Draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Paul Holmes and Jim McMahon

Wednesday 8th January 2025 General Committees

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the shadow Minister and wish him a happy new year in return. His were generally positive comments, with the exception of the standard view of the Mayor of London, who is obviously doing a fantastic job of delivering the Government’s missions—and long may that continue.

Let me answer the shadow Minister’s questions, all of which were completely legitimate. We expect all public bodies, whether they are councils or mayoral combined authorities, to exercise their borrowing powers with the restraint that the public would expect. We expect them to borrow for a purpose and honour their borrowing commitments through the repayment schedule. That is why there is a clear mechanism in place for HMT to assess borrowing caps on an individual basis, reliant on the financial status of the local or combined authority in question. The checks and balances are robust and in place, and it may well be that the powers are not used in some places.

The point is that as we move towards a new phase of devolution there has to be an assumption of trust and autonomy for local authorities to do what is right for their local communities, without them always coming cap in hand to the Government or waiting for a new Government grant scheme that they can bid into. In the end, areas will be expected to self-organise, to work with their local business community and investors, and to marshal projects for the economic wellbeing of the country. This devolution mechanism is very much about bringing the relevant areas in line with other authorities that already have those powers.

We have seen mayoral combined authorities in particular making a difference to economic growth. Greater Manchester is significantly outperforming large parts of the economy elsewhere in England. That has been in large part because of the mayor’s convening role and the activity and energy of the local authorities, but also, importantly, because they have been able to team up and label different elements of funding to make schemes stack up and bring them to market so that they can be achieved. Having that role in place, with the legal powers required, is entirely what this mechanism is all about.

I have a different view from the Opposition on the use of a mayoral precept. The reason for that is that every mayoral operation has a cost to it. We can all agree that we want them to be slim, efficient and nimble, but the idea that some mayors have a cost to them and some do not is frankly ridiculous. Every mayoral combined authority has an operating cost. The more that authority does, the higher that cost will be, reflecting the activity that has been undertaken. There are two ways to meet that cost. We can have a levy or a charge on the local authority, which is not particularly transparent and cannot be seen by the public. The public do not even get to see on their council tax bills how much has been spent on that function, so where is the democratic accountability? Alternatively, we can shine a light on it and say that the public have a right to know how much mayoral combined authorities cost. That should be transparent on the council tax bill, and the public, through the democratic voting process, will have the right to say whether they believe that money is being used to the best effect.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not want to break the spirit of consensus, but although the Minister is quite right that transparency is crucial to all local mayors and that the public must know how much the authorities cost, why is it that Labour mayors seem to be raising their precept much more than any Conversative mayor? Is he saying to the Committee that Labour mayors are inefficient and their operations cost more than those of Tory mayors?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Holmes and Jim McMahon

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he did in local government, and as chair of the LGA, to make sure that the sector spoke with one voice and worked in collaboration with Government to try to get a better outcome for local councils. This Government will continue in that spirit.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Minister for Local Government may be aware that Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council is subject to a best value notice, due to its unsustainable £700 million of debt. More audits have been undertaken that show that more borrowing is taking place, so will he meet me to discuss this risk to my constituents and their taxpayers’ money?

[Jim McMahon]

I am very happy to have a meeting, probably next week, on that issue.

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Debate between Paul Holmes and Jim McMahon

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I will make some progress.

Conservative MPs should see this as a second chance, which everyone deserves. Let us take our mind back to the first chance, which was the passage of the Environment Act 2021, and an amendment that Labour backed that would have introduced a legal obligation to bring down sewage dumping progressively. It was blocked by Conservative MPs, who voted against it. It fell at the first test, but we believe in second chances. Today provides that second chance to right that wrong and to get behind Labour’s plan to clean up the Tory sewage scandal.

Let me come to Labour’s record, because the Conservatives would have us believe that the scale of dumping was inevitable, that there is nothing we can do about it, and that there is no alternative or somehow it has always been terrible. That is not what the evidence says. The last Labour Government had a proud record of delivering improvements in water quality. Shortly after the Labour party left office, the Environment Agency—in the Secretary of State’s own Department—reported that our rivers were cleaner than at any time since before the industrial revolution. In fact, in 2002, the then Environment Minister—the former Member for Oldham West and Royton, as it happens—celebrated how clean the water was when he took to it in Blackpool, with cameras looking on, to celebrate the proud moment that it met bathing water quality status. I would not think that the Environment Secretary would have the confidence to go swimming on the shores of Blackpool today, since over the past year there have been 22 incidents—62 hours—of raw human sewage being dumped in those waters, straight into the Irish sea.

We have shown that Labour will clean up the Tory sewage scandal—we have done it before, and we can do it again. In the absence of any leadership from the Government, Labour is stepping up. Today, there is finally something worth getting behind, after waiting 13 lost years—a whole generation of opportunity taken away.

Let me address cost. We are in the middle of a Tory cost of living crisis. Households are being hammered, and at every angle it seems that things are getting worse, not better. People see that when they go to the supermarket for their shop—again, a risible failing by the Secretary of State responsible for food, who does not think it is her job to have a roundtable with the food industry—and straight through to energy bills and mortgages. People are feeling the pinch. In their water bills, people are already paying for a service. Sewage treatment is itemised in every one of our bills but is not being delivered. Instead, the Tories are allowing water companies to cut corners and to dump sewage untreated.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Jim McMahon]

Let me make this point, because it ties in with following the money and tracking back to the impact. The storm overflow data, which water companies themselves provide to the Government, tells us that not a single one of the dumping incidents from last year was a result of exceptional circumstances. They were not down to rainfall or storms—the water companies and the Government say so. It is about a lack of treatment and investment. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) can learn to be quiet without the attention. That is basic good sense.

We need to address the issue of who pays. We believe that the polluter should pay. At the same time, water companies have walked away with £72 billion in dividends, and water bosses have enjoyed payments and bonuses of millions of pounds, even after sewage dumping had been identified. The Bill is about fixing those loopholes that allow poor practice and corner cutting, to ensure that the Government and the water companies together are acting in the public interest. It is not right that working people are paying for the privilege of having raw human sewage dumped in their communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

rose—

[Jim McMahon]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has been persistent.

[Paul Holmes]

I note that the shadow Secretary of State’s paragraph on the Labour record was very short—perhaps because under the Labour Government 7% of sewage discharges were monitored, whereas now that is 91%, with an ambition of 100% through the legislation that the Secretary of State has laid out. Why can the shadow Secretary of State not stand at the Dispatch Box and welcome that, and accept that his party did nothing about this issue in its time in government?

[Jim McMahon]

I am not sure that was worth waiting for. The hon. Gentleman was so persistent that I thought a gem would come to advance the debate, but the House was left wanting, yet again. I am proud of Labour’s record. We went from industrial pollution affecting our rivers and canals to the cleanest water since before the industrial revolution. That progress and legacy should have been built on, but they have been trashed. We have gone backwards, not forwards.

We need to change the culture in water companies and demand change, by setting down legally binding targets and enforcing straightforward penalties for failure. The Bill protects bill payers in law—no ifs, not buts. The cost must and will be borne by water companies and their shareholders, protected in the Bill in black and white. That is the basis of our motion, and it is what Members on all sides of the House will vote for later—not a fabricated version of reality that does not hold up to the evidence; no more jam tomorrow, asking people to wait until 2050 at the earliest to see an end to the sewage scandal; in black and white, a plan finally to end the scandal.

Let me outline what the Bill does, before I close and allow other Members to speak. It will deliver mandatory monitoring on all sewage outlets and a standing charge on water companies that fail.