Skills and Training
Vocational training and apprenticeships
Based on 10 parliamentary votes
Related Education Issues
How Parties Voted on Skills and Training
Government alignment shows how often each party voted with the government's stated position. Issue-aligned direction shows agreement with the AI-identified supportive stance.
Voted with government positionVoted in issue-aligned direction
Recent Votes
| Vote | Result | Date |
|---|---|---|
An opposition party brought a motion on youth unemployment for debate in the House of Commons, likely calling on the government to take stronger action to tackle joblessness among young people. Opposition Day motions are typically symbolic but signal political priorities. Yes = Support the opposition's call for greater government action on youth unemployment · No = Reject the opposition motion, defending the government's existing approach to youth employment and skills Govt: No | 93-286 | 28 Jan 2026 |
A vote on an opposition amendment to the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill, which sought to give priority to British citizens in UK foundation and specialty training programmes from 2027. The government defeated the amendment, preferring its own approach to managing medical training places. Yes = Support requiring that British citizens are given priority for foundation programme places and specialty training interviews from 2027 onwards · No = Oppose this amendment, preferring the government's existing framework for prioritising UK medical graduates without a citizenship-based criterion Govt: No | 90-311 | 27 Jan 2026 |
Vote on whether to amend the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill to give priority in NHS specialty training to British citizens, regardless of where they trained. Supporters argued this would help British students who trained abroad (e.g. in Cyprus or Grenada) return to practise in the UK, while opponents argued it could be counterproductive as NHS experience matters more than citizenship. Yes = Support prioritising British citizens for NHS specialty training interviews and places from 2027, even if they trained outside the UK · No = Oppose using citizenship as the primary criterion for training priority, preferring to prioritise those with UK medical qualifications and NHS experience regardless of nationality Govt: No | 93-379 | 27 Jan 2026 |
Vote on a Conservative-backed amendment (Amendment 2) to the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill that would reintroduce merit-based selection — rewarding academic achievement and exam performance — into the NHS medical specialty training allocation system, which currently allocates places without considering candidates' grades or merit. Yes = Support returning to a merit-based system for NHS specialty training, where doctors' exam results and academic performance are rewarded when allocating training places · No = Oppose reintroducing merit-based allocation to specialty training, preferring the current system which does not rank candidates by academic achievement Govt: No | 63-311 | 27 Jan 2026 |
Final vote on passing the Bill that transfers powers from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to create 'Skills England'. The debate focused on an amendment requiring Parliament to approve the new agency's setup before it could be established, which the government opposed as unnecessary red tape. Yes = Support passing the Bill to transfer apprenticeships and technical education functions, accepting the government's approach without requiring additional parliamentary approval for establishing Skills England · No = Oppose passing the Bill without stronger parliamentary oversight, arguing Parliament should vote to approve the structure and proposals for Skills England before it is formally established Govt: Aye | 308-64 | 31 Mar 2025 |
Vote on whether to require Skills England to operate for a full year before absorbing the functions of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), giving the new body a 'breathing space' to become established before taking on extra responsibilities. This amendment would have reinstated a one-year delay that the House of Lords had inserted into the Bill. Yes = Support giving Skills England a one-year operational period before it takes on IfATE's functions, arguing this cautious approach reduces implementation risk and protects apprenticeship and technical education quality during the transition. · No = Oppose the delay, preferring to proceed with the transfer of functions without a mandated one-year waiting period, prioritising swift delivery of the new skills system. Govt: No | 166-308 | 31 Mar 2025 |
Vote on whether to require the government to establish Skills England as an independent statutory body (rather than an executive agency within a government department), with stronger accountability to Parliament. This was proposed by the Liberal Democrats and opposed by the Labour government. Yes = Support making Skills England an independent statutory body outside any single government department, to improve cross-departmental authority and parliamentary accountability · No = Oppose the amendment, preferring Skills England to remain as an executive agency within a government department as originally planned Govt: No | 170-305 | 31 Mar 2025 |
Vote on whether to delay the establishment of Skills England (the body replacing the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education) by requiring a one-year review period before the transition could be completed. Opponents argued the delay would stall urgently needed reform to the apprenticeships and technical education system. Yes = Support requiring a one-year delay before Skills England can be fully established, arguing more time is needed to assess the impact on apprenticeships including degree apprenticeships and T levels · No = Oppose the delay, arguing that waiting a year risks recreating the old system under a new name and that Skills England needs to be established quickly to deliver real benefits to vocational education Govt: No | 169-305 | 31 Mar 2025 |
A vote on a 'reasoned amendment' that would have blocked the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions) Bill from progressing. The Bill aims to reform apprenticeships by converting the apprenticeship levy into a more flexible 'growth and skills levy', including shorter-duration apprenticeships. A reasoned amendment is an opposition attempt to reject the Bill at Second Reading. Yes = 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. · No = 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. Govt: No | 72-314 | 25 Feb 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to give initial approval to a Bill that would abolish the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and transfer its functions to Skills England, a new body intended to reform the apprenticeship levy into a more flexible 'growth and skills levy' to better address workforce skill shortages. Yes = 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 · No = 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 Govt: Aye | 319-57 | 25 Feb 2025 |
How is this calculated?
Government alignment (primary bar) shows how often a party's MPs voted with the government's stated position on this issue. This is the most comparable metric across parties, as it measures the same reference point for everyone.
Issue-aligned direction (secondary bar) shows how often MPs voted in the direction tagged as supportive of this issue by AI analysis. For example, if a vote is tagged “pro-environment”, a Yes vote counts as aligned. This can be misleading when the tagged direction happens to align with opposition amendments rather than government bills.
Why these metrics may differ: Opposition parties often vote against government bills for strategic or procedural reasons, even when they broadly support the policy area. The government alignment metric makes this clearer by showing the actual voting pattern against a consistent reference.
Source: Commons division data from the UK Parliament Votes API. Alignment direction determined by AI analysis of vote stance tags. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.