Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025.

My Lords, I will speak also to two linked instruments: the East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025 and the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025.

I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for the scrutiny provided for these instruments. These draft statutory instruments were laid in Parliament on 24 February 2025. If they are approved, the Department for Education will transfer adult education functions and associated adult skills funding to these three areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2025. This will give them freedom to use their adult skills funding as they see fit to help their residents fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.

The adult education functions being transferred are under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. The specific functions are: education and training for persons aged 19 or over; learning aims for such persons and provision of facilities; and payment of tuition fees for statutory entitlements for certain individuals. These relate to Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the 2009 Act respectively. These functions will be exercisable by these local areas instead of by the Secretary of State. They are subject to an exception in relation to apprenticeships training, persons subject to adult detention or any power to make regulations or orders.

Other specific functions being transferred are the encouragement of education and training for persons aged 19 or over, the provision of financial resources and the provision of financial resources in connection with technical education. These relate to Section 90 and Section 100(1) and (1B) of the 2009 Act respectively. These functions will be transferred to the local areas so that they are exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State.

The Adult Skills Fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. The Government usually allocate around £1.4 billion annually to deliver this provision. This includes national statutory entitlements to free English, maths and digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for 19 to 23 year- olds who do not yet have them, and free courses for jobs for adults aged 18 or over who do not have a level 3 qualification, are unemployed or earn less than £25,000.

If these statutory instruments are approved, Cornwall, the East Midlands and York and North Yorkshire can apply their devolved powers to identify adults with the greatest skills needs in their region, invest more funding to support those groups, work directly with employers, providers and other local partners to commission provision to meet local needs and set funding rates to incentivise the delivery of provision that will have the greatest positive impact in their region. This will help to deliver the Government’s mission, set out in the English Devolution White Paper, to give local areas the powers and freedoms to decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth and make a real difference to people’s lives.

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?

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.

In conclusion, although we on these Benches support the principle of devolution, we have concerns about how it is being implemented. These proposals come with a real-terms cut to adult education funding, a lack of clarity around budget allocations and limited information on how delivery will be monitored or assured. Devolution must not result in a postcode lottery. As some regions gain control over adult education budgets while others remain under central oversight, how will the Government ensure fairness and consistency in access to opportunities across the country?

If the Government are serious about local empowerment, they must do more than devolve responsibility; they must also devolve the means to deliver. Rhetoric must be matched by resources, and ambition by accountability. I urge the Minister to respond in detail to these concerns.

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.

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.

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.

Motion agreed.