After David Catanach, director of the British Sign and Graphics Association, offered his reply to the NVQ debate, further sign-makers have weighed in.

It seems that the topic of the CSCS card is something that many members of the sign industry are keen on discussing, as it affects their work so much. They could be denied access to jobs if they are on a construction site and the operative does not have the correct CSCS card.

If you have not been following this story, it goes like this: The CSCS card—which allows sign-makers and other operatives to work on building sites—has been changed. To gain a CSCS card, the workers have to have the relevant qualification to be awarded the card. This qualification comes in the form of the NVQ.

The problem with the NVQ is that there are very little educational institutions that offer it. Not only that, they cost thousands of pounds and usually, several members of staff require them. In the June edition of Signlink, Catanach originally spoke of the benefits of having an NVQ, before other sign-makers argued that the loss of the NVQ would not be a big deal to them.

However, since the CSCS card now requires applicants to have a recognised qualification, many firms are under pressure to put their members of staff through the course, which for some smaller sign-makers, is not possible as it could cost multiple thousands of pounds.

Paul Fear, a carpenter with over 35 years of experience, comments: “Catanach totally misses the dangers of CSCS. CSCS is an occupational licence with no democratic oversight. Qualification requirements for CSCS cards are decided by the construction leadership council. Basically, a bunch of corporate bosses.”

He continues: “Requirements can be increased whenever the CLC want, there are no social impact studies or research on funding availability. Today, NVQ2 is required for a CSCS card, next week it could be NVQ3 or NVQ4.

“CSCS is an attack on the non-retrospective and non-retroactive principles of our common law. It goes against hundreds of years of common law principles to remove the ‘grandfather’ rights of skilled experienced workers.”