Federation of Master Builders (FMB), Chief Executive, Brian Berry explains why licensing builders could transform standards, protect consumers and strengthen the UK’s construction sector.
Please introduce the Federation of Master Builders
The Federation of Master Builders (FMB) is the UK’s largest trade association in the construction industry. We represent thousands of small and medium-sized building companies, from sole traders to established regional firms. For 85 years, the FMB has championed quality, professionalism and high standards across the sector, while helping consumers find builders they can trust in their local area.
Alongside our role as a trade body, we carry out research into both industry conditions and homeowner experiences. That evidence base is central to our “Licence to Build” campaign, which is focused on addressing deep-rooted issues around trust, quality, and accountability in construction.
The FMB has proposed a mandatory licensing scheme for building companies, what specific failures in the current system make licensing necessary now rather than incremental reform?
The fundamental issue is that there is currently no universal requirement to prove competence before operating as a builder. Anyone, regardless of training, skill, or experience can legally carry out construction work.
Our recent research with the HomeOwners Alliance shows the scale of the problem. A lack of consumer confidence is costing the UK economy £11.2 billion every year, with one in five homeowners delaying projects because they cannot find a builder they trust.
Many building projects are delayed because of serious errors – 27% relate to upgrading electrics, plumbing or heating, and 24% involve fixing structural issues. Incremental reform has not addressed these systemic failures which plague our industry.
How would a licensing model practically differentiate between competent small builders and those operating below acceptable standards, particularly in a fragmented SME-led market?
A licensing system should be designed to recognise and support small building companies, not penalise them. The majority of small builders already deliver high-quality work and licensing would give them a clear way to demonstrate that to clients, rather than lose work to cowboy builders who often undercut them.
Licensing criteria could include a mix of proven experience, qualifications, references, and compliance with building regulations. Importantly, it wouldn’t rely solely on formal qualifications. Practical experience and a strong track record would carry equal weight.
In practice, the FMB’s proposed model would be based on a UK licensing body acting as the first point of contact, with applicants guided to the right scheme provider. Builders would apply through a preferred scheme provider, receive a provisional licence first, and then move to a full licence once they have passed inspection and demonstrated competence.
Our Licence to Build report also envisages a tiered, risk-based approach, with renewal checks, sporadic field inspections, and appeals if a firm fails to meet the standard.
One concern often raised is cost and administrative burden. How would a licensing scheme avoid disproportionately affecting smaller firms without weakening its intent?
We fully recognise that any new system must be proportionate and accessible. A well-designed licensing scheme would be tiered, with costs reflecting the size and scale of the business. Sole traders and micro-businesses should face minimal financial and administrative barriers.
The report also suggests that the licence should be industry-funded, with fees tiered by firm size and risk level, which would help keep the model self-sustaining and fair.
It’s also important to consider the economic context. By rebuilding confidence, licensing has the potential to unlock significant work, making it an investment in economic growth rather than just an added cost.
How do you address the risk that licensing could drive non-compliant operators further into the informal or cash-in-hand economy?
The informal economy is already a challenge under the current system, so maintaining the status quo is not a solution. Licensing would help bring more of the sector into the formal economy. Our research shows that 68% of homeowners believe licensing would increase their confidence, and there is widespread expectation that builders should meet certain standards. A worrying 47% of UK adults mistakenly believe builders are already licensed.
By aligning regulation with public expectation and raising awareness, licensing would shift demand towards compliant builders. Combined with enforcement measures, this would make it increasingly difficult for unlicensed operators to compete.
In practical terms, how would licensing improve outcomes for homeowners and developers during the build process, rather than only acting as a pre-qualification measure?
It would introduce clear expectations around competence, professionalism, communication, contracts and dispute resolution.
Our research shows that 33% of homeowners have experienced poor workmanship, 22% have been left with unfinished projects, and 15% have lost money, on average £1,759 per person. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect a systemic lack of accountability. Licensing would create mechanisms for ongoing oversight, including the ability to revoke licences to build where standards are not met.
The report sets out four pillars for the system: health and safety, competence, quality management and disputes. Together, these would create a much clearer route to accountability and redress.
If licensing was introduced, what would be the most immediate operational change for housebuilders and contractors, and where would you expect resistance within the industry?
The most immediate change would be the need to formally evidence competence and professionalism. For many builders, particularly those already operating to high standards, this would largely formalise existing practices.
Resistance is likely from those concerned about additional regulation, as well as from operators who currently fall below acceptable standards. There may also be apprehension among smaller firms about cost and administration, which is why proportional design is so important.
However, there is also strong support within the industry. Our research shows that 86% of builders back the introduction of a licensing scheme.
What role should ongoing professional development play within licensing, and how would compliance be monitored over time?
Ongoing professional development should be a core requirement. Construction is constantly evolving and maintaining high standards requires continuous learning.
A licensing scheme could include mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD), with clear requirements for annual training. This could be supported by industry bodies, training providers, and digital platforms. Compliance could be monitored through licence renewals, supported by evidence of CPD and ongoing performance.
Anything else you would like to add?
The message from both homeowners and builders is clear: the current system is not working! There is a significant gap between what people believe is in place and the reality.
Ultimately, licensing is not about adding red tape, it’s about building a safer, more reliable, and more respected construction industry. One that works better for homeowners, for builders, and for the wider economy.
