Open consultation

Industry Training Board reform

Published 23 March 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Introduction

This consultation seeks views on the government’s proposal to bring together the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) and the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) to create a single, unified Industry Training Board (ITB) to act on behalf of the construction and engineering construction sectors. The consultation also seeks initial views on 2 areas for future ITB reform.

About this consultation

Who this consultation is for

This consultation is principally aimed at the construction and engineering construction sectors. We particularly welcome responses from:

• construction and engineering construction employers registered for the CITB and ECITB levies in England, Scotland and Wales
• employer and workforce representative bodies for these sectors, including ITB prescribed organisations and trade unions

We also welcome feedback from other parties with an interest in construction and engineering construction skills including:

• local and regional government bodies
• businesses in related sectors that rely on these skills
• colleges and other apprenticeship, training and qualification providers
• organisations supporting the training of people in the construction and engineering construction industries with special educational needs and disabilities

We are consulting separately with the Devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland has its own levy-raising CITB, which is a separate entity and does not form part of this consultation.

Purpose of the consultation

The government proposes to establish a single, unified Industry Training Board, which would serve the combined construction and engineering construction sectors, currently supported by the CITB and ECITB. Before a change of this nature can be made, government must consult affected industry.

Scope of consultation

This consultation applies to England, Scotland and Wales.

Duration of the consultation

The consultation period begins on Monday 23 March 2026 and runs until 11:59pm on Sunday 14 June 2026.

Government response

We will aim to publish the government response to the consultation on the GOV.UK website within 12 working weeks, subject to consultation with devolved governments.

The report will summarise the responses and clearly identify any next steps.

How we consult

Consultation principles

This consultation is being conducted in line with the revised Cabinet Office consultation principles published in January 2016. These principles give clear guidance to government departments on conducting consultations.

Feedback on the consultation process

We value your feedback on how well we consult. If you have any comments about the consultation process (as opposed to comments about the issues which are the subject of the consultation), please email them to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Consultation Coordinator. These could include if you feel that the consultation does not adhere to the values expressed in the consultation principles or that the process could be improved.

DWP Consultation Coordinator
2nd Floor
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9NA

Email: caxtonhouse.legislation@dwp.gov.uk

Privacy Statement

As part of this consultation, DWP will collect, store, and analyse the responses you provide. We may use AI‑assisted tools to help us review and understand the themes and issues raised across the responses. These tools may form part of the analysis process and could be used alongside wider analytical approaches. The information you provide may be shared with relevant teams within DWP, and with other government departments. We may draw on your responses when producing summaries of the feedback received and when preparing a published consultation report.

Freedom of Information

All information contained in your response, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure if requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. By providing personal information for the purposes of the public consultation exercise, it is understood that you consent to its disclosure and publication. If this is not the case, you should limit any personal information provided or remove it completely. If you want the information in your response to the consultation to be kept confidential, you should explain why as part of your response, although we cannot guarantee to do this.

To find out more about the general principles of Freedom of Information and how it is applied within DWP, please contact the Central Freedom of Information Team.

Email: freedom-of-information-request@dwp.gov.uk

The Central Freedom of Information team cannot advise on specific consultation exercises, only on Freedom of Information issues. Read more information about the Freedom of Information Act.

How to respond to this consultation

This consultation document makes the following proposal.

The Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) and the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) should be brought together to create a single, unified Industry Training Board (ITB) to support the skills needs of employers in its combined sectors in England, Scotland and Wales

The proposal sets out:

• the rationale for ITB reform, including the skills challenges the reform seeks to address
• the proposed approach to ITB reform and the intended benefits of a single, unified ITB
• the technical detail of creating a single, unified ITB, including implications for its governance, levy arrangements and skills offers
• alternative approaches to ITB reform that were considered

We would like to hear your views on our proposals, as well as any views on 2 potential areas for future ITB reform. These are:

• whether further changes should be considered to the employer activity in scope of a single ITB
• whether the maximum period for an ITB Levy Order should be extended beyond 3 years

Respond online

To help us analyse the responses please use our online Microsoft (MS) Forms link wherever possible.

Visit ITB Reform Consultation to submit your response.

Other ways to respond

If for exceptional reasons, you are unable to use the online system, for example because you use specialist accessibility software that is not compatible with the system, you may request an alternative format of the online form and/or submit your answers by email or post.

By email: itbreform.consultation@dwp.gov.uk

By post:
DWP 2nd Floor
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9NA

Deadline

The consultation closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 14 June 2026.

Proposal: Creating a single, unified Industry Training Board from the ECITB and CITB

The rationale for reform of the ECITB and CITB

The skills challenges we are seeking to address

The government’s Plan for Change and the Industrial Strategy depend on a sufficiently skilled and resourced construction and engineering construction workforce. Meeting the current and future skills needs of these sectors is vital to our commitment to delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes over this Parliament and upgrading existing homes so they are comfortable and cheaper to heat, making Britain a clean energy superpower and building the roads, rail and social infrastructure essential to our economic growth.

The construction industry alone contributed almost £140 billion to the UK economy (or 6.2%) in gross value added in 2022^{[footnote 1]} and its contribution as an enabler of productivity in other sectors is even greater. Estimates of the contribution of the engineering construction industry in 2015 vary from £33 billion in gross value added, rising to £100 billion when considering the total production of the sectors serviced by the engineering construction industry.^{[footnote 2]}

A skilled construction and engineering construction workforce also means hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs,^{[footnote 3]} creating opportunity and economic security for workers and their communities. In 2024, the CITB’s estimates indicated that almost 2.6 million people worked in the construction industry across England, Scotland and Wales.^{[footnote 4]} While it is difficult to make direct comparisons for engineering construction, the ECITB’s 2024 workforce census estimated that employers in scope of its levy employed over 90,000 people.^{[footnote 5]} Previous estimates for the broader engineering construction industry have suggested a workforce of around 188,000, with an aggregate employment impact of close to 750,000.^{[footnote 6]}

Government is already making significant investments in construction and engineering skills, including:

• £625 million through the Construction Skills Package^{[footnote 7]}
• £182 million through the Engineering Skills Package and further investments including those outlined in the Warm Homes Plan, the North Sea Future Plan and the Clean Energy Jobs Plan^{[footnote 8]}

The CITB and ECITB are important catalysts of employer investment in construction and engineering construction skills, generating over £250 million a year in combined funding for training through their levies. The CITB and ECITB are also both important members of the Construction Skills Mission Board. This industry-led board represents a collaborative partnership between industry and government, working together to address the industry’s skills challenges and future workforce needs. The CITB provides the board’s secretariat, while both organisations deliver aligned projects spanning skills intelligence, local coordination, and new entrant and brokerage support.

The sector targeted interventions, highlighted above, are part of significant government investment in skills overall. In England, this includes around £1.4 billion provided through the Adult Skills Fund (ASF) in the 2025 to 2026 academic year and an apprenticeships budget of over £3 billion for the 2025 to 2026 financial year.

Despite this substantial investment, employers in construction and engineering construction sectors face significant longstanding and future challenges in recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce. The reasons behind these challenges are multiple and complex, but a range of evidence, including the CITB’s recent report, the Industry Picture,^{[footnote 9]} the ECITB’s 2024 Workforce Census^{[footnote 10]} and Skills England’s sector skills needs assessments, ^{[footnote 11]} highlight the significant pressures that are driving workforce constraints.

Too few people are entering the workforce

Competition for talent is a longstanding constraint on workforce capacity. Employers cite a lack of work experience as a barrier to recruitment and yet studies suggest only 21% of construction businesses employ apprentices and only 31% of construction employers offered any type of work placement, constricting the pipeline of new entrants into the workforce.^{[footnote 12]}

The constraints of contract work are a contributory factor across construction and engineering construction, with risks to employers in committing to recruitment ahead of confirmed demand and limits on the number of unqualified workers that can be accommodated in safety critical site environments. High levels of sub-contracting, as well as large numbers of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and self-employed staff, particularly in construction also act as barriers to the take up of new entrants.

Despite recent improvements, low completion and retention rates further undermine the pipeline of new entrants. Apprenticeship achievement rates in Construction, Planning and the Built Environment subjects in England were 57% in 2023/24, the second lowest of all sector subject areas, and achievement rates in Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies were 64%, ^{[footnote 13]} which represents thousands of uncompleted apprenticeships.

Experienced workers are leaving at all stages of their career

Evidence suggests that more people may be leaving the construction and engineering construction workforces each year than joining. The average age of the construction workforce is now over 42 and rising. Around 35% of construction workers are aged over 50 and the proportion of workers aged over 55 has risen from around 13% in 2000 to around 24% in 2023,^{[footnote 14]} with estimates of up to 750,000 construction retirements between 2021 and 2036.^{[footnote 15]}

A similar proportion of engineering construction workers are also over 50 (38%), rising to over 40% in the oil and gas, chemicals and food and drink sectors. Engineering Construction has seen a rise in workers under the age of 30 (rising from around 15% in 2021 to around 17% in 2024), however, this is not sufficient to counterbalance the impact of the upcoming wave of likely retirements. This is especially true for craft roles, where the average worker tends to be older than the industry average. For example, around 30% of platers are aged over 60, compared to about 15% of the entire industry workforce.^{[footnote 16]}

Retention is, however, an issue at all career stages and the loss of skills and experience from the workforce cannot be compensated for by increasing new entrants alone.

Lack of skills is a significant barrier to recruitment

In construction, 45% of vacancies are estimated to be hard to fill due to skills shortages. While this is an improvement on previous years, construction remains the highest of any sector in the Employer Skills Survey.^{[footnote 17]} Around, 30% of construction employers surveyed said finding suitably skilled staff was their key challenge.^{[footnote 18]} Employers report that these skills related vacancies are leading to a range of issues, including increased workloads for other staff, increased operating costs and loss of business.

The impact of skills on recruitment appears to be particularly felt by smaller businesses, with 61% of micro and SME building firms reporting being affected by skilled labour shortages, resulting in job delays for 49% of firms and cancellations for 23%.^{[footnote 19]}

In engineering construction, over 70% of employers who answered questions on hiring difficulties reported experiencing challenges in hiring. The main reason cited was a lack of candidates with qualifications and relevant skills (55%). In 2024, it was estimated that engineering construction companies collectively struggled to fill vacancies representing 4.8% of the total workforce, up from 2.5% in 2021.^{[footnote 20]}

Skills shortages are a critical constraint on productivity growth

The scale of forecast demand for construction and engineering construction output is unlikely to be addressed through increased recruitment and retention alone. A significant proportion of skills training and investment is necessarily focussed on reskilling and upskilling the existing workforce. Construction, however, has had the lowest productivity and research and development investment rates of any UK industrial sector over the past 2 decades,^{[footnote 21]} with productivity increasing by just 0.4% annually.^{[footnote 22]} While direct comparisons between industries are difficult, output per worker per hour in construction lagged 13.5% below the economy average.^{[footnote 23]}

Alongside securing overall increases in the size of the workforce, increasing levels of competence and securing new skills in areas such as digital capabilities and modern construction methods, will be vital to reducing inefficiency, error and waste. It is estimated that these inefficiencies account for up to 20-30% of construction costs on many projects^{[footnote 24]} and the annual cost of errors is estimated to be as much as 7 times the construction industry’s total annual profit^{[footnote 25]}. Employers forecast significant demand for new skills from trends that will demand reskilling and upskilling of the workforce, in areas such as automation, modern methods of construction, net zero and green infrastructure priorities.^{[footnote 26]} It is estimated that almost 30% of construction sector jobs will require new skills to support the UK’s transition to net zero.^{[footnote 27]} Inefficiencies in current practice, however, undermine the capacity of industry to invest in modernising the skills of their workforce.

There are barriers to the portability of skills within the labour market

Supporting transferability of existing skills is also vital to the resilience of the construction and engineering construction workforce and its capacity to meet forecast demand for skills across different sectors. For example, it has been estimated that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have skills with a medium to high transferability to offshore renewables.^{[footnote 28]}

There are clear and necessary distinctions in the assessment and demonstration of competence between different sectors. There are also consistent challenges that act as a barrier to the transfer of skills between related sectors and point to wider opportunities to develop shared models of good practice. These include fragmented systems for evidencing competence and recognising prior learning, a lack of shared, trusted and portable mechanisms to verify skills, repeated training or reassessment due to lack of recognition across employers or projects and increasing regulatory scrutiny of competence management.

The combined impact of skills challenges undermines workforce resilience

In combination, the factors described above mean that forecast demand for construction and engineering construction workers is outstripping the supply of new entrants, with too many experienced workers leaving. The productivity of the current workforce is not improving at a sufficient rate to plug the gap in output and is further hampered by barriers to aligning existing workforce skills with labour market demand.

The ability of industry to invest in skills is also under pressure from its cyclical nature and the current economic conditions, creating a tension between forecast demand and a lack of employer confidence to increase their workforce ahead of a recovery in output. In the 3 months to January 2026, there were around 28,000 job vacancies in the UK construction sector (seasonally adjusted).^{[footnote 29]} This was around 13,000 fewer vacancies than the same period in 2025. The CITB forecast a potential need for around 240,000 more UK construction workers by 2030,^{[footnote 30]} whereas the ECITB forecasts potential demand for around 40,000 additional engineering construction roles based on publicly stated timescales for projects^{[footnote 31]}.

These forecasts reflect business as usual assumptions. The number of construction workers needed could increase by around 110,000 workers per year, on average, to meet government ambitions around new homes, retrofit targets and long‑term infrastructure programmes.^{[footnote 32]} The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) estimates that delivery of the Pipeline of major UK capital infrastructure will require an estimated annual average workforce of between 629,000 and 706,000 over the next 5 years. Construction jobs account for over two-thirds of this demand, with education and health infrastructure contributing the largest share.^{[footnote 33]}

Bridging the gap between the capacity of industry to absorb and retain workers, and the need for it to increase workforce capacity to meet forecast demand for future work is at the heart of many of the skills challenges faced by the construction and engineering construction sectors.

The role of the ITBs in meeting skills needs

The significant shared challenges highlighted above underline the need for reform to deliver a more strategic, coordinated and efficient approach to skills planning, with diverse and flexible training pathways that support a more resilient construction and engineering workforce.

The CITB and ECITB were established with the same core purpose, to address market failure in training for their industry, where vital skills development would not occur without coordinated intervention. They play a central role in building workforce capability and investing in skills training for construction and engineering construction employers across England, Scotland and Wales. These sectors are critical to the UK economy and meeting their skills needs underpins the government’s Plan for Change, including its core missions to kickstart economic growth, break down barriers to opportunity and make Britain a clean energy superpower.

The information below highlights the similarities and differences between the CITB and ECITB in their purpose, characteristics and activities.

Purpose and focus of the ITBs

Statutory purpose: both ECITB and CITB

Making better provision for the training of persons over compulsory school age (in Scotland school age) for employment in any activities of the specified industry.

Status: both ECITB and CITB

Non-departmental public bodies and registered charities.

Geographic scope: both ECITB and CITB

England, Scotland and Wales.

Geographic status: ECITB only

The ECITB also operates across the UK Continental Shelf for oil and gas, and within the 12 nautical mile limit for other engineering construction facilities (such as offshore windfarms).

Specified industry: CITB only

Employers engaged in specified activities in construction-related sectors, such as building construction and structural work, building services and interior installation, building fabric maintenance and repair, roofing and cladding, groundworks, civil engineering and infrastructure, insulation and environmental control, specialist construction trades and labour supply for construction.

Specified industry: ECITB only

Employers engaged in specified activities in the engineering design, project management, project controls, construction, repair, maintenance and decommissioning of process plant and machinery spanning the energy, infrastructure and other major process industries. Sectors include oil and gas, power generation, nuclear, renewables, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food processing and water treatment.

Sources:

Industrial Training Act 1982

The Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order 1964 (Amendment) Order 1992

The Industrial Training (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1991

Comparison of the size and funding of the ITBs

Employers in scope of the levy

	CITB (2024–25)	ECITB (2024)
Full levy payers	9,164	242
Reduced levy payers	8,934	Not applicable
Exempt employers	29,280	55

Note: The CITB (2024–25) figures are based on currently submitted levy returns. There are an estimated 22,000 additional employers yet to submit a levy return and therefore of unknown status, although the majority are expected to be exempt.

Proposed levy rates (% of gross labour emoluments)

	CITB	ECITB
PAYE	0.35%	Not applicable
Taxable Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) subcontractors	1.25%	Not applicable
Site workers	Not applicable	1.2%
Offsite workers	Not applicable	0.33%

Annual levy funding and additional income

	CITB	ECITB
Annual levy funding (2024–25)	c. £228 million	c. £35 million in 2024–25
Additional income (2024–25)	£45.6 million – made up of apprenticeship delivery contracts and commercial income, mainly derived from sales of courses, tests and associated publications.	c. £4 million – made up of commercial income mainly derived from ECITB’s licenced training standards and courses, delivered both in Great Britain and internationally.

Sources:

Annual report and accounts for the year ending 31 March 2025, CITB (2025)

Engineering Construction Industry Training Board report of the trustees and accounts for the year ended 31 December 2024, ECITB (2025)

Strategic Plan - CITB, CITB (2025)

ECITB Strategy 2026-2030 - ECITB, ECITB (2026)

Business Plan - CITB, CITB (2025)

ECITB Business Plan 2026, ECITB (2026)

Comparison of the activities of the ITBs

Labour Market Intelligence: both ECITB and CITB

Conduct and publish research and data insights into the skills and workforce needs of their respective sectors, including occupational demand forecasting, skills supply analysis and thematic research to inform decision making by government, businesses, individuals and training providers.

Labour Market Intelligence: ECITB only

Three-year workforce census of the engineering construction industry.

Grants and support for employers and learners: both ECITB and CITB

Develop and provide a range of grants and support to employers to increase take up of apprenticeships and other new entrant training, and to upskill or reskill the existing workforce to ensure clear routes to competence and support other industry critical, safety and specialist training. The specific grant and support offers vary between the ITBs and different target groups within industry.

Promote clear and attractive career pathways within the industry to potential new entrants and the existing workforce.

Standards and competence setting: both ECITB and CITB

Develop national occupational standards for use in Scotland and Wales and inform the development of occupational standards in England (overseen by Skills England), which underpin the content of apprenticeships and vocational training.

Develop and maintain competence standards for their industry, supporting consistency and transferability in the validation of worker competence.

Standards and competence setting: ECITB only

Design and award vocational qualifications for its industry as a regulated awarding organisation in England, Scotland and Wales.

Training delivery: both ECITB and CITB

Capital and operational funding to build capacity of providers to increase uptake of skills training in areas of high demand and improve outcomes.

License and oversee delivery of approved courses through approved training providers in England, Scotland and Wales.

Training delivery: CITB only

Operate the National Construction College to deliver specialist construction training.

Training delivery: ECITB only

License and oversee delivery of approved courses through approved training providers internationally.

Deliver e-learning training provision free of charge at the point of access for ECITB registered employers.

The case for ITB reform

The 2023 Industry Training Board (ITB) review by Mark Farmer emphasised the ITBs’ important role in developing industry skills, raising competency and improving productivity.^{[footnote 34]} The review highlighted that both ITBs were developing strategic programmes that demonstrate value and provide a platform for greater alignment, scaling and impact, particularly around:

• competence standards, including ECITB’s work on Connected Competence, which was cited as a strong example of industry‑relevant skills assurance that has potential for wider scaling
• new entrant development, with programmes, such as ECITB Scholarships and CITB’s Shared Apprenticeships Scheme, having the potential to expand the pipeline of talent entering the workforce
• regional skills planning, including the development of ECITB’s regional skills hubs to localise skills planning around major projects and better match training provision with regional industry needs
• improved Employer Engagement, with CITB’s rollout of Employer Networks and enhancements at the National Construction Colleges recognised as steps toward a more responsive and employer-led training system
• emerging good practice in collaborative workforce planning between the ITBs for major projects to support more coherent, whole‑career workforce pathways across civil and engineering construction (see joint working examples below)

There is a strong foundation of joint working between the CITB and ECITB on which to build

Analysis and forecasting for major national infrastructure programmes

• Long standing partnership in labour market intelligence and workforce forecasting, collaborating for over 20 years to provide clear, credible insight where construction and engineering construction overlap.
• Joint capability underpins government commissioned skills forecasting for major national infrastructure programmes, most recently for the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), and provides a single, consistent view of future skills supply and demand.

Trainer and assessor best practice sharing

• Working closely to strengthen the trainer and assessor workforce across construction and engineering construction.
• Jointly share insight, research, and evaluation, and regularly engage with government to support the development of national initiatives such as the Dual Professional Model and the Training Industry Experience (TIE) programme, providing practical, evidence-based feedback grounded in real sector experience.

Sizewell C Skills Charter

• Partnership between ITBs, Sizewell C, Suffolk County Council, and East Suffolk Council to support the workforce and skills needs of the Sizewell C nuclear programme.
• Formally strengthened through a jointly signed Skills Charter, which sets out shared commitments to high quality training, expanded entry pathways, and improved upskilling and mobility across the project.

The Farmer Review, however, also made a strong case for ITB reform. It concluded that the current model, whilst enabling worthwhile training, was not delivering the level of strategic forward thinking, scale and pace of influence or tangible bottom line impact that the industry required to future proof it against the significant workforce issues it faces. The Review recommended a refocused ITB strategy spanning attraction, training, retraining and retention, to drive productivity and capacity. A key element of this refocused strategy was a proposed formation of a single, unified body from the CITB and ECITB – an approach that the government partially accepted, subject to further scoping. ^{[footnote 35]}

Both ITBs serve employer sectors with specific skills needs. Maintaining sector expertise will remain central to any reform. As set out above, however, there is substantial common ground in the challenges they face in meeting employers’ skills needs. Recognising there are barriers to recruitment and retention that are outside of the scope of the ITBs to influence, overcoming the shared challenges they face requires concerted action that goes beyond the total volume of training delivered to target investment at activity that increases employers’ access to a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. This includes action to:

• strengthen the pipeline of new entrants into the workforce
• develop flexible training offers and common competence frameworks that improve retention and productivity, and increase the portability of skills within the labour market, in line with employers’ evolving skills needs e.g. modular training programmes
• encourage and support businesses, particularly SMEs, to increase their take up of skills training
• provide end to end planning for the skills needs of major projects, in collaboration with industry clients and asset owners

The significant similarities between the ITBs’ current operating models also create opportunities for more strategic and efficient use of resources to meet these shared challenges, in areas such as:

• broader skills and labour market analysis
• standards and curriculum development
• common competence frameworks
• targeted grant funding
• employer engagement and support
• careers promotion and guidance

Removing duplication, increasing the sharing of effective practice and promoting innovation across these areas would free resources that can be refocused to meet industry wide and sector specific skills needs, maximising the return on employers’ levy contributions.

In April 2025, the Cabinet Office launched a major review of all Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs) aimed at ensuring a more productive, agile state aligned with the Government’s Plan for Change. ALBs were assessed against 4 principles: ministerial oversight, efficiency, stakeholder engagement and the provision of independent advice, with a view to close, merge or bring their functions back into departments if their continued existence could not be justified.

Through this assessment, the government’s preferred outcome is to retain the CITB and ECITB’s functions within an ALB, but to establish a single, unified body to carry them out on behalf of the combined construction and engineering construction sectors. A decision on whether to proceed with this approach is subject to this consultation with industry and consultation with the Devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales. Ministers in both Scotland and Wales have expressed support for consulting industry on these proposals.

Proposed approach to ITB reform

Aims and vision for ITB reform

The government’s overarching aim for ITB reform is to support economic growth and expand opportunity by increasing the impact, efficiency and strategic clarity of skills planning and development for the construction and engineering construction workforces in England, Scotland and Wales.

Our vision to achieve this aim is a single, effective and efficient ITB with a unified skills strategy and delivery plan, which is integrated within the wider skills systems of England, Scotland and Wales. This reformed body would retain strong sector‑specific expertise and geographic breadth while providing clear, system‑wide strategic leadership and deploying shared resources efficiently to achieve maximum impact and value for money. It would remain industry‑led and operationally independent, working in partnership with government and building on the ITBs’ past successes to secure the skilled workforce industry needs now and for the future.

The intended benefits of a single, unified ITB

A single, unified ITB is both a driver and enabler of the reform that is required to meet the scale of the skills challenges faced by construction and engineering construction sectors. Retaining the ITB model would ensure the unified body remains industry-led and operationally independent. It would be for the single ITB to develop the details of its skills strategy, levy proposals and operating model. This would be done by building on what works and is valued by employers within the ITBs’ existing offers, while maximising the benefits of a single body to become a more strategic workforce planning and development partner to industry.

Employers can expect to see:

1. Greater capacity and reach to achieve impact at scale across the ITB’s combined industry with increased value for money from its levy funding – A single ITB with shared infrastructure and resources would preserve sector expertise to tackle specialist skills needs while maximising its overall capacity and broadening its combined reach. It would facilitate the spread of best practice in meeting skills needs between sectors and drive greater value for employers from its levy income by eliminating duplication in processes, increasing efficiency and using its combined influence to leverage additional funding to better meet employers’ skills needs.
2. Increased influence and strategic leadership in the skills system – A single ITB would engage national and devolved governments, regional authorities, training providers and other stakeholders with a unified, authoritative voice, shaping the development and delivery of skills policy on behalf of its combined industry.
3. Provision of programmatic support and an evidence‑driven approach to workforce planning – A single ITB would support critical and strategic change programmes that deliver increased capability, capacity, competency and diversity. Working with partners, such as Skills England, it would pool data and insights across its combined sectors to provide richer labour‑market intelligence and increased understanding of skills pipelines. This would enable more informed assessments of current and future workforce demand for in-scope employer activities– from major infrastructure and industrial services to homebuilding, retrofit, process engineering and repair.
4. More strategic use of levy funding – A single ITB would use its improved evidence base and continued active engagement of industry to target levy investment on interventions proven to have the greatest impact for employers on productivity and workforce resilience. It would continue to support both sector‑specific needs and shared skills priorities to drive greater collective value from levy funding. It would also enhance localised and project specific skills support, with full lifecycle skills planning for major infrastructure projects.
5. Clearer and more flexible skills pathways that increase employers’ access to skilled workers – A single ITB would have a clear mandate to work with national, regional and local partners to develop and promote coherent career pathways across related sectors in its combined scope, increasing uptake of new entrants and strengthening the retention and reskilling of the existing workforce. These pathways would be underpinned by industry-approved standards and common competence frameworks that meet employer needs and benefit learners by increasing the portability of skills within the labour market. A unified ITB would increase employers’ and learners’ access to training that is responsive to their needs by encouraging the expansion of effective programmes within the ITBs’ currently separate offers to new sectors and maximising shared capacity to support the development of quality assured, innovative and flexible training offers, with additional support to help SMEs navigate the skills system.

The costs and risks of a single, unified ITB

Transition to a single ITB would incur costs to administer, which would need to be funded from the ITB’s existing budgets. These costs would be set against any longer-term savings from increased efficiencies.

There is a risk that a single ITB could diminish the current level of influence of specific sectors over the ITB’s strategy and levy proposals when compared with separate ITBs, although there are mitigations against this risk.

A single ITB would have a single overall board, rather than separate boards for construction and engineering construction. This single board would be required to act in the interests of all the employer sectors it represents, although it may need to balance these interests in some circumstances. To support this balance, membership of the board would be expected to be representative of the breadth of in-scope employers in construction and engineering construction. While a single ITB would remain operationally independent, board appointments would continue to be made by the Secretary of State, providing an external check on the effectiveness of the board’s representation. While its operating model would be a decision for the ITB’s board, a single ITB could establish sector-specific sub-committees and organise itself around dedicated teams with deep expertise relevant to different parts of the construction and engineering construction sectors, as proposed by the Farmer Review.

A single ITB would have a single Levy Order, rather than separate Orders for construction and engineering construction, although the Order could continue to set different levy rates for different categories of employer or employer activity. Approval of the Order by the Secretary of State would consider the combined construction and engineering construction sectors when deciding whether the proposals are necessary and demonstrate majority support from employers likely to pay the levy, rather than considering these groups separately, as happens currently. Consultation with industry on the levy proposals would, however, continue to consider the needs of the range of construction and engineering construction employers within scope of the Order across England, Scotland and Wales. Demonstrating breadth of support for the levy proposals would be an important consideration in the approval process.

A single ITB would have a single overall strategy, which could create a risk of trade-offs between competing needs. The strategy would, however, be expected to reflect the breadth of needs of employers within the scope of a single ITB and could distinguish between the needs of different sectors. The Secretary of State would continue to have a role in approving the ITB’s proposals for the exercise of its functions, providing an external check on whether these proposals reflect the breadth of views held by the sectors represented by the ITB.

Technical detail of our proposal to form a single ITB

The decision on whether to proceed with establishing a single ITB will take account of the views expressed through this consultation and those of the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Should a decision be taken to establish a single ITB, further work would take place on the details of this process, reflecting the views expressed. A summary of the process for establishing a single ITB and the implications for its operation and delivery are, however, provided below to support this consultation.

As a principle, the process for transitioning to a single ITB would prioritise stability and fairness for employers in levy collection and skills support to allow time for the ITBs to engage employers and representative bodies on the development of the future skills strategy and levy proposals.

Establishing a single ITB in legislation

Using powers in the Industrial Training Act, 1982, one of the current ITBs would be closed and the scope of the remaining ITB would be expanded to cover the combined construction and engineering construction sectors, currently represented by the CITB and ECITB. The scope of the single ITB would continue to encompass industry in England, Scotland and Wales, reflecting the skills needs of employers in these countries and their specific skills systems. Staff and assets from the closing ITB would transfer to create a single, unified body with the remit and resources to deliver its combined remit. This single ITB would be renamed to reflect its broader scope.

The government would work with the current ITBs’ boards to support them in this process and in fulfilling their obligations as charity trustees.

Governance of a single ITB

A new chair would be appointed through the public appointments process to lead the single ITB, along with the addition of new board members to ensure appropriate representation across the breadth of construction and engineering construction sectors. The requirement for a majority of board members to come from industry would remain.

Implications for the CITB’s and ECITB’s current skills offer and the future offer of a single ITB

The ITBs would continue to be responsible for operational decisions about their skills offer. The CITB and ECITB have committed to maintaining their current skills offers during any transition to a single ITB, unless there are compelling operational reasons to change.

Under this commitment, the CITB and ECITB’s existing offers would continue while engagement takes place with employers on a single ITB’s future strategy, building on what currently works well while evolving its support over time to maximise the opportunities of a single body for greater impact and efficiency.

Implications for levy collection

The approach to levy funding would aim to ensure continuity in ITB funding through the transition to a single ITB, alongside stability and fairness for employers.

It is proposed that the CITB and ECITB’s current levy arrangements would remain in place until a single ITB is established. The single ITB would continue to collect any outstanding levy payments from both construction and engineering construction levy payers.

A new Levy Order would be introduced to commence after the move to a single ITB, enabling continuity in the ITB’s funding. As is currently the case, this Levy Order would be subject to Parliamentary approval. Any changes to the arrangements within the CITB and ECITB’s existing Levy Orders would only occur after consultation with industry.

Timeframe for establishing a single ITB

Should a decision be taken to proceed with a single ITB, it is anticipated it would be established in the first quarter of 2028. This timeframe anticipates joint work ahead of this point between the ECITB and CITB to engage construction and engineering construction sectors in the development of the single ITB’s strategy and levy proposals.

Alternative approaches to ITB reform that were considered

The government considered 3 other broad options for ITB reform, in addition to the preferred option of creating a single ITB using the existing primary legislation. Each option aimed to strengthen support for skills development in construction and engineering construction, while ensuring effective, efficient use of resources.

Retain the CITB and ECITB as separate bodies but with stronger collaboration

This approach would keep the ITBs legally separate, each with its own board, levy and employer coverage. Government would encourage the 2 ITBs to work more closely together through shared strategies, joint priorities and shared back‑office functions. Collaboration could range from informal Memorandums of Understanding to more structured and legally binding partnership arrangements. However, statutory separation would remain, meaning barriers to fully integrated working would persist.

Create an entirely new skills body through primary legislation

This approach would establish a wholly new organisation, replacing both existing ITBs. While it would allow more fundamental reforms – such as revising the ITBs’ statutory purpose or levy processes – it would entail greater complexity and risk and take significantly longer to deliver. This option would also involve more disruptive transition for employers and the workforce.

Targeted changes to the ITBs’ current primary legislation are still possible under the proposal to establish a single ITB, without the need for wholescale changes to the current model.

Close both ITBs and transfer responsibility for skills development in construction and engineering construction to other organisations, where appropriate

The services currently delivered by the ITBs would either be absorbed by alternative bodies, spun out, or ended. This option was discounted as it would remove a long‑standing, industry led model without a clear alternative capable of addressing the persistent market failure in training or maintaining essential functions, such as standards setting, qualifications awarding or competence frameworks across England, Scotland and Wales. The approach also carries significant risks of losing the ITBs’ accumulated expertise, delivery capability and employer relationships, with significant negative effects on skills support likely during the transition and potentially beyond.

Options for further ITB reform

The proposal put forward in this consultation to form a single ITB represents a first phase of ITB reform. As highlighted by the Farmer Review, there is scope for further reform to strengthen the ability of a single ITB to meet employers’ skills needs. We will consider the need for further ITB reform in light of the responses to this consultation and will engage industry before making additional changes. We are, however, seeking initial views on 2 areas of potential ITB reform to inform our future thinking.

Extending the employer activity in scope of a single ITB

The current scope orders of the ECITB and the CITB date back to 1991 and 1992, respectively. The activities of the construction and engineering construction sectors are changing in response to evolving industry practices and new priorities, such as energy efficiency and clean heat. The formation of a single ITB provides an opportunity to consider further changes to the scope of the industry that it serves, beyond combining the current scope of the CITB and ECITB in a single body. We are seeking initial views on whether changes should be made to the employer activity that is currently within scope of the combined levies of the CITB and ECITB.

Extending the maximum length of an ITB Levy Order

Primary legislation currently limits the maximum period an ITB Levy Order to 3 years. Extending the maximum levy period would provide greater certainty for an ITB to develop a longer-term skills strategy and reduce the burdens and costs of the consensus process for employers and the ITB. A longer levy cycle could, however, reduce the frequency of industry input into the ITBs’ levy proposals and the responsiveness of the levy to changing circumstances. We are seeking initial views on whether the maximum levy period should be extended beyond 3 years.

Consultation questions

Please use our online MS Forms link ITB Reform Consultation to submit your response wherever possible or see the ‘Other ways to respond’ section above.

Approach to ITB reform

1. Do you agree with the proposal to create a single, unified ITB by bringing together the CITB and ECITB? [Yes / No / Don’t know]
2. Please explain the key reasons for your answer to question 1.
3. What do you see as the most significant potential benefits of a single, unified ITB and how might these be maximised?
4. What do you see as the most significant potential costs and risks of a single, unified ITB and how might these be mitigated?
5. If you answered ‘No’ or ‘Don’t Know’ to question 1, please identify any other approaches to ITB reform that should be considered and the reasons why they would be more effective in meeting the employers’ construction and engineering construction skills needs.

Assessing the impact of a single ITB

1. Please provide any evidence you believe is relevant to the assessment of whether the proposal for a single ITB would have positive or negative impacts on individuals with protected characteristics.
2. Please provide any evidence you believe is relevant to the assessment of whether the proposal for a single ITB would have positive or negative environmental impacts.

Options for further ITB reform

Whilst not the primary focus of this consultation, we are also keen to understand your thoughts on other areas of potential future ITB reform.

1. Please provide any views on changes that should be made to the employer activities currently in scope of the CITB and ECITB to better reflect the needs of the construction and engineering construction sectors.
2. Please provide any views on whether the maximum levy period for an ITB should be extended beyond three years and, if so, what the new maximum should be.

---

1. Regional gross value added (balanced) by industry, ONS (2024) ↩

2. The economic footprint of engineering construction, ECITB (2017) (PDF, 7.95MB) ↩

3. Earnings and employment from Pay As You Earn Real Time Information, seasonally adjusted, ONS (2026) ↩

4. Construction Workforce Outlook: Labour Market Intelligence Report 2025–2029, CITB (2025) ↩

5. 2024 Workforce Census: Overview of the Engineering Construction Industry, ECITB (2024) ↩

6. The economic footprint of engineering construction, ECITB (2017) (PDF, 7.95MB) ↩

7. Government unleashes next generation of construction workers to build 1.5m homes, HMT (2025) ↩

8. Clean energy jobs plan, DESNZ (2025) ↩

9. The Industry Picture, CITB (2026) ↩

10. 2024 Workforce Census: Overview of the Engineering Construction Industry, ECITB (2024) ↩

11. Skills England: Sector skills needs assessments: Construction, Skills England (2025) ↩

12. CSN Industry Outlook - 2024-2028, CITB (2024) ↩

13. Explore Education Statistics, GOV.UK (2026) ↩

14. The Industry Picture, CITB (2026) ↩

15. Skills for a Green Recovery, Watkins and Hochlaf, IPR (2021) ↩

16. 2024 Workforce Census: Overview of the Engineering Construction Industry, ECITB (2024) ↩

17. Employer skills survey: 2024, DfE (2025) ↩

18. Over 250,000 extra construction workers required by 2028 to meet demand, CITB (2024) ↩

19. The SME State of Trade Survey: January to June 2025, FMB and CIOB (2025) ↩

20. 2024 Workforce Census: Overview of the Engineering Construction Industry, ECITB (2024) ↩

21. The wider economy - helping every British business become a digital business, GOV.UK (2023) ↩

22. UK growth plan misses the real construction prize, White (2025) ↩

23. Creating a Productive environment for UK Construction, CLC (2023) ↩

24. UK growth plan misses the real construction prize, White (2025) ↩

25. How Much Does Error Cost?, CQIC (2016) ↩

26. Skills England: Sector skills needs assessments: Construction, Skills England (2025) ↩

27. UK Trade Skills Index 2024, Checkatrade (2024) ↩

28. Powering up the workforce, Robert Gordon University (2023) (PDF, 7.2MB) ↩

29. VACS02: Vacancies by industry, ONS (2026) ↩

30. CSN Industry Outlook - 2024-2028, CITB (2024) ↩

31. Labour Forecasting Tool, ECITB ↩

32. The Industry Picture, CITB (2026) ↩

33. Infrastructure Pipeline update signals future workforce needs, GOV.UK (2026) ↩

34. 2023 Industry Training Board (ITB) review, Mark Farmer (2025) ↩

35. 2023 Industry Training Board (ITB) review Department for Education’s response to the recommendations of the review, DfE (2025) ↩