👷‍♂️ Delegated Legislation Committee

• The Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025 was discussed in a parliamentary session. The session aimed to approve the continuation of funding for the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) through a levy system.

• Janet Daby, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, emphasized the importance of the CITB in addressing the skills challenge in the construction sector. The levy is expected to generate nearly £224 million in 2025-26 to support training for about 67,000 employers.

• The levy rates remain unchanged from the previous year: 0.35% for companies directly employing workers and 1.25% for companies contracting workers. However, thresholds for exemptions and reductions have been adjusted to support smaller companies.

• Exemptions and Reductions: Companies with an annual wage bill below £135,000 are exempt from the levy, and those with a wage bill between £135,000 and £449,999 qualify for a 50% reduction. This benefits 84% of in-scope employers who remain eligible for full CITB training support.

• Consultation and Support: The draft order was supported by consultations with various sector organizations and regional councils. Both the Scottish and Welsh governments were consulted and raised no objections.

• Neil O’Brien raised concerns about the CITB’s operational costs, questioning if the current allocation of funds is appropriate. Daby noted that the CITB’s running costs are at 15% and efficiency savings have been made.

• The Mark Farmer review recommended merging the CITB with another ITB, but the government decided against this, preferring to continue with increased voluntary collaboration between the boards.

• Apprenticeships and Skills Funding: There was discussion on the potential impact of allowing employers to use part of the apprenticeship levy for other training. The CITB has been effective in supporting apprenticeships, with a high success rate for those engaged in their programs.

• Level 7 Apprenticeships: Concerns were raised about proposed cuts to level 7 apprenticeships in construction, with several professional bodies urging the government to reconsider. Daby promised further information on this issue soon.

• The session concluded with the draft order being approved, ensuring continued funding for the CITB and support for skills training in the construction industry.

The level of disagreement in the session is relatively low, indicating a moderate level of contention. The primary disagreement revolves around the strategic direction and operational efficiency of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), based on the recent Mark Farmer review. Here are the details and examples that led to this assessment:

1. Strategic Direction and Operational Efficiency: Neil O’Brien from the Conservative Party raised several concerns based on the Mark Farmer review. He questioned the efficiency of the CITB’s operations, specifically the high administrative costs (over 12% of funds raised), and whether this level of expenditure is appropriate. He also sought clarification on the Government’s future plans for the CITB after the review recommended merging it with another industry training board (ITB). Although these are points of contention, they are presented as questions rather than outright opposition.

   Example: Neil O’Brien’s questions about the CITB’s strategic focus, the merger recommendation from the Mark Farmer review, and the efficiency of its operations. He specifically asked, “Does the Minister think that kind of share—£1 in every £8—is appropriate?”

2. Apprenticeship Levy and Skills Funding: Neil O’Brien also raised concerns about the potential impact of allowing employers to use apprenticeship levy funds for non-apprenticeship purposes and its effect on construction apprenticeships. He sought the Government’s assessment of the impact on apprenticeship starts and participation.

   Example: He mentioned the potential for fewer apprenticeships if funds are diverted from apprenticeships to other training and asked, “What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of allowing employers to take 50% out of their levy funds to spend on non-apprenticeships in, for example, construction?”

3. Level 7 Apprenticeships: There was a question about whether the Government would heed the appeals from professional bodies to protect level 7 apprenticeships in the built environment from planned cuts. This could be seen as a disagreement, but it was posed as a question rather than a definitive opposition stance.

   Example: Neil O’Brien raised the issue of level 7 apprenticeships and asked, “Will the Minister heed those warnings from a sector that is very worried about the Government’s plans by protecting level 7 construction apprenticeships from the planned cull?”

4. Minister’s Responses: In response, the Minister, Janet Daby, addressed these concerns and reiterated the Government’s commitment to the CITB’s role without immediately committing to legislative changes or answers about level 7 apprenticeships. The responses were more about clarifying the Government’s current stance and future considerations rather than engaging directly in conflict.

   Example: Janet Daby explained that no immediate plans exist to merge the ITBs and that the Government would work on implementing recommendations from the review in the near future. She also committed to providing further information on level 7 apprenticeships shortly.

Overall, the disagreement was present but managed constructively through questions and clarifications rather than overt opposition. The session remained focused on policy implications rather than escalating into a highly contentious debate.