Industry Training Board Reform

Executive Summary

• There is no clear evidence that a merger would improve outcomes for small construction firms.
• A merger is likely to dilute the voice of smaller companies that make up the majority of the sector.
  • It would further homogenise a complex industry and deliver poor outcomes for already underrepresented parts of the industry.
• If a merger has to go ahead, it needs to be coupled with reform.
  • Any future ITB needs to be reformed with greater focus on sector body representation.
    • Culture change to an industry first approach will be vital to the success of any future ITB.
    • Greater accountability and transparency of decision making and funding.
• The risks of disruption caused by a merger, at a time when the industry is under great pressure, particularly to align with government ambitions, could undermine its ability to train and employ staff effectively.

Background – the current model

The Federation of Master Builders (FMB) consulted levy-paying members as part of its response to the Government's consultation on the proposed merger of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB).

The evidence suggests that many small building companies have concerns about the current skills system, particularly around access to training support, communication and transparency. While the FMB supports the Industry Training Board model, members consistently identified a need for reform rather than structural change.

The FMB's response argues that any future Industry Training Board should prioritise stronger representation for small firms, greater accountability and transparency, and a more collaborative, industry-led approach to skills policy. It also highlights concerns that a merger could dilute the voice of smaller businesses without delivering clear benefits for training outcomes.