In the midst of the government’s consultation on the matter, we find out how combination of the two bodies would effect the skills landscape
Both the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) are vital bodies that support skills and training in the industry.
With representation, levy funding, and efficiency in mind, this article will highlight key aspects and what they mean for the industry.
Why merge the two bodies?
It is important to understand what the two boards do for the industry. They were formed primarily to help drive up skill levels and incentivise training that would otherwise not take place via a statutory levy collected from construction and engineering construction employers. This is important not just for the longevity of firms, but also for combating the ever-looming skills shortage, especially in specialist skills, as well as for addressing diversity and supporting government objectives such as the 1.5m new homes target and building the infrastructure that would be central to the UK’s net zero ambitions.
In 2023, Mark Farmer conducted the ITB Review, a periodic assessment that is required of all public bodies, and recommended that the CITB and ECITB should merge into a single Industry Training Body (ITB). The review was published last year.
Farmer felt, as laid out among the 17 recommendations the review made, that if the two bodies merged, the resulting single body would be stronger and able to do more. The review was largely supported by Baroness Smith of Malvern, the minister of state for skills, on the basis that a single body would be able to make better strategic approaches to skill planning by linking the engineering construction industry more closely to the construction industry as a whole, reducing opportunities for duplication, and having a clearer path.
The government partially accepted the recommendation of merging the two bodies, and there is now a consultation to seek industry views on the matter.
How would this affect the industry?
Apart from the previously mentioned potential benefits of merging the CITB and ECITB, there are some complications and risks to the idea.
The two bodies both work to fund and provide training courses, keep a finger on the pulse of the two industries, maintain occupational and competence standards, and provide a unified voice for the two sectors. With the CITB having around 69,000 registered establishments and the ECITB having 297 registered establishments focused on the engineering construction sector, many employees’ training and upskilling depend on the two boards.
A merger of the two would likely affect the collection of the levy used to fund training courses, as the two boards already collect it in different ways. The CITB collects its levy based on PAYE and subcontractor payments via the Taxable Construction Industry Scheme (CIS), whereas the ECITB collects its levy based on labour payments for on- and off-site workers.
A unified body may well need to implement a more unified collection system, which brings equality into question. The CITB raises around £228m per year via its levy, while the ECITB, with its smaller scope, raises around £35m per year. A new system will need to address this issue, likely by adjusting the amount a registered establishment pays based on size, sector, and other factors. which may lead to another complicated system, with some firms paying more than before and others paying less.
Furthermore, in terms of equality, there are concerns that merging the 297 establishments into the much larger 69,000 will diminish the voice of engineering construction specialists, a critical sector with unique challenges and needs.
While suggested mitigations for these risks have been listed in the consultation, it’s impossible to say how effective they will be until the body is formed.
A good move?
In my opinion, it’s quite hard to say. The issue with trying to take in the potential risks and rewards is that oft-dreaded adjective: “potential.” Without hard evidence or results, it’s impossible to say one way or another whether or not this merger will be a good idea.
On the surface, it seems a question of simply removing red-tape and streamlining funding for the whole industry. A single body would, in theory, be easier to deal with when securing funding and a homogenised place for any issues to be dealt with.
Under the bonnet, however, things become more complex. The difference in size between the CITB and ECITB, the difference in the sectors they deal with, and the skills needed in them, are all crucial points that warrant further interrogation, from both employers and the government.
With the ECITB having 297 registered establishments and the CITB having about 69,000 – a difference of roughly 69,000 – the question of representation is huge.
If the engineering construction industry has its own unified opinion, how would this be adequately and proportionately represented against the rest? Without measures in place, the risk of the opinion of the engineering construction industry being diminished or even lost is too great.
This risk is made even more stark when one factors in the sheer difference between the CITB and ECITB’s members – the CITB has a much wider industry presence, encompassing housing estates, high rise buildings, civil engineering etc. while the ECITB has a much tighter purview within areas including oil and gas, power generation, nuclear, renewables, etc.
The skills established and in use within the ECITB’s view tend to be much more specialised and are crucial to large projects, meaning any misrepresentation will affect critical infrastructure and projects. This potential for inequality also extends to a new levy system, as more technical skills require more in-depth training, which in turn tends to require more funding per person.
Under the current separation, both boards raise funds via their own levies, but under a unified system, funds would need to be distributed among all members and could underdeliver on the needs of one sector over another.
All in all, the question of whether it’s a good idea is too fresh and large to answer succinctly, and far, far more information is needed.
Construction employers under both the CITB and ECITB should express their views in the consultation here as a matter of urgency – the future of skill training in the industry may well go through a profound change as a result of this consultation, and whether in favour or against, every view will count.
The post Editor’s view: Would the CITB and ECITB merger be a good move? appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
