Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Addington

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of this instrument. These draft regulations were laid in Parliament on 22 January 2026.

As noble Lords will be aware, the quality of teaching is critical to securing the best outcomes for pupils, learners and students in all parts of our education system, from early years right through to adult education. In October last year, the post-16 education White Paper set out an ambitious vision for the future of our skills system in England. The further education sector is the driving engine of that vision. We must ensure that high-quality teaching is hard-wired into our colleges and training providers.

We are taking decisive steps now to improve and secure the quality of teacher training for the FE sector. Ensuring that there is an accessible, attractive and high-quality training offer for new teachers will help improve the recruitment and retention of teachers in the FE sector, contributing to the Government’s commitment to recruit an additional 6,500 teachers for our schools and colleges. It will also send a clear message about our focus on securing high and rising standards of teaching in our colleges.

This instrument marks an important step towards creating a regulated system of teacher training for FE, covering the full range of providers delivering relevant courses across the sector and based on clear, evidence-based quality standards. It dovetails with the focus on quality that comes with the new Ofsted inspection framework for initial teacher education, which will now encompass significantly more FE teacher training providers than it previously did.

For many years, successive Governments have focused efforts on securing standards of teacher training for our primary and secondary schools—with considerable success—but, until recently, that focus had not been extended to how well our FE teachers are being prepared. There is excellent practice in parts of the system, and regulation must not constrain or discourage innovation and excellence. However, there is too much inconsistency across the sector, and some deeply concerning examples of poor practice in FE teacher training have emerged in recent years. Trainees have not always been guaranteed a high-quality training experience that prepares them to be great FE teachers, and employers have not always been assured that teacher training courses are equipping new teachers with the skills and knowledge they will need.

The regulatory system created by these regulations will place new requirements on all providers of specified FE teacher training courses in England. This includes universities, colleges, training providers and any other organisations delivering such courses. These providers will be required: to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the curriculum content of FE teacher training programmes; to have regard to guidance on delivery standards for FE teacher training courses; to register with the Department for Education as a provider of FE teacher training courses; and to submit regular data and information to the Department for Education relating to any specified FE teacher training courses provided.

These measures are proportionate but significant in their intended impact. For the first time, we, employers and potential new teachers will have clear sight of what teacher training provision is being offered, where and by whom. Such transparency is a key ingredient of a quality-focused system. That focus will be enhanced further by requiring all providers of specified courses to have regard to clear, evidence-based standards on course delivery and curriculum content.

DfE officials have worked closely, over a sustained period of time, with stakeholders from the FE provider and teacher training sectors. There is widespread consensus that the approach we are pursuing will deliver a clear, positive dividend in driving up standards, while ensuring that providers continue to have the flexibility they need to exercise their own professional and expert judgment.

These measures have been shaped by public consultation, a formal call for evidence and sustained engagement with professionals from across the sector. I record my thanks to all those who have contributed their time and expertise to the process.

Particular thanks are due to the expert group convened by the Department for Education, chaired by Anna Dawe OBE, principal of Wigan and Leigh College, one of the first technical excellence colleges, which has played a pivotal role in advising on the evidence for high-quality content in FE teacher training. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has just said, this statutory instrument is probably well overdue. It is something that we have not looked at, because Governments of whatever colour or combination really just did not get around to it. So, I congratulate the current Government on having taken this first step.

Being as fair as I possibly can be, they are starting on a process that may not get the standards we want consistently for something like a decade. There are existing staff structures going through and there is the institution of training. Every standard will take time to bed in and normalise, and it will take time to find out where it has have worked and where it has not. This is not so much a criticism as an observation of what is obvious. It will take time.

Having said that, I do not have any objection to the SI, but it would be interesting to hear some of the things that will be needed to speed up the process of guaranteeing the quality. One is continuing professional development and how we are going to bring up the standards of those teachers already in place, who may be below the standard of what we would want. What is going to be done to intervene to do that? This will vary across the board.

We are dealing with a huge number of students here, every bit as wide as the school system. Their degree of success or failure has probably meant they have ended up in the further education system. Let us face it: as both the previous and current Government have said, even with improved career information and guidance, people are ending up there because they have not succeeded or have not been perceived to be succeeding to the highest level. How are we getting through to these students who may not have succeeded very well?

This brings me on to the subject—which I am sure the noble Baroness would have been disappointed if I had not raised—of special education needs. The new White Paper talks of early identification. The fact that it is being said that this needs to be improved means that people going through this system stand a very good chance of not having their needs identified or having the support structures there. It is a historical problem, and this Government just happen to have been brave enough to hit the wave and go through with it. So, what will they do to improve that structure to get these students through?

A high percentage of people on level 1 or 2 courses will almost certainly have special educational needs. What are we doing to identify these and make sure their teacher has the access to both the knowledge and in some cases the technology—I remind the Grand Committee of my interest with Microlink—so they use the right stuff and identify the right assistive technology to get their students through? Recognising there is a problem and not giving them more of the same is very important for these groups, because they have failed with more of the same already—so you need to work smarter to deliver.

Making sure that is done will mean we stand a better chance of getting people who are in the training phase of their lives, getting ready to go out and earn a living, to actually benefit from this. It would be normal to expect those providing this training to be able to identify whether people can do this. It also means that other support provided in adult life to enable people to do this can be identified through jobcentres et cetera. Whatever people are doing out there, it has to be identified, and they need to be accessed.

We are dealing with a historical problem here; it has been recognised by the previous Government, and we have started taking steps, but what is going to be done? In other words, we thank the Government for this, but what are we going to do to bring the rest of the staff up to the standard? When it comes to special educational needs provision, what are you going to do to identify those on the margin in particular, who are failing—often just failing—because they are not getting that little bit of help?

Student Loan System

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Addington

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am sure those considerations are being taken into account as we move forward with this. I do not have an answer for the noble Baroness at this moment, but oversight of all the implications of change of policy is critical.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government give us some idea of what plan they have for economic growth and what we actually want out of our university and student population? At the moment, we have a system—we all can remember the scars of its introduction —which seems to suggest, “You’ve got a lot of loan, you might not get a job, why on earth you going?” Then the universities are saying, “We haven’t got enough money and we might have to close”.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I believe this is a very sensitive area and we should not make assumptions about directions of employment from particular courses that students take. It is important to recognise that universities are being asked to look at the quality of the education they provide and destination studies from their students are critical. We are determined to link all this to our priorities and objectives for growth and for those areas where we need a talented workstream coming forward.

Special Educational Needs: Dyscalculia

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Addington

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her consistent support across the piece, and often repeated in this Chamber, in highlighting the situation and spelling out clearly what dyscalculia is in the discussions she has had. I recognise that those involved in this have been getting organised and raising the profile, but the approach within schools is that access should not be dependent on a diagnosis. The national inclusion standard, with five core areas of development, should lead to evidence-based support. We need to have a holistic view of the strengths and needs of a child, which should determine that support. Raising awareness is of course an important issue, but this is the approach we are taking at present.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that while you still have an entrance bar that is English and maths, a condition such as dyscalculia can stop somebody progressing through the entire system? If we agree on that, what are we going to do to make sure that all teachers have an understanding that the condition is there and they must listen to the experts when it comes up? More of the same will not work: it will probably just guarantee failure.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises these points at every available opportunity, and I commend him for that. This is an exceptionally important issue, but there is no getting away from the fact that we need a holistic approach that covers the needs of all children and makes sure they can thrive. I welcome the attempt to ensure that young people are better supported to get through the barriers he outlines and to progress through the system.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Addington

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the very compassionate comments that ran through their suggestions.

By way of background, the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill will, for the first time, impose a duty on a number of public bodies to be alert to matters that affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers. This means that every Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, schools, colleges, NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the Youth Justice Board will be named as corporate parents and therefore will be required to take the needs and circumstances of looked-after children and care leavers into account when designing policies and delivering services that affect them.

There were powerful comments from all sides, which I hope to address in some more detail. But I start by emphasising that I believe all of us in the public sector or in a position to drive change have a responsibility and, indeed, a moral obligation to do this, levelling the playing field for looked-after children and care leavers, who, as we have heard, are among the most vulnerable groups in our society, have suffered the worst outcomes across a range of measures and deserve this attention to detail, care and understanding, which, quite frankly, is not presently evident in all areas.

We have had lots of figures, but I will add some more: some 26% of the homeless population are care experienced, around one-quarter of the adult prison population have been in care as a child and—as we have heard, but this is a slightly different take on it—care leavers aged 19 to 21 are more than three times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referenced Terry Galloway, and it was my privilege to come into contact with Terry through my previous role before I came into this House. I do not think I have ever met anyone who is quite so determined, persistent and absolutely dedicated on behalf of other young people across the whole of the country, so I pay tribute to him from us all.

Government Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith are minor and technical amendments simply to improve the drafting of the list of corporate parents in Schedule 1. Amendments 148 and 149 add clarity to the definition of integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts. Amendment 150 clarifies that the reference to NHS trusts in the list of corporate parents applies only to NHS trusts in England.

Clause 21 sets out the responsibilities to be introduced for corporate parents, and the duty aims to drive a widespread culture change across the public sector, which will involve adapting services; increasing awareness of matters that adversely affect looked-after children and care leavers; importantly, tackling stigma and discrimination; and improving all aspects of their lives.

Clause 23 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively when performing their respective corporate parenting duties. This would prevent silo working—we are all well aware of how damaging people working in their narrow fields can be, particularly in this very important area—and highlight where duplication of effort sometimes gets in the way and how we can make sure that the conversations happen between all relevant people, to help deliver targeted and timely support. Running through all this is a constant reminder of the importance of listening to young people themselves and making sure that their influence is heard and acted upon. We have experience at local authority level of making departments work with responsibility, picking up the corporate parenting responsibilities. That experience will help inform the work of the national institutions to show that it is not only the right thing to do but is empowering in its own right and changes behaviours in a very constructive and positive way.

I turn to Amendment 151, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—I want to continue to bring noble Lords together in their mutual admiration, and I would hate to get in the way of this. The amendment seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities to which the corporate parenting duty applies. Of course, I recognise the passion for this area of work and, importantly, for the personnel who deliver the services. We know that the statistics are far from where they need to be, which is why this Government are absolutely determined to work in this space to make sure that the opportunities we create are available for all. That has to be a basic understanding. While agreeing with the noble Baroness that Jobcentre Plus plays the crucial role in supporting care leavers in making that difficult transition to parenthood, whether through training or a whole range of different skills, I am pleased to be able to reassure her that her amendment is not necessary, as Jobcentre Plus is part of the Department for Work and Pensions and therefore is already in scope of the measures by virtue of the inclusion of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have several other examples of good practice in this space—

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having an overall duty and having an access point to make sure that it happens are very often different—I mean, it just happens in government. If the Minister could write to us, telling us how the Government propose to implement that, it would remove certain anxieties on this.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will consider whether that is necessary when I get to the end of my speaking notes.

To continue, the corporate parenting responsibilities will also apply to bodies that exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as the Prison and Probation Service. Of course, there should be real overlap between the different services in this regard. This will be explained in statutory guidance. So that it can be rolled out properly, it is absolutely crucial that, as it is written, the statutory guidance is co-produced and everyone has an opportunity to put money in.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Addington

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, listening to the noble Baroness introduce these amendments, I am remembering how many times, as a Minister, she batted me back with a question. As I interpret these amendments—if I have got it wrong, I am sure I will be told—they basically ask how this will work. Where are the levels of intervention when something does not work? How do we get through? It was a long and complicated series of questions, but that is what Committee is for. If we could get an idea of the answers, if the Minister has them or can tell us where we can find them, I think we would all feel a little more comfortable before the next stage.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Just taking the amendments as they are, the majority of residential settings are owned by provider groups—organisations that own the providers that run settings. The legislation refers to provider groups as “parent undertakings”. Provider groups have influence over how a setting is run, yet they are not accountable in legislation for the quality of the settings they own.

Clause 12 is intended to complement Ofsted’s existing powers. It will allow Ofsted to take action at scale and pace to improve the quality of care when it reasonably suspects that two or more of the provider group settings are not meeting regulatory requirements. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, together with Clause 13, which provides additional enforcement powers for Ofsted, it is part of this Government’s strategy to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children in care.

Amendments 135 and 136 seek to give Ofsted the power to inspect provider groups. Inspection is not necessary at provider group level. Given the existing robust regime for the inspection of settings, the inspection of provider groups would not give Ofsted any additional information that it does not already have to ensure quality of care and the safeguarding of children’s settings, which is obviously the purpose of what we intend to do here.

The inspection of provider groups would add substantial burden to the public purse and would not result in improvements to the quality of care for children, as inspections would focus on provider group policies rather than on the lived experience of children. Additionally, they would not be effective in holding provider groups to account without establishing a burdensome inspection system. Given that there are over 400 provider groups, I think we understand the scale of the additional work that we are talking about.

The clause gives Ofsted the power to serve an improvement plan notice on a provider group to improve quality in two or more of its settings. This is vital, as it will ensure the quickest and most effective action to secure change at scale. Clause 13, which we will come to shortly, gives Ofsted powers to take action against the provider groups when they do not improve the quality of their settings. This amendment would not impose any requirements on the provider groups that Ofsted could enforce against.

Amendment 137 seeks to empower Ofsted to use the services of an independent person, as provided for by Regulation 44 of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations, to carry out an unannounced visit to a children’s home for administrative breaches or minor concerns about the quality of care being provided. The amendment proposes that, after an independent person has inspected the children’s homes or home, the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice based on the findings.

Under current regulations, the registered person of a children’s home must ensure that an independent person visits the home at least once each month, and this visit may be unannounced. The independent person should have the skills and understanding necessary to form an impartial judgment about the quality of the home’s care. They must produce a report about their visit which sets out their opinion on whether children are effectively safeguarded and whether the home effectively promotes children’s well-being.

Ofsted, the placing authorities and the registered provider, registered manager and responsible individual must be given a copy of the report. The local authority where the home is located must also be given the report if it requests it. Ofsted uses these reports to inform whether further activity or inspection is necessary. They may be used to inform Ofsted decision-making around improvement plan notices to ensure its effective role as the regulator. Ofsted must be the only body responsible for issuing improvement plan notices. Giving local authorities the power to issue an improvement plan notice would mean duplication and would offer no protection additional to what is already in place.

Amendment 138 seeks to probe how an improvement plan might work in practice. Provider oversight has been designed to enable Ofsted to address poor-quality care at scale and at pace. For example, where Ofsted inspects two children’s homes and believes quality is being impacted by the provider group’s policies or management, it could reasonably suspect that those issues were in all homes owned by the provider group. It would be able to use the new powers to ensure that the provider group drove up standards in all its homes.

The provider group would be required to develop and implement an improvement plan to address the issues identified by Ofsted as being of concern. This plan will be approved by Ofsted, if it is satisfied that it will be effective in addressing the concerns. Ofsted can fine the provider group if it fails to submit or implement the improvement plan. When Ofsted is satisfied that improvements have been made, it will consider the plan completed. This will result in improvement in multiple settings simultaneously, which could not be achieved through inspection of provider groups, as would happen if Amendments 135 and 136 were adopted.

Finally, Amendments 138A, 138B and 138C seek to require Ofsted to notify the relevant local authority when an improvement plan notice has been served, cancelled or appealed. Ofsted is currently required to notify all local authorities where certain enforcement actions such as suspension or cancellation of registration are taken. Clause 13 amends these requirements to include a requirement for Ofsted to notify all local authorities where a provider group is issued with a monetary penalty for failing to prepare or implement an improvement plan. This is a more proportionate balance for ensuring local authorities are aware of problems arising and ensuring that children’s accommodation is not unnecessarily disrupted. Not only would additional notifications, as required by these amendments, require significant extra resources both from Ofsted and from local authorities, but the notifications would prove unnecessary where issues were resolved or successfully challenged.

It is important to stress that provider oversight will not be the only tool in Ofsted’s toolbox to tackle poor-quality care where it finds it; it will continue to have its existing powers to work with individual homes, including suspending or cancelling their registration, if it has serious concerns.

I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has asked some detailed questions, as it is her right to do. I am sure that she will understand that I do not have all the answers at my fingertips and that she will give me the space to look specifically at the issues that she has raised. I shall write to her and make sure the responses are shared with Members in the usual way.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Could we make sure that we are all copied in?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

As always. That was the point that I was making. For all the reasons given, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

National Centre for Arts and Music Education

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Addington

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. She will know, from my personal interest and involvement with the dance sector, that I know that it feels that it needs to have a louder voice; she has quite ably established that that is the case. Dance is one of those areas linked with PE. There is probably a whole raft of reasons why that has been the case, but I know that it is an area of active consideration as to how we broaden this out and give dance the status that it feels that it does not have at this time.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to work with voluntary and community groups, where most people will actually take part in musical or cultural activity? What structure has been set up between DCMS and the Department for Education to ensure this happens? Things such as this tend to fall between the cracks.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The really important part about the consultation for the centre is partnerships and how, through them, we can bring together all the partners around the music hubs that exist and make sure they are consistent across the country—I think the noble Lord is well aware of that issue. Of course, DCMS and DfE work very closely together on this. We need the voluntary sector to work in partnership with local authorities, government departments and the private sector to make sure that all children can get the very best possible outcomes from the process.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Addington

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I basically agree. There is a break at the end of the season. Most organised team sports change their rules and regulations in that break if they are going to do so. It might not need to be in the Bill, but it might be a Pepper v Hart type case; I say that timorously in view of the company I am keeping. If the Government can give us some indication that they will make major changes in the off-season, when players are exhausted and structural changes can be made—that is basically what it is for—then I would be happy because it is quite a sensible principle.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for tabling the amendment and other noble Lords for their comments. I will go through the reasons why we will not support the amendment. We understand that its intention is to avoid any burdens or disruptions for clubs that might be associated with mid-season licensing. This includes the risk, albeit remote, that licenses are refused mid-season.

However, the amendment would mean that the entirety of Part 3 could not be commenced until the off-season. For example, it could affect the ability of clubs to prepare and submit their applications early. If the regulator became operational mid-season, it could mean waiting for as long as eight or nine months before it could even begin to license clubs. We do not think this is right. Clubs should be able to prepare and, if they so wish, submit their applications early to avoid the regulator having to deal with a rush of 116 applications in the relatively short window between seasons.

Ultimately, if the Secretary of State does not have the flexibility required to determine when the regulator’s powers commence, it could lead to delays, confusion and inefficiency throughout the set-up process. We are, of course, prepared to continue the fruitful conversations we have already have and I look forward to more of them. Although I recognise the amendment’s helpful intent, I am unable to accept it. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.