Menu
Social Networking
Latest files
Calendar
Victorian Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is credited as saying “there are three types of untruths: lies, damned lies and statistics”. With CITB now on the defensive as one of the quangos to be abolished or privatised, it relies increasingly on repeating untruths in the hope of clinging to its unwarranted existence.
If you repeat something often enough, no matter how untrue, eventually people will come to believe it. When Tony Bingham recently questioned the worth of CITB in Building magazine it generated defensive letters from current CITB chairman, James Wates, and his predecessor, Sir Michael Latham. We do not question their integrity but both have made statements that are gross distortions of fact, repeating the hype that ConstructionSkills surrounds itself with.
Two of the biggest myths that CITB pedals are that it is ‘industry-led’ and there is unanimous industry support for the levy. Michael Latham’s article opens with the claim that “they [industry] always come back with a unanimous recommendation that the levy and training grants should remain in place”. But that’s not quite true, is it Sir Michael? FPDC has seen the letters from last year and at least half of the letters from other federations say that they would prefer to have no base threshold, believing that all eligible companies should pay the levy. But ‘industry led’ CITB chooses to ignore this request – why? That’s easy: because if they were all included then CITB would have to prove it had their support and it doesn’t. CITB’s own board papers from 2008 show that ‘federated industry support’ fell to 49 per cent, below the 50 per cent it needs to legally stay in existence. But by raising the threshold, CITB is able to manipulate the figures so that it can claim just enough support to stay topside of 50 per cent and keep drawing those nice salaries (the previous CEO incidentally was on a steady £258,000pa + pension; not surprising that they think it’s wonderful….!)
In our opinion the biggest deceit is the continual repetition that this is what industry wants. We have now seen the questions that the ‘consensus’ federations get asked and, as we suspected, the questions asked are, “do you approve our levy proposals?” and, if we misleadingly tell you that we return £1.08 for every £1 levy, “do you think we’re good value?” but nowhere is the question “do your members want the levy system?” or “do your members know that the levy only exists because the government keeps being told by CITB that employers want it?”
The key to this distortion is the way that CITB particularly relies on two friendly umbrella bodies rather than asking industry directly. We’re sure it’s well meant but it distorts the truth. When the new CITB chief executive, Mark Farrar, was appointed two years ago, Building magazine carried out a direct phone poll with industry and the real voice of industry revealed that 74 per cent were very dissatisfied with CITB – and we doubt that things have got better since then. Interestingly, when interviewed, Mark Farrar seemed indifferent to the high level of unhappiness with his organisation and its poor performance, complacently believing that if industry did as it was told by CITB there would be no problems. So much for being ‘industry led’!
Sadly, the new CITB chairman, James Wates, chooses to echo Mark Farrar’s misplaced belief in the infallibility of the levy system, both failing to recognise that it is the outdated lumbering ineptitude of the organisation they lead that continually screws up something that looks like a good idea on paper.
The evidence of CITB’s unwillingness to learn is captured nicely in a recent letter to FPDC from Mark Farrar. In its fluffy website PR exercise, CITB says it is willing to engage with FPDC if we’re up to the challenge! How different that is to Mr Farrar’s direct response last week to our repeated request for FPDC to become a consulted federation: “The Board may, for example, take account of your federation’s current campaign for the abolition of CITB-ConstructionSkills in assessing the prospects of constructive engagement with this organisation.” for which read, “we’ll only let you in if you stop being nasty and only say nice things”!
FPDC welcomes the current attention being given to CITB’s very existence but the proposal to privatise CITB whilst still giving it statutory levy raising powers is alarming. The opportunity to manipulate the levy without any accountability is a frightening prospect and the construction industry deserves the right to choose how it trains itself. We are adults after all. We call on John Hayes MP, the Minister for Skills, to speak directly and independently with real employers before any decision is made. The future of training in construction deserves nothing less.
FPDC says ‘no’ to CITB privatisation in meeting with skills minister.
The appearance of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) on a list of quangos to be abolished has taken FPDC’s campaign about the unfairness of the training levy to a new level. FPDC CEO Paul Jessop said: “The appearance of CITB on the list of questionable quangos was a welcome development but the proposal to privatise CITB should be a causefor great alarm throughout construction.” Jessop added: “CITB/ConstructionSkills has now gone into PR overdrive, spending your levy money intended for training on publicity in an attempt to safeguard its own jobs whilst the construction industry struggles.”
In a move to head off lobbying by CITB, FPDC attended the Conservative Party conference and met with skills minister, John Hayes MP. The FPDC CEO said: “The minister was rightly concerned about finding a way to encourage training. He offered to meet with a group of trade association chiefs and contractors to discuss the problems with CITB before any decision was made by government. We hope he stands by that agreement.
“Our biggest concern now,” said Jessop, “is how a privatised body can raise a statutory levy? It would be a license to print money and raises serious legal questions; even John Hayes has indicated that the government is unsure how it will work. FPDC believes that construction should be able to make its own decisions on training and not be dictated to by a group that is pocketing the proceeds. CITB has shown that it can’t be trusted to run itself and main contractors are making a killing on the levy and they have far too much influence on how CITB operates; that is wrong! This is our best chance to get rid of the levy for ever and contractors need to make their wishes clear to government now.”
Where did £8.3m go?
There has been a bit of a stink during the last couple of months. No not the dreaded Comprehensive Spending Review, which incidentally has delivered a strong message to the country that says we simply cannot afford a lot of the luxuries that many of us had become used to.
It’s not the current state of affairs that concerns us but the future when the upturn comes. A well trained workforce is critical to the long term success of the whole construction industry.
The government wants to privatize Construction Skills; well not privatise it just make it responsible for generating its own income. Hang on a second, but CITB raises a statutory levy on the industry, but could a privatised body make payment mandatory?
FPDC doesn’t think it gets a good deal from Construction Skills and in September’s Specialist Building Finishes the Voice of the Industry gave a hard hitting view about what to do.
Understandably Construction Skills gave a robust defence and posted a vehement rebuttal to the claims of FPDC.
FPDC said Construction Skills does not listen to or work for its members so let’s get rid of them and find a better way. Construction Skills says FPDC is wrong and it does listen and consult and it’s not its fault. It’s raised standards and helped to establish new training capacity.
Construction Skills says it does work hard and it does deliver a lot of good and it’s not its fault that that the drywall and plastering industry won’t use it. But perhaps that’s because the courses the industry needs are just not there.
But then why pay £14.5 million a year in levy and only get back £6.2 million?. What happens to the £8.3m of levy paid by the interiors sector that is not distributed back to the sector?, Construction Skills declined to comment when asked.
Take a look at Construction Skills’ response to FPDC and make contact to ask for yourself. So visit http://www.cskills.org/newsandevents...-straight.aspx
We’d certainly like to hear from any specialist interior contractors to help us find the missing levy.
Adrian JG Marsh
Editor
These articles previously appeared in Specialist Building Finishes magazine.
Copyright belongs to http://www.fpdc.org
Currently Active Users
vBulletin Message