黑洞社区

The CITB has rejected allegations it asks 鈥渓eading鈥� questions in its engagement with industry over the Apprenticeship Levy.

The denial, which comes as the CITB prepares to consult on the next iteration of the levy, is the latest exchange in a row between the board and national polling company Survation.

Tensions between the two organisations were triggered by the CITB鈥檚 response to a poll published last week by Survation, in collaboration with Hudson Contract.

The CITB questioned the methodology and validity of the survey, which claimed that nearly three-quarters of firms wanted to see the levy scrapped along with the board.

A spokesperson for the board said it was 鈥渕isleading鈥� to present the survey findings as representative of three-quarters of levy paying employers, suggesting that employers 鈥渃ould have been carefully selected鈥� and stating that there could be no assurance that the employers polled were actually levy registered.

Damian Lyons Lowe, chief executive at Survation, defended the poll, saying that the sample, which was derived from the client list of Hudson Contract Ltd, was representative of 鈥渁 significant section of employers working in the industry鈥�.

And he criticised the quality of the questionnaire used by the CITB, saying the CITB did not pose a question on whether the levy should be stopped, reduced or replaced and said its 鈥榗onsensus鈥� question was 鈥渓eading鈥�.

The question asks: 鈥�(Do) employers that are likely to pay the Levy consider CITB鈥檚 Levy proposals necessary to encourage adequate training in the industry?鈥�

Lyons Lowe said: 鈥淭his question (also asked in the 鈥榙o you agree鈥� form - which is considered a leading way to ask a question) is asked to respondents after many other questions that relate to what potentially negative things might happen to the industry if there were not such a levy.鈥�

He also said that the question came after a statement describing in positive terms, the purpose of the CITB and the levy.

A spokesperson for the CITB said it 鈥渞ejects the notion that questions posed during consensus are leading鈥� and said the questions reflected the requirements set out in law. 

The spokesperson said the CITB was bound by the Industrial Training Act 1982 to ask whether proposals to change the levy are 鈥渘ecessary to encourage adequate training in the industry鈥�.

鈥淭he process has been actively reviewed and revised over the years to ensure it complies with the legislation. We also engage extensively with the Department for Education ahead of and at the end of a consensus cycle, including reviewing the process as required,鈥� she added.

Hudson Contract has more than 2,000 clients, who are mainly private limited companies run by owner-managers across England and Wales, with a small presence in the Edinburgh-Glasgow corridor.

Survation鈥檚 poll included responses from 1,042 clients, predominantly tier two specialist contractors undertaking contract work for major contractors and housebuilders.

Lyons Lower emphasised that there was no 鈥渃areful selection鈥� of employers, as had been suggested by the CITB, with the full database of Hudson Contract clients contacted by Survation researchers by telephone interview and at arms length. 

鈥淭he full and transparent data tables containing all questions asked and the responses received have been published as part of our British Polling Council membership requirements of transparency,鈥� he said.

Employers surveyed were asked whether or not they were levy registered, which is recorded in the published data tables. 

Speaking to 黑洞社区, Lyons Lowe said that levy registration is a requirement for a significant amount of Hudson Contract clients and questioned why anyone would choose to lie about their status.

The CITB鈥檚 spokesperson drew a contrast between the Survation poll and their own process for gathering industry views, which it described as 鈥渞obust鈥�.

鈥淲hen we submit levy proposals to government, we do so in strict compliance with our statutory requirement to demonstrate that these have the support of the employers who are likely to pay the resulting levy assessments,鈥� she said.

The board announced earlier this week that it will begin consensus engagement with employers on levy proposals for 2026-2029 next month.

In its consultation, the CITB said it would gather views from more than a third of the 30,000 firms liable to pay a levy.

It said around 7,000 would be consulted through their prescribed organisations, with a further 4,000 contacted via telephone survey conducted by an independent research company. 

Other employers will be able to have their say through Citizen Space, an online consultation channel.

Once feedback is collated, the CITB鈥檚 levy strategy committee, which is comprised of industry representatives and external specialists, will use it to provide recommendations to the organisation before final proposals are submitted to government.

A spokesperson for Hudson Contract said the role of prescribed organisation鈥檚 block vote made the consensus process 鈥渦ndemocratic鈥�, claiming they represented a small and shrinking portion of the industry. 

The CITB responded that prescribed organisations represented approximately a quarter of all employers likely to pay the levy and said these organisations were 鈥渨ell placed to obtain a collective view鈥� on the levy proposals.

The tax funds raised by the levy are used to invest in industry skills and training. The CITB revealed  few weeks ago that the UK requires around 250,000 additional construction workers by 2028 to meet current demand. 

The 2022-2025 scheme saw a return to pre-covid rates.