Combined Authorities (Adult Education Functions) (Amendment) Order 2025
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Earl of Effingham
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 the scrutiny provided on this draft statutory instrument, which was laid in Parliament on 19 May 2025. If this order is approved, the Department for Education will transfer an additional funding power to nine existing combined authorities to enable them to use their adult skills fund allocation to fund new technical qualifications that have been approved for adults from the academic year on 1 August 2025.
The function being transferred to these combined authorities is under Section 100(1B) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009—namely, the power to
“secure the provision of financial resources … in connection with approved technical education qualifications or approved steps towards occupational competence”.
This power will be carried out by each of the combined authorities, in respect of their area, concurrently with the Secretary of State. This will enable combined authorities to fund new technical qualifications for adults approved for funding at level 2 and level 3 from 1 August 2025.
The new technical qualifications are of high quality, are aligned with occupational standards and offer learners clear routes into skilled employment. One hundred and ten reformed technical qualifications at levels 2 and 3 have been approved to be first taught in the next academic year. These qualifications have been co-designed with employers to ensure that the skills needs of business and industry are better served and that clear progression pathways are created, delivering the outcomes that learners need, either to enter a skilled job or progress within a skilled career.
Learners deserve high-quality qualifications that meet their needs. If this order is approved, these nine combined authorities with existing adult education powers will have the freedom to fund these qualifications in order to meet the local needs of learners and employers. Transferring this power is key to reducing regional disparities, by ensuring that all authorities have access to reformed, high-quality qualifications.
If this draft order is approved, the nine combined authorities can choose to fund new technical qualifications available for delivery from August 2025 onwards, if they wish. It is a statutory requirement for public consultation to take place before changes are made to a combined authority’s existing arrangements. The Department for Education carried out a public consultation in November last year, and 85% of respondents agreed that the Secretary of State should transfer this additional power to the existing combined authorities. Each of the combined authorities affected, and all their constituent councils, have consented to the transfer of this power and the making of this order.
An order can be made only if the appropriate consent is given and the Secretary of State considers that the statutory tests are met. Those tests are that making the order is: first,
“likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of … the people who live or work in the areas to which this Order relates”;
and, secondly, is
“appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and to reflect the identities and interests of local communities”.
These combined authorities have already demonstrated effective administration of the adult skills fund allocated to them. They have a detailed understanding of the skills challenges facing their areas, and their strategic plans reflect the interests and identities of their local communities. Making the order will enable the combined authorities to provide the full range of technical qualifications that have been approved for adults. Therefore, I confirm that we have concluded that the statutory tests are met.
I take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations and colleagues and the relevant combined authorities for their time, expertise and input. To conclude, this order will give nine combined authorities the ability to fund new technical qualifications delivery from August 2025 onwards, to meet local skills needs, to enhance economic growth and to bring greater prosperity to their regions. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. The adult skills fund plays a vital role in helping adult learners gain the practical skills and qualifications needed for meaningful employment across key sectors. The fund was introduced by the previous Government to support adult learners. Tailored learning helps to equip them with essential vocational skills such as English, maths and digital literacy, as well as covering a range of sectors from business management to health and social care.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Earl of Effingham(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 79, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and Amendment 80, in the name of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. While we are of course positive towards efforts that support children with a social worker, those currently and previously looked after and those in kinship care, we question why adopted children are excluded from His Majesty’s Government’s plans to strengthen the role of the virtual school head.
Our Amendment 79 would clarify the role of the virtual school head to ensure that those children in the care of the local authority who are then adopted receive the same support as children with a social worker or those in kinship care. Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to
“make advice and information available in accordance with this section for the purpose of promoting the educational achievement of each relevant child educated in their area”.
Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a duty on a local authority to take
“such steps as it considers appropriate”,
which is a much broader role but one that currently does not appear to include adopted children.
As the helpful briefing from Adoption UK sets out, almost half of adoptive parents surveyed for its 2024 Adoption Barometer had sought advice from their local virtual school in the preceding year. The report highlighted the variability in support that they received and the value they placed on the advocacy that a virtual school head could provide with their child’s school. Their exclusion from the Bill appears inconsistent, and we would be grateful if the Minister could confirm either that adopted children will be included or, if they will not be, why not.
Amendment 80 seeks to include career and employment opportunities for children as part of educational achievement. The number of young people who are unable to find employment or further training when they finish their education is alarmingly high. The ONS estimates that 923,000 individuals aged 16 to 24—12.5%—were not in education, employment or training in the period January to March 2025. Although that is down on the previous quarter, I think all noble Lords would agree that the number is way too high and we must act to reduce it.
Amendments 78 and 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to require that authorities publish the steps they have taken to promote the process undertaken that has resulted in the educational achievement of the children in need or in kinship care, and that the Secretary of State may specify how this is reported. It is important for successful practices to be shared, and the amendment would ensure that performance can be more accurately measured.
Amendment 82, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Farmer, seeks to provide boarding school places to children in kinship care. The noble Lords raise a most interesting point. It clearly worked very well for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Where it works for a child—and that is obviously critically important—it can be a hugely positive experience. That child may have the ability to immerse themselves in education, sports, arts or drama, away from the distractions or dangers that they have previously experienced in their outside school life. It would lessen the time pressures on kinship carers, who we know do an amazing job but often find there are simply not enough hours in the day. We would welcome the opportunity to learn more about the work done by Norfolk County Council, the issues it encountered and how it addressed them. We look forward to discussing this further, and hope the Minister will do so also.
Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, seeks to review virtual school heads and their role in improving educational outcomes for previously looked-after children. There is not yet sufficient evidence to fully analyse the extent of the improvement from the introduction of virtual school heads. As such, this review would certainly help to understand the impact that virtual school heads have had before full implementation. We very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.
In line with what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, these all seem entirely sensible and well thought out amendments.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important area of the Bill. I think, hand on heart, we all know that children who need a social worker and children in kinship care experience significant difficulties. Many of them have poorer educational outcomes than their peers as a result, across all key stages. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right that it is important that everyone shares their experience. In Leeds, we always made sure that the scrutiny of children’s services was held by an opposition member; that seems to make absolute sense. We all want the best for these young people, and we must make sure that every area is fully scrutinised.
Clause 6 aims to confer statutory duties on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of such children, increasing their visibility, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and ensuring that they receive consistent expert support to improve their outcomes. In practice, these duties will be discharged by the virtual school head, who will have strategic oversight of the outcomes of these children, raising awareness and improving visibility of their needs—for example, through the delivery of training to schools in effective strategies for improving outcomes. We have just received more information about why this information is so important. For example, it will mean having a real understanding of the numbers of young people who experience school instability, placement instability or social work instability—all of which contribute to their experience in learning and their ability to achieve going forward. As well as this, virtual school heads will have a duty to provide information and advice, upon request, to kinship carers with special guardianship or child arrangements orders, regardless of whether their child spent time in care. We know that virtual heads were first introduced on a non-statutory basis, and we recognise the need for a much stronger basis. I echo the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the importance of local authorities in making sure that this moves forward successfully.
As I say, I welcome the spirit of the amendments tabled, which would ensure that virtual school heads work on behalf of all children, while ensuring that local authorities are rightly held accountable for the delivery of their duties. They would also ensure that previously looked-after children adopted from state care are not inadvertently disadvantaged as a result—I will come back to say more on that later. We are confident that the measures in this clause meet these aims and that, as a result, these amendments are not necessary. I will go into more detail later.
Amendment 77, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to enable discussion on which children are eligible for local authority support and how virtual school heads will promote their educational outcomes. Providing clarity on the children to whom the virtual school head role is extended is important. New Section 23ZZZA(2), to be inserted by Clause 6, provides a clear definition of these children. Specifically, they are children for whom the local authority is
“providing or has provided services”
under Section 17(10)(a) or (b) of the Children Act 1989, as well as children
“in the authority’s area who live in kinship care”.
Amendments 78 and 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to place a statutory duty on local authorities to publish a report on how they perform in promoting the educational outcomes of these children, and to specify through regulations what local authorities must report on. Transparency and consistency in local authority support are essential for driving improvements, and for ensuring that decisions are made in the child’s best interests and that every child receives support, wherever they live or are educated.
Statutory guidance already requires virtual school heads to publish an annual report summarising strategies for supporting children in their care, while local authorities are held to account through inspections of local authority children’s services. It is vital that we continue to ensure local authorities are held accountable for all children they are responsible for, and that this support is transparent. We will reinforce this accountability by updating statutory guidance to include reporting on strategies for supporting educational outcomes of children in need and children in kinship care. This will ensure greater consistency across all local authorities, enabling continuous improvement in the support provided while allowing for local and regional variations. This Government are committed to ensuring that previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption are supported to succeed in education.
Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that children adopted from local authority care benefit from the same support that the clause extends to children in need and children in kinship care. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his statistics; it is always useful to have that level of granularity in our discussions.
To repeat, local authorities already have a statutory duty under Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 to promote the educational achievements of all previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption, special guardianship or child arrangements orders. I hope that satisfies the questions that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. In addition, subsection (3) of Section 23ZZA allows the local authority to
“do anything else that they consider appropriate with a view to promoting the educational achievement of relevant children educated in their area”.
I would suggest that that level of flexibility adds a great deal in the particular circumstances of each individual child.
The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the existing legislation sufficiently covers these children’s educational needs. However, we are committed to reviewing and revising the sections on promoting the educational outcomes of previously looked-after children in statutory guidance for virtual school heads. There is no room for complacency here; we have to keep revisiting, refreshing and relooking on behalf of all the children we are talking about. This will present an opportunity to further strengthen sections on support for adopted children, and we will work with the adoption sector on this, including by clarifying and reinforcing the interpretation of the duty and incorporating examples of good practice.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Earl of Effingham(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and reassure him that I was not just reading out a script. I have put a lot of thought into this. I have been in the place of delivering on this agenda, so I do have the experience.
We have to be careful that we are not too prescriptive at every level, because that can absolutely confound and take up more resource. But I do acknowledge that statutory guidance has to be adhered to, monitored and dealt with with the same seriousness across the piece and, where it has not been adhered to, it has to be called out. The most important thing that all of us can do is make sure that there is an awareness of the rights and responsibilities of the different organisations involved and that they live up to them and, as we have said all the way through, put the needs of some of the most vulnerable children in our communities at the heart of everything we do.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who made valuable contributions to this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, talked about improving the visibility of kinship care, and he is absolutely right. My noble friend Lady Sanderson talked about acknowledging the role of the whole family in terms of kinship families and gave us three live, worked examples of why this group is so important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, reminded your Lordships’ Committee that there are 153,000 children in kinship care and that we are so lucky to have kinship carers—which I believe all noble Lords would agree with and which emphasises again why this group is critical. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to kinship carers as a priceless asset and he is entirely correct. I believe several of these issues merit further discussion on Report, but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
National Centre for Arts and Music Education
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Earl of Effingham
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I know, from my experience of working with her over many years on the contribution of the creative industries to the economy and beyond, that my noble friend will continue to ensure that this is at the top of the agenda. I recognise the issues she raised, but at the moment we have a richness of reviews and plans coming together. We must ensure that all the key areas are talking to each other, taking full account of where we are now but also, as she quite rightly lays out, incorporating the potential of the tech sector and all the other areas to move forward and continue contributing to the economy of this country.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the success of the hubs programme speaks for itself. We are talking about technology. The Prime Minister has clearly stated that his vision is to unleash AI across the UK. When will His Majesty’s Government reinstate the computing and science hubs, which were scrapped earlier this year? They saw the proportion of pupils receiving grade A or above in A-level computing rise by 35% and the number of people taking the subject almost double.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for introducing this. I do not have the specific answers that he seeks. I am very happy to take this away and look at it in more detail. However, the most important thing is that all these areas are integrated across the piece, so that every aspect of work benefits from the skills that he has rightly raised to ensure that things are not put into a silo and that everyone can benefit.
Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Earl of Effingham(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these statutory instruments before the Committee. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests. Some of these instruments were developed by the previous Government and some by the current Government. We welcome these measures. Together, they form part of His Majesty’s Treasury’s programme to deliver a smarter regulatory framework for financial services.
The first set of regulations governs packaged retail and insurance-based investment products, known as PRIIPs. This legislation concerns the vital area of retail investment disclosure, which is of great importance to not only the financial sector but everyday British people seeking to secure their financial futures.
The second set of regulations clarifies the interpretation of capital requirements regulation rules and adjusts the criteria for recognised exchanges. This change is essential, as it seeks to ensure that our prudential regulation, particularly in the light of evolving international standards, remains finely tuned to support our unique market parameters.
The third set of regulations refines the transparency, risk retention and reporting requirements for securitisation issuers. It should help bolster investor confidence and market stability, which we all desire. Securitisation, which packages assets together for sale to investors, plays a key role in supporting credit availability and economic growth.
Finally, the fourth set of regulations introduces new standards for consumer composite investment products—those that pull together multiple asset types such as stocks, bonds and other investments. This measure is a prudent step towards fostering trust and accessibility in the UK’s retail investment market.
Although His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome these changes, we are conscious that we must be careful to avoid overregulation, which could stifle market participation and limit access to credit. Which key stakeholders in the industries affected by these changes have been consulted? In particular, what feedback have banks and insurance companies provided?
We on these Benches really want to see a marketplace that is both free and fair. We believe that consumers deserve clear, accurate and accessible information that empowers them to make informed choices and educated decisions. It is with this principle in mind that we approach these regulations.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on these important SIs. I again emphasise that they represent an important step in ensuring that our approach to regulation of financial services is effective, proportionate and tailored to the UK.
I will pick up on some of the specific points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, expressed concern about the FCA consultation. The FCA will consult on its proposals for the new CCI regime by the end of this year, as we have said; we look forward to its final rules being published in the first half of 2025. This will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to provide the necessary feedback on the new regime to ensure that it works as intended. Firms will transition to providing disclosure under the new CCI regime following an appropriate transition period, which the FCA will set out in due course.
Following on from that, I turn to why we are talking about investment trusts and not just shares. As we know, like open-ended funds but unlike other shares, investment trusts have an active investment strategy and associated fees. It is right that these costs should be disclosed to retail investors through tailored disclosure. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that the prescriptive cost disclosure methodology required by the PRIIPs regulation does not reflect the actual cost of investing in these closed-end funds. The proposed new CCI regime will provide more useful and relevant disclosure to retail investors, as well as more flexibility to tailor disclosure to clients, and will be less burdensome for firms to produce.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on why investment trusts do not have zero costs, the Government recognise that the prescriptive cost disclosure methodology required by the PRIIPs regulation does not reflect the actual cost of investing in these closed-end funds. Nevertheless, it is right that investment trusts, like other products that directly market to retail investors, must provide tailored disclosure on costs, risks and performance for retail investors. This SI gives the FCA the rule-making powers to design a new regime, in consultation with industry, that works for firms and investors.
On why firms are not implementing forbearance now, I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Altmann, that this SI gives legislative certainty to firms ahead of the implementation of the new CCI regime. Although I recognise that there may be some frustrations in the sector, as expressed, the operationalisation of the FCA’s forbearance is a matter for industry and the regulator.