CSCS has publicly challenged the case behind CISRS’s planned departure from the card scheme, questioning its interpretation of industry rules and why the issue has emerged now.
The intervention from CSCS Group chief executive Sean Kearns brings the disagreement between the two organisations firmly into the open, less than three weeks after CISRS announced plans to leave the CSCS Alliance.
CSCS confirmed on 24 September that it had received formal notice from CISRS to terminate its licence to use the CSCS Mark on CISRS cards, with a proposed termination date of 31 May 2027.
CISRS has said the change will take effect from 1 June 2027. Kearns described the notice as “unexpected” and said CSCS had been waiting for an update from CISRS on what it called outstanding obligations under its existing licence.
He also rejected CISRS’s interpretation of the Construction Leadership Council rules at the centre of the decision.
CSCS questions legal argument
CISRS told Scaffmag that legal advice found the scheme was liable to termination by CSCS, principally on the grounds of Clause 4 of the CLC guidance.
CSCS disagrees with that interpretation. Its position is that scaffolding remains an occupation undertaken within construction even where the same skills are used in other industries.
CSCS also pointed to other Alliance schemes which accommodate occupations working across different sectors by issuing CSCS-logoed cards for construction and, where appropriate, alternative non-logoed cards for work outside construction.
Kearns said equivalent wording concerning non-construction occupations had appeared in CLC requirements published in 2017, 2020 and 2024.
“We can’t see what has changed since 2017,” he said, calling on CISRS to explain why it now considered the wording an immediate contractual risk.
CISRS responds to Scaffmag
CISRS has now responded directly to the points raised by CSCS.
In a statement supplied to Scaffmag, the scheme said its legal advice found that CISRS was “liable to termination by CSCS”, principally because of Clause 4 of the CLC guidance. It also explained why that legal advice had been sought now.
“The legal review was commissioned as a result of a wider review of governance carried out by CISRS,” the scheme said.
CISRS also addressed the multi-card approach referenced by CSCS.
CSCS said other Alliance schemes accommodate occupations working across different sectors by issuing CSCS-logoed cards for construction and, where appropriate, alternative non-logoed cards for work outside construction.
CISRS told Scaffmag that, in its view, a multi-card approach would be the only way to comply with Clause 4 while retaining CSCS-logoed cards for construction work.
The scheme said such an arrangement would create extra cost and complexity for scaffolding businesses and workers who move between sectors.
It said this would result in “costly duplication, and complexity around demarcation” and described the approach as impractical for the scaffolding industry.
CISRS maintains that its existing card is issued on the competence of the holder, regardless of the sector in which they happen to be working.
Licence questions remain
The CSCS statement also referred to “outstanding licence obligations” which it said it had been waiting for CISRS to address before receiving the termination notice.
CISRS did not identify what those obligations were in its response to Scaffmag.
It did, however, say CSCS had raised concerns about the CISRS licence on several occasions on behalf of third parties and that those matters had been dealt with appropriately.
“CSCS has, on several occasions, raised concerns, on behalf of third parties, about CISRS’ licence and these have been dealt with appropriately,” CISRS told Scaffmag.
Scaffmag has asked CSCS to explain specifically what the outstanding licence obligations referred to in its statement were.
Disagreement over who went public
The two organisations are also at odds over how the dispute entered the public domain. CSCS said it was disappointed that CISRS communicated its withdrawal publicly before a transition plan had been discussed with and approved by CSCS.
CISRS disputes that account.
“It is incorrect to state that CISRS prematurely placed this issue into the public domain,” it told Scaffmag.
The scheme said it issued its press release only after other stakeholders had already communicated extensively within the industry, contrary to what CISRS said were its express wishes.
CISRS made a similar point earlier this month when it said discussions it understood to be private had been circulated while possible solutions were still being considered.
Standard-setting role challenged
CSCS has also challenged how CISRS’s role within scaffolding has been described.
Its statement disputed the description of CISRS as the “actual recognised standard-setting body” for construction scaffolding.
CSCS said the defined standard-setting bodies for scaffolding are CITB and ECITB, adding that CISRS has an important role within the sector but that standards, qualifications, competence requirements and carding arrangements involve several organisations.
CISRS did not address that point in its response to Scaffmag.
Exit could still be reversed
CISRS has previously said its departure from CSCS could still be avoided if agreement can be reached over the CLC requirements.
During an industry webinar last week, CISRS said it would consider withdrawing its termination notice if a workable agreement could be reached with CSCS and the Construction Leadership Council.
Its preferred position is to retain a single competence card that can be used by scaffolders working across construction and other industries. If no agreement is reached, CISRS plans to operate independently of CSCS from 1 June 2027. Existing CISRS cards carrying the CSCS logo are expected to remain valid for their existing terms.
The disagreement now enters a transition period ahead of the proposed termination of the CISRS licence on 31 May 2027.
CSCS says the current rules do not create the conflict described by CISRS. CISRS maintains that its legal advice left the scheme exposed to termination and that splitting card arrangements between sectors would create unnecessary duplication for employers and workers.
Whether those positions can be reconciled before the licence ends remains unresolved.
