Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill: Second Reading
317
Ayes
—
55
Noes
Passed · Government won
274 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 25 February 2025 to give the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill its Second Reading, passing the vote by 317 ayes to 55 noes. A Second Reading is the first substantive parliamentary debate on a bill, where MPs vote on whether its general principles should proceed. The result meant the bill advanced to further scrutiny stages. The bill would abolish the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), an independent arm's-length body established in 2017, and transfer its functions directly to the Secretary of State and to Skills England, a new government agency. In practical terms, this means responsibility for approving apprenticeship and technical education standards, overseeing qualifications, and shaping the skills landscape would move from an independent body into direct ministerial control. The change affects employers, training providers, colleges, and the millions of people who undertake apprenticeships and technical qualifications in England. The vote divided sharply along party lines. Labour MPs, including those from the Labour and Co-operative Party grouping, voted unanimously in favour, joined by the Greens, the Democratic Unionist Party, and several smaller parties and independents. The Liberal Democrats provided the organised opposition, with all 57 of their voting MPs in the No lobby. The Conservatives are notably absent from the party breakdown, suggesting low attendance or abstention rather than formal opposition at this stage. The bill sits within the government's broader skills reform agenda, and subsequent divisions in late March 2025 show it continued through Report Stage and Third Reading, with opposition attempts via amendments defeated comfortably.
Voting Aye meant
Support creating Skills England and reforming the apprenticeship levy to give employers more flexibility in funding training, aiming to close skills gaps and drive economic growth
Voting No meant
Oppose the Bill at this stage, potentially concerned about the pace of reform, the effectiveness of the proposed changes, or the handling of the apprenticeship levy
372 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 274 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
276
0
86
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
57
15
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
3
0
11
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
—
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
1
0
—
Your Party
1
0
—
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 aye · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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