News

Report calls for CITB overhaul and more offsite to halt ‘inexorable decline’

Story for CM? Get in touch via email: [email protected]

Comments

  1. I agree there should be a overhaul within the CITB it’s about time there was some balance between the rich and the poor. Mick you make a very good point. I myself am 30 years of age and have decided that after being in the motor trade for the last 14 years that it was the right time for a career change. But trying on many occasions to enter the construction industry in the last 14 years at different levels I have now had to begin a BTEC course and will be working towards a HNC/HND in construction management.

    This will probably take up to 5 years to complete. I also assume there are many others doing the same thing and I have to say I am very concerned that there may not be a job for me by the time I am qualified. Even more so if Mr Farmer and the government believe that building more houses offsite in a factory environment at high volume is the right answer to address the housing crisis.

    The other thing I find a little ironic is in order to build these houses in this environment it means using wood a lot like America – yes there are a few man-made products available but overall you’re talking of chopping more trees down: sustainable or not is it not destroying a form of greenbelt land? We all know what it is like trying to build on greenbelt land don’t we? Sustainable employment is the right way to go… you’re right Mr Barnett.

  2. This is terrible news for the industry seeking higher skilled labour. Farmer’s response to the current problem is not to point out the absolute failure of the CITB, but to try to dumb down the skills required for tradespeople to match those of factory workers. And if we don’t comply, higher taxes! One failing quango now managing another failing quango…..and when this fails, rather than invest in training, let’s invest in another quango to manage the quango that is failing to get the first quango to do what it is suppose to do. Train people.

    This is an example of a preconceived report reviewing an incompetent organisation, with the goal of raising more money from SME’s and redistributing it to the big boys in the industry.

    Let’s get this straight, UK has a large existing stock of buildings and the construction industry needs higher skilled people on site. Not factory workers. An example is the quality of construction coming out of the net gainers from the CITB levy. Extremely poor quality works due to using British Standards as the quality benchmark, not what it is, which is the lowest possible quality before you can be easily sued.

    My company is small, but we spend a lot on training, we have between 4 and 6 apprentices at any one time, we invest in our tradesmen to go into further education to become the future industry professionals. But, last year I still paid out £10,000 to the CITB after rebates, which they then sent off to the big boys so they can produce terrible tradesmen.

    So yes, Farmer paints a gloomy picture of the current industry, but his ideas are bureaucratically tosh that won’t help train a single person in the higher skills necessary to be a good tradesman. His response, just make it easier and cheaper to build, forgetting of course the billions spent of existing stock properties where the skills are needed.

    The CIOB needs to step in here an call this the rubbish it is.

    Mick Barnett
    Construction Director
    OLF Construction

  3. Although I agree with a lot of the recommendations stated above, there is however a distinct lack of innovative thinking by many construction and civils companies.
    The main problem how I see it, is that unfortunately the main driver behind the majority of projects is cost, and those placing the orders for materials, products and service having little or no insight into the benefits that a lot of the more innovative designs and materials that if used effectively on site, can save costs and bring a whole honest of benefits to a project, unfortunately the bottom line cost is looked at before the benefits are..
    One further point I wholeheartedly agree with is that their is a lack of focused and effective training within the industry and, to be brutally honest, too many people that couldn’t care less that is only dragging the reputation of the industry even further down.
    There certainly doesn’t seam to much pride in doing a good job anymore these days, with corners being cut and mistakes being covered up or hidden.
    The industry does need a big shake-up, with a tightening up of quality and control to bring the industry back to a point where people with the right skills set and knowledge are knocking down doors to want join a professional industry with an ideal reputation of being the best in the world.

  4. This was a government backed independent review?

    It really saddens me to read that £3bn of government funding is set aside for the innovative marketing of buildings that will not be sustainable, or for that matter last for very long at all.

    There are no references for the facts that Farmer put forward as the “inexorable decline of the industry”, or the lack of collaboration etc. Or any suitable meaningful explanation for why he thinks this. Only that the industry lacks innovation. Really? What about the existing workforce, and what about buildings that already exist? Here is where many of the skills are needed.

    These skills come from time-served craftspeople that learn to ‘build’ with accuracy, precision, with different materials using different tools/machines – and then they develop speed. The skills of the industry can’t just be learnt by creating “new innovative training” – it’s far from reality, and it’s not effective. Construction materials and methods do change but we can’t just ignore our buildings that already are standing!

    Where is RICS in all of this review? And where are the industry stakeholders who contribute to the broader landscape of construction, and the workers? UCATT for instance. Why are reviews always geared towards the benefit of big profits, expedient building? And the blame is always placed on the lack of skills?

    The UK has a wonderful heritage of historic buildings, and traditionally built properties, that need repairs, or upgrading, these will far out last the flatpack houses that Farmer is encouraging.

    What’s quite worrying is that he recommends that the CITB look at training, and skills that relate directly to the construction industry. The epic fail that Farmer falls down with is that the construction industry currently runs in an iterate fragmented manner that can’t even define the meaning of competency within in its own legislation as such to date there are over 400 accredited courses, and over 300 card schemes (Pye & Tait consultancy, 2011).

    The CITB are restructuring the grant funding, and it’s important that the industry of construction workers speak up. Otherwise surely the likes of property consultants will be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a government that will funding the big corporates that love to capitalise on.

    Shortage of skilled workers doesn’t mean that the construction of homes should made of materials that are just simpler to construct.

    Register an interest to the CITB people!

    C’mon industry speak up!

  5. Hi, I totally agree CITB needs to change but the whole method of training in the construction industry needs to change. How you can produce a trade’s man/woman in less than two years is farcical. Whilst the young individuals show enthusiasm and drive to join our industry they don’t get the benefits of long term commitment from employers or CITB under the current apprenticeship routes.
    I appreciate I’m old school, but an apprentice many years ago was guaranteed a position for 3-5 years and developed their trade by shadowing a quality tradesman/women. They learnt everything to know about the chosen trade, they went on to develop their skills and knowledge of other trades and the integration of other trades in to the projects they were building.
    Sadly this no long happens, which is why the industry has been delivering substandard building projects. The training and development of our industry is responsible for delivering poor quality and a low level of professionalism within our trades.
    Finally whist moaning, how can CITB promote the need for SMSTS training courses for our site managers yet CSCS doesn’t recognise this as a Site Managers qualification and wont issue CSCS card with the SMSTS accreditation on the managers card unless the individual person is forced down the route of an NVQ 6-7.
    We have very competent site managers who have developed the knowledge/experience and more importantly the life skills through 20-30 years’ experience of being in the industry working within their chosen field.
    These guys do not want to go through NVQs as well as all the statutory training and development they have to do to carry out their duties correctly.
    It is farcical to think my site managers have a basic operative’s card but can and do very well manage construction projects. YES WE NEED CHANGE

Comments are closed.

Latest articles in News