CITB-CONSTRUCTIONSKILLS

Transcription

1 April 2004 CB/04/M194 CITB-CONSTRUCTIONSKILLS The 194 th Meeting of the Board was held at on Thursday 1 April 2004 in the Council Chamber, the Chamber of Shipping, Carthusian Court, 12 Carthusian Street, London EC1M 6EZ. PRESENT Sir Michael Latham : Chairman Peter Rogerson : Deputy Chairman Howard Baggaley George Brumwell Maurice Denyer Trevor Gamble Brian Houston Stephen Lidgate Geoff Lister Ian Mackey John Milne Margaret Sullivan Neil Telling Stewart Tilley GOVERNMENT OBSERVERS Glenna Pryor : Department for Education and Skills Clive Young : Department of Trade and Industry BY INVITATION Sean Campbell : Chairman, Citb (NI) Allan McMullen : Chief Executive, Citb (NI) IN ATTENDANCE Peter Castle : Board Secretary John Cowley : Director of Finance Peter Lobban : Chief Executive Howard Maylard : Director of Training Operations Robert Dale : Deputy Board Secretary INTRODUCTORY ACTION BY 1. The Chairman welcomed Sean Campbell and Allan McMullen to the meeting, returning the hospitality he had been given by Citb (NI). He hoped they would find the meeting interesting and invited them to contribute to the discussion if they wished. 2. Brian Lee s term of office had ended on 31 March As he was intending to retire from his position at the University of Portsmouth later in the year, he had not wished to stay for a second term. Action was in hand to find a new Board member, as it was in the case of a representative from the FE sector, for which a recommendation was now with Ministers. N \DEV\citbcouk\source\input\about_us\board\board_papers\2004\07\CB03M194 doc

2 2 CB/04/M194 ITEM 1 : APOLOGIES 3. Apologies had been received from David Adamson, Bob Blackman, Frazer Clement, Sheila Hoile, Fiona Kane, Geoff Snow, Derick Tait and James Wates. ITEM 2 : MINUTES OF THE 193 RD MEETING (CB/04/M193) 4. Minutes of the 193 rd meeting held on 5 February 2004 were approved as a correct record. ITEM 3 : MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Paragraph 5 : National Construction College CoVE Status 5. Progress towards CoVE status was being pursued nationally, with a submission anticipated in July David Boyden Paragraph 6 : Competence Cards and the Rail Sector 6. Trevor Gamble expressed his thanks to Peter Brown for his hard work on this matter. Machine Controllers and Crane Controllers would have cards available through the Sentinel system in June The plan thereafter was to progress towards the provision of a card for rail plant operatives. Strong support for the CPCS was being offered by a number of key players in the industry already and endorsement from Network Rail was being sought. Paragraph 8 : TRACS 7. Since the last meeting, a few employers had written formally to CITB- ConstructionSkills about the failure of TRACS. One had been able to establish that some achievements had been delayed because of work to introduce the Phoenix system, and, in accordance with the views of the Board and Training Committee, an equitable arrangement was being reached in respect of these individuals. Otherwise, liability was not accepted. 8. A second situation, involving a business called TradeCheck, had just become public. The issues were not the same as with TRACS, where there were clear quality and compliance failings. However, concerns about the ability of TradeCheck to deliver assessment services using an inadequate assessment infrastructure had led to the Awarding Body at first to restrict and subsequently to prevent the company from taking on any new registrations. There had been lengthy discussions about how the organisation could address the issue, but these had ultimately proved fruitless. 9. The organisation had registered just over 9,000 individuals of which about 500 had actually achieved and paperwork for a further 300 was being processed. Around 3,500 registrations related to individuals working for Ballast, and the Awarding Body would need to deal with this group in any event, following the liquidation of that company in Members noted that there was no question about the quality of achievements already delivered through TradeCheck.

3 3 CB/04/M194 ITEM 4 : GRANTS SCHEME 2004/2005 (CB/04/194/1) 10. The Board s approval of the proposed Grants Scheme 2004/2005 was sought (subject to any minor amendments to be proposed by the Grants Scheme Working Party (GSWP) at its meeting on 21 April 2004). 11. One of the key changes for this Scheme was that deadlines would be aligned and strictly enforced. Claims would not be considered more than two months beyond the closing date of the 2004/2005 Grants Scheme, so claims received after 30 September 2005 would be rejected unless the delay had resulted from the need to await the issue of a certificate. 12. The Levy User Group had proposed a second key change. Its effect would be to demand that two years Levy Returns be completed before Supplementary Grant payments would be released. Members noted that this could delay payments for some employers, rather than prevent claims altogether. Clive Young asked about the make-up of the Levy User Group. John Cowley confirmed that it was composed of nominees of federations. It was an informal advisory body, rather than a decision-making group. 13. John Cowley advised Members of concerns about the potential impact of uncontrolled growth in the number of new entrant trainees supported through the Grants Scheme. At the end of 2003, CITB-ConstructionSkills had discovered around 800 more trainees than anticipated being supported through small Managing Agencies. While this unexpected demand could be handled once, continuing growth of this kind was unsustainable financially. The Training Committee and GSWP had therefore considered a number of control mechanisms. These included restricting CITB-ConstructionSkills support to those undertaking Modern Apprenticeships, requiring prospective trainees to pass the Skills Learning Exercise (SLE), or limiting support to trainees within approved Managing Agencies. The Training Committee had unanimously preferred the last option. 14. Stewart Tilley commented that the GSWP had felt that the aptitude test (SLE) should be good for all apprentices; it wished to maintain and improve the quality of trainees. The Chairman noted that the Training Committee had preferred for the moment to be able to identify the scale of any problem at an early stage. Peter Rogerson felt that quality data obtained in this way might be valuable in seeking additional help from the Learning and Skills Council. 15. Peter Lobban commented that other Managing Agencies might not welcome the idea of a cap being set on applications. Ian Mackey agreed that if that were the outcome, the process had to be seen to be fair. Particularly at local level, there should be no sense that decisions might be arbitrary. John Cowley agreed that the Training Committee should review the detail of any registration process to ensure it was seen to be fair. 16. Members agreed that the weighting of OSAT grant should be shifted from registration to achievement. They noted the proposal to remove the IiP commitment grant, and asked what proportion of employer commitments converted to IiP achievement. Howard Maylard commented that although it was difficult to be precise, data suggested that between 35% and 40% of commitments went on to achieve IiP status.

4 4 CB/04/M Members noted that a significant proportion of training plan claims were never completed and agreed that a cut off deadline aligned with the Scheme deadline should be introduced. They endorsed the suggestion that claims should not be backdated for more than two months, because the grant was intended to encourage planning. Interim submissions were also proposed, to provide a check on progress. Stewart Tilley agreed that employers tended to be optimistic about training, and might not submit a final claim because previous grant payments matched or exceeded their actual entitlement. Clive Young asked if there was any evidence that asking employers to undertake the planning process stimulated extra training. Stewart Tilley indicated that monitoring work was undertaken. He did not believe that the proposed changes would deter employers from taking up the option. Maurice Denyer agreed that the proportion of repeat submissions would be an indication of the success of the option. 18. The Chairman confirmed that the training plan was not intended to be a bureaucratic route, but proper controls were needed. John Milne confirmed that, as a small employer, he found the training plan user-friendly. 19. Ian Mackey commented that given the significant changes of detail, communication would be more than usually important to ensure employers were fully aware of them. John Milne asked about the scale of the potential overspend for the 2003/2004 Scheme, and was advised that the outcome was likely to be close to forecast but that another unexpected intake of apprentices would make life extremely difficult. 20. Members welcomed Stewart Tilley s advice that the development process for this year s Scheme had proceeded smoothly and successfully. 21. The Board: approved the 2004/2005 Grants Scheme, subject to any minor editorial changes proposed at the meeting of the GSWP on 21 April 2004; and John Cowley agreed to submit the draft Scheme to DfES for approval. John Cowley ITEM 5 : LEVY CONSENSUS (CB/04/194/2 changed to ORAL) 22. The Chairman reminded Members that the Industrial Training Act 1982 set out a process whereby the industry s support for a continuing levy could be confirmed annually. This assumed that the majority of employers would be represented through relevant employer organisations. However, federation membership had been declining over recent years and was close to the 50% mark. Indeed, ECITB had this year failed to show that trade associations represented more than half of the employers liable to pay a levy. While the Minister could endorse proposals without consensus support, he had nonetheless expected ECITB to show that its proposals were acceptable to its constituency in a different way. 23. The letter from the Secretary of State setting out CITB-ConstructionSkills new remit posed the same challenge; one which was a real issue given that the consensus percentage for the latest proposals (in respect of the assessment payable in 2004) had been just over 51%. If CITB-

5 5 CB/04/M194 ConstructionSkills succeeded in showing consensus in 2004, it was unlikely to do so in 2005 unless something changed. 24. Peter Lobban advised Members that consultation with the federations over levy proposals for 2004 would be expected to focus on value for money, since there were no plans to change rates. However, there were two caveats. Potential outputs from apprenticeships for example as a result of new arrangements with housebuilders and major contractors as well as growth in OSAT could not be supported on the basis of present forecasts. How could the industry show that it did not support changed levy rates? 25. A second issue was that of the threshold. This had remained static since 1994 at 61,000. One consequence had been that more and more smaller companies had become leviable. Because smaller employers tended not to belong to federations, this affected the consensus percentage. 26. It was felt that the current process was extremely valuable in ensuring close links between CITB-ConstructionSkills and important stakeholders such as the employer organisations. Brian Houston noted that federations could become more active in recruiting new members but balanced this against natural concerns over the impact on quality. Margaret Sullivan felt recruitment might be a slow process. How much levy would be lost if the exclusion level was raised? Naturally, this depended on the extent of the move, but the sums involved were modest no more than 1m at most. 27. John Milne commented that his federation would prefer to see more employers paying the levy, not fewer. Neil Telling agreed that the issue posed some significant questions for industry bodies. Ian Mackey agreed that debate was needed. In his view, the most pragmatic response was to raise the exclusion level. Maurice Denyer agreed. He felt that the chance of federations recruiting enough additional members was small. Steve Lidgate concurred that there was little prospect of adding significantly to the membership of the HBF, which already covered the bulk of housebuilding undertaken in the UK. As an aside, he noted that the Barker Review suggested an increase in the number of apprenticeships in housebuilding and an increase in the training levy to support them. 28. Stewart Tilley regretted that this issue was being considered from anything other than a training perspective. Geoff Lister commented that the FMB had always felt that the exclusion level should be abolished and Trevor Gamble cautioned that more than half the membership of CPA was already below the threshold. Howard Baggaley asked whether it would be possible to create a link between levy payment and federation membership. 29. George Brumwell drew members attention to discussions within government that prefigured a move back towards direct employment. This could significantly affect financial forecasts. 30. Peter Lobban welcomed members contributions, which would help inform discussions with federations. Unless employer bodies increased their memberships quickly which seemed unlikely CITB-ConstructionSkills could be faced with a failure to achieve consensus in 2005 or One option would be to retain the current process but increase the exclusion level. This would conflict with the industry s preference to ensure as many

6 6 CB/04/M194 employers as possible contributed to the levy. Alternatives, such as extending the employer survey, would avoid this problem, but might damage the current close relationship with federations. 31. Members agreed that discussions this year should include the potential for increasing levy rates. While some would undoubtedly see such a proposal as a token of failure in the relationship, others would not wish to see current training achievements compromised because of financial constraints. 32. The Chairman agreed to circulate a discussion paper informed by the Board s debate to members as well as federation officials. This would form the basis for considering the issues before a formal proposal was made. John Cowley ITEM 6 : DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2003 (CB/04/194/3) 33. The Audit and Finance Committees had reviewed thoroughly the draft Accounts and External Auditors Management Letter. A representative of the National Audit Office had been present during the former discussion, asking that some clarificatory statements be added, confirming, for example, that CITB-ConstructionSkills had no tax liability. 34. Members had no comments on the draft Report and Accounts, and were content that these be submitted to Ministers in Westminster and Edinburgh for clearance before laying before the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments as soon after the Easter recess as possible. 35. The Board: approved the report, subject to necessary minor editing; Secretariat accepted the External Auditors Management Letter and endorsed CITB-ConstructionSkills responses; agreed that the format and presentation of the published version should be at the discretion of the Chairman of the Board; noted that copies would be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Scottish Executive prior to laying before Parliament; agreed that copies should be made available to: Board and Committee members, the Press and appropriate staff; employer organisations and trades unions concerned with the construction industry; registered employers and others on request; noted that a less formal Annual Review leaflet would, as in previous years, be distributed widely. Fiona Kane

7 7 CB/04/M194 ITEM 7 : REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS (CB/04/194/4) 36. The interim report confirmed that steady progress was being maintained on all recommendations. Those that were ongoing in nature would be transferred to the Business Plan. Members welcomed the letter from Ivan Lewis, confirming the positive outcome of the Review. Frazer Clement 37. Members noted the report. 38. The Board: ITEM 8 : DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY (CB/04/194/5) considered the advice on the proposed grant of a sublease in respect of redundant office accommodation at Yeovil ; and was satisfied, having considered that advice, that the terms on which the disposition was proposed to be made (as set out in the Heads of Agreement) were the best that could reasonably be obtained for CITB-ConstructionSkills. ITEM 9 : REPORT FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE (ORAL) 39. Maurice Denyer confirmed that the Audit Committee had met on 10 March 2004, when it had considered the draft Annual Accounts, examined risk management processes and reviewed the post-capital expenditure review of the implementation of the Phoenix records management application. While there were certainly lessons to be learned from this implementation, the new application was popular with user groups internally and externally and was critical to CITB-ConstructionSkills support for Qualifying the Workforce initiatives. A Process Review Board had been established since the initiation of this project, which would ensure such proposals were subjected to appropriately robust challenge. 40. The Board noted the report. Work Experience Pilot ITEM 10 : ANY OTHER BUSINESS 41. Members noted that Ian Mackey had an interest in the proposal, which involved participation by Carillion in a pilot to deliver work experience over a six-month period for full time students. This would give them the opportunity to gather work-based evidence to help achieve a vocational qualification, which would otherwise not be possible. 42. The cost for 100 students would be between 150,000 and 170,000, with payments broadly equivalent to attendance and achievement grants offered under the Grants Scheme. The pilot would be run on a separate, ring-fenced basis. Glenna Pryor asked why this was not part of the Sector Skills Agreement. Peter Lobban confirmed that the aim was to prove the

8 8 CB/04/M194 concept and launch it quickly, expecting to include the process in the Sector Skills Agreement later. Howard Maylard confirmed that support from the Learning and Skills Council above that mentioned already was being canvassed. Geoff Lister welcomed the proposal, which had been raised at a Yorkshire and Humber Area Advisory Committee in Development Proposals at the National Construction College East 43. A leaflet outlining development proposals at Bircham Newton had been sent to Members. Positive publicity had been attracted in the local press. ITEM 11 : DATE OF NEXT MEETING 44. The Board noted that the next meeting would be held at CITB- ConstructionSkills, Bircham Newton, King s Lynn, Norfolk, PE31 6RH, on Wednesday 21 July 2004, starting at Lunch would be available before the meeting from All to Note ITEM 12 : INFORMATION PAPER (CB/04/194/6) 45. This information paper covered the following subjects. Section A Section B Section C Section D Section E Section F Annual Review. Health, Safety, Environment and Sustainable Development 2003 Action Plan End of Year Update. Terms of Reference for the Co-ordinating Committee for Vocational Qualifications and Standards. Report on the 189 th 192 nd Meetings of the Executive Team. National Construction Week. Report on the Use of the Board s Seal. 001/1/ April 2004