Longing for Licensing

There are some – many, in fact – that believe that my days are consumed with an endless quest for things to rail against; that my every waking hour is filled with an unbridled desire to take a contrarian position just for the sheer devilment of it.

However, compared to the Federation of Master Builders chief executive Brian Barry, I am a portrait of acceptance and affirmation.

Give Brian Barry a subject, and he will find some way of spinning it as an existential threat to the construction sector.? In fact, I hear from the Federation of Master Builders about once a month.? And when their email arrives, I feel compelled to open it, purely to see what has got his goat this time.

Which is why I find it slightly disconcerting to find myself in full agreement with Brian Barry’s latest pronouncement.

He was responding to the Grenfell Tower inquiry report and – specifically – the Government’s intention to create a new and single construction regulator to ensure that those responsible for building safety are fully accountable.

But this is the bit that I find myself agreeing with most.

“A vital step to deliver long-term change must be the introduction of a licensing scheme to ensure domestic building companies have proven minimum competence. Currently anyone can call themselves a builder and this can’t be right, particularly for those working in the domestic building sector.

The development of a minimum competency scheme for builders of major construction projects was a key recommendation of the inquiry. This needs to be extended to all construction workers.

If we think the situation is challenging for Tier 1 firms, the picture for small building companies and sole-traders is even less clear, given they don't have inhouse resources for training and HR.

The Government now has the opportunity to work with the construction sector to introduce a full licensing scheme for building companies, which will help drive up standards and make construction safer for both builders and consumers.”

Now obviously, this notion of a licensing scheme is aimed – in this instance, at least – at those in the field of construction.?? But surely it could and SHOULD be extended to demolition as well, given the dangers inherent in that part of the industry.? And surely the introduction of such a license is merely plugging an obvious and widely abused loophole within the sector.

If you want to work in the demolition or construction industry, you need a competence card to do so.? While I don’t actually believe that such a card is any proof of real-world competence, those that have not obtained their cards by spurious means have at least been vetted.

If you want to sell equipment into the demolition and construction industry, your equipment needs to meet certain criterion on its safety and suitability for a specific task.? Equipment sold here in the UK carries a CE Mark, for example.

So if you want to work in the industry, you need to be checked.? If you sell equipment into this industry, that equipment needs to be checked.? But, as Brian Barry says:? “Anyone can call themselves a builder.”? Equally, anyone with scant regard for their personal safety and a keen sense of adventure can call themselves a demolition contractor.? When Brian Barry said this can’t be right, I found myself nodding in agreement.

You need a license to operate a landfill or a waste transfer station.? You need a license to handle asbestos, a license to drive a heavy goods vehicle.? You need a license to drive a car, host a live sporting event, host the performance of a play, to sell hot food or drink after 11pm at night, or to fish on one of the country’s many lakes, rivers and canals.? Yet you can set up a demolition or construction business this afternoon, totally unlicensed.

Now I realise that yet another form of regulation is probably the last thing that anyone wants to consider in the midst of a deepening economic recession.? Times are already tough enough.

But think about the potential benefits that a well-structured and well-policed licensing scheme could offer.

It would ensure that individuals or businesses meet certain standards, such as safety, quality, and competency.? It would reduce the risk of harm by ensuring that only qualified professionals can operate in a given field. Licensing helps prevent unqualified companies and individuals from performing dangerous or substandard work.? Equally importantly, it would prevent those that employ the services of demolition and construction companies from attempting to save a few quid by choosing a lesser and unregulated contractor.

Licensing ensures fair competition, preventing unlicensed or under-qualified operators from undercutting legitimate businesses, ensuring fair market conditions and maintaining professional standards.?? A licensing scheme creates a framework for complaints, disciplinary actions, and revocations, ensuring ongoing compliance with regulations.

Perhaps most importantly of all, a licensing scheme would give us the ultimate sanction against those that flout health and safety regulations or that play fast and loose with legislation.? The temporary suspension or permanent revocation of a license would do more for industry standards than a thousand HSE enforcement notifications and slap-on-the-wrist fines ever could.

And if that viewpoint puts me and Brian Barry at odds with the wider industry, well, frankly, we’re both used to it.

This article was written by Mark Anthony, founder and editor of DemolitionNews.com.

For further demolition-related reading, please visit our Demolition Insider website.

DemolitionNews is also the world’s largest demolition dedicated YouTube channel.

If you would like to help support the author, you can do so via Buy Me a Coffee