{"id":513308,"date":"2025-01-30T09:19:12","date_gmt":"2025-01-30T09:19:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.constructionnews.co.uk\/?p=513308"},"modified":"2025-01-30T11:08:40","modified_gmt":"2025-01-30T11:08:40","slug":"fundamental-reset-required-as-citb-touted-for-merger","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.constructionnews.co.uk\/skills\/fundamental-reset-required-as-citb-touted-for-merger-30-01-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Fundamental reset\u2019 required as CITB touted for merger"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) is in need of a \u201cfundamental reset\u201d and should merge with its engineering counterpart, according to Mark Farmer\u2019s hard-hitting review of its operations.<\/p>\n

In his review of the CITB and Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB), published today (30 January), Farmer said the two organisations should become a \u201csingle rebranded body\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ITB [industry training board] model requires a bold new vision in order to justify its statutory mandate going forward,\u201d Farmer said.<\/p>\n

He also called for \u201cclear consequences\u201d if the ITBs do not make improvements in the coming years, including \u201caccelerated winding up before the expiry of the next ITB review cycle\u201d. The organisations currently consult with their industries on their role and relevance every three years.<\/p>\n

If implemented, this could see the CITB being wound up in between reviews.<\/p>\n

However, in response to the review, the Department for Education (DfE) said it had no plans to merge the two ITBs.<\/p>\n

The CITB and ECITB were established in the 1960s alongside more than 20 other ITBs to manage sector-specific training, but the CITB and ECITB are now the only two remaining.<\/p>\n

\u2018A refocused strategy\u2019<\/h3>\n

The launch of the review in March 2023 followed sustained questions around the ITB model and its suitability in the 21st century.<\/p>\n

The review concluded that the current model had \u201cenabl[ed] worthwhile training\u201d.<\/p>\n

But it added: \u201c[It] is not delivering the level of strategic forward thinking, scale and pace of influence or tangible bottom line impact that the industry now requires to futureproof it.\u201d<\/p>\n

In total, the review makes 63 recommendations around training and the ITBs.<\/p>\n

Farmer\u2019s long-awaited review, which was delayed three times<\/a>, also criticised the ITBs\u2019 \u201ccore operational model\u201d, arguing that it does not focus enough on upskilling the existing workforce and does not effectively police how its levy funds are spent.<\/p>\n

It called for a modernised approach to skills, warning that the current system makes it harder to ensure competency across the workforce.<\/p>\n

The review warned that both ITBs are \u201cconcentrating overly on the attraction and training of new entrants\u201d and not enough on upskilling in the sector.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile workforce replenishment is vital, this has left insufficient priority and fund allocation being deployed to implement industry-wide strategic programmes of intervention to upskill\/reskill the standing workforce and to diversify entry pathways,\u201d the review said.<\/p>\n

To coincide with the report, he gave an exclusive interview to Construction News<\/a> to highlight his main recommendations.<\/p>\n

\u2018Insufficient to justify their existence\u2019<\/h3>\n

The ITBs\u2019 model for intervention also came in for criticism. Both organisations can intervene to tackle emerging skill shortages in their sectors, but the review said those interventions require a \u201cfundamental reset [\u2026] to change both direction and effectiveness\u201d.<\/p>\n

The sector is currently facing a declining workforce and a \u201clooming potential inability to meet future industry demand\u201d, which suggests the CITB is not having the desired impact, the review said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe current impact of ITB interventions is observed as insufficient to demonstrate reasonable additionality and on the face of it, justify their existence,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n

In particular, the review criticised the ITBs\u2019 approach to skills, calling for a fuller focus on competency and productivity. It said they need to \u201curgently redefine\u201d their approach to their sectors\u2019 training, and support a refreshed training environment that is \u201cmodular, unitised and matrix-like with common elements and specialisation options\u201d.<\/p>\n

Farmer called for a \u201cdigital skills passport\u201d – which would record competencies across the industry – to become uniform, warning that the lack of a competency record in the sector is a significant sector \u201cweakness\u201d. Without that system, it is too difficult to \u201cadequately police the workforce and measure strategic improvement\u201d.<\/p>\n

The ITBs have access to separate levies on all employers in their respective industries, which fund training and development opportunities. But the CITB levy has faced criticism in the past for failing to deliver desperately lacking skills to the sector.<\/p>\n

While he recommended that the levy be retained, Farmer said it must be \u201cmodernised and refocused to ruthlessly drive measurable outcomes\u201d around the skills gap, with a new SMART KPI system to \u201cmaximise outcomes\u201d from the levy spend and make the industry more accountable to government.<\/p>\n

Part of the CITB\u2019s remit is to ensure that the levy funds are used to benefit the sector. The review called for \u201cmore focus\u201d to fill sector skills gaps, warning that funds are sometimes used for other purposes and do not directly benefit the industry.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt appears the grant is sometimes more focused on responding to individual employer\u2019s desire to maximise recovery from their levy payments in the year,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere should be more focus on maximising funding from both ITB levy and apprenticeship levy for strategic industry training gaps and priorities, not just funding what 22 employers feel is the best fit for their staff profile, especially when deployed at degree and higher levels.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Subject to early intervention<\/strong>\u2019<\/h3>\n

The CITB\u2019s ability to police training providers on how they spend the levy was \u201cfound to be of variable effectiveness\u201d, and requires improvement.<\/p>\n

The review also called for stronger accountability for the ITBs to government. In particular, it called for \u201cclear conditions set on required performance linked to tangible workforce planning and development objectives\u201d.<\/p>\n

It added: \u201cPoor performance going forward should not have the protection of another full ITB review cycle period and should be subject to early intervention by government and industry.\u201d<\/p>\n

The review also considered the risks facing the sector if the skills gap is not tackled effectively. It warned that the lack of skills could \u201ccreate a dangerous cycle of unsustainable wage inflation, static or falling productivity\u201d.<\/p>\n

If the skills gap is not tackled, clients will be forced to pay more for less, which could \u201cundermine private market confidence\u201d to invest in the sector, and weaken political confidence in the ability to deliver infrastructure to budget.<\/p>\n

CITB chief executive Tim Balcon said his organisation is \u201caddressing many of the areas identified within the report through our strategic plan\u201d.<\/p>\n

And he warned that legislative changes could risk \u201cdelaying and disrupting\u201d its work, which could impact on the wider industry.<\/p>\n

A DfE spokesperson said: \u201cWe are grateful to Mark Farmer and everyone who worked on this review for their useful findings.<\/p>\n

\u201cConstruction skills are essential to our Plan for Change and the ITBs will help us to make progress to put the economy on firm foundations for sustainable growth by overseeing training for skilled workers in key sectors such as housebuilding and engineering.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile we have no plans to legislate to merge the two ITBs, over the next 12 months we will be working with them and other government departments to implement many of the report\u2019s recommendations.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) is in need of a \u201cfundamental reset\u201d and should merge with its engineering counterpart, according to Mark Farmer\u2019s hard-hitting review of its operations. In his review of the CITB and Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB), published today (30 January), Farmer said the two organisations should become a \u201csingle …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":90643,"featured_media":488864,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[565,575],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n