Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill: Second Reading
317Ayes
55Noes
Carried · majority 262 · Government won274 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 317 · No 55 · DNV 274 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
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 it by 317 votes to 55. A Second Reading is the first substantive parliamentary vote on a bill, approving its general principles and allowing it to proceed to detailed scrutiny. The result meant the bill advanced toward abolishing the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and transferring its functions to the Secretary of State for Education. The bill, if enacted, would dissolve IfATE as a standalone body and bring its responsibilities over apprenticeship standards, technical education qualifications and assessment plans directly under ministerial control. This forms the legislative foundation for Skills England, a new executive agency of the Department for Education. The change removes the statutory requirement for employer-led groups to prepare apprenticeship standards, replaces mandatory regular review cycles with needs-led reviews, and makes independent third-party examination of standards discretionary rather than required. Supporters argued it would help close significant workforce skills gaps and reform the apprenticeship levy. Critics raised concerns about reduced employer-led independence in setting standards and the removal of statutory oversight requirements. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted unanimously in favour, supplying 304 of the 317 ayes. The Liberal Democrats provided nearly all of the 55 noes, voting as a bloc against the bill. The Green Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and several independents also voted aye. The Conservative Party recorded no votes on either side in this division, with their MPs absent. The vote reflects a broader Labour government drive to centralise skills policy through Skills England, a project the government has framed as central to its economic growth mission.
Voting Aye meant
Support abolishing IfATE and centralising control of apprenticeship and technical education standards under the Secretary of State, backing the creation of Skills England to drive workforce skills reform.
Voting No meant
Oppose transferring IfATE's functions to ministerial control, raising concerns about reduced employer-led independence in setting apprenticeship standards and the removal of statutory review requirements.
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 Aye
275
0
86
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
57
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
—
4
0
10
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
0
1
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
—
1
0
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 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