Construction Industry Training Board: Funding

Steve Race Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Since its establishment in 1964, the Construction Industry Training Board has been the industry-led and industry-funded training board for the UK construction industry. At present, it is an arm’s length body of the Department for Work and Pensions, so I thank the Minister for being here to respond.

The CITB was tasked, in its words, with ensuring a safe, professional, and fully qualified construction industry, and with addressing critical skills shortages. As Members will no doubt agree, some things do not change; indeed, we are grappling today with the very same challenges, as we commit to delivering new infrastructure and regeneration of our public realm, and as we face the need to build much-needed new homes right across the country.

The CITB has always been funded by the sector; legislation grants it the power to collect a levy from private construction firms. In return for this levy, the CITB’s role is to redistribute to sector firms the grants, funds and subsidies for training. This sector-wide approach has meant that skills are transferable, and that the cost of training is equitably shared between smaller and larger construction firms.

That is one of the ways in which the whole sector benefits. As all Members will know from having donned hard hats and visited construction sites, every project involves a huge range of large and small firms, including those that do bricklaying and carpentry, as well as electricians, plumbers and so on. Rarely, if ever, is any project completed solely by one large firm.

Just last Friday, I visited the St Michael’s Meadow housing development in my Exeter constituency to congratulate the site manager, Roy, and his trainee site manager, Sam, who have been awarded the seal of excellence in the NHBC Pride in the Job awards. While there, I also met Dylan and Reece, two carpentry apprentices, both of whom are reaching the end of their apprenticeship training with Barratt Redrow. One is heading directly into the specialist carpentry firm that Barratt Redrow works with on its projects. That is the way that the industry works, and the CITB has long reflected this in its engagement and, in particular, through its stewardship and funding for CITB local training groups.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is absolutely right on this. He has been an assiduous, committed and very industrious MP for his constituency, and I thank him for that. CITBNI is very similar to the organisation on the mainland to which he refers. It provides key support for some 6,500 apprentices over three years, and a 50% grant for net zero training. It is an absolute lifesaver for small contractors who can no longer afford the cost of apprenticeships, given that the cost of insurance alone for the apprentice is almost as much as their wage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Race]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I hope the Minister will cover these points at the end. We are grappling with rising costs for construction firms, and we need to support them, as I hope we will, with CITB, in the future.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member agree that losing the skills and expertise of local training groups, such as the Plymouth Construction Training Group, which was formed in 1977 and has been funded by the CITB, and instead having centralised delivery from CITB in London, would be a retrograde step that risks us losing local construction skills?

[Steve Race]

I thank the Member for her intervention. I fear that she might be right, and I will come on to some of those issues and the feedback that I have received from local training groups across the country, and from small firms.

Local training groups have been vital in supporting micro and small employers to form local networks, and helping them to forge closer ties. They provide those businesses with local, low-cost training options, and with a paid officer who holds a wealth of local knowledge and experience.

However, the national CITB has chosen to de-fund all 55 training groups across the country, close the network down and re-allocate funding elsewhere. This was brought to my attention by Mr Peter Lucas, a constituent who runs a carpentry business, and who has been the chair of the national training group chairs committee. He impressed upon me the importance of the good localised work that training boards have been doing. He told me that training groups connect employers with a really broad spectrum of training for the sector—everything from training on how to use a dust mask properly to master’s degrees.

Training groups work with schools and colleges to promote construction, offer talks and information about the sector, and signpost people to the appropriate apprenticeships programmes. They also save the CITB vast amounts of money on training courses, as training groups source them more cheaply than is done at national level. They meet up and exchange ideas and best practice across the whole of Britain, with everyone gaining more knowledge. Each training group has, until this year, been given £35,000 from CITB to fund their group training officer—money that comes from the levy that members of the training group have paid to the CITB. Without the grant, the training groups will likely close, and with the loss of the groups, vital local networks and local knowledge will be lost. Certainly, the local training group for Devon has been a success and is well-liked. Indeed, I applied for this debate not just because of the compelling case put to me by Mr Lucas, but also because of the outcry from local firms when I posted about my meeting on social media.

Matthew Cousins, who runs Apex Scaffolding in my constituency, an active member of the local south-west CITB steering group, told me that the company faces ongoing challenges in recruiting and retaining scaffolders. With an ageing workforce, and given the increasing difficulty of attracting young people into this profession, it was very surprised that CITB has chosen to cease funding the training groups, especially considering the levy costs that the employers are required to pay.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. I wish to draw the House’s attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group and my membership of UNITE the Union, both of which organise workers in the construction sector. Quality of employment is extremely important. Historically, the two construction engineering training boards had union representation, but over the years that representation has been squeezed away. Does he agree that employee and employer representation is very important on these boards?

[Steve Race]

I absolutely agree. It is only by trade unions, employers and workers working closely together that we can meet many of the challenges across the country. My hon. Friend reminds me that I should also declare my interest as a member of the GMB trade union.

Mr Cousins told me that the company has consistently relied on the training grant, which has historically been paid up front. Under the changes, the pre-payment has been withdrawn, and construction industry scaffolders record scheme courses can no longer be booked through the new employer networks. Apex remains committed to investing in its employees and supporting career progression, but a CISRS course typically costs at least £1,500 up front. There is also the wages paid to employees for the two weeks that they are attending training, and the impact of downtime on the company’s operations. The up-front training grant has always played a critical role in supporting cash flow for smaller businesses during the training process.

In part 2 and advanced training, employees must complete a portfolio and a two-day skills assessment before finishing the qualification. If companies are now unable to claim any funding until the completion of these stages, it will significantly reduce the number of individuals that companies like Apex are able to train.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very important topic to the Floor of the House. Does he agree that anything that can be done to support businesses and employers in training young people must be done? When I visited my local college, Rugby college, I was informed that it is increasingly difficult to encourage employers to provide work experience time, particularly for T-level students, who need 315 hours. I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on any additional support that the Government can give to employers to incentivise them to do that.

[Steve Race]

I agree; we need to do everything that we can to make our commitment to getting two thirds of young people into education, training, apprenticeships or work a reality. We all need to work together on that.

Combined with the broader pressures that businesses are facing, these changes will seriously detrimentally affect Apex’s training capacity as a company. Apex and other companies that are committed to developing skilled, competent staff in their industries hope that the CITB will reconsider, given the impact that the adjustments may have on employers, and will explore ways to ensure that training remains accessible and sustainable.

A member of the Somerset Construction Training Group got in touch with me to say that these groups provide invaluable practical support to construction businesses and apprentices alike. In their words, removing CITB funding risks not only the future of the groups but the loss of highly experienced people whose knowledge of training, funding and compliance in the construction sector is difficult to replace. Ultimately, they feel that this could reduce access to apprenticeships, increase pressure on employers and negatively impact jobs in the industry. The group finished by saying that it hopes that CITB will reconsider and recognise the long-term value that training groups deliver.

Another Somerset business owner said to me that they have been fortunate to be part of the Somerset Construction Training Group for over 16 years. They have been provided with an excellent service, including quality training and last-minute training if required, and they have built a solid working relationship over the last 16 years with their training group officer, who understands their company and their training needs. The group enables networking between group members, and supports many aspects of their business. In their opinion, training groups were the best thing that CITB supported, and they are sad to say that their relationship with CITB is nowhere near as solid.

At the national level, it is reported that the CEO of a roofing business and a member of the Construction Industry Training Board funding committee has resigned in protest at the decision to cut funding for training groups. He stated that he could not in good conscience remain a member of the committee, and that the decision to both defund the training groups and slash the number of courses that are to be grant funded will undoubtedly increase, rather than decrease, the skills gap. That surely cannot be right.

The CITB introduced employer networks in 2024, and intended them to be the route for employers to engage with the CITB. However, the feedback I have received is that small and medium-sized enterprises consider the groups to be remote and impersonal, and that they take longer to organise training. In general, some SMEs have expressed to me that they feel largely ignored and let down by the CITB. The withdrawal of funding for training groups has made them feel sidelined and disillusioned. Indeed, the CITB has run concurrently for some years both the employer networks, which seem best able to cater to larger businesses, and the local training groups, which seem better able to support SMEs. I would have thought there is some merit in continuing with both, especially given the small cost of the local training groups.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is my understanding that, in addition to employer networks, the CITB is also seeking to redirect funding to the new entrant support team. I declare an interest: my father worked as a new entrant training officer. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new entrant support team is good value, and is perhaps a good place for this investment to be directed towards?

[Steve Race]

There is absolutely a case to be made here, but as I shall go on to say, the way in which this has come about is less than ideal, and it leaves lots of local training groups and local SMEs feeling pretty much left out to dry by the CITB.

Construction skills are critical to the success of Exeter’s economy and to our ambition to build the right homes in the right places for people to live in. I am proud that Exeter college is an outstanding tertiary college that offers a wide range of apprenticeships and vocational courses, and the University of Exeter offers a range of degree apprenticeships in partnership with business. As we work to meet this Government’s vital target of having two thirds of young people in university, college or an apprenticeship, we will need every organisation, business, sector and network pulling together.

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view of the changes that the CITB has brought in, and whether he and the Department believe that those changes are aligned with our goals of increasing access to and take-up of apprenticeships and closing the skills gap across the country. Further, has he or the Department had conversations with the CITB on the changes, and has there been an impact assessment, particularly on the ability of SMEs to properly participate in the work of the CITB in this space? Finally, does the Minister agree that the CITB could perhaps have worked with the training groups over a longer period to improve the outcomes of the training groups, should it have felt that necessary, or to provide a platform to help them to transition to new models of funding, rather than a decision being taken to simply pull the funding with a mere four months’ notice? I thank colleagues across the House for their interventions, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Certainly, it is absolutely right that the construction sector has a lot of promising opportunities for exactly those young people, and we need to ensure that they have the support to take them up. We also need to provide a social security safety net—I do not think it is one or the other—but I agree that the work of the CITB is vital in this area.

The CITB provides a wide range of services and training initiatives. It sets occupational standards, funds strategic industry initiatives to support Government missions, and pays allowances and direct grants to employers, as we have heard, that carry out training to approved standards.

In the five years since 2021, employer demand for CITB services has increased by 36%. Levy rates have deliberately been held steady to support construction businesses, given the very sharp cost increases that we are all familiar with that have arisen from global challenges that the industry has had to grapple with. As a result, the costs of CITB services now exceed levy income. In response, the CITB has announced the changes to keep the funding as tightly focused as possible on the industry’s core priorities, in particular on bringing apprentices and new entrants into the workforce to address skills gaps. There has been no cut in CITB funding, but there has been a reprioritisation to ensure that the available funding is used where it has the greatest impact. The CITB board has understandably identified an urgent need for efficiency improvements, to spend less money on bureaucracy in order to be able to spend more on training.

For many years, CITB training groups have supported businesses by securing cost-effective training through collective bargaining, and by helping firms with grant applications, facilitating workforce planning and sharing best practice along the lines set out by my hon. Friend. I put on record the Government’s thanks to all group training chairs and officers—not least my hon. Friend’s constituent, Peter Lucas, the chair of the Devon construction training group and, since 2023, the national chair of training groups. He and his counterparts have undertaken a great deal of important and dedicated work to meet employers’ skills needs. There are currently 80 training groups across England, Wales and Scotland—there was one other but it closed last year. I think perhaps the figure my hon. Friend gave was just for England.

[Steve Race]

indicated assent.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The CITB has concluded that the training group model has significant limitations. It is quite expensive to run; each group receives an annual £35,000 support grant, as my hon. Friend said. Groups often operate on a closed-membership basis, and many groups charge employers annual fees. Groups do not have direct access to skills funding—employers must apply for grants. That limits scalability, diverts levy funding away from actual training into administration, and burdens employers, especially SMEs. My hon. Friend raised that important point.

The CITB has confirmed that funding for training groups will end on 31 March this year, so those £35,000 support grants will not be paid in the coming financial year. However, as my hon. Friend said, the CITB is replacing training groups with a newer model, with employer networks, which are designed to offer a more responsive, efficient and employer-led system. There are now 33 employer networks, which, between them, cover the whole of the UK—25 in England, five in Scotland and three in Wales. The decision to move in that direction has been made by the board of CITB, with its majority construction industry membership, following its consideration of how best to meet evolving industry needs and deliver best value for employers in return for their levy payments. It is not a decision for Government; it is a matter for the CITB board. It seems to me that the CITB has thought about this quite carefully, and I will set out the arguments that it makes.

The employer networks model was piloted in 2022, and the CITB board has concluded that it is effective. It argues that the model gives employers a simpler route to identify training needs and secure funding, avoiding the navigation of complex grant processes or funding applications. Networks are open to all levy-registered employers at no additional cost. They provide direct support from CITB advisers, significant funding contributions toward training and a dedicated training booking team. Instead of lengthy grant applications, employers work with a CITB adviser who helps to identify skill needs, arranges training and secures funding up front to cover a portion of the training costs. It is argued that that reduces the administration burden and makes training more accessible to employers. The idea is for networks to be designed around local need. Employers in each area collectively identify their priority skills needs—be they in traditional trades, digital skills, net zero capabilities or broader workforce development—and funding is directed accordingly.

The decision to replace training groups with employer networks is an operational decision for the CITB, which points out that its pilot has provided evidence that the employer network model is better. In 2025-26, networks have already supported 56,000 learners and 4,400 employers —up from 51,000 learners in the previous year. Training groups, by contrast, supported around 1,800 employers per year—less than half the number supported by networks—and growth was very limited. The average network supports 122 employers, while only five training groups supported more than 50 employers in 2024-25. Training groups cost £2.87 million in 2024-25, which is twice as much as the cost of networks, even though networks seem to support far more employers.

[Steve Race]

The figures quoted relate to networks and local training groups operating at the same time. Does the Minister accept there might be a risk that the people and organisations supported by the local groups are a different group from those supported by employer networks?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but CITB’s view is that most employers that are members of training groups now access support through employer networks. He raised an important point about SME participation, which CITB reports is improving under the network model, reflecting the easier access and more direct influence that businesses have over local training priorities. CITB thinks that helps to reduce regional disparities, and provides more agile support for smaller firms. Indeed, it recently surveyed employers that had accessed support via employer networks, 87% of which were micro, small, or medium-sized organisations. Of those, 81% said that they were satisfied, and 54% said that they were likely to do more training in future because of employer network support.

My hon. Friend will readily acknowledge that meeting the current and future skills needs of construction employers is extremely important for delivering the Government’s aims, and important for opening up opportunities for the large number of young people, and others, left economically inactive over the past few years. The CITB’s view is that the employer network model is simpler, faster, more cost effective, and more flexible. In its view, it better supports SMEs—those employers that need the most support—and it allows the industry to respond quickly to emerging skills challenges, including digital and net zero construction skills.

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House, and for his interest in it, and that of other Members. I understand that the chief executive of CITB, Tim Balcon, has written to my hon. Friend and invited him to make contact if he would like to discuss the matter further. I do not know whether he has taken up that opportunity yet, but if he does take up that offer and has further reflections in the wake of the subsequent discussions, I would be pleased to hear from him about that.

Question put and agreed to.