As CPCS changes hands, Construction Plant News takes an in-depth look at the current card scheme system and what the future holds.
What is the role of the card schemes that exist in our industry? Why are there still so many and is this proliferation serving the industry well? Your instinctive answer to the first question might be that it is to prove competence, but the likes of HSE will counter that any card should not be taken as proof alone that its carrier is sufficiently capable on any given piece of equipment. As to the second, with CITB recently selling the Construction Plant Competence Scheme (CPCS) to awarding body, National Open College Network (NOCN Group) it could well be an opportune time for the industry to address that very point.
Earlier this year, the Construction Plant-hire Association (CPA) held a series of debates around the country to gauge the mood of the industry in relation to CPCS in particular and card schemes in general. It brought together clients, contractors, training providers, plant operators, and the representatives of schemes themselves, to address some of the issues that they might envisage arising from the NOCN takeover. Before these are considered, however, it is first necessary to understand the historical context of card schemes themselves.
“It was actually the Construction Plant-hire Association (CPA) council which first proposed the idea of a national certification scheme for plant operators in the 1980s,” explains Peter Brown, CPA Technical Development Manager, “and the first example would emerge under the management of CITB as the CTA in 1986. NPORS set up in parallel in 1992, whilst the early 2000s would see some of the first attempts to harmonise the various card schemes through the adoption of common requirements, and an affiliation with CSCS. As a result the industry would witness an attempt to champion a single card scheme, with CPCS replacing CTA in 2003, initially under the banner of the CSCS.” Despite that avowed aim there are, of course, a number of card schemes still in place, including Contractors Mechanical Plant Engineers (CMPE), Energy & Utility Skills (EUR), and the International Powered Access Federation (IPAF) amongst others.
If these are the schemes then what exactly are they for? A simple query, you might think, but a far from straightforward answer. In the first instance, none of these cards are mandated under legislation or regulations, and it remains the duty of the employer to determine its employees’ level of training. Moreover, whilst cards that carry the CSCS logo are required to comply to minimum standards laid down by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), each scheme can determine its ultimate benchmarks. This is perhaps the principle point of confusion amongst contractors, and there have been numerous incidents of the guardians of the site gates turning operators away simply because they are not clear on what a card scheme covers. As a consequence, it may well be company policy within some building firms to only allow CPCS holders access, to the exclusion of all others, or to express an avowed preference for that scheme, even when the holder of that alternative card could be more than capable of doing the job.
If that is the experience of the boots on the ground then it could be argued that the previous regime at CPCS had successfully won the hearts and minds of construction managers. “One of the guiding principles of the CPCS Management Committee has been its independence,” declares the longstanding Chairman of that Committee and CPA council member, Trevor Gamble. “It has always answered to the construction sector and not to CITB and, as a result, is squarely focused on delivering what the industry needs. Indeed, the figures for CPCS illustrate that very history, with over 80 per cent of revenue generated by only 12 categories of training, whilst there are presently more than 60 categories in existence.” The challenge for NOCN Group is to continue its commitment to these specialisms which, although small, are still vital if many major construction projects are be undertaken safely.
If CPCS does not undertake this training then will the effect be a further proliferation of cards for ever more specialised jobs, and is this a recipe for further confusion? One of the wider issues with the construction plant industry is that there is not necessarily a sector representative body that can oversee the machinery sector as a whole, with a number of often competing entities vying for the attention of contractors and hirers many would argue that, if a commonality of standards is ever to be achieved, then just such an organisation will need to emerge.
Paramount in the minds of policy holders should be a simple principle – that card schemes are not necessarily an end in themselves, but a means to ensure that the industry has the competent workforce it requires, and that improvements in safety are realised. The law is itself clear – site workers must demonstrate the required skills, knowledge and experience, and have undertaken the necessary training, to undertake a specific task, and having a card in your wallet is not necessarily a guarantee of any of the above. As far as a contractor is concerned the worth of any card scheme is determined by the standards it sets, and the degree to which it is recognised across the industry for those standards.
Regardless of who delivers the training, and issues the card, access to it will be determined by a funding infrastructure that is both adequate and easy to navigate, and this is an area in which CITB has historically been criticised. It is still not clear how grant aid will be administered in the future, and if funding will adequately cover the vast range of training courses that construction requires in order to function. Given that there is a well-documented shortage of operators, if stakeholders are to successfully nurture the workforce of tomorrow, then just how much that is to cost needs to be both affordable and transparent.
