Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill: Reasoned Amendment on Second Reading
70Ayes
312Noes
Defeated · majority 242 · Government won264 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 70 · No 312 · DNV 264 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 25 February 2025 to reject a reasoned amendment to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill at Second Reading. A reasoned amendment is a procedural motion that, if passed, would have blocked the bill from proceeding any further at that stage. The motion fell by 312 votes to 70, allowing the bill to advance. The bill abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and transfers all its statutory functions directly to the Secretary of State for Education. It also removes certain duties, such as mandatory regular review cycles for qualifications and the requirement to commission independent third-party examination of standards, replacing them with discretionary powers. The legislation underpins the creation of Skills England as an executive agency of the Department for Education. Those who supported the amendment argued against concentrating these powers directly in ministerial hands and the removal of independent oversight. Those who voted against it backed the government's plan to centralise skills functions and use Skills England to address workforce skills gaps. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 276 Labour MPs and 29 Labour and Co-operative MPs with a vote recorded opposed the amendment, as did all four Green MPs and one Ulster Unionist. The Liberal Democrats provided the bulk of the Ayes, with 58 of their MPs supporting the amendment, joined by the five Democratic Unionist Party MPs, two Reform UK MPs, five Independents, one Traditional Unionist Voice MP, and one MP from Your Party. No Conservative MPs appear in the party breakdown, which is notable given this was a reasoned amendment tabled against a government bill. The bill subsequently passed further parliamentary stages, receiving its Third Reading on 31 March 2025 when MPs voted 304 to 62 to pass it.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking or delaying the bill, expressing concern about concentrating apprenticeship and technical education powers directly in ministerial hands and removing independent oversight structures like IfATE.
Voting No meant
Support the bill proceeding, backing the government's plan to abolish IfATE, centralise skills functions under the Secretary of State, and establish Skills England as a vehicle for closing workforce skills gaps.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
276
85
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
58
0
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
29
13
Independent
—
5
3
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
2
0
5
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
1
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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