Cutting a long story short, the CRO card—or the construction related operatives card— has been withdrawn, leaving the CSCS scheme. As many as 130, 000 UK workers still hold the CRO card, this was previously at 230, 000 but has been reduced. This has angered many workers, particularly in the sign industry, as the CSCS application requires the workers to be qualified at NVQ2.

Many sign-makers have learned their trade through others and can have as much as 30 years of experience without having this NVQ2. The qualification costs several thousand pounds and is also hard to find due to a very limited number of colleges offering it. The move will mostly affect the small sign-makers that may not have the money spare to put their staff through this training process.

Fear explains: “The construction related operatives (CRO) card has been withdrawn. The construction skills certificate scheme, or CSCS as its commonly known, is now the available card. Approximately 130, 000 UK workers currently use the CRO card to access construction sites.

"This has put a huge cost burden onto small businesses, sub-contractors and employment agency workers, since it is they who have to pay for these requirements.”

There are two sides to this argument, with David Catanach, director of the British Sign and Graphics Association (BSGA), arguing that a ‘not my problem’ attitude to the NVQ qualification was one of the reasons this has come so far, and that the costs and limited centres to gain the NVQ2 and receive the CSCS card has become an issue. 

Fear continues: “The law states very clearly that a worker only needs to be competent to do their work safely. So, how has a company (CSCS has now argued that it is not a PLC) managed to override UK employment law and remove the non-retrospective principles of our ancient common laws and grandfather rights?

“The answer is the loopholes that exist in our health and safety laws. Laws that are meant to protect workers’ rights are being used to remove them. Worker certification schemes like CSCS first promote themselves as health and safety schemes, once trade bodies and public bodies start promoting and using these schemes become an industry ‘good practice.’

The petition is now live and has already garnered some attention

“The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, section 40, uses something called ‘reverse burden’. Essentially this means employers must prove that they did all they could do to reduce risk. The only way an employer can really comply with section 30 is to show that they have used the industry ‘good practice’. The only excuse an employer has for not using industry ‘good practice’ is to prove that it was not ‘reasonably practical,’ in other words it was cost-prohibitive.”

Fear concludes: “The easiest analogy to use is this: if CSCS provided construction site fencing for free and the employer did not use CSCS fencing but chose their own, and some children got through this fencing and got hurt, then the employer would have to prove that his fencing was as good or better than the free fencing supplied by CSCS.

“As you can see, once worker certification becomes ‘good practice’ it can hardly be considered voluntary. It is at this point the company running the certification scheme can increase the qualification requirements with no democratic oversight.”

With Fear introducing a strong argument against the restriction of workers onsite that do not have a CSCS card, he has set up a petition to gain the backing of other sign-makers who feel the same.

If you feel like this is something you would like to back, then you can do so here: https://www.assembly.wales/en/gethome/e-petitions/Pages/petitiondetail.aspx?PetitionID=1316

If you have an alternative viewpoint, please do get in contact.

If you have an interesting story or a view on this news, then please e-mail news@signlink.co.uk

Follow Genevieve on: