Rogue Builders

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier]

Absolutely. Not only that, but if we think about the consequences, those 97 emails could have been sent for any one of the 100,000 constituents that we each have. We should not be doing this, and there should be a mechanism to sort it out.

The important reality of all this is that there is no disincentive at all for the cowboy builder to present fictitious bills and do bad work. While the consumer must engage in a risky legal process, the rogue builder can game the system with no jeopardy whatever. As we learned from Mr Bennett's story in Merseyside and the many other people who contacted me, the police will not investigate a case with regard to fraud and rogue builders, as they deem it a civil matter.

So what is the solution? How do we protect honest builders, subcontractors, merchants and, importantly, our constituents and consumers? How do we redress the balance of risk so that it does not favour the rogue builder but gives equal weight to both consumer and builder? The builder is not always in the wrong, so the solution must be balanced. Builders may occasionally need to be protected from rogue customers. The answer must lie in a scheme of regulation and licensing. In essence, what I am seeking to do—I have had a couple of presentation Bills on this topic—is get the Government to come up with a scheme of compulsory licensing for SME building firms working in the renovation and domestic improvement space. We do not know what it will be, but we need a system in which there is an equivalence of risk on both sides. There must be something that the builder as an individual can lose if he or she is found not to be doing their job properly.

My experience in this area has been with financial services and regulatory reform. Although I am not proposing anything remotely as complex as the FCA or the PRA to regulate builders, there is more than one important carry-across from financial services regulation. The first is that we do not want regulation to be a burden on the taxpayer. A licensing scheme must be self-financed through licensing fees: the building firms must pay for it.

Rules for having a licence must be straightforward. Importantly, no firm or individual should be allowed to offer services directly to customers without a licence. That in itself would result in the wider building industry policing the market. If a builder knows that somebody else is a dodgy builder, it is in their interest to report them. Mortgage lenders would require evidence that money will be spent on a licensed firm. Architects and surveyors acting as project managers would need to see licences to engage a building firm in the first place, so consumer would know what they are getting. Consumers would be able to check the builder on the regulator’s website, in the same way that they can check their pension adviser on the FCA register. The regulator could be TrustMark, which already offers voluntary regulation. There should a code of conduct covering honesty, safety and quality of work. Failure to comply should have a series of sanctions, with the ultimate sanction of the loss of licence.

An option could be a compensation scheme. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is an example of how consumers who have lost out as a result of poor practice can be compensated for their loss from a scheme financed by levies placed on licence holders in the relevant sector. The double effect is that the consumer gets their losses covered while the industry as a whole is incentivised to keep an eye on each other. An ombudsman would be able to assess consumer loss without the need to engage expensive and lengthy legal and professional experts to defend against bogus builds or to challenge poor work. These proposals aim to end the decades-long history of consumers who have been ripped off in one way or another by shoddy rogue builders.

I am conscious of time, Ms Furniss, but I want to acknowledge that the Government have started to resolve some of these issues. A New Homes Quality Board has been set up to ensure that new homes are built to a certain standard. That is a welcome development. The fact that it has an ombudsman demonstrates that the Government and I are probably thinking along the same lines in a broad sense, but the New Homes Quality Board is targeted specifically at the new homes market. Given the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes, it will have its work cut out. Importantly, it is not designed for the RM&I sector, which remains wholly unregulated and unsupervised. That is what the Minister must concentrate on.

Many people agree that this problem in the RM&I sector is beyond redemption. The Federation of Master Builders report on this subject in 2018 said that even construction firms themselves agree that a compulsory licensing scheme is necessary. The industry wants it too: 77% of SME builders and 78% of consumers agree with the FMB’s proposed licensing scheme.

Enough is enough. I have a few more words about my engagement so far. Unfortunately, the Housing Minister is on his feet in the main Chamber talking about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I was looking forward to beating him up a bit, because he has been less than brilliantly helpful. None the less, it is very good to see the Minister from the Department for Business and Trade in her place. I look forward to hearing her helpful words about how the Government will introduce legislation to ensure our constituents are not ripped off endlessly by these wretched builders.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I am keen to bring this debate to a conclusion before the first of many expected Divisions is called, with all participants having had a satisfactory opportunity to contribute to it. Mr Garnier and the Front Benchers have graciously agreed to watch the clock, curtail their remarks and be very succinct. I ask all of you to be extremely brief with speeches and interventions.

I expect the first Division at 4.15 pm. To help me to enable all those who wish to contribute to the debate to do so, please stand now that Mr Garnier has moved the motion and made his speech, so that I can calculate accurately the initially informal limit on speeches that I will strongly encourage.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

There will be a limit of four and a half minutes for each speech. I call Sarah Hall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

I absolutely agree. Voluntary measures only go so far, and the Competition and Markets Authority must step up to enforce this work.

The lack of consistent action against non-compliant trade recommendation sites undermines confidence, creates an unlevel playing field and ultimately hurts the very people we are here to protect—both consumers and legitimate businesses.

That brings me to another issue I have been campaigning on: tool theft. Just as rogue builders threaten trade in the industry, tool theft threatens its very foundation. Every van stolen, and every break-in on a building site or driveway, means another tradesperson unable to work, another small business losing its livelihood and another family struggling to make ends meet. More than 1 million tool theft incidents have occurred in the past five years. Tool theft costs the economy hundreds of millions, and fuels the black market and more rogue builders. I have been calling for a national register for stolen tools, mandatory marking and traceability requirements for high-value tools, and stronger police action and sentencing for repeat offenders. Protecting tradespeople from crime goes hand in hand with protecting our consumers from rogue builders: both rely on trust, fairness and accountability.

I urge the Government to take four steps: first, strengthen the enforcement of consumer protection laws and ensure that—

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Munira Wilson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for securing this important debate.

A house builder and social housing provider have treated some of my constituents disgracefully. Three families with children bought shared ownership homes in Wokingham. One family refused to move in due to mould and damp in the house and the other two found mould all over the cupboards. It has been found that the houses were missing a crucial damp-proof membrane and course, both vital to keeping moisture out of the house.

There has been a real lack of communication and empathy from the company and housing provider, and they have ignored the residents’ claims for many months. After my intervention, the social housing provider agreed to decant the residents while remedial work is done to the houses. It is now backtracking on that commitment, and it has taken far too long for the builder and the social housing provider to acknowledge fault, which has had a serious toll on my residents. It is clear that the builder and social housing provider cannot be trusted to build and maintain quality housing going forward.

I have one question for the Minister: does he agree that house builders and social housing providers must be held to account, and that local authorities must be able to end relationships with underperforming house builders and social housing providers to protect residents?

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I call Ben Maguire. I ask you to be quite swift, because we understand there may be Divisions sooner than we expected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss, and to see the Minister. This is our second interaction in a week, and, under the direction of the Chair, it will be a lot shorter than the last.

I congratulate my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), on securing this debate. I commend his commitment to this issue over many years. Many of us turn up to these debates as one-offs, but he is a consistent champion for builders and against rogue builders.

My hon. Friend again raises a very fair and well-intentioned question: how can we in this place best protect our constituents from the scourge of rogue builders? He is right that the issue is caused by a minority of people and organisations in the construction industry, who exploit people’s good nature and certainly do not deliver for their customers. We all know someone who has faced this issue, whether that is homeowners or subcontractors, particularly those in the repair, maintenance and improvement sector, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

We have seen the best of Westminster Hall today. I have been struck by the many excellent examples given by hon. Members from many different parties and from across the country of people who have suffered the consequences of cowboy builders. I genuinely thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate.

This issue is not simply aesthetic or material; it can and often does have very serious consequences. That is why I am pleased that, in recent years, there has been some progress to address some of the problems set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. For example, there are various competent person schemes that allow builders to self-certify, ensuring that they follow certain rules to comply with building regulations. These schemes ensure that customers are provided with the appropriate financial protection for a minimum of six years to correct work in dwellings that are non-compliant with building regulations.

For our part, the previous Conservative Government passed the Building Safety Act 2022, which introduced competence requirements on anyone doing design or building work. The legislation also brought about the creation of the Building Safety Regulator and the Industry Competence Committee, both of which help to encourage and monitor industry competence. I am nevertheless really looking forward to hearing from the Minister about what specific plans she and her Government have to build on that work to further address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and many other Members from both sides of the House.

Another part of what we can do to push out rogue builders must surely be to encourage those builders who follow the law, play by the rules and deliver for customers. I would not be doing my job if I did not reflect the concerns of the builders I spoke to in preparation for the debate by pointing out that, unfortunately, builders feel that that is not happening under this Labour Government. Instead of backing builders who are not rogue and who work hard, the Government are determined to make sure that doing the right thing just does not pay.

I have spoken many times about the impact of the national insurance hike on the construction industry, but I want to use the last moments of my speech to ask the Minister directly, on behalf of the National Federation of Builders, about the builders tax that the Chancellor is proposing in the upcoming Budget. That will add another £28,000 to the cost of building a new home and drive up the cost of critical national infrastructure, including roads, schools, factories and even nuclear power stations. It will add significant costs to construction and the building sector, and I was asked to ask the Minister what is going on with this Government if they are proposing this tax by way of a formal consultation. On behalf of the official Opposition, I want to be clear that this tax cannot go ahead. Builders and construction workers want to hear her response to that specific point. There are so many hard-working builders in this country, and so many people who make something, and we must get behind them.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister to respond to the debate—very briefly.

Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman should perhaps go for a tour and see what the speciality is, but it is defence, aerospace and industrial engineering on the Stocksbridge site. The Rotherham site has two electric arc furnaces, which feed the Stocksbridge site, and there is huge expertise there. There are a number of other sites that feed various sectors, such as the automotive industry, hydraulics and a whole range of others. There are a range of specialisms.

On the investigation, the official receiver will look at what is true and what is not, because there have not been any accounts published for many years. They will establish what has happened. The Secretary of State has written to the Insolvency Service today to ask it to take special account of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, and to pass over any information it uncovers to the Serious Fraud Office, so that it can do its work.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on the decisions she has made in the last few weeks. We in Sheffield are very proud of our steel industry, and we want to resurrect it. We want people to be proud of the city, and to get into the same work that their grandparents did many years ago. Constituents who have been in contact with me on the issue will be very relieved, following the reassurance that the Minister has given, but if she could clarify the pension issue, that would offer even more reassurance.

I am so proud to hear our Minister speaking about steel, and I am quite disgusted at the way the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), and other Conservative Members have tried to pretend that they did not run down the steel industry. They never even had a steel strategy in all their years in office. They really ought to apologise for the absolute rubbish they were talking.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the failings of the Opposition, which we all understand very well. On the pension issue, I recognise the concern that people will have. We have to let the official receiver get under the hood and work out what has been paid and what has not, because that is not clear. Once we know, we will look into that and do what needs to be done, but I do not want to say something on the subject until we know the reality.

Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone]

That is a wise point, and in calling me “gallant”, my hon. Friend refers to my service in the Territorial Army, but that is a different matter from the one before us today.

At the heart of the debate, surely, has been the need for private sector businesses to take responsibility for the public duty that historically these corporations held. There could be an awful lot more done on that front. Let us see what we can encourage them to do. Simply upping and leaving rural communities because they place more value on footfall found in urban centres is not acceptable. We have to say that the smaller communities are worth it, and encourage these businesses to be there just as much as they might head off to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen in my own case, which is not satisfactory.

To conclude, if the private sector collaborated with the Government, and looked at ways to support the high street, real and proper progress could be made in keeping physical stores, bank branches and vital town centre businesses thriving and open in our rural communities. That is a great prize that would mean an enormous amount to our electorates in whatever part of the United Kingdom.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I also remind them that interventions are meant to be very brief if we are to allow everyone to speak in this big debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

We have quite a lot of speakers, so I will limit speeches to three minutes each so that everyone will get an opportunity to get in the debate. I reiterate that interventions should be brief so that colleagues get the opportunities that they are here for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask Members to keep strictly to three minutes. You are going over that limit and speaking other people out. If you cannot keep to the limit, we will have to put the timer on, and you will be cut short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

There are still many of you wishing to speak, so I will restrict you each to two minutes because we want to hear a response from the Minister and the spokespeople. I call Alison Hume.

[Alison Hume]

I would like to give my time to somebody else. I have intervened on the subjects I wish to speak about.

Football Index Collapse: Lessons Learned

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate on such an important issue, which has caused a great deal of suffering for thousands of people.

Several years ago, I met a group of parents outside Hillsborough stadium whose loved ones had tragically taken their own lives after struggling with gambling addiction. The victims were mainly in their 20s and 30s. The parents were taking part in the Big Step, and were walking between five Yorkshire football grounds to call for an end to gambling advertising and sponsorship in football. Thirty-five clubs across the UK have signed the Big Step’s pledge to eliminate gambling advertisements in football, and Premier League teams have agreed not to take front-of-shirt sponsorship deals from gambling firms from 2026. However, that leaves us in the nonsensical situation whereby we recognise the dangers posed by gambling sponsorships but are happy to relegate them to the sleeves of football kits and advertising hoardings around stadiums, despite research showing that only 5% of gambling logos showed during live Premier League football matches would be affected by the front-of-shirt ban—in my opinion, that is 5% too many.

We need to do far more to combat the blight of gambling sponsorship in sport. I remain disappointed that the Government’s White Paper on gambling reform, which required the introduction of a cross-sport gambling sponsorship code of conduct, has been continually delayed. Will the Minister tell us when that code of conduct will be introduced? Will he investigate KiX, which is now operating instead of FI?

Sadly, any changes to legislation on football sponsorship are too late for the users of Football Index. Prior to its collapse, Football Index sponsored the shirts of three English Football League teams. Those sponsorship deals helped to convey an aura of trust and respectability that may not otherwise have existed, furthering the dupe that it was an investment platform. Football Index was more than happy to play into that misconception. Internal company documents reveal that Neil Kelly, the director of BetIndex—the Jersey-based company that ran Football Index—said:

“the Football Index platform functions somewhat similarly to a stock market, hence for marketing purposes it is sometimes referred to as the football stock market and when the Company uses this term, it is deliberately misspelled as the football ‘stockmarket’.”

As one of the previous speakers said, that is working in the dark shadows of the law. It is completely unacceptable, and I really hope that the Minister will put it right. The deliberate misspelling may have reassured directors that they were not operating a stock market, but that distinction was less than apparent to their customers. The Guardian reported:

“The only hint on its website that it was actually a betting site was an easy-to-miss strapline, which was added several years into its existence at the insistence of the Advertising Standards Authority.”

The authority had previously complained that the language used by Football Index was

“synonymous with the language used to describe conventional stock markets and investment products.”



The Gambling Commission has been made aware of the concerns, having been warned in January 2020 that tens of thousands of users were being

“misled into believing they are investing rather than gambling, with little or no consideration that all of their money is at risk”,

and that the platform was little more than an “exceptionally dangerous pyramid scheme” in a formal submission by industry experts. However, the platform’s misleading nature meant that there was a reluctance from both the Gambling Commission and the FCA to take ultimate responsibility for regulating the product, to the detriment of the thousands of Football Index’s victims.

Let us not forget that consumers have rights, including a right to redress if their product is mis-sold. Customers in a regulated industry such as gambling have the right to expect that the regulations will be adequate, appropriate and diligent. The users of Football Index have been wronged. The regulatory failings have cost thousands of people dearly, and they deserve compensation for their losses. However, beyond that, we need real systematic change. Football is watched by millions of young people every week, yet they are still subjected to constant gambling advertisements. I fear that without urgent reform, more consumers will fall prey to similar products that intentionally blur the lines between gambling and investing. Will the Minister commit to helping ensure that the gambling sponsorship code of conduct is introduced as soon as possible?