Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] — New Clause 1 — Draft proposals for establishing new executive agency — 31 Mar 2025 at 20:30

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the executive agency, to be known as Skills England, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
This new clause would put Skills England on an independent statutory footing rather than as part of the DfE. The role of IfATE would be included in that planned for Skills England.
“, including the impact of removing apprenticeship level funding for degree apprenticeships”.
“The transfer of power from IfATE to the Secretary of State for Education raises questions about the independence of the proposed Skills England regulatory body.”
“employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous.”
“The clauses in the bill which transfer powers from IFATE to the Secretary of State risk shifting the development of standards further away from employer demand.”
“Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs”.
“there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.”
“there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.”-[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
“potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process”,
“may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners.”
“to ensure and protect its regulatory independence from Government and other agencies.”
“swamp Skills England at birth.” -[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
“be much more akin to the Bank of England”
“disproportionately impact on public services…We are meeting vital skill gaps in disciplines such as advanced clinical practitioner…These are NHS workers, civil servants and local authority employees. A high number of our level 7 apprentices…come from the areas of highest deprivation.”
“Over half of the employers we work with…on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of…reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful.”
“removing Level 7 apprenticeship funding will mean that fewer UK training roles are created. Instead, organisations are likely to turn to offshoring to replace UK training roles”.
“cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships would risk creating gaps in leadership…at a time when business and the public sector need them most.”
“Reducing funding to level 7 apprentices runs the risk of removing opportunities into professions”
“Apprenticeships help break down barriers into not only Law but all career paths which could be inaccessible to young people without them.”
“When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England…we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.”
“A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground.”-[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
“The transfer of functions from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the Bill… This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways”.

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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 are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

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

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 98081.0%
DUP0 4080.0%
Green0 3075.0%
Independent4 0028.6%
Lab298 (+2 tell) 0074.4%
LDem0 62 (+2 tell)088.9%
Traditional Unionist Voice0 10100.0%
UUP1 00100.0%
Total:303 168076.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs 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 MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive