Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026

Debate between Lord Jones and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of this draft order, laid on 2 February 2026.

The statutory purpose of the Construction Industry Training Board, or the CITB, is to secure better training provision across the construction sector. The 2023 independent review of the industry training boards, led by Mark Farmer, reaffirmed their continuing value in addressing persistent and structural workforce challenges. Crucially, the review concluded that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for securing the level of skills investment that the industry requires.

This statutory instrument gives effect to the CITB’s levy proposals for 2026, 2027 and 2028. The levy remains the CITB’s primary funding source and, without this order, the board cannot raise mandatory assessments on in-scope employers. Levy funding enables the CITB to deliver essential support to tackle skills shortages and market failures across England, Scotland and Wales. Although views in the sector can vary, the levy proposals continue to command strong employer support. These proposals are the result of detailed consultation and a robust consensus process. In spring 2025, the CITB consulted all 14 prescribed organisations, or sector federations, alongside a structured survey of non-represented employers. Over 67% of levy-paying employers supported the proposals, representing almost 72% of levy value—well above the thresholds for consensus to be achieved.

Before we consider the levy proposals in further detail, I will return to the findings of the Farmer review. I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to consult industry on bringing together the CITB and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to create a single unified body, supporting the combined skills needs of construction and engineering construction. This reflects a key recommendation of the Farmer review, accepted by the Government subject to further scoping. It builds on existing ITB collaborations such as the Sizewell C charter: a joint commitment by the ITBs, local authorities and Sizewell C to ensure a skilled and inclusive workforce for delivering this vital nuclear power station.

The consultation will launch shortly and the views expressed by industry will inform a decision on how to proceed. No outcome can be prejudged and the earliest that any change could take effect is April 2027. Any future levy arrangements arising from reform would come before Parliament in the usual way. Until then, maintaining the CITB’s ability to operate effectively makes approval of this statutory instrument essential.

To turn to the levy proposals, this SI maintains current levy rates. Despite a 36% increase in employer demand for CITB services since 2021, rates are held steady to support businesses navigating difficult trading conditions. The order also raises exemption and reduction thresholds to protect small and micro-businesses from levy pressures linked to wage inflation. Employers with wage bills up to £149,999 will be exempt, while those with wage bills between £150,000 and £499,999 will receive a 50% reduction. Approximately 69% of eligible employers will therefore continue to pay no levy, with a further 15% paying a reduced rate. All these employers remain eligible for CITB support.

The CITB estimates that the levy will raise around £243 million per year to invest in supporting skills needs. In the most recent year, the CITB supported over 30,000 apprentices and 20,000 vocational qualification achievements and provided nearly £130 million in grants, including £60 million for small and micro firms. It also committed up to £40 million for fast-track training and apprenticeships in areas of high demand for homebuilding skills.

This funding directly underpins broader economic priorities. The construction sector contributes over £211 billion annually and employs more than 2 million people. Yet its fragmented nature, characterised by high self-employment and complex supply chains, makes voluntary, industry-wide investment in skills unlikely to occur. Without a statutory levy, the workforce needed to deliver the UK’s economic ambitions simply would not materialise at the required scale. If this order were not approved, the CITB would be unable to collect levy in 2026, impacting apprenticeships, qualifications, employer support programmes, training standards and the future capability of an industry fundamental to growth, housing delivery and national infrastructure.

The UK requires an estimated additional 240,000 construction workers by 2029, with particular pressures in infrastructure, repair and maintenance, and homebuilding. Agreeing this order is therefore critical to delivering the Government’s commitment to 1.5 million safe and decent homes this Parliament and to supporting major infrastructure and clean energy projects across Great Britain. The proposals have the full support of the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales, who, like industry, recognise the importance of maintaining the CITB’s ability to raise and invest levy income. For these reasons, I commend the instrument and I beg to move.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her helpful and informative remarks. Skills and training are crucial for Britain, struggling to keep her place in a very competitive global market, and this board is a great and important player in British skilling. It is a good measure and I think that £243 million are involved somewhere in the helpful notes that the department has offered us.

I have some questions that I think might be answered by officials. Very briefly, what is the current grand total of construction apprenticeships for the latest year available? Are there graduate apprenticeships in this industry, and in what numbers? Is the department satisfied with its health and safety record, given the nature of the industry that we are considering?

I find that this proposal brings memories which I think are relevant to anyone considering the future of this great industry. It was the case that, in the early 1980s, big changes were made in these boards. I recollect that, in the other place, the Secretary of State, James Prior, was helped by a Parliamentary Secretary by the name of Morrison.

Time and again, after 10 pm and with three-line Whips, we had orders to abolish board after board—to the point where, although the Opposition of whom I was a part always voted against abolition in this instance, the Government usually had their way. All that was left of these training boards were the great engineering board and the construction industry board. It seems that the start of the problems that Britain now faces around skills and training relates to the decisions taken by the then Government in voting that always happened after 10 pm and went on until midnight. The Government of the day had a good majority, so they got their way.

When I was in the other place, I found that builders were very much against what was proposed in having these issues put on them. I found that, in an era of mass unemployment in the early 1980s, it was very obvious that the apprenticeship boards were being closed down. Even the great companies of Courtaulds, BAE and British Steel pretty well decided not to have apprenticeships. The bottom line was: what was to be made if there were to be any chances of what I would call advantages from the great loss to Great Britain and to our young people? If we look back to those years—the late 1970s and, in particular, the early 1980s—there were great problems.

I hope that the questions I have asked will be answered before the end of the debate.

Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Jones and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her pithy and informative introduction. I wish to look briefly at Part 4 of the regulations, which is very important. Could the Minister enlarge on Regulation 7(3), which states:

“The reason is that the worker breached an exclusivity term of their specified contract”?


Then there is Regulation 8, “Complaints to employment tribunals”. Regarding such complaints, will the Minister indicate the approximate annual number of tribunals dealt with? Is there a specific statistic that tells us the percentage of claims that succeed and fail? Are those statistics available for us in this debate? I think they should be.

Lastly, does the Minister have any insight into the promptness of payment of awarded compensation? How speedily is financial justice enacted? Again, I thank her for her introduction.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I add my thanks to the Minister for a very full explanation of the material in front of us. It is important for all of us to focus on the context in which this discussion takes place and recognise the terrible state that too many families are having to live in, with insecurity and low wages against a backdrop of soaring prices. We have heard how this SI brings the situation in line with the work that has been done on zero-hours contracts in the past. I acknowledge the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, made about how difficult it is to imagine that we are in this position today.

We welcome any step, however modest, to tackle the problems we are facing in the country’s labour market—as we have heard, the measure before us is modest. In welcoming what we have in front of us, we have to acknowledge that it is a sad indictment of our current labour market that the principle of someone being able to take another job alongside a low-paid job is being championed as a major step forward towards a fairer labour market. I ask us all: can we not do better? Surely hard-working people deserve the right to more predictable contracts; we should keep that at the front of our minds.

It is disappointing that a threshold of the national minimum wage or national living wage has not been adopted, which would have extended support to many more workers than the lower earnings limit. The fact that the Government still actively chose to use the lowest reasonable income-based threshold tells us that there is still far more to do in this area, and that is compounded when we look at the implications for those claiming universal credit.

What assurances can the Minister give those earning above the current lower earnings level of £123 per week but below the universal credit threshold of £332 per week about the exclusivity clauses that remain in their contracts? What steps will be taken to protect those who may earn below the lower earnings limit but may not be covered by the regulations because they are classed as self-employed? I am talking not about those who are genuinely unemployed but those working in the gig economy, who are often placed on highly restrictive contracts that do not offer the genuine freedom that self-employment provides. As I say, this is crucial, given that the precarious nature of work at this moment in time is at the front of people’s minds. Much more must be done to create stable and secure employment across the piece. I am sure that all of us know too many heartbreaking stories of how people have suffered under this regime.