Last month the government launched a consultation on a significant proposed reform to the skills and training landscape for construction and engineering construction.
Running from 23 March to 14 June 2026, the consultation asks whether the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) should form a single body.
If you work in engineering construction – as an employer, training provider, trade union or trade association – this proposal directly affects you, and your views matter.
This article outlines the background to the consultation, what the Government hopes the proposed reforms will achieve, the potential benefits, the similarities and differences between the two organisations and, finally, the potential risks.
In setting out this information, the article should hopefully assist you in responding to the consultation.
Background to the proposal
Both the CITB and ECITB exist to support workforce development in their respective sectors. While there are many differences between the two industries, both have long grappled with similar challenges: skills shortages, an ageing workforce, difficulties attracting and placing new entrants, workforce retention, diversity and having enough skilled workers to deliver major Government priorities whether infrastructure projects, clean energy or housebuilding.
An independent ITB Review led by Mark Farmer and published in 2025, recommended that a single body be created combining the ECITB and CITB to tackle these challenges more effectively. The government partially accepted this recommendation, subject to further scoping, and is now seeking views from industry.
What the proposal aims to achieve
The core argument for creating a single body is that a combined organisation could do more, more efficiently.
A single ITB could be better placed to take a strategic, joined-up approach to skills planning across the two industries – eliminating duplication, pooling data and resources and speaking with one authoritative voice when engaging with government, regional authorities and training providers.
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”.
It says the “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 also outlines that the body “would remain industry led and operationally independent, working in partnership with government and building on the ITBs’ past successes to secure the skilled workforce its industry needs now and for the future”.
Potential benefits
The intended benefits include greater capacity and reach to achieve impact at scale with increased influence and strategic leadership in the skills system.
There would be greater potential to pool data and insights to enhance labour market intelligence and inform evidence driven workforce planning, creating clearer and more flexible skills pathways, thereby increasing employers’ access to skilled workers.
There is also an ambition to improve the portability of qualifications between sectors, support full lifecycle skills planning for major infrastructure projects and make better, more strategic use of levy funding by targeting interventions where they will have the greatest impact on productivity and workforce resilience.
Similarities and differences between the two organisations
There are similarities between the ITBs and the functions and activities they carry out. Both conduct labour market intelligence; provide grants and support to employers and are involved in promoting career pathways to potential new entrants. Both ITBs develop occupational and competence standards and provide funding to increase uptake of skills training.
Both the ECITB and CITB license and oversee delivery of approved courses through approved training providers. While the CITB operates its National Construction College in the three home nations, the ECITB operates as an awarding organisation for regulated qualifications and licenses courses both in the UK and internationally — functions that reflect the highly specialist and often globally-mobile nature of the engineering construction workforce.
However, it is important to note that there are differences too, in terms of size, operations and the industry base the two ITBs serve.
The CITB covers a broad range of employers and sectors engaged in construction-related activities 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.
It has around 69,0001 registered establishments2. Its levy3 is calculated based on PAYE and Taxable Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) subcontractor payments and it raises approximately £228 million in annual levy income, supplemented by around £45.6 million from apprenticeship delivery and commercial activity.
The ECITB, by contrast, is a much smaller body. It covers 2971 registered establishments2 which are engaged in the engineering design; project management; project controls; and the 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.
Its levy3 is based on labour payments for both offsite and site workers and it raises around £35 million annually, with a further £4 million in commercial income. Its reach also extends to the UK Continental Shelf and GB Territorial Waters, reflecting the offshore nature of much of the sectors it serves.
Potential risks worth considering
The consultation flags several potential risks. A merged body would require a single levy order and a unified levy consensus process – but the two sectors currently operate under very different levy structures and have very different employer bases.
Reaching consensus across such a diverse group of employers could be complex and so future levy proposals would therefore need to be carefully considered.
There is also a potential risk that certain sectors’ interests and influence are diminished in a combined body. A single board would be representative of both the construction and engineering construction industries. It will be vital to ensure that the specific needs of the engineering construction sector – a relatively small, but economically critical industry – are not marginalised.
The consultation document outlines possible mitigations to these risks, including ensuring board representation is representative of the breadth of sectors the single ITB would cover and that the organisation acts in the interests of all the sectors it represents.
Finally, there are the practical and financial costs of the transition itself.
How to have your say
The government wants to hear from employers and industry bodies in both sectors.
Click here to respond to the consultation
A government decision is expected in Autumn 2026. If the decision is to proceed, there would be further consultations on the single ITB’s strategy and levy proposals with the new body to be potentially established by 2028.
This is your opportunity to shape how the skills system works for your sector.
Make your voice heard before 14 June 2026.
1 Number of employers based on each organisation’s last published accounts which were 24/25 for the CITB and 2024 for the ECITB.
2 An establishment is a business (or part of a business) that is wholly or mainly engaged in either engineering construction or construction activities.
3 For a full breakdown of the different levy rates see section ‘Comparison of the size and funding’ in the consultation overview.
Main photo: Hinkley Point C under construction, courtesy of EDF Energy. Nuclear new build is a clear example where both the civil construction workforce and consequently the ECI workforce work alongside each other.
