Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] — Report (1st Day) — Amendment 11 — 12 Oct 2021 at 18:00

Moved by Lord Watson of Invergowrie

11: Clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (6) and insert-“(6) A “local skills improvement plan”, in relation to a specified area, means a plan which-(a) is developed by an employer representative body in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area, (b) draws on the views of-(i) employers operating within the specified area,(ii) regional and local authorities , including the Mayoral Combined Authorities, within the specified area with specific reference to published plans and strategies which have been developed by these authorities to inform the distribution of funding and prioritisation of resources,(iii) post-16 education providers active in the specified area, including schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities,such sources of information on long-term national skills needs as the Secretary of State may specify, and any other evidence, to summarise the skills, capabilities or expertise that are, or may in the future be, required by people resident in the specified area, and(c) identifies actions that relevant providers and other local bodies can take regarding any post-16 technical education or training that they provide so as to address the requirements mentioned in paragraph (b).”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would provide for employer representative boards to develop local skills improvement plans in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities, and local further education providers to ensure that they reflect the needs of learners, residents and employers. LSIPs must also consider social and economic development strategies in the local area and long-term national needs which may not apply to local employers.

Ayes 193, Noes 186.

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Content)Minority (Not-Content)Turnout
Bishop1 03.4%
Con1 15050.8%
Crossbench19 511.9%
DUP0 360.0%
Green1 050.0%
Judge1 06.7%
Lab96 042.7%
LDem61 157.4%
Non-affiliated3 09.4%
UUP0 2100.0%
Total:183 16137.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

Lords for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible lord who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

NamePartyVote
Lord Lucas Con (front bench)aye
Baroness Finlay of LlandaffCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Kakkar Crossbench (front bench)no
The Earl of KinnoullCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Stirrup Crossbench (front bench)no
Lord Vaux of HarrowdenCrossbench (front bench)no
Baroness Falkner of MargravineLDemno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive