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.