Lord Jamieson
Main Page: Lord Jamieson (Conservative - Life peer)Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025
Lord Jamieson Excerpts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely supportive of these three statutory instruments and thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. The consultation that took place on the three proposals supported what the council in Cornwall and the combined authorities of East Midlands and York and North Yorkshire proposed, so it is right to transfer responsibilities to those bodies.
As the Minister said, it will mean that decisions on adult education provision, including skills training, reflect the needs of the combined authority or council areas. However, I would like the Minister to clarify two issues. In the consultation in the east Midlands on the transfer of functions, 1,534 people were against the proposals, with 2,504 in favour. Can the Minister explain, if only for the record, why so many people were opposed to something that seems entirely sensible? Was there a problem or had there been some misunderstanding about what was being proposed?
More importantly, there is going to be an issue, given that these three proposed transfers of functions are adding to quite a number that are already in existence. How will the Government assess outcomes and success? Devolution is supposed to improve services and outcomes. There are tests that the Government could apply: I would like to think that one of those is a reduction in the rate of NEETs—young people who are not in employment, education or training. Do the Government identify a reduction in the NEET level as something that devolution should deliver, given that local people are best positioned to assess how skills, training and educational opportunity can be improved?
A second test might be about the number of young people with disabilities who are employed. That is important, because we should use all the talents of young people that we can, and the NEET figures are simply too high.
The third test I suggest to Ministers is to reassure Parliament in future, first, that the structure that will be put in place will link effectively with employers in identifying future skills needs; and, secondly, that the providers of adult and further education—and, indeed, those of mainstream education in the school system—are all talking to each other, as well as with the council and the combined authorities, to ensure that effective decision-making is happening. This is because it is very difficult to identify future skills needs. It is comparatively easy to identify current skills needs, but identifying skills needs five or 10 years from now, say, is a great deal more complicated. I am interested in what feedback systems the Government have in order to enable all the bodies with devolved powers and responsibilities to teach each other and learn from each other, so that we do not have skills shortages and so that future planning for our skills needs is as effective as it possibly could be. Will there be a regular report to Parliament on outcomes?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a current Central Bedfordshire councillor. I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of these important statutory instruments. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I, as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, am always supportive of further devolution to local government. His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the principle of devolved adult education functions; indeed, we were the architect of many of these devolution arrangements when in government.
Local authorities, with their proximity to learners and communities, are often better placed than central government to identify and meet local needs—and, in particular, to tailor them to local circumstances. With the necessary support and funding, this policy, when implemented, can play a vital role in promoting economic growth, social mobility and lifelong learning. However, we must scrutinise not just the principle but the practice. It is around the practice—particularly the funding, as well as the accountability arrangements that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned—where there are some serious concerns.
These instruments will enable the named authorities to assume responsibility for adult education provision funded through the adult skills fund. We are told that this is a step forward for localism; that this will mean the tailoring of provision to local priorities; and that, although 62% of the ASF is already devolved to mayoral combined authorities in Greater London, this extension will now bring the same arrangements to new areas. On paper, this looks really positive. However, in reality, it contains some troubling contradictions. The Government are promoting local empowerment while simultaneously cutting the very funding that underpins it—something that, unfortunately, we see all too often, with the passing on of responsibilities but not of full funding.
It is important to be clear: there is a 3% reduction in the devolved adult skills fund. That is not an abstract number; it is a reduction in actual spending power in adult education for the very communities that these authorities serve. As Dr Susan Pember, the policy director for HOLEX, rightly noted, this move is short-sighted and risks dismantling the sector at a time when adult education should be playing a central role in driving economic recovery and personal resilience.
There are three areas where I believe the Government owe the Committee greater clarity. First, on funding transparency, what proportion of the devolved adult skills fund will be available for local decision-making, and how much is already earmarked for nationally set statutory entitlements? If local authorities are being asked to deliver ambitious education plans with only a fraction of the budget under their control, this is devolution in name only.
Secondly, on the strategic skills plans, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee rightly noted that, although these SIs referenced the SSPs, the detail is sparse. What mechanisms has the Department for Education used to assess the quality and readiness of these plans? Can the Minister assure us that each authority has demonstrated clear capacity and strategy to deliver?
Thirdly, on the wider context of post-16 education, we note the uncertainty surrounding the future of T-levels, apprenticeships and other crucial routes into training and employment. Adult education does not exist in a vacuum. Can the Minister explain how these reforms sit with the Government’s broader post-16 education strategy and how continuity and coherence will be maintained?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their responses. I turn first to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the consultations. They have been widely considered. I was interested in what he said about the West Midlands; it was quite an interesting response. In the east Midlands, the consultation was held between November 2022 and January 2023, and although there was support, the noble Lord was quite right to ask why there was opposition. Among those who responded who were against the proposal, only two stakeholder responses included an element of opposition to the proposal on skills. One stakeholder made a general point of opposition without specifying why. This is part of the problem. There could be a whole raft of reasons behind that, and we need to understand the identity of the people, which of course is not always possible. Another felt that adult education below level 4 would be underfunded, and 29 responses expressed opposition to the proposals relating to skills. Apart from the general statements of disagreement, other comments questioned whether the proposals were realistic and therefore achievable, while some felt that they would lead to larger cities being prioritised at the expense of smaller towns, villages and remote areas. That is part of the discussion. From my experience of places where combined authorities are set up, there are discussions about whether funding is equitably spread and everyone has opportunities.
On measuring outcomes and success, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised some interesting and quite specific points. By way of anecdote, when we had responsibility for delivering growth deals the first time the skills funding was brought down, the performance was off the scale in terms of sustainable outcomes for young people. It is by building on those successes in other areas that we can take our way forward, but the noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that we need to keep a close eye on this and make sure that there is consistency running through all areas. I know that local areas will be the first to highlight any problems coming forward.
To be clear, in all three areas that we are talking about, at least 60% of respondents approved of the proposals. Putting those two elements together, we have to be careful that we do not bring in an onerous regime that is too complex for all partners to be assessed. As everyone will quite rightly understand, the areas are looking at the comments that they have had, and they will be very mindful of them as we move forward into delivery.
On pursuing the level of accountability, once funding is devolved each local area will be required to demonstrate impact and value for money, ensuring that funding is effectively targeted to boost local skills and development. The accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the English Devolution Accountability Framework, which includes a requirement for devolved areas to publish annual assurance reports and to attend the skills stocktake for the Department for Education. It is a very important development around the setting up of Skills England, and I know it will be very keen to have oversight of the developments going forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was quite right to question the funding. I think that we all know the answer. Every area has been asked to look at that because of the severe funding problems across the piece. The reduction is 3% compared to other areas, so we have to agree that a substantial amount of funding is still going in. Some £1.4 billion will still be invested in the adult skills fund. The questions that the noble Lord raised were brought up in the other place, and Neil O’Brien, who raised some of the concerns, got a full answer from the Minister on this point. In particular, it was stated that the vast majority of funding will be for local discretion. That was his point: making sure that it is not a top-down approach—which, as we know, is what works.
That goes to the other question about making sure that all the key partners are involved. All areas will look at best practice from other areas where this has worked successfully. It is the ability to bring together relevant stakeholders at a local level. Obviously, there is the funding regime, but the combined authority working with constituent local authorities and bringing together the providers of further education and adult education with business, as well as with the people who will benefit from the services, will enable them to predict the needs of local areas.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Just to clarify, the Minister very kindly said that the vast majority would be down to local decision-making. From that, can we take it that the existing programmes—which are, if you like, centrally directed—are very much the significant minority, and therefore the bulk of the funding will be locally decided? I am happy for her to answer in writing.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I can absolutely do that. Statutory duties will be expected, but I think that we can all be very pleased to know that the balance is genuinely being devolved down to other areas.
On accountability again, I am really excited about the development of Skills England and particularly how it will further develop the accountability framework going forward. It helps to set up a form of a coherent picture, so that there is an umbrella view and something to badge the progress against. It will of course shape technical education, which is another area of concern, through the growth and skills levy, particularly given, as we have all commented on, local areas being able to listen to the businesses in the area and anticipate the demands that come forward.
I will pick up on some figures. The devolved areas in existence have, for example, spent £127 million or 16% of funding on statutory functions, leaving 84% for them to spend on other priorities. That sort of analysis will move the agenda forward and is a real boost of confidence for local areas. Nothing could be more important than enabling growth of the economy in local areas, but particularly growth for a purpose, if you like, so that the local people within those areas fully benefit.
With those comments, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. We have these three areas going through at the moment and several more coming down the line. That will be another opportunity to look at progress and how we are delivering on the ground. We know the challenges that face us and how important it is to have a skilled, flexible workforce and to support all adults to become an active part of that workforce to deliver our growth agenda.
Transferring these adult skills functions and devolving funding to the local areas of Cornwall, East Midlands, York and North Yorkshire will help to ensure that adult education provision is tailored to local needs and will create the best conditions in which we can collectively deliver on these aims.