Overhaul of the CITB?

The executive of the National Federation of Builders has called for further reforms to the CITB.

Part of their complaint was that the request for consensus has been delayed from this year to next due to CITB pausing some funding projects to accommodate a pause in levy collection to ease some of the financial burden on contractors resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. This move by the CITB has angered some, not least the NFB, it seems.

Naturally, the NFB is pushing its agenda on behalf of its members. Other trade federations will do the same for their members. And the CITB will defend itself as it sees fit, based in its mandate. It’s unlikely there will ever be a perfect match that makes all its stakeholders joyous. That’s why consensus is important.

A couple of interesting points were raised by the NFB. One was its “explicit recognition of the importance of a pan-industry approach to investing in skills for the sector and the aims of the CITB”.

This is also my opinion. Remove the CITB and there will be a gaping hole that will need filling with something like the CITB (maybe with a different name).

If that is the remedy, why not first try to fix what we know rather than reinvent a wheel that would look remarkably like its predecessor. Nor am I a big fan of name changes. They seem to cost millions and result in little more than the colours of a logo changing.

The NFB also raised a number of serious concerns with the delivery of the CITB aims, noting that the CITB had been asked to make changes three years ago. It seems changes made aren’t as specific or as prompt as the NFB desired.

I’m not a spokesmen for the CITB nor would I suggest I know what the industry as a whole truly wants of it – nor even what our sector as a whole wants. But I’ve seen fairly substantial changes at CITB. My hope is that whatever further changes might materialise, the future steering of the construction industry training provision recognises:

1)        That specialist construction sectors like the stone industry need a level of protection. Compared with mainstream construction the specialisms are less progressed because we were never a focus early on. This should be recognised and our needs catered for going forward

2)        The experienced yet uncertificated make-up of specialist sectors should be shown consideration and protection to enable them to continue to have access to on-site assessment of their skills through vocational qualifications. Remembering that our sector’s uptake of qualifications is dwarfed by the uptake of qualifications in mainstream trades, if we did not have the type of support the CITB currently offers it’s unlikely awarding bodies would be interested in the job titles (and their skills) that are currently available as VQs for stone workers.

3)        That the specialist sectors are the sectors that have the skills necessary to maintain the built heritage of this country. If these skills are not looked after they become lost for ever.

4)        That the specialist sector is made up of a higher proportion of SMEs than general construction, so it is important we are not lost in the detail of any overhaul.

Specialist Applied Skills Programme in Façade Preservation

I am happy to announce that the fee-neutral Façade Preservation SASP got underway on June 17 & 18 with learners from Stone Restoration Services, Stonewest and Szerelmey.

The course provides off-site training to complement in-work mentoring and assessment for the level 2 NVQ. The course is funded for CITB registered firms. A sister programme is also available for Stone Fixers.

Dichloromethane-based Paint Strippers

If you are furloughed or working from home and normally engage in façade cleaning work you might be interested to note that we offer the HSE Certificate of Competency for the Safe Use of Dichloromethane course remotely.

The course is a legal requirement for anyone engaged in the purchase or use of a paint stripper that contains Dichloromethane (also known as DCM). It is illegal in the UK for trades to use the chemical without the certificate of competency because the chemical can be dangerous if it is not handled properly. Fines and even imprisonment have been imposed recently on people who have used the chemical without having obtained the Certificate of Competency.