Construction Industry Training Board: Funding

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Race]

I agree; we need to do everything that we can to make our commitment to getting two thirds of young people into education, training, apprenticeships or work a reality. We all need to work together on that.

Combined with the broader pressures that businesses are facing, these changes will seriously detrimentally affect Apex’s training capacity as a company. Apex and other companies that are committed to developing skilled, competent staff in their industries hope that the CITB will reconsider, given the impact that the adjustments may have on employers, and will explore ways to ensure that training remains accessible and sustainable.

A member of the Somerset Construction Training Group got in touch with me to say that these groups provide invaluable practical support to construction businesses and apprentices alike. In their words, removing CITB funding risks not only the future of the groups but the loss of highly experienced people whose knowledge of training, funding and compliance in the construction sector is difficult to replace. Ultimately, they feel that this could reduce access to apprenticeships, increase pressure on employers and negatively impact jobs in the industry. The group finished by saying that it hopes that CITB will reconsider and recognise the long-term value that training groups deliver.

Another Somerset business owner said to me that they have been fortunate to be part of the Somerset Construction Training Group for over 16 years. They have been provided with an excellent service, including quality training and last-minute training if required, and they have built a solid working relationship over the last 16 years with their training group officer, who understands their company and their training needs. The group enables networking between group members, and supports many aspects of their business. In their opinion, training groups were the best thing that CITB supported, and they are sad to say that their relationship with CITB is nowhere near as solid.

At the national level, it is reported that the CEO of a roofing business and a member of the Construction Industry Training Board funding committee has resigned in protest at the decision to cut funding for training groups. He stated that he could not in good conscience remain a member of the committee, and that the decision to both defund the training groups and slash the number of courses that are to be grant funded will undoubtedly increase, rather than decrease, the skills gap. That surely cannot be right.

The CITB introduced employer networks in 2024, and intended them to be the route for employers to engage with the CITB. However, the feedback I have received is that small and medium-sized enterprises consider the groups to be remote and impersonal, and that they take longer to organise training. In general, some SMEs have expressed to me that they feel largely ignored and let down by the CITB. The withdrawal of funding for training groups has made them feel sidelined and disillusioned. Indeed, the CITB has run concurrently for some years both the employer networks, which seem best able to cater to larger businesses, and the local training groups, which seem better able to support SMEs. I would have thought there is some merit in continuing with both, especially given the small cost of the local training groups.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is my understanding that, in addition to employer networks, the CITB is also seeking to redirect funding to the new entrant support team. I declare an interest: my father worked as a new entrant training officer. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new entrant support team is good value, and is perhaps a good place for this investment to be directed towards?

[Steve Race]

There is absolutely a case to be made here, but as I shall go on to say, the way in which this has come about is less than ideal, and it leaves lots of local training groups and local SMEs feeling pretty much left out to dry by the CITB.

Construction skills are critical to the success of Exeter’s economy and to our ambition to build the right homes in the right places for people to live in. I am proud that Exeter college is an outstanding tertiary college that offers a wide range of apprenticeships and vocational courses, and the University of Exeter offers a range of degree apprenticeships in partnership with business. As we work to meet this Government’s vital target of having two thirds of young people in university, college or an apprenticeship, we will need every organisation, business, sector and network pulling together.

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view of the changes that the CITB has brought in, and whether he and the Department believe that those changes are aligned with our goals of increasing access to and take-up of apprenticeships and closing the skills gap across the country. Further, has he or the Department had conversations with the CITB on the changes, and has there been an impact assessment, particularly on the ability of SMEs to properly participate in the work of the CITB in this space? Finally, does the Minister agree that the CITB could perhaps have worked with the training groups over a longer period to improve the outcomes of the training groups, should it have felt that necessary, or to provide a platform to help them to transition to new models of funding, rather than a decision being taken to simply pull the funding with a mere four months’ notice? I thank colleagues across the House for their interventions, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I think on this topic there will be less difference across the Dispatch Boxes than was the case with the topic we debated yesterday. The pilots with the mayoral strategic authorities will try out new approaches, and the idea is that the successful approaches can be rolled out wherever appropriate, not just in areas with mayoral strategic authorities. I will come to the point about the training groups in a moment.

Similarly, we expect the construction sector to benefit from the expansion of the youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of investment over the next three years to reach almost 900,000 young people and support them to earn and learn. A great deal of investment is going into this area, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that it is vital that we make the most of that for creating opportunities in local areas in every part of the country, including the south-west.

The CITB plays a central role in developing construction workforce capability and investing in skills training across England, Scotland and Wales. As we have been reminded, there is a separate arrangement in Northern Ireland. CITB is a registered charity and a non-departmental public body established in statute in 1964—apparently in July. It is sponsored now—following the transfer of responsibility for adult skills policy from the Department for Education—by the Department for Work and Pensions, with the purpose of improving training for people over school age who are working in the construction industry.

The Government set the strategic framework for the board. The board remains accountable to Parliament, but it operates at arm’s length, maintaining operational independence over how it meets industry needs. Its chair is Sir Peter Lauener, a distinguished former civil servant, but its board comprises by statute mainly representatives of construction employers. It is funded not by taxpayers but, as my hon. Friend said, through a levy on registered construction employers based on their payroll size.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) for calling the debate. I appreciate that CITB is at arm’s length from Government, but of course, 946,000 young people were registered as NEET last summer. Does the Minister share my view that money is better spent on organisations such as CITB than it is on welfare payments to young people?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Certainly, it is absolutely right that the construction sector has a lot of promising opportunities for exactly those young people, and we need to ensure that they have the support to take them up. We also need to provide a social security safety net—I do not think it is one or the other—but I agree that the work of the CITB is vital in this area.

The CITB provides a wide range of services and training initiatives. It sets occupational standards, funds strategic industry initiatives to support Government missions, and pays allowances and direct grants to employers, as we have heard, that carry out training to approved standards.

In the five years since 2021, employer demand for CITB services has increased by 36%. Levy rates have deliberately been held steady to support construction businesses, given the very sharp cost increases that we are all familiar with that have arisen from global challenges that the industry has had to grapple with. As a result, the costs of CITB services now exceed levy income. In response, the CITB has announced the changes to keep the funding as tightly focused as possible on the industry’s core priorities, in particular on bringing apprentices and new entrants into the workforce to address skills gaps. There has been no cut in CITB funding, but there has been a reprioritisation to ensure that the available funding is used where it has the greatest impact. The CITB board has understandably identified an urgent need for efficiency improvements, to spend less money on bureaucracy in order to be able to spend more on training.

For many years, CITB training groups have supported businesses by securing cost-effective training through collective bargaining, and by helping firms with grant applications, facilitating workforce planning and sharing best practice along the lines set out by my hon. Friend. I put on record the Government’s thanks to all group training chairs and officers—not least my hon. Friend’s constituent, Peter Lucas, the chair of the Devon construction training group and, since 2023, the national chair of training groups. He and his counterparts have undertaken a great deal of important and dedicated work to meet employers’ skills needs. There are currently 80 training groups across England, Wales and Scotland—there was one other but it closed last year. I think perhaps the figure my hon. Friend gave was just for England.

Winter Fuel Payment

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is right that we had to make difficult decisions last year, and I understand that Labour Members have raised those with the Government. It is why we looked again at the threshold and are sticking to the principle of means-testing while setting a higher threshold so that the vast majority of pensioners—over three quarters—will now receive winter fuel payments.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I welcome the partial reinstatement of the winter fuel payment. When we met, the Minister and I discussed the cliff edge that existed last winter, which meant that people in receipt of pension credit could in some cases leapfrog the income of people in receipt of a small private pension. Can the Minister indicate whether the new means test will remove that eligibility cliff edge?

[Torsten Bell]

I remember discussing exactly that with the hon. Member. All means tests have pros and cons, but by having a much higher threshold—in particular a higher threshold relative to the level of payment, with £100 or £200 being received by individuals—the large unfairness he talks about, where small differences in income led to large differences in outcome, is far reduced.

Pension Funds

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) asked whether pensioners might be given more control over where their pension funds are invested. That issue has also arisen recently in terms of whether pension funds can be invested in defence companies in the UK. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for the reminder to respond to that point. He will know that trustees already have a responsibility to invest in the interests of their members and that the law requires trustees of significant schemes—with more than 100 members—to set out a clear statement of their investment principles. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned some of the issues they will want to consider in that. That is how trustees provide clarity to their savers. There is also then scope for individuals, particularly in larger pension schemes on the defined contribution side, to make choices about where they invest their funds. We see that, for example, with the National Employment Savings Trust, the Government-backed pension scheme, where individuals make different choices on the grounds of ethical issues across the board, including defence, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). I thank him for his intervention and for reminding me to come back on that point before concluding.

It is important that we offer people secure retirements. That is the job of this Government, it is my job as the Pensions Minister, and it is what our pensions review is focusing on doing. It is what this Government will always do.

Question put and agreed to.

Winter Fuel Payment

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

On the question of savings, this measure will make savings, even taking into account the increase in take-up; the evidence of that is very clear. I will also just reflect on the right hon. Gentleman’s point that his party’s Government did not take up the opportunity that the Treasury presented to means-test winter fuel payments. The truth is that the last Government and the new Labour regime before that allowed pension credit to be eroded year after year by inflation. Since the period when he considered the measure, there has been over 50% inflation erosion, so the policy of the previous Government was to cut the winter fuel payment year after year. In real terms, I am afraid that is how inflation operates.

We will not just carry out research; we will put the evidence that it provides into practice. I welcome suggestions from right across the House on what more we can do to drive take-up of pension credit.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My point relates to the cliff edge. Anne Addis from Cullompton is a 76-year-old widow. Her late husband’s Army pension pushed her just £15 over the pension credit threshold. That means that she is one of 130,000 people who are worse off than those on lower incomes who continue to qualify for pension credit. Will the Minister consider introducing a taper to get rid of that cliff edge?

[Torsten Bell]

We have all met constituents who raise this issue, and the hon. Member is right to say that there are challenges with the cliff edge. It is in the nature of the pension credit regime, because the regime is about a minimum income guarantee. People sometimes think about it as if it had a threshold, but it is about providing minimum guarantee of minimum income, so I do not think that that is an appropriate way forward, but I would be happy to discuss this with him, as it is always useful to discuss these issues.

Welfare Reform

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I would. People in Scotland deserve the same chances and choices to work. They deserve to get skills and training, to not have young people leaving school without the qualifications they need, to have an NHS that is reducing waiting times, and to have overhauled jobcentres—absolutely. We will continue to work with the Scottish Government to put all those problems right, because we want people in every part of this country to benefit.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s shift towards prevention. Last May, my constituent Alexander McRandal was riding his motorbike on the lanes of east Devon when he struck a pothole and was thrown from his bike. His collision resulted in permanent nerve damage. He has had to leave a 40-year career, and his wife Louise has given up work to look after him. While they will be reassured to hear that the Government will not freeze PIP, does the Secretary of State recognise that more investment in local government is needed to prevent situations like theirs?

[Liz Kendall]

I am really sorry to hear about what has happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and his family, and the impact it had on them. There is absolutely more that we need to do to provide local support, which is why the Get Britain Working plan is not all being determined by Whitehall. Local leaders know best what local areas need, which is why we are devolving more resources, powers and responsibilities to local areas to ensure that we shift the focus towards prevention and early intervention and help people get back on their feet.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I reassure my hon. Friend that it is the same for me and my city—we do not have a devolution deal. We are overhauling our jobcentres, and tackling economic inactivity with local “Get Britain Working” plans and our youth guarantee. Regardless of whether people are part of a mayoral or combined authority, that work will be led locally, including through the local council. We are determined to deliver in every corner of the country, because we believe that everybody deserves an opportunity to work. That is what our country needs to get growing again.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Steven Tysoe from east Devon used to be a Metropolitan police officer in London, and he showed me footage of his involvement in the riots in the capital over a decade ago. He was severely injured and was regarded by the DWP as disabled. Under the new right of disabled people to work, will the Secretary of State ensure that public servants who have been injured in the line of duty will not get hounded repeatedly by assessors?

[Liz Kendall]

I do not want to see people being hounded. If they are able to work, I want them to get the support they need to do that. That is the big challenge that we face. There are more disabled people working than ever before, but for many others their conditions might fluctuate and the world of work and the benefit system need to understand that. I am interested in providing people with support not hounding them—there should of course be conditions and responsibility within the social security system, as has been the case since it was set up—and I hope that is not happening to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. If it is, perhaps he will write and tell me more about it.

Carer’s Allowance

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was on the radio this morning, and I listened to her on the BBC describing how

“the benefit system can have a real impact on whether you incentivise or disincentivise work.”

I heard from her that this new Government intend to incentivise work, and in that we wish them well.

I wish to highlight the case of a constituent of mine, Amanda Jennings from Ottery St Mary, who reached out to me pleading for support. She is a mother and a full-time carer for her adult son who has severe autism. Amanda was recently notified by the Department for Work and Pensions that she owed almost £2,000 dating back to 2019, due to carer’s allowance overpayments. To compound that stress, a civil penalty was imposed. Her problem was that she had been receiving wage slips giving an hourly rate, and the payments were processed by an external payroll agent, so she did not have a reliable monthly income like we do.

Despite raising queries and assuming that the DWP was receiving up-to-date information, she was accused—wrongly—of misreporting her income. The consequences for her family have been severe. Her son, who had re-entered education after years of disengagement, has dropped out, and her own health has deteriorated. She is not alone—more than 40,000 people nationally face similar financial penalties for minor income discrepancies. The Liberal Democrat stance is plain: carers should not be punished for minor unintentional breaches of income thresholds. The current system is rigid and punitive, with a cliff edge that does nothing at all to incentivise work.

Earlier, I heard the former Secretary of State talking about the business of clawback, and whether it could be done retrospectively. Looking to the past, perhaps he needs to be reminded that with the furlough scheme, the previous Government failed to claw back millions and millions of pounds—indeed, the Public Accounts Committee reckoned £2.3 billion—that was incorrectly paid to employers whose employees continued to work while they were receiving furlough money. It is just like the former Government to go after the people at the bottom of the pile who are most in need, when it is the people who have been described today who most need the support. I hope that the Government will make the most of the independent inquiry that I am glad they have set up, and ensure that any changes incentivise work and make work pay.

Cost of Living: Pensioners

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

There are 2 million older people living in poverty—that is one in six—and another million are sitting just above the poverty line silently struggling to make ends meet. Together, a quarter of older people are in or at risk of being in poverty. In recent years, the phrase “heating or eating” has become shorthand for the cost of living crisis. It rhymes, and it is easy to say, but it is the reality facing too many of our pensioners. Age UK research found that 4.2 million people cut back on food or groceries last year, while a survey by this House’s Petitions Committee of those engaging in petitions on pension levels found that three quarters were worried about affording food.

Health statistics always worsen in the cold winter months, with mortality rising in all parts of the UK last year compared with previously. As we face an even colder winter —in my constituency we often reach minus temperatures overnight—there are real consequences when older people cannot afford to properly heat their homes. The reality is that heating or eating is not a catchphrase, but a decision about survival. It is our duty as policy makers in this place to ask why that is a reality for so many of our older people and to find solutions.

I welcomed the Government’s eventual decision to keep the triple lock this year, but the lack of clarity and uncertainty about that decision appeared to be electorally motivated, and I argue it caused a great deal of anxiety for many older constituents.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is talking about the triple lock on pensions. I have heard it said in this House in recent months that the triple lock on pensions was a Conservative proposal, so I went to the Library to find out whether that was true. The 2010 Conservative manifesto talks about

“restoring the link between the basic state pension and average earnings”,

while the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto states:

“We will uprate the state pension annually by whichever is the higher of growth in earnings, growth in prices or 2.5 per cent.”

Does she agree with me that the triple lock was a Lib Dem proposal?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I regularly meet Steve Webb, the former Lib Dem Pensions Minister from the coalition, and I know how hard he worked when in government on this policy, so I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention.

The triple lock is of no use to anyone if the Government cannot get their systems working to pay people what they are due. Repeatedly last year we learned of pensioners nearing or reaching pension age trying to top up their national insurance records and seeing their money disappear without a trace. It would appear again some weeks later, but often only after chasing by an MP, an adviser or due to media coverage. That was not just in one or two cases; what became apparent were systemic problems of jammed helplines and hundreds upon hundreds of people losing track of their savings as they paid them over to the Government. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to resource properly the Future Pension Centre?

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Last week, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out his autumn statement, there was much anticipation about what kind of rabbit would be pulled out of the hat. Despite the Chancellor’s upbeat delivery, the performance was less Harry Potter magic and more Paul Daniels-style trickery.

Almost all of the Government’s financial headroom—the amount they have left over after their commitments—was blown on a small tweak to national insurance contributions. The Chancellor lauded the changes, suggesting that they would save people hundreds of pounds every year, but he failed to mention that even with the changes, the average person will pay more in tax overall. I can see that the cost of covid must be paid for, but I object to the spinning of a larger tax burden as a smaller one. That is partly because the Chancellor continued a freeze on tax thresholds—the level at which our constituents start to pay tax. Higher inflation means that many more will be dragged into paying more tax, whether at the higher or the basic rate. That is giving with one hand while taking substantially more with the other. The Resolution Foundation has identified that under the plans, taxes will rise by the equivalent of £4,300 per household in the decade from 2019. Even by the end of this Parliament, it expects that households will be £1,900 worse off than at the beginning of it.

In Government, the Liberal Democrats delivered tax cuts for millions by doubling the amount someone could earn before they started paying tax. By contrast, this Conservative Government are one of the highest taxing Governments in history, allowing increasing numbers of low and middle-income earners to be dragged into paying ever increasing amounts of tax. It is simply not sustainable. We need more efficient spending of public money, with targeted investment, to ease the squeeze and save us money down the line. For example, of the £784 billion of taxpayer money that the UK Government spent last year, £39.3 billion was given to households as an energy subsidy. It would not have been necessary to give away so much of that taxpayer money had Lord Cameron, as Prime Minister, not cut the “green crap”.

There were a couple of welcome measures in the statement. I was pleased to see the extension of the business rate discount, including for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, of which we have many excellent ones in my part of east Devon. The decision to keep the triple lock on pensions was also welcome, and ensures that pensions rise to match earnings, giving pensioners peace of mind and financial security. I called for that in Treasury questions less than a fortnight ago, so it is pleasing to see it rise in line with earnings at 8.5%. But the rest of the autumn statement was notable for what the Chancellor did not say. There was no additional money for the NHS or social care, despite the fact that the winter cold is already starting to set in. I am genuinely puzzled by that. It is a disastrous oversight that risks inflicting real challenges on our dedicated health professionals and our communities in the year ahead.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is lucky: like me, he represents a constituency in Devon. That means he knows how much people in Devon value our community hospitals. In my own corner of Devon, Seaton Community Hospital is at risk of having a whole ward of the facility stripped away to be sold off or even demolished. That is due to the continued squeeze on local healthcare budgets, with Devon NHS alone facing an almost £40 million shortfall. The Chancellor’s statement did nothing to address that grim situation.

There was also a distinct lack of funding to help clean up our rivers and beaches. Because of the wayward activities of water companies and the fact that the Government have just left this issue to Ofwat, we are seeing huge levels of raw sewage put into our once pristine local rivers and beaches. That is harming biodiversity and putting the health of people and animals at risk. The scandal also pervades England’s chalk streams. For example, those that empty into the River Itchen near Winchester contain unique biodiversity and ecosystems. Our sites of special scientific interest also see sewage dumping and ecological vandalism.

How would I sum up the autumn statement? Overall, it sums up the current Conservative Government: out of touch. Floundering for a buoyancy vest, their party ship continues to list and sink. Our communities deserve better. Devon deserves better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of sensitive language, particularly for the most vulnerable and particularly in the circumstances he describes of someone who is recently bereaved. I will most definitely take away the specific issue he raises and look at it extremely carefully.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

The Child Maintenance Service recently wrote to my constituent Deborah to confirm that the father of her children is in arrears by £47,000. Deborah recently heard that the bailiff is potentially unable to collect the debt and, if so, the money she is owed will be written off by the CMS. Can the Secretary of State explain why parents can be left with so little by the CMS when it gives up on collecting debts for parents who work so hard?

[Mims Davies]

The Government are supporting the private Member’s Bill that aims to streamline CMS enforcement processes. The CMS will not hesitate to use robust enforcement measures where someone is consistently refusing to meet their obligation towards their children. I am happy to look at that case and ask my colleague in the Lords to look at it.