Jemma Carmody, executive director of CECA Yorkshire & The Humber, shares her thoughts on the best route forward for the potential CITB and ECITB merger
The Government’s proposal to merge the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) has prompted a significant debate across our sector.
For some, a single Industry Training Board could provide clarity, reduce duplication and support a more strategic approach to skills across construction and engineering construction. For others, it raises serious questions about representation, levy accountability, sector-specific expertise and whether employers will see a clearer return on the money they contribute.
Not as simple as it may seem
From the perspective of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA), the central question is not simply whether CITB and ECITB should merge. The more important question is this: will reform deliver a training board system that genuinely works better for employers, learners and the long-term needs of industry?
If the answer is yes, then industry should be open to change. But if a merger simply transfers existing problems into a larger organisation, then it will not meet the scale of the challenge.
Civil engineering contractors are at the heart of the UK’s growth ambitions. Our members deliver and maintain the infrastructure that keeps the country moving: roads, rail, water, energy, flood defences, public realm and the enabling works that support housing and wider development. These businesses need a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. They need access to practical training that reflects the realities of site delivery. They need clear routes into industry for new entrants, and meaningful support to upskill and retain existing workers.
Above all, they need confidence that the levy system is transparent, accountable and focused on outcomes.
That confidence has been tested in recent years. Many contractors recognise the principle behind an industry training levy. They understand that construction has long-standing skills challenges that individual employers cannot solve alone. They know that investment in training, apprenticeships, competence and workforce development is essential if the industry is to meet future demand.
But they also want to see a clear return on that investment. They want to understand where levy money goes, how decisions are made, what outcomes are being delivered, and how the system responds when industry says it is not working as well as it should.
CECA says it must go further
That is why CECA has called for a fundamental reset of the Industry Training Board system.
The proposed merger may create an opportunity to do things differently. It could support better strategic workforce planning, stronger labour market intelligence, clearer pathways between construction and engineering construction, and a more coherent national approach to skills. There may be benefits in aligning activity where the two boards currently overlap, particularly around major infrastructure, energy transition, productivity and competence.
However, those benefits will not happen automatically. Structural change alone does not guarantee better outcomes. A new name, a new board and a new operating model will mean very little unless the system is redesigned around the needs of employers and the workforce.
For CECA members, there are several tests that any future body must meet:
First, it must be genuinely employer-led. That means more than consultation exercises and periodic engagement. Employers of different sizes, regions and specialisms must have a meaningful voice in shaping priorities, funding decisions and delivery. SMEs in particular must not be drowned out by larger organisations or by processes that are too remote from day-to-day business pressures.
Second, the future body must retain specialist knowledge. Construction and engineering construction are connected, but they are not identical. Within construction itself there are also significant differences between housebuilding, commercial building, specialist trades, civil engineering and infrastructure. The needs of a groundworks contractor, a rail civils business, a highways contractor or a water-sector specialist are not always the same as those of other parts of the built environment. Reform must protect sector-specific expertise, not flatten it.
Third, the levy must be transparent and fair. Employers need clear information about what they pay, what support they can access, and how funding decisions are made. Any move towards a single levy system must be handled with great care, particularly given the different levy structures and employer bases currently covered by CITB and ECITB. Industry cannot be expected to support reform without clarity on the financial implications.
Fourth, the system must focus on outcomes as well as activity. It is not enough to count transactions, registrations or promotional activity. The future body should be judged on whether it helps employers recruit, train and retain people with the skills and competence needed to deliver work safely, productively and to the right standard. That means measuring impact: more people entering and staying in the industry, better access to training, stronger competence pathways, improved productivity and clearer evidence that levy investment is making a difference.
Fifth, reform must not disrupt training delivery. Employers are already facing skills shortages, cost pressures and an uncertain pipeline. Any transition to a new body must protect existing training support and avoid creating confusion for businesses, providers and learners. The cost and complexity of merger must not divert money away from training at the very moment industry needs it most.
There is also a wider point about trust. Many CECA members have consistently invested in apprenticeships, training and workforce development. They have supported new entrants, upskilled existing employees and worked with schools, colleges and training providers. They do this because they believe in the future of the industry. But they need a training board system that works with them, not one that feels distant, bureaucratic or difficult to navigate.
The Government’s ambitions for infrastructure, housing, clean energy and economic growth all depend on the same thing: people. We can have the strongest project pipeline in the world, but without the skilled workforce to deliver it, those ambitions will not become reality. Skills policy is not a side issue. It is central to delivery.
That is why this debate matters so much
A reformed ITB system should help industry plan for future demand, respond to regional and sectoral needs, support employers to invest in training, and ensure that funding follows genuine industry priorities. It should provide clear, practical support for businesses. It should help make careers in construction and infrastructure more visible and accessible. It should strengthen competence and progression throughout working life, not just focus on new entrants.
For civil engineering contractors, the prize is a system that supports the full workforce journey: attracting people into the sector, training them properly, helping them build experience, recognising competence, and enabling them to progress into the roles industry needs.
The proposed merger could be part of that solution. But only if it is treated as the beginning of reform, not the end of it.
CECA’s position is clear. We are not against change. In fact, we believe change is necessary. But the industry must not settle for administrative tidiness in place of genuine improvement. A single body may be more efficient, but efficiency alone is not enough. The future ITB must be more accountable, more transparent, more responsive and more clearly focused on employer and workforce outcomes.
The test for Government and the future body is whether employers can look at the system and say: this understands my business, this supports my workforce, and this helps our industry deliver.
If that test is met, reform can command confidence. If it is not, the merger risks becoming another missed opportunity.
The industry does not need a bigger version of the same system. It needs a reset.
The post The proposed ITB merger must be a reset, not a rebrand appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
