So the debate on licensing for domestic contractors has come around again. Many professionals in today’s industry will remember the last time the debate peaked, around 1999-2000.
The growing belief that the existence of thousands of unregulated sole traders and small contractors was harming the overall image of the industry galvanised action. This resulted in the introduction of the industry and government-backed Quality Mark Scheme in 2003, a mechanism to give reputable tradesmen the opportunity to demonstrate their professionalism. It was supposed to be workable yet rigorous for contractors, and accessible and effective for consumers.
It completely failed – the costs involved for contractors made the voluntary scheme unattractive as a marketing tool and only a small number signed up. So the industry moved to Plan B, the TrustMark scheme, which had the advantage of being built on the foundation of existing consumer protection schemes, amalgamating them into a single brand with greater visibility to the public. That’s where we’ve been ever since.
The fact that the issue is even being discussed again has very little to do with the success or failure of TrustMark – most people would say it’s done a pretty good job of serving the public and giving them confidence they’re not going to be ripped off. It’s more to do with the fact that the industry has made considerable progress in that time in raising standards and meeting client needs: we’re safer, better qualified (partly due to the CSCS system), and delivering to high energy efficiency and sustainability standards as a matter of course. We have more focus on training and apprentices, and we’re delivering on parallel issues such as fair procurement and employment, BIM, and innovation.
In comparison, the technical, environmental and safety standards enjoyed by Mr & Mrs Jones remain stubbornly similar to those of 2003. There has been talk of a “two speed” industry in relation to BIM, but arguably the two speeds metaphor better describes the professional, qualified industry CIOB members belong to, and the hit-or-miss standards available to the Joneses.
So does all this add up to a need for mandatory licensing of some kind? It might – if the industry develops a clear idea of what it wants to achieve through licensing and can develop a cost-effective and workable scheme. But one thing we shouldn’t do is look back at the Quality Mark experience and say “it didn’t work then so it’s not going to work now”. We’ve come a long way since 2003, and much of the regulatory landscape as well as the voluntary standards the industry works to have changed. So there’s certainly an argument that our attitude to licensing should change with it.
