Grand Committee

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

Monday 27 January 2025

Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:45

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 30 October 2024. The Government believe that the answer to the challenges around energy security, affordability and sustainability point not in different directions but in the same direction: clean power. Investing in clean power at speed and scale can help tackle the climate crisis and create good jobs. We believe that it is the only route to protect bill payers and ensure energy security; this is why making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of the five central missions of this Government.

To deliver that mission, we will rely increasingly on a renewables-led system as the foundation for a decarbonised grid. We have set ambitious but deliverable targets to double onshore wind, treble solar and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. Although renewable energy is at the heart of our plan to deliver clean power, we also know that we must bring forward low-carbon generation sources, providing added security for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. This includes flexible supply sources that can scale up or down instantaneously to meet peak demand.

Some of this flexibility can be provided by short-duration technologies such as batteries, which can help balance the system within each day, but we know that we will also need long-duration technologies, which can run for extended periods of low renewable production. To meet this challenge, the Government are investing in low-carbon flexible technologies, such as carbon capture and storage at existing power stations, hydrogen and long-duration electricity storage. This flexibility is critical to maintaining a constant supply of electricity in the UK, keeping the lights on for millions of homes and businesses.

However, as these new low-carbon technologies scale up, we will continue to need reliable mature technologies, including gas, to provide energy security. The National Energy System Operator’s report on delivering clean power by 2030 showed that maintaining gas capacity in the system is in line with the mission to deliver clean power. We have been clear from the outset that gas is expected to be used less in our future energy system, moving to an important strategic reserve role in order to ensure security of supply. Although gas will continue to play an important role in the system, it is only right that we should expect any new or substantially refurbished combustion plants to be built “net zero-ready”. This is why we are uplifting the existing regime and introducing the new decarbonisation readiness requirements.

Before I turn to detail of the decarbonisation readiness requirements, let me first set out the current regime. Since 2009, all new-build combustion power plants in Great Britain sized over 300 megawatts have been subject to the carbon capture readiness requirements. These regulations require plant operators to demonstrate that it is technically and economically feasible to retrofit carbon capture and storage technology. Due to the threshold of 300 megawatts, the policy has seen limited application since 2009. The reality is that it has contributed to a costly market distortion by incentivising the building of smaller, less efficient plants and inadvertently creating an unacceptable loophole. This has resulted in a significant number of plants being built at 299 megawatts in order to avoid the carbon capture readiness requirements.

The policy landscape has changed significantly since the carbon capture readiness requirements were introduced. Plant operators now have an alternative pathway to decarbonise, through hydrogen-fired generation, as well as the introduction of the UK’s legal obligation to meet carbon budgets and reach net zero by 2050. In March 2023, a final consultation on the decarbonisation readiness proposals was published alongside the publication of two technical studies for hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. The consultation received positive feedback from industry. Some 28 organisations and one individual responded—representing plant operators, original equipment manufacturers and trade associations—with broad support for the proposed changes and implementation of the decarbonisation readiness requirements. We published a response in mid-October, giving the go-ahead to proposals set out in the consultation.

On the details of the regulations, this statutory instrument will amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 by inserting new Schedule 25C. It will remove the minimum capacity threshold of 300 megawatts, which will remove any existing market distortion and support rapid decarbonisation by ensuring that nearly all new and substantially refurbishing combustion power plants must have a credible plan to decarbonise. The regulations will also move the requirements from the planning consent process, where they currently sit for carbon capture readiness, to environmental permitting. This will ensure that the responsibility for regulating the requirements falls to the Environment Agency rather than to local planning authorities and my own department. Unlike local planning authorities, the Environment Agency is already involved in the assessment of carbon capture readiness and has the technical expertise to assess the requirements. As I mentioned a moment ago, that will also include hydrogen readiness.

The new requirements will now enable combustion plants to demonstrate decarbonisation readiness through conversion to hydrogen firing, as well as carbon capture. In doing so, the instrument introduces hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture readiness assessments, which are proportionate to the developing nature of hydrogen to power and carbon capture and storage. The requirements will also expand the generation technologies in scope of the requirements to include biomass, energy from waste and combined heat and power plants. This will ensure that a higher number of carbon-intensive plants are now captured.

These updated requirements are intended to strike a balance. They ensure that new-build plants and the refurbishment of old sites are conducted ready to take full advantage of future decarbonisation opportunities, while acknowledging the emerging state of hydrogen and carbon capture technologies and their enabling infrastructure. We expect that the requirements will be strengthened over time as the generation technology improves and clarity on enabling infrastructure availability increases. To ensure that we regularly assess the impact of the policy and the case for strengthening the requirements, we have included a statutory requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the policy in periods not exceeding five years.

In summary, these regulations will ensure that the gas capacity we need for security of supply is future-proofed and has a credible plan to transition to low-carbon operation. In doing so, it will help deliver our aim to become a clean energy superpower and deliver net zero by 2050. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

When one is first appointed to Parliament, one worries about addressing a huge crowd of parliamentarians and being on the telly as well. I am not feeling too nervous today.

I found the Minister’s explanation excellent; I did not understand it particularly from the legislation or the Explanatory Memorandum. I presume that the whole area around potential new gas, in particular combustion power stations, is about aiming for 95% decarbonisation by 2030 rather than 100%, which I understand in terms of pragmatism.

On the areas that I do not really understand, the one that I had not really realised is the hydrogen aspect of these regulations. I find it difficult to understand how one would ever convert a gas power station to a hydrogen power station in a way that would make any economic sense whatever in terms of gas storage coming in and perhaps being used as part of the capacity mechanism. The hydrogen would have to be green hydrogen, which means that it is probably generated by electricity in the first place—so why would one de-convert it through various inefficiency mechanisms for it then to go through a degassed power station? That just does not seem logical to me.

On that, the other risk seems to be that—I am not a technical expert on this, obviously—the conversion from a gas-fired power station to a hydrogen-fired power station is probably not that different, and therefore the cost of conversion, or of being hydrogen-ready, is not very great. Carbon capture and storage, however, is a major conversion and, presumably, it has to be near facilities that can store carbon: either a carbon pipeline, which we went through all the legislation for in the last Energy Act, or something on the coast, so it can go undersea. So I ask the Minister: is this effectively another loophole like the one that already exists, in that new combustion stations just say that they are hydrogen-ready? In terms of carbon capture and storage, does that very much restrict where they are?

I have another concern, although I fully accept what the Government are trying to do here. The Minister mentioned energy from waste plants. We all know that, as part of their planning permission, the plants often have to be ready to have heat networks—but this hardly ever happens. Occasionally it does; there are examples of energy from waste being tapped into heat networks. I just feel that there is a risk that these things can be built in a certain way—I do not know how much they have to be ready or near a connection—but in reality they will never happen. Certainly, that tends to be the track record in this area.

I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments, but, generally, I welcome what the Government are trying to do.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, I will concentrate on a major area where I feel the Government must provide some clarity: regulatory burden. In doing so, I am of course mindful that it was the previous Government who introduced the initial consultation to expand and update carbon capture readiness requirements, now rebranded as decarbonisation readiness requirements. The immediate effect of these regulations will be felt across electricity generating stations in England, particularly those now required to meet the expanded decarbonisation readiness criteria. Operators will be required to submit a decarbonisation readiness report as part of their environmental permit applications, which must include technical details on the feasibility of carbon capture or hydrogen conversion during electricity generation.

A significant provision in this statutory instrument is the removal of the 300 megawatt minimum capacity threshold, which currently dictates when carbon capture readiness requirements apply. In this amendment, the requirements will apply to both new and substantially refurbished combustion power plants, as well as voluntary applications for existing plants. Additionally, the SI introduces assessments for hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture, usage and storage.

It is incumbent on the Government to outline comprehensively what specific support will be available to businesses as they are required to adjust to these new requirements. Can the Minister assure me that his officials in the department recognise that the onus must be on helping operators achieve compliance rather than face an undue burden? Will he outline whether exemptions have been considered—for example, for smaller or older power plants that may face specific challenges in meeting the requirements on day 1? There is a fine line to be walked between regulation and innovation, and, to use a familiar proverb, there is a real need here to make sure that we are not cutting off our nose to spite our face.

This instrument hands the Environment Agency direct assessment powers over compliance. Again, can the Minister provide the necessary detail on the actions that the agency will take to facilitate a smooth transition before the implementation date of February 2026? Additionally, will there be any further consultations, or will any additional guidance be issued, before the regulations come into effect?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Teverson, for their comments. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that I am grateful for his support and for noting the clarity with which we have presented the proposals. In terms of the popularity of debates on energy SIs, we have had more colleagues here in previous debates, but we are presently on a rota of two SIs every Monday, and at some point I hope we might come to a conclusion in relation to that.

16:00

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised a number of challenges in relation to providing low-carbon technologies, particularly H2P—hydrogen to power. We think it could bring benefit to the power system as a critical low-carbon long-duration flexible technology that is capable of providing extended dispatchable power during periods of low renewable output. Internal and external analysis indicates that H2P can be run economically at low load factors. That will become more prevalent in a renewables-dominant power system.

On the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, we have discussed the approach to regulation here. My understanding is that the Environment Agency will regulate the requirements in a proportional way that minimises the regulatory burden for small projects with the least environmental impact. Of course, there will be a small administrative cost to businesses. Our analysis suggests a total cost to business of £4.2 million per year across the economy. These costs derive from importing a cost associated with meeting the requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, acknowledged that this work was undertaken by the previous Government. We have continued that work and adopted a consistent approach.

It is worth making the point that, of the four tests that will be required of a plant operator to demonstrate carbon capture readiness—a spatial test, a technology feasibility test, a CO₂ transport and storage test, and an economic feasibility test—two will be assessed by the Environment Agency. In the CO₂ transport and storage test, operators will be required to provide a storage feasibility certification, so that test will not be assessed. In the economic feasibility test, operators will be required to provide an economic feasibility certification—a statement that there are no barriers preventing the plant being commercially viable. That will not be assessed either.

We think that this approach, which takes some of the tests as being self-certified, represents a proportionate approach. The key components of the proposals we consulted on in March 2023 have all been retained. To come back to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we do not think we are building in another perverse incentive in relation to hydrogen, but we will keep that under close review.

Motion agreed.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:03

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 3 December 2024. Noble Lords will know that the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, contributing to the UK’s emissions-reduction targets and net-zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.

Under the UK ETS, operators are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. Most allowances are purchased at regularly held auctions. However, operators in certain sectors at risk of carbon leakage are given a number of allowances for free in order to manage both their exposure to the carbon price and the risk that businesses’ decarbonisation efforts could be undermined by higher-carbon imports.

Under the UK ETS, an operator is the person who has control over an installation. Installations are stationary units at which regulated activities take place. Sub-installations represent operations carried out at an installation in respect of which free allocation operators are required to report activity levels for the purposes of the ETS.

I now turn to what this statutory instrument does. We have brought forward this SI to enable important changes and improvements to the scheme to be made. Under previous UK ETS policy, where a sub-installation ceased operation, free allowances were no longer distributed in respect of that sub-installation in the year after the year in which the relevant sub-installation ceased operation.

However, the operator was entitled to retain the full amount of free allowances made available in respect of the sub-installation without recalculation to account for the permanent cessation of the sub-installation within the scheme year. Noble Lords will readily see that this had the potential to result in the overallocation of free allowances beyond the volume required for carbon leakage mitigation, as well as the distribution of free allowances that were no longer associated with an activity that resulted in emissions.

This instrument ensures that the volume of free allocation to which an operator is entitled in the final year in which operations are carried out at one or more sub-installations is calculated by reference to the level of activity at the relevant sub-installation in that year. To facilitate this change, this statutory instrument will require that operators prepare an activity level report in respect of the final year in which operations are carried out at a sub-installation. That report will be used to recalculate the volume of free allocation to which the operator is entitled in the final year in which operations are carried out at a sub-installation, and any overallocation will be recoverable in accordance with existing scheme rules.

This instrument includes an exception to the final-year rule in circumstances in which the permanent cessation of operations at a sub-installation is part of a series of changes that has resulted in a material reduction in the specified emissions per unit of production of those pre-cessation products that continue to be produced at the installation. This exception to the final-year rule will incentivise decarbonisation, as operators that can demonstrate that the relevant requirements are met will continue to be entitled to the free allocation calculated in accordance with existing UK ETS rules, which is calculated in advance on the basis of historic activity levels.

This instrument also amends the circumstances in which an installation or sub-installation has ceased operation for the purposes of the UK ETS legislation. The previous definition of the circumstances in which an installation or sub-installation had ceased operations was at the point in time when it became technically impossible to resume operation. This definition was difficult to apply consistently in practice. The updated definitions provide that an installation has ceased operation when all regulated activities, in the case of an installation, or the relevant operation, in the case of a sub-installation, have permanently ceased to be carried out at the installation. This amendment increases certainty for both the scheme regulators and operators.

This instrument also introduces a requirement for operators to notify the relevant scheme regulator of circumstances in which all regulated activities cease to be carried out at an installation by the end of the scheme year in which the cessation occurs or within one month of the date of cessation—whichever is later—and to confirm whether the operator intends for one or more regulated activities to resume at the installation. Operators are similarly required to provide details of a cessation of operations in respect of a sub-installation in annual activity level reports prepared in relation to the 2025 scheme year and thereafter. Requiring these reports will facilitate the application of the new final-year rule.

The statutory instrument introduces a new power for regulators to issue a notice to an operator which determines that an installation or sub-installation has ceased operation for the purposes of UK ETS legislation. The new power is available in circumstances where the regulator is not satisfied that the operator intends regulated activities to resume at the installation or intends for regulated operations to resume at the sub-installation level. The change will increase certainty for operators and facilitate equivalent treatment for all installations undergoing a cessation.

The changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. Between 18 December 2023 and 11 March 2024, the UK and devolved Governments ran a consultation, seeking views on proposals to alter the free-allocation methodology for the UK ETS statutory sectors to better target those most at risk of carbon leakage and ensure that free allocations are fairly distributed. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme: Free Allocation Review covered the provisions included in this statutory instrument on permanent cessations. The responses to this consultation were in broad support of the proposed technical changes to the treatment of permanent cessations. The authority response to this consultation will be delivered in two parts; an early response to proposals on permanent cessations was published last November.

In conclusion, I have spoken at considerable length on what seems to me a perfectly sensible order that builds on the work of the last Government. It seems to me absolutely sensible and proportionate. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I do not think I have ever known something so simple be made to sound so complicated, if I am honest. Basically, this will stop people having a free ride after they have closed down a particular part of their business; I think that describes it. Therefore, it makes sense and is right to do.

Perhaps I may come back to a slightly broader canvas, because this is a really important area for the UK ETS. Free allocations come primarily from grandfather rights and work through. I presume that all free permits will cease as the UK introduces the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which I think is coming in 2027, as planned by the previous Government. Free allocations are all about carbon leakage and, when we have a carbon border mechanism, clearly, carbon leakage is solved by that instrument rather than by free issue. So will they be phased out in that time?

The Minister will also be aware that, under the trade and co-operation agreement negotiated by the previous Government, there was a strong inference that the UK ETS and the EU ETS should recombine in a single scheme. In fact, one of the issues at the moment is that the UK ETS carbon price is significantly less than the European one. This is due to what I would probably see as an overallocation of free permits.

So my question is: are this Government still considering bringing those two schemes together? This is particularly important at present because, in one year’s time, the EU will introduce its carbon border adjustment mechanism for heavy industry, but, in particular, energy exports will be taken into account by the first phase. If we do not have an equivalent scheme or are not part of a joint scheme, effectively we will be subject to tariffs in terms of those effective carbon charges.

A particular problem with the carbon border adjustment mechanism is the GB-Northern Ireland issue, because there will effectively be a tariff for carbon costs and energy between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I visited Energy UK one or two weeks ago, and it was particularly concerned about these aspects of the UK ETS into the near future and when the EU moves forward with its well-planned carbon border adjustment mechanism. It is really important to make decisions here and get on with them, because there will be very difficult issues if we do not resolve this over the next 12 months.

16:15

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument proposes amendments to the UK emissions trading scheme, including expanding its scope to cover CO2 venting for upstream oil and gas operations, lowering the emissions cap and introducing new penalties alongside a flexible reserve mechanism. It is crucial that industries and communities affected by these changes receive the necessary support during the transition period.

The amendments introduced by this order significantly expand the UK ETS. Notably, it will now cover CO2 venting from upstream oil and gas operations, requiring companies in this sector to purchase allowances for their emissions. The adjustment of the emissions cap ensures that the allowances for companies to buy in 2025 will be reduced by 12.4%. By 2027, the number of allowances will fall by 45%, ultimately reaching a 70% reduction by 2030.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the introduction of new penalties and a deficit notice in this instrument—fines for non-compliance linked to the carbon price, obviously designed to incentivise businesses to meet their obligations. How will these penalties be enforced in practice and are they really proportionate, particularly for industries already facing complex and burdensome regulatory frameworks? Additionally, the establishment of a flexible reserve to buffer against market volatility can be seen as a step towards ensuring stability in the carbon market, but can the Minister explain what assurances the Government can give that this mechanism will not inadvertently lead to market manipulation or instability, rather than solving it?

Requiring oil and gas companies to purchase allowances for CO2 venting could significantly increase their operational costs, placing UK producers at a disadvantage compared to international competitors in regions without similar emissions trading schemes. This could lead to carbon leakage. The Government must address how they plan to mitigate such risks.

Another concern is the regulatory burden. The introduction of additional regulations and financial costs tied to purchasing allowances may create a substantial compliance burden, particularly for smaller operators. It is essential that the Government provide clear guidance and support to ensure that businesses can adapt without undue strain.

On investment and mitigation technologies, while the scheme encourages decarbonisation, can the Minister outline how it plans to incentivise and facilitate the scale-up of carbon capture, utilisation and storage technologies? All these are said to be necessary to keep to the Government’s timetable. Further clarity is needed.

Market price volatility presents an additional challenge. Fluctuating carbon prices expose companies to financial uncertainty. While the flexible reserves aim to stabilise the market, further clarity is needed on how effective this mechanism will be in managing price volatility and ensuring long-term stability.

The introduction of penalties and enforcement provisions raises important questions about fairness and proportionality. Will penalties be applied equally to all operators, or will they be adjusted based on companies’ size or ability to comply? Can the Minister clarify how this will be structured?

It is essential that the Government spell out how they intend to carry through this order without unintended negative consequences for the industry.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. I will first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on international co-operation on carbon pricing. I certainly accept that, as we transition to net zero, it is important that we work across international borders to drive climate ambition. Under the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK Government and the EU agreed to consider linking our respective carbon pricing schemes and to co-operate on carbon pricing. The noble Lord will know that we are working to reset our relationship with the EU and strengthen ties and improve trade and investment relationships with it, including promoting climate, energy and economic security, while recognising that there will be no return to the single market or customs union.

The Prime Minister visited Brussels on 12 December 2024, and the joint statement with President von der Leyen illustrated that the UK and the EU would take forward this agenda of strengthening co-operation at pace over the coming months. As set out in the TCA, carbon pricing remains an area where we will continue to co-operate, and it is right that we will continue to develop the UK ETS to support our climate goals and support sectors in the transition to net zero.

The carbon price within the EU emissions trading scheme is determined by the market, and it is designed this way because competitive markets are likely to deliver the most efficient transition to net zero across the economy. This will give emitters the flexibility as to how they abate their emissions, thereby allowing businesses to cut carbon where it is cheaper for them to do so.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that, as I said earlier, we are here simply building on the work of his Government in just making a sensible adjustment to make sure that there is no free ride in removing the excess allocation of free allocations, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested. When the production has been ended as part of a decarbonisation programme, allowing them those free allocations recognises that. We do not think that these rules will lead to disproportionate regulation or that there will be potential manipulation of the market.

On oil and gas, I will write to the noble Lord with further details on his specific question.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I am afraid I do have to come back to the Minister. Is it the Government’s intention to integrate, if they can, the two emissions trading systems? Is that a government goal or not? Also, do the Government still intend to do what the previous Government suggested—to introduce a carbon border mechanism for the UK at the beginning of 2027? This is pretty fundamental stuff that industry and the whole economy need to understand. If the Government do neither of those, how will they solve the problem of the EU carbon border mechanism from the beginning of next year?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure that I can respond any further than I have already. Clearly, we are now working with the EU on some of those issues, and clearly we accept the point that we need the systems to work effectively together to deal with wastage. But I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord any more certainty than that.

Motion agreed.

Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:25

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to the Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order, the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations and the Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations.

Regulations were laid before Parliament on 26 November 2024 for Lancashire, as well as for Devon and Torbay. The Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order was laid on 4 December and the Greater Lincolnshire regulations on 11 December. The other place debated these instruments on 21 January 2025. Knowing how much noble Lords appreciate brevity, I hope they agree—while recognising that combined authorities and combined county authorities are distinct legal bodies with different types of enabling statutory instruments—with me simply using “combined authorities”, unless there is a reason to be specific, over the course of our debate. I hope that that is okay with everybody.

In December 2024, the Government published the English devolution White Paper. At its core, the White Paper sets out how the Government will widen and deepen devolution across England as part of our central mission to drive economic growth and improve living standards. These instruments deliver on that ambition and are significant steps in the devolution journeys for these four areas. The instruments provide for the implementation of the devolution agreements confirmed on 19 September 2024 between the Government and the upper-tier councils in each of the areas concerned. On 18 November 2024, all the respective constituent councils consented to the making of these instruments.

The three sets of combined county authority regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provision in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. If approved, the combined authority order will be made under the enabling provision in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The combined authorities will be established on the day after the day on which the instruments are made.

The Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority and the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority have chosen to adopt a mayor for their combined authorities, with the inaugural elections to take place on 1 May 2025. The elected mayors will take up office on 6 May with a four-year term. The instruments make provision for the governance arrangements of the combined authorities. In each case, the constituent councils nominate one or more of their members to form the combined authority, alongside the elected mayor where a mayor is being adopted. Each place has specific arrangements, enabled by either the 2023 Act or the 2009 Act, as set out in these establishing instruments.

For the three combined county authorities, district councils will play a key role in ensuring the success of devolution in these areas. District representation and input to the combined county authorities is determined locally within the framework provided by the 2023 Act. The instruments confer public authority and local authority functions on the respective combined authorities, as agreed in their devolution agreements and set out in each area’s proposals.

Alongside the regulations, we have laid reports under Section 20(6) of the 2023 Act and, for the order, Section 105B of the 2009 Act providing details about the public authority functions being devolved to the combined authorities. These functions include Homes England’s concurrent regeneration functions and powers over transport, as well as mayoral development corporation functions for the mayoral combined authorities.

The agreements include the devolution of certain education and skills functions, together with the adult skills fund. The Government will devolve the adult skills fund to the combined authorities from the 2026-27 academic year. The Department for Education will work with the combined authorities to support their preparations and ensure that they meet the necessary readiness criteria; it will legislate in due course when the Secretary of State for Education is assured that the combined authorities are operationally ready and is satisfied that the required statutory tests have been met in each area.

16:30

I turn to consultation. As provided for in the enabling Acts, the constituent councils consulted on proposals to establish the combined authorities based on their devolution agreements. These consultations took place between December 2023 and March 2024 for periods of either six or eight weeks. The councils promoted the consultations using dedicated websites, social media, online and in-person events with the public and communications campaigns. The councils also undertook targeted stakeholder engagement with businesses, the voluntary sector and key institutions within their areas. Responses could be made online via their website or email, or on paper via post, or at dedicated events or collection points such as libraries. As required by the 2023 and 2009 Acts, the councils preparing the proposals provided the Secretary of State with a summary of consultation responses when submitting their proposals to the then Government in spring 2024.

In laying these instruments before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests in the 2023 and 2009 Acts are met. Namely, the constituent councils have consented to the establishment of the combined authorities, no further consultation is necessary and making the instruments would: first, be likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all of the people who live or work in the area; secondly, be appropriate, having regard to the need to reflect the identities of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government; and, thirdly, establish the combined authority, achieving the purposes specified in the constituent councils’ proposals. Making these instruments will unlock funding for the areas as set out in their devolution agreements, including capital funding for each area and mayoral investment funds for the areas choosing to adopt a mayor.

I pay tribute to the local leaders, councils and officers for their hard work and the significant part they play in making the Government’s ambitious agenda to widen and deepen devolution a reality in their areas. I also thank all those who took part in the consultation process. It is great when we get a good response from the public, local businesses and voluntary organisations to these consultations. It is vital that they have their say. I look forward to answering any questions noble Lords may have and to participating in our discussion of these four instruments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my relevant interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

These four statutory instruments are politically and historically interesting. First, they recreate in whole or in part the historic counties of Devon, Lancashire, Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire. That is a positive change. It is another reversal of Thatcherite policy, which, in this instance, abolished county councils. Strategic planning and provision of such key local services as public transport, housing and economic development can be much better made across a larger geography. That change is therefore welcome. However, I am not letting the Minister off the hook that easily. I have a number of questions applicable to each of the relevant instruments.

First, on governance, can the Minister confirm that meetings of either the mayoral or the combined county authorities will be held in public and that scrutiny committees are a requirement, with powers for pre-decision scrutiny and to call any decision that is challenged under the relevant procedural rules?

The Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority combines two very unequal—in both population and geography—partners. Can the Minister say whether that disparity has been considered and whether any issues have been raised in the wider county on this point in the consultation, the details of which I obviously have not seen? I ask this because there will be inequality of representation on the authority from these very unequal parts, and I wonder whether that will result in a bit of friction when it comes to making difficult decisions.

I note at this point that, because of the efforts made during the passage of the then levelling-up Bill by the Minister, her team and me, district councils will have representation on the combined authorities by law. That was a very important change to the Bill.

I move on to the Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority. There will be a mayor from May this year; we will see how that pans out. I recognise the appeal to the Government of having a single person elected to lead a combined authority. However, I and my colleagues are not convinced that, from the residents’ standpoint, this is a positive move. Mayors will be tolerated—this is my experience; I live in a mayoral authority—while there is no mayoral precept and while they are basically determining the details of delegated powers and funding from government. However, when either of those things changes—if there is a mayoral precept of a considerable amount or when there are difficult decisions to be made on funding allocation, which I anticipate will come with bus franchising—I anticipate greater concern from residents that their voice is not being heard.

For instance, in the Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority area, which I know better, I can easily see that, with the rural parts of East Riding and the very urban area of Hull City Council, it could be difficult to make decisions on allocating funding under the bus franchising legislation, which I hope will be passed. Trouble is coming down the track, I think.

The Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority recreates the historic county of Lincolnshire, which is positive. It combines the seven district councils of the current county council, plus the two unitaries of North Lincs and North East Lincs. The issue I want to raise concerns transport funding. In this statutory instrument, the constituent authorities remain the highways authorities but central funding goes directly to the mayor, who then has the responsibility of cascading the funding to each of the three existing highways authorities. Can the Minister describe how fair allocation can be assured and whether using this mechanism will add to bureaucracy by adding yet another layer of governance?

The Lancashire Combined County Authority will, as we know, consist of the existing county council, the unitaries of Blackpool and Blackburn and Darwen, plus the 12 existing district councils of the current county council. We have had the devolution White Paper. If its proposals are accepted—I hope that there will be some challenge to them—this will result in the demise of district councils. For Lancashire and Lincolnshire, this would result in another wholesale local government reorganisation within a short period, with the added confusion that accompanies such structural change. Those of us who are involved understand what might happen; residents will not. Have the Government considered these two separate reorganisations and how they will be managed without causing confusion and additional costs?

As I said at the outset, this is the right move for strategic decision-making. However, I look forward to the answers to my queries from the Minister.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s exposition of these SIs. I completely understand why we are moving in this direction: greater efficiency and effectiveness. I very much hope that the Government can, as this process moves on, increase the level of effective devolution and perhaps even give some real independence over revenue to these authorities so that they can develop their full potential.

In addition, when we reach Committee on the hereditary Peers Bill, I will propose that, rather than hereditary Peers being the eligible candidates in by-elections, it should be people nominated by these new authorities and their mayors. We can use the existing mechanisms that we have to start to introduce a measure of regional representation into the House. I hope that the Government will have their imaginative hat on when we come to that. The mechanism is in place; let us use it to move in a direction that many of us would like to go in and to take at least a small step.

I am a resident of East Sussex, which is one of the candidates for the next round of this measure. I note that the local proposals involve a mayor for the whole of Sussex, thereby recreating not the original county council but the original kingdom of Sussex—perhaps we might have a prince rather than a mayor. What concerns me most is how the towns and communities in these new unitaries will come to cherish, assert and grow their own identities. I very much hope that I can persuade the Minister to circulate widely to all the councils that are candidates for this, as well as their constituent parts, examples of how communities flourish in unitaries, including what structures and relationships make that happen well.

The process of transition from “a county plus districts” to a unitary system will be hugely time-absorbing for the councils involved. They will have no space in their heads to do anything other than make that work well. The constituent communities underneath that need to understand how to play their part and how best to organise themselves so that they have a real role to play in what comes afterwards.

Looking in particular at East Sussex, along the seaside, we have Rye, Hastings, St Leonards, Bexhill, Pevensey, Eastbourne, Seaford and Newhaven. They are all immensely different places. Each has its own identity and its own way of doing things. In the interior, you have towns such as Lewes, which are really different, as well as ordinary country towns such as Uckfield and Heathfield. There is a huge variety of different communities within what will be one unitary: different histories, different spirits.

16:45

Also, I think that Hastings and Eastbourne have no council that will survive, because they have been their own unitaries outside their districts. They will be abolished; there is no town council to live on after them. So, in my town of Eastbourne, we will have to create that whole structure. Should it be one or several? What do we do about the boundaries? We have been added to willy-nilly by Wealden, which has stuck lots of housing and developments around the outside of the borough boundaries. It is all now, sensibly, to become a linked community—but how? What will this look like? As I say, the existing structures and councils do not have the time to work this out. It must be decided at the community level. What has been done before? The problems in some of the reorganisations that we are doing must have turned up before. How do they get dealt with?

What do we do with particular cherished assets that are held at a district level? In our case, in 1929, we purchased by Act of Parliament a large chunk of downlands next to the town. They will now supposedly become the property of an East Sussex unitary, I guess. East Sussex has been selling off all these assets. How can we have a voice in saying, “Actually, no. This is part of our history and part of our town. We’d like to carry this on”? Do we have the opportunity to influence the transfer of these assets to other stable structures such as a national park, the National Trust or a local trust? What is open to us in dealing with assets that really ought to be held locally?

I should note that I am a member of a structure called an independent panel; it was set up by the previous Government to keep an eye on Eastbourne Borough Council in reducing its debts. I am the least prestigious member of that panel: the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is a member, as is Stephen Baker, a long-time chief executive of councils in East Anglia. We would like to come into the ministry, once the decision about reorganisation is known, and ask, “What have we to contribute here? How do we make this work?” Everything is hanging fire at the moment.

There is a CIPFA report that has existed for nigh on half a year but has not yet been published because we are waiting to know whether there is a council to which it applies. There is stuff to be done to make the whole process of transition work well. We are keen to know how the Government would like us to contribute to that—indeed, whether the Government would like us to contribute to that. One way or another, we want to put our shoulders to the wheel, and hope that there will be an opportunity to do it.

Lastly, I note that the Government have launched a big artificial intelligence project, part of which is a new engine for consultations. I would very much like to know whether this consultation engine will be adopted for future local government reorganisations, and, if so, whether it will truly embrace conversation as well as submissions so that ideas can develop locally and there can be local conversations—that is, not just submitting something to a central pool then being told what that contains but having an actively interactive, artificial intelligence-promoted consultation. This would really allow people locally to have a say on how they want their local government to look.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I have spoken on many subjects in Grand Committee in this Room, and this is the first time that I have spoken on local government. In fact, there is a much better qualified inhabitant of Lincolnshire to speak on this subject—the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding—but he must be away because I phoned him up at the weekend to check whether he was able to do this. However, I feel I should speak on this order because local government is, to my mind, perhaps the most important institution that affects people’s day-to-day lives. Governments talk about the big issues, but delivery of much of the Government’s policy is through local authorities, and it is very important that we get the balance of this right.

I speak as somebody who lives in an area of the countryside that is part of a small market town. I was born in Holbeach and I live in Holbeach—I live in the house that I was brought up in—so I have not moved very far, and the world has sort of moved around me, if noble Lords see what I mean. But I can see the change in local government from even when I was a boy in Holland County Council. Lincolnshire was divided into three parts, with the city, and it seemed to work because there was local interaction between citizens and the local authority. I am not talking about the councillors, but the staff of those councils were responsive to people making contact with them and telling them that there was a pothole in the road. Sure enough, somebody would come along and fix it. It was much more immediate.

There is an interesting thing in Peterborough station. An electrical board has been out of action since Christmas. The central heating in the waiting room has been out of action since that time, and there is a door that was working well before Christmas but is now closed. Fortunately, the door that was not working well before Christmas is now open. When I mention this to people, they all say, “Oh, well, it’s been reported”. How often that happens in life. If we can make local authorities really responsive to people’s convenience, we will do so much better.

I am speaking on this because Lincolnshire is a big county, and I am looking ahead at what will happen when we devolve government powers to the mayor and the mayoral authority, which is very good indeed—at least there is a bit of local knowledge there to help local government to apportion resources. But I represent a particular part that is quite removed from the Humberside end of the county. We are still very much one county. I was president of the Lincolnshire Agricultural Society and am proud to belong to it. I am proud to be a Lincolnshire horticulturalist and farmer, along with so many people in that most productive corner of the country.

I am also pleased to hear that the Humberside authorities are thinking of uniting together as a district of their own. If we are going to have three units in Lincolnshire, we will have to look at the numbers because, at the moment, I am told that 500,000 is the sort of population figure that the Government are thinking of. I hope the Government will be elastic in this area, if only to make sure that there is some sort of general practical application of boundaries to the new district authorities.

I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding. He was instrumental in setting up the confederation of East Lindsey, Boston and South Holland, where he and I come from. They have shared senior staff members of councils, co-ordinated activity and shared specialisms. We all know that a lot of the service in local government is quite specialised; if you are going to get good people, you have to pay reasonable salaries, and they are best shared if that can be done.

I hope that any new arrangement for Lincolnshire will have the north, including the Humberside, the west, including the city of Lincoln, the east and the North Sea coast, which will carry the electricity. We were talking briefly about energy beforehand, though I came in halfway through; we know that the power links to the North Sea come ashore in Lincolnshire, to be distributed through the eastern part of the county. It is also the home of the food valley, which stretches from Grimsby right down to Peterborough, the A1 and the road system that is the artery of the eastern part of the county. There is seafood transported from Grimsby and there is the production and distribution of the country’s vegetables and flowers—bulbs, to mention my own interest. We also have centres in the eastern part of the county, so getting communications right and enabling them through a combined vision of what the area represents economically is most important.

The Government are avowedly keen on growth. I support them in that venture. I hope that they set up a local government structure that encourages growth, where soil types and economic potential recommend themselves. In my view, that is how the authorities might develop in future. Surprising to say, I support this measure, as it is a good development. Local government can be reformed, but I hope that it will be in a way that brings it closer rather than further away, as much of the trend was before the last Government introduced the Act.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor and therefore have some interest in this, although not in these particular SIs. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about the importance of local government. Most residents see local government services on a daily basis, not central government services. I also echo his comments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the unique nature of all our local areas and, therefore, how much better it is for them to be run locally, in so far as is possible, rather than centrally. In that spirit, these regulations build on the work of the previous Conservative Government; we support this important devolutionary shift, but it is also important to go further.

However, before that, I want to assess some of the proposed changes. First, on the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations—I shall say “combined authority” for brevity—that deal was signed in January 2024 by the previous Conservative Government, Devon County Council and Torbay Council to provide powers and funding to the new combined authority to

“improve the economic, social and environmental well-being”

of people in the community, as well as to devolve further powers locally and provide wider flexibility for local action.

The Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority, formed by Lincolnshire County Council, North Lincolnshire Council and North East Lincolnshire Council, will have authority over transport, housing and regeneration functions in the region. It will be tasked with transport planning, local transport services and highways maintenance, with a mayor due to be elected in May 2025.

I turn to the Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority, which comprises Hull City Council and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and, again, will be overseen by a directly elected mayor. The mayor will govern and drive strategic development across the region, including in areas such as transport, housing and regeneration. Additionally, the mayor will have the authority to levy taxes, such as a precept or business rate supplement, to fund those projects.

17:00

Finally, I turn to the Lancashire Combined Authority, which comprises Lancashire County Council, Blackpool Borough Council and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council. These regulations will empower the authority to manage transport, housing and regeneration, with certain responsibilities transitioning over time to the combined authority, while some transport functions will remain with constituent councils. The combined authority will have the power to collect a transport levy and allocate funds to local councils.

I have some questions. While these regulations represent an important step towards devolution, there are a few critical areas that we need to consider. First, given the significant financial powers granted to the newly established mayors and combined authorities in the ability to levy taxes and create business rate supplements, can the Minister assure the Committee and residents that any mayoral or transport precepts will be for genuine additionality, not to compensate for inadequate government funding of local government? How do the Government intend to ensure that proper checks and balances are in place? Specifically, what measures will be implemented to guarantee that those new fiscal powers are exercised transparently and accountably, without placing undue burdens on local businesses or taxpayers?

Given that certain transport functions in some of these authorities will remain with the constituent councils during the transition period, how do the Government plan to ensure effective co-ordination between the new combined authorities and the councils, and what mechanisms will be in place to prevent any gaps in service delivery or policy implementation? Finally, can the Minister assure the Committee that this is part of a genuine devolution and that the Government will continue to seek to devolve more to local areas and away from the centre—the UK being one of the most centralised countries in the OECD? As has been mentioned earlier, can he assure the Committee that the proposed local government reorganisation operates seamlessly with these changes?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for all those thoughtful points and for the general support that we have received for the instruments this afternoon. As noble Lords who have heard me speak on this topic before know, and to misquote a phrase terribly, I have always believed in devolution, which is more effective than revolution. I hope we will take this programme forward successfully, but there is a lot of water to go under the bridge—hopefully not so much for these local authorities, which have already taken some very important first steps towards the changes they want to see.

I will take this opportunity to address noble Lords’ contributions and questions, starting with the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. First, she asked whether meetings and scrutiny committees would be held in public. Meetings of the combined authorities will be in public and, under the Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) Order 2017, amended in 2024, combined county authorities have overview and scrutiny committees with the usual call-in powers—so they will have call-in powers. I hope that is helpful from that point of view.

The noble Baroness asked whether the disparity between areas had been considered. She was referring particularly to Devon and Torbay, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also referred to this. Devon and Torbay were already in the process of establishing their non-mayoral combined county authority prior to the publication of the White Paper and the announcement of the devolution priority programme. We see these steps as foundational. A list of all those that have applied for delays to their elections has been published on GOV.UK—no decisions have been taken yet—and Devon County Council has requested to delay those elections.

Matters to do with the distribution of funding, responding to disparity or the potential disparity between different constituent councils in an area, are for those constituent councils. It is for them to work out how they will work. That is devolution, but they will work it out between them. If they use that as a foundation step, they may wish to build on their authority in the future. Who knows? We will wait and see what happens with Devon and Torbay but, for today’s business, we are putting through the programme that was set before us previously.

The noble Baroness asked whether the change in Hull and East Yorkshire was a positive move from the residents’ standpoint. It is the Government’s ambition that all parts of England ultimately have a mayor. We recognise that non-mayoral devolution can be an important foundational step for areas, which would see the benefits from devolution in the short term as they assess all options to unlock deeper devolution. The instruments before the Committee to establish mayoral combined authorities and a mayoral combined county authority provide that some functions conferred on those will be mayoral functions.

I think the noble Baroness was particularly concerned with transport issues in Hull and East Yorkshire. I will point only to the significant steps forward that have been made in existing mayoral authorities. Manchester of course is always flagged up as the example of this, but it has done an exceptional job to create a transport infrastructure that, so far—touch wood—works much better for the people of Manchester than the situation they had before. I hope that that continues in these new areas as they continue to use and develop their powers. The combined authority will have responsibility for improving and maintaining local transport and for the creation and implementation of a new area-wide local transport plan. We will see what happens with that.

The noble Baroness asked about funding, I think in the context of transport. Funding is conveyed for transport issues in their area, including those that I just mentioned.

The noble Baroness knows that, in the past, I have spoken widely in the House about district councils and their role. When you look at this, you see that there is clearly an appetite for reorganisation in parts of England. I have seen that in my work with district councils and now in government. In the past, Governments have often not been brave enough to follow through and make this programme really work across the country, but we just need to get on now with delivering what areas need.

We expect all two-tier areas and smaller or failing unitaries to develop proposals for reorganisation. We are going to take a phased approach to that delivery, because not everyone is in the same place at the same time. We will have our priority programme for people who feel ready to move more quickly, taking into account where reorganisation can unlock devolution, where areas are keen to proceed at pace, or where they can be helped to address certain issues that they may have failed with in the past. For those that want to take a bit more time, we will do it at their pace. But it is important that this is driven by local areas, so we are working very closely with our colleagues in local government to make this work properly.

The noble Baroness asked about mayoral precepts, and I think the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also related to that. Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive economic growth. As I said, the Government’s ambition is for all parts of England to have a mayor of a strategic authority. They will have the standing and soft power to convene local partners and tackle shared problems, but it is also important that they have this additional ability to raise funds in a number of ways, of which the precept is only one. The Government will work with them as we devolve funds out of Westminster. This is not necessarily about new money; it is about money and decision-making going from here out to local areas. It is important to stress that about the programme we have set out.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his point about hereditary Peers and having a regional element there. That is above my pay grade; I am not going to go there. But I will say that we already have a very effective chamber of national and regional leaders, which is now convened, and mayors from England attend. It is very important that all areas have a say in the Council of the Nations and Regions, as it will increasingly make a large contribution to what goes on in our country.

The noble Lord specifically mentioned Sussex in relation to local places. I think there is a genuine way of strengthening the role of local places within these wider authorities, where they have existed for a while. I do not want to keep citing Manchester, but there is still a very distinctive identity in Oldham, Rochdale and wherever you go around the Manchester area. Those areas still have their distinct identities. I know Sussex a bit and there are some wonderful places there. I am sure they will continue to be their own places, with their own strong identities. If mechanisms need to be put in place to do that, by strengthening local community councils and improving and strengthening the role of community councillors, the Government are there to assist with that. Boundary issues must be driven locally, but the Boundary Commission stands ready to do what it needs to do to help.

The noble Lord spoke about cherished assets, such as downlands, and how to protect them. There is always a place for a local voice. Mayors have been real champions of these types of local assets, and they will continue to be champions in those local areas. The noble Lord also spoke about independent local panels. We are currently conducting a whole review of standards issues. I have a round table tomorrow, I think, and another at the end of the week, with partners from across local government and outside. We are doing that work as we speak and, if the noble Lord would like to contribute to it, I would love to hear from him.

On the AI issue, I will have to refer to a specialist answer, because it is not my area of expertise. I will find it in a moment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach—whom I always think of as Lord Holbeach, because he is Lord of Holbeach—for his huge contribution to Lincolnshire, in both business and horticulture. I agree with him about local government being the most important institution; I have spent most of my life in it. When you walk out of your front door, it is what you see, and what will you the impression of whether or not things are right with the world. That is the way I look at it; that is how important it is. The noble Lord spoke about the confusion between councils. I live in a two-tier area and it is very common to have that confusion between councils. That is one reason why we need to sort this out now: just get on with the job and do it properly.

The noble Lord asked whether there was flexibility with the 500,000 figure. There certainly is. We set the 500,000 figure to give a guideline about what we see as strategic. If something slightly less or more than that works better for the local area, that is fine. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for all the work that he has done. The federational, or shared, services that the noble Lord spoke about will form a good foundation for these bigger authorities.

On UK Food Valley, seafood farming, and flowers and bulbs, mayors are there to create the infrastructure that will make that work better than it does at the moment. They will have oversight of a strategic spatial plan and I hope they will do a great job on that.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I agree about the unique nature of local areas. I know that the noble Lord has made a huge contribution to central Bedfordshire, so I am grateful for that. Devon and Torbay and Lincolnshire have both applied for election delays, so they are obviously thinking through their next steps very carefully. Hull and East Yorkshire and Lancashire are going ahead with their programmes, as set out in these instruments.

The noble Lord spoke about mayoral precepts and asked whether they were for genuine additionality. That is certainly the idea; they are not there to fill gaps in local government funding but to drive the mayor’s priorities and ambitions for the area. As we have seen, the areas that already have mayors drive forward their own priorities—and they are very strategic priorities. Mayors are not there to run the councils that sit underneath them; they are there to drive the strategic capability of the area concerned.

I hope that I have covered everything. If I have not, I shall write to noble Lords—and we will look through Hansard to make sure that we have covered everything. These instruments deliver the commitment made in the devolution agreements with Devon and Torbay, Greater Lincolnshire and Lancashire to establish combined county authorities for their areas and with Hull and East Yorkshire for a combined authority. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:16

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025.

Motion agreed.

Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:16

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025.

Motion agreed.

Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:16

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.17 pm.