The industry must take a zero-tolerance approach to training programmes that fail to provide pathways into construction careers.
It’s time to be honest. Despite best intentions, the potential of public procurement to leverage genuine high-volume investment in skills and employment pathways has been chronically underused.
The good news, however, is that the government knows it, and – leading with its recently closed consultation on public procurement – it looks like they are on a mission to change things.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
Part of the issue in our sector has been outdated Section 106 obligations and an insistence that apprenticeships, which span several years and command relatively low pay, are the only acceptable training pathway.
This has all but excluded adult jobseekers or those looking for a career change, as they are unable to put essential financial responsibilities on hold.
There’s no scope to adapt as a project evolves either, with contractors now incurring substantial penalties – as much as £25,000 per apprenticeship – if they fail to deliver.
The result? All too often, training programmes that pay lip service to progress and offer very little prospect of learner progression into employment.
Turning things around
The biggest losers, of course, have been the very jobseekers the government most wants to assist.
So, what can we do about it? Certainly, a revised and much more robust tender criteria that allows public sector clients to leverage genuine social value from their contracts is a good start.
But there’s more. Here are my top three:
- Employment and skills criteria within tenders must accommodate diverse training and employment routes, including traditional and foundation apprenticeships and non-traditional short programmes that link directly to entry-level employment. Think about gig workers, for example, who might be super-keen to move into construction, highly motivated and job ready. They could consider a five-week ‘boot camp’ if their wage was covered – but two years on an apprenticeship wage would be impossible. Whatever the training solution, tender criteria should require both an offer and a delivery plan – no more empty promises.
- Real collaboration must be king. Better engagement of prospective employers could be an opportunity to end the ‘box-ticking’ culture within the construction sector – and the training industry that has grown up to enable it. Who are the employers, the people with the jobs to offer? Our supply chains. Their involvement is critical and tender criteria needs to reflect risk and opportunity as they see it.
- Universal acceptance that the end point – and therefore the definition of success – is not the training in and of itself. All proposals should result in jobs and employment that is wedded to a pathway for progression; otherwise, frankly, what is the point? We need effective progress-monitoring methodology to support that too. Something simple – not bureaucratic systems that demand intense time input. Let’s focus our efforts where they matter most.
Of course, there are both clients and contractors that have been getting this right. However, for too long, there have also been large pockets where delivery of skills and employment requirements has been subpar.
Do this well and the return on investment, in terms of tax and productivity, is potentially huge.
Continue as things are, and we’ll never find the skills our industry so desperately needs.
When it comes to training programmes that fail to offer relevant skills training, fail to prepare learners for the workplace, and provide no link to potential employers, only a zero-tolerance approach will do.
Kevin O’Connor is head of social value delivery at Durkan.
