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

High street rental auctions are a great tool for enabling Hertford and Stortford and the rest of the country to take on persistent vacancy. We already have trailblazers that are moving forward at great pace to implement those auctions, but the powers and the extra resources we have provided are available for all councils, and we ask them to come forward, to designate those town centres and high streets, and to start those auctions.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I was delighted to see recently that Lancashire county council and Fylde borough council have committed more funds to the St Annes pier link project, and are also looking at the Island site, which is critical for driving growth in the town centre to get that development off the ground. What funds or grants are now available from the Government for that kind of project for which Fylde council can apply, so that it can really catalyse growth on the Island site in St Annes?

English Devolution and Local Government

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome what Greater Manchester buses have delivered for my constituents in Tameside—better services all round. We want the same for Hartlepool. I gently encourage all Members from the Teesside area to work with the mayor to unleash all the powers I mentioned in my statement, in order to deliver better transport and connectivity. That is how we will unlock growth in all our regional areas, which is what we want to see across Hartlepool, Teesside and the whole of England.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister said that this is not a top-down approach, but non-top-down approaches do not start with the issuing of legal invitations. A legal invitation sounds like the kind of invitation my wife gives me to do something around the house—it is not an invitation; it is an instruction that one does not disobey. Many businesses and residents in Fylde are deeply concerned about this. They are represented by Fylde Council and Wyre Council, which have been well run, have kept council tax low and have not racked up debt. Any merger would see them join local authorities that have racked up massive debts and are not running the kinds of services that their local areas want and need. From one proud northerner to another, I ask her to nip up the road, have a pint with me, and meet not the local council leaders, councillors and other MPs, but residents and businesses themselves. They are concerned about this process, and I am sure they would love the opportunity to have a pint with her—or a vodka cocktail, which I believe she enjoys.

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman could not handle my cocktails, but if he wants to buy me a pint, I’m happy to accept. Lancashire has already agreed to come forward with its proposals, and we are working with it. This is not about pushing people. I have made no bones about the fact that I want to see devolution across the whole of England, but we are taking an approach of working with local areas, and I hope that he can see that in the way we have taken these things forward. If his wife is giving him legal notices, I suggest marriage counselling.