CITB grant cuts scaffolding training budgets: NASC calls for a national network to fill the gap

The National Access and Scaffolding Confederation has launched an updated industry manifesto calling on government to establish a nationwide network of dedicated scaffolding training providers, increase funding for the Health and Safety Executive and strengthen payment protections for contractors in the supply chain. ^[1] The document, published on 24 August 2026, arrives as CITB grant cuts that took effect from January 2026 continue to reshape how scaffolding businesses pay for training, and as a new NASC Skills Gap Report puts the sector-wide vacancy figure at around 40,000 roles. ^[2][3]

What the NASC manifesto says about CITB funding changes 2026

The manifesto sets out eight actions across six policy areas covering supply chains, employment law, skills, training, safety and the environment. ^[1] On training, the NASC wants the Department for Education to help establish a nationwide network of dedicated providers backed by adequate funding and closer involvement from regional and devolved skills bodies. ^[4] It also supports full-time scaffolding courses for 16 to 18-year-olds and improved careers education to give young people a clearer entry route into the trade. ^[4]

The backdrop is significant. CITB announced sweeping cuts to its grant and funding programmes from 8 January 2026, citing a 36% rise in demand for its services over the past four years while levy income from employers remained static. ^[5] Most short-course grants were withdrawn, with scaffolding-specific short courses among the limited number retained in the Grants Scheme alongside plant operations and other specialist categories. ^[6] For longer qualifications, attendance grants were removed entirely; only achievement grants at a reduced rate of £600 remain for qualifications below Level 7, and Level 7 achievement grants survive only for programmes that started before 8 December 2025. ^[7]

From April 2026, CITB introduced a further structural change: a new Large Employer Fund capped at £18,000 per business for firms employing 250 or more people, while Employer Networks, now operating on a fixed annual budget of £11.5 million, became the principal route for smaller firms, typically at 50% match funding. ^[8][9] CITB describes the Large Employer Fund as an interim measure while it develops a longer-term solution with large employers. ^[10] The CITB 2026–27 Business Plan confirms that over £136 million will be provided as direct employer support, though that envelope covers the whole of construction, not scaffolding alone. ^[11]

Two readings of the scaffolding training crisis

One view, reflected in the NASC manifesto and Skills Gap Report, is that the funding cuts arrive at the worst possible moment. NASC's 2026 Skills Gap Report found that 56% of responding full member businesses had at least one unfilled vacancy, equivalent to around 1,760 vacancies across NASC's full membership, with scaffolders accounting for the largest share. ^[12] When the figures are projected across the wider sector including non-member firms, NASC estimates the industry faces around 40,000 roles to fill once retirements and normal staff turnover are included. ^[13] CITB's own Construction Workforce Outlook adds that an average of 41,200 extra workers will be needed across construction each year between 2026 and 2030. ^[14] On that reading, reducing grant support for a sector already short of trained people is poorly timed.

CITB's counter-position is that the reforms were unavoidable. The organisation argues that engagement with its programmes increased by 36% over four years, exhausting what a static levy can sustain, and that the new model spreads support more equitably across micro, small and medium businesses rather than concentrating it in large firms. ^[5][10] CITB CEO Tim Balcon has said publicly that the changes are designed to support more employers overall, not fewer. ^[15] CITB also points out that scaffolding short-course grants were deliberately preserved within the Grants Scheme, recognising the specialist nature of CISRS-linked training. ^[6]

The debate reached the floor of ScaffEx26 this week, where a conference session titled 'Would You Trust a Scaffolder Trained on a Computer?' brought together training-centre representatives, employers and scaffolders to examine whether virtual and immersive technology can sit alongside, or partly substitute for, practical CISRS instruction. ^[16] A parallel session on the talent crisis, led by NASC and CISRS Group CEO Clive Dickin, focused on what is working to bring new entrants into the industry through routes including engagement with ex-offenders, veterans and people at risk of gang involvement. ^[17] The two sessions together illustrated the central tension: the industry needs more trained scaffolders faster than the current funded system can produce them.

Why this is a contractual question, not just a training one

For commercial managers, quantity surveyors and project managers, the CITB grant cuts and the skills shortage are not abstract workforce issues. They affect pricing, programme risk and supply-chain capacity on live contracts. If a subcontractor cannot access grant-funded CISRS supervisor courses at the same rate as before, the cost of maintaining a qualified workforce rises, and that cost will eventually appear in tender prices or in margin compression. Managers who price scaffolding packages without accounting for the changed funding landscape risk either overpaying on day-rate adjustments or accepting programmes that depend on a pool of qualified supervisors that does not yet exist.

The manifesto's call for stronger payment protections for subcontractors on major infrastructure projects reinforces the point. ^[1] It signals that NASC members are already experiencing payment pressure that compounds their ability to invest in training. For anyone administering a scaffold contract, whether as client, principal contractor or specialist subcontractor, understanding how CISRS card requirements are written into specifications, and how training costs flow through the supply chain, is now a more pressing commercial question than it was two years ago. ScaffSkills's guide to CITB funding changes covers the specific grant categories that remain open to scaffolding businesses and the self-funded alternatives available where grant support has been withdrawn.

The manifesto also confirms NASC's position that scaffolding and access constitute temporary works and fall outside the scope of the Building Safety Act, a contractual boundary relevant to any dutyholder question on higher-risk buildings. ^[18] Separately, NASC is calling for the government to review how drivers' hours rules apply to scaffolding businesses that operate locally rather than on long-distance haulage, and for a vehicle scrappage scheme to help firms replace older fleets. ^[19] Both of these have cost implications that will appear in overhead calculations and, ultimately, in contract pricing.

A training system under financial pressure and a sector short of 40,000 workers are two facts that will not resolve themselves; the managers who price and programme for that reality now will be better placed than those who discover it mid-contract.