Employers have backed by a two-thirds majority a plan by the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) to continue its industry levy for the next three years.
The result had been heavily dependent on the support of so-called prescribed organisations such as Build UK, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association and the Federation of Master Builders, which were asked to speak on behalf of their member firms.
Of the 14 prescribed organisations, representing about 5,300 levy-paying members, 12 backed the CITB’s proposals, while only two – the National Federation of Builders and the Finishes and Interiors Sector (FIS) – opposed them.
The FIS said its members had “no confidence” in the levy, which is used to fund training and skills.
Among employers that are not members of one of these organisations, support is less clear-cut, especially among the smallest firms.
When 4,000 employers were contacted separately as part of a telephone survey, two-fifths of the micro-businesses questioned disagreed with the plan, along with 30 per cent of small firms, 26 per cent of large companies and 19 per cent of medium-sized outfits.
Support also varies across the UK, with over 70 per cent of employers in Scotland backing the changes compared with 64 per cent in Wales and less than 59 per cent in England.
Under the proposals, the levy rate would remain unchanged, with businesses charged at 0.35 per cent of all payments to direct employees and 1.25 per cent to subcontractors.
However, companies with a total wage bill of less than £150,000 would be exempted from the levy – up on the current threshold of £135,000.
Firms with a monthly wage bill of between £150,000 and £499,999 would qualify for a 50 per cent discount under the new arrangement.
Currently, only those whose wage bills between £135,000 and £449,999 are eligible for the discount.
The board said the approval rate of 67 per cent represented an increase from the last survey of employers four years ago, when 66.5 per cent backed the plans.
On the survey method, it said a combination of consultation with prescribed organisations and sampling of unrepresented employers was “more effective and practical” than attempting to engage the 27,500 employers liable to pay the levy.
The CITB added that using the prescribed organisations maximised the number of employers involved in the process in a cost-effective way.
“[They] also have unique sector insight and the ability to engage with their members collectively to consider whether each new CITB strategic plan and the levy proposals needed to fund this plan are adequate to support training within their specific sector,” it said.
The FIS, which opposed the changes, said its member firms had delivered their verdict on the levy. “This vote is a clear indication that the levy is not working for the majority of our members, that they have not seen enough improvement since the last consensus vote and do not have confidence that the proposed CITB strategic plan will do enough to shift the dial,” said chief executive Iain McIlwee.
“The skills issue is perhaps the biggest challenge facing construction, and any levy designed to alleviate this can only be judged by results.
“Members are simply not seeing the flow of people, the availability and quality of qualification provision, and access to the wider training they need, particularly to support the high levels of contingent workforce necessitated by procurement practices in the sector.”
The Scottish Building Federation said the support of its members for the levy reflected the vital role it played in training, apprenticeships and skills development within the Scottish construction sector.
“However, while the majority voted in favour, it is important to note that a third of our members expressed reservations and voted against the levy proposals: up from 26 per cent from the 2021 CITB consensus process,” said operations director Paul Mitchell.
“Feedback highlighted ongoing issues relating to craft apprenticeship qualifications, apprenticeship delivery models and – for our larger members – concerns around cost-effectiveness and value for money.
“We will be actively engaging with CITB to discuss these matters in detail and ensure that the needs of our members are fully considered moving forward.”
The results of the survey have been submitted to the Department for Education for ratification.