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?