Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill: Reasoned Amendment on Second Reading
70
Ayes
—
312
Noes
Defeated · Government won
264 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 25 February 2025 on a reasoned amendment (a motion explaining why MPs decline to give a bill its second reading) to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill. The amendment, tabled by opposition MPs, sought to block the bill from progressing by arguing that transferring the functions of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) to government control was undesirable. The amendment was defeated by 312 votes to 70, allowing the bill to proceed to its next parliamentary stage. The bill proposes to abolish IfATE, an arm's-length body (an organisation that operates independently from direct ministerial control) established in 2017, and transfer its responsibilities for approving apprenticeship standards and technical qualifications to the Secretary of State. In practical terms, this would give ministers direct authority over the content and structure of apprenticeship and technical education programmes in England, which affect hundreds of thousands of learners and employers each year. Those voting for the amendment argued this removes an independent check on political interference in skills policy, while those voting against supported consolidating control within government as part of a broader reform of the skills and technical education system. The Conservatives did not appear in the voting figures, which is notable given they would normally lead opposition to such a measure. The Liberal Democrats provided the bulk of the 70 aye votes, with 58 of their MPs supporting the amendment, joined by the Democratic Unionist Party with 5 votes, 6 independents, 2 Reform UK members and one Traditional Unionist Voice MP. Labour and its Co-operative Party allies voted unanimously against the amendment, as did the Greens. The bill continued through Parliament and reached its Lords Report Stage on 31 March 2025, where further amendments were defeated before the bill passed its Third Reading in the Lords by 304 votes to 62, indicating sustained government momentum in legislating this change.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the Bill, expressing concern about the government's approach to reforming apprenticeships and the skills levy rather than accepting the Bill as presented.
Voting No meant
Support allowing the Bill to proceed, backing the government's plan to reform the apprenticeship levy into a flexible growth and skills levy to address skills gaps in the economy.
382 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 264 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
277
85
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
58
0
14
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
29
13
Independent
6
2
6
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
2
0
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
—
Your Party
0
1
—
Supports the Bill as essential to reform a fragmented skills system, drive growth, and establish Skills England as an executive agency with employer engagement at its heart, though not on a statutory footing due to urgency.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (4,782 words) →
Opposes the Bill for centralising decision-making in the Secretary of State's hands, removing employer leadership in standards-setting, and creating a vague, undefined Skills England with less independence than IfATE.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,151 words) →
Moves a reasoned amendment against the Bill, arguing it lacks statutory underpinning for Skills England, centralises ministerial power, weakens employer involvement, and lacks proper parliamentary accountability compared to models like the OBR.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,576 words) →
Criticises the Bill for abandoning the Lord Sainsbury blueprint requiring independent standards-setting by employers, not Ministers, and notes Skills England is merely part of the DFE without the cross-government leverage needed.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,874 words) →
Welcomes the Bill's strategic emphasis on skills but raises concerns about Skills England's lack of statutory footing, CEO seniority, partnership mechanisms, and potential drops in apprenticeship starts during transition.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,001 words) →
Strongly supports the Bill as foundation for a skills revolution, citing his own apprenticeship success and local examples like Corby Technical School showing how apprenticeships offer viable alternatives to university.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,127 words) →
Expresses concern that abolishing the independent IfATE in favour of Secretary of State control risks making the system less responsive to labour market needs, despite acknowledging the need for streamlining.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,102 words) →
Supports the Bill but questions why Skills England is not placed on a statutory footing as an independent body, and challenges the Secretary of State to explain why departmental placement is preferable.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,872 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0