A public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire has concluded that the tragedy was the result of “decades of failure” by the Government and other bodies to effectively regulate the safety of high-risk residential buildings.

The fire, which killed 72 people and permanently changed the lives of survivors, their families and the grieving communities around West Kensington, was also the result of “systemic dishonesty” by several construction companies.

According to Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report, these companies deliberately put profit ahead of their safety commitments. “They engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing process, distort data and mislead the market” about their products’ compliance with national regulations.

They were enabled to do so in the face of the lack of concern from an indifferent state that had turned its back on regulating public safety since the 1980s.

As Peter Apps, author of the excellent book Show Me The Bodies: How We Let Grenfell Happen, summed up: “The state stepped back, corporate greed stepped in, and innocent people died.”

The report makes serious allegations against the Building Research Establishment (BRE). This former government body researched and tested building materials and products in the interests of public safety until its privatisation in 1997. Since then, BRE has been a commercial organisation, working in partnership with the building and materials industry rather than for the public.

Once “a trusted name in the construction industry” and “recognized nationally and internationally as a leader in fire safety,” BRE has lost its legitimacy. Only a radical overhaul can restore it to its roots as a custodian of building and fire safety research.

Set up in 1972, the BRE dates back to a more active government. It has played a fundamental role in improving public safety, both in testing the conditions in which new building materials could be safely used and in establishing tests for new consumer products, including everything from storage heaters to furniture.

It is ironic that BRE was established at the same time that right-wing politicians, entrepreneurs, think tanks and newspapers were increasingly vocal in their criticism of the government for exercising too much control over everyday life and restricting the free market through excessive and burdensome regulation.

This led to a systematic loosening and elimination of “red tape.” Firefighters in particular were singled out for their excessive approach to enforcing proper evacuation procedures in hotels, apartments, and nursing homes. The government sought ways in which life-saving fire safety precautions could be provided “as economically as possible.”

It was against this backdrop that BRE was privatised in 1997. The successful bid, put forward by an internal management team, was challenged by the opposition Labour Party but passed swiftly through Parliament in the weeks before the general election.

John Gummer, then Secretary of State for the Environment, defended the decision, saying it was in line with the Conservative government’s commitment to “pursue deregulation where appropriate and sensible”.

BRE was freed from the burden of government accountability and was now free to “deploy its world-class capabilities both in the UK and internationally”. It is notable that its first moves as a commercial entity were to expand into international markets, while 115 of its 677 staff were made redundant.

The decision was a blunt political instrument that quickly passed through parliament at a time when emerging fire hazards required greater attention to public safety. Subsequent building fires raised questions about the safety of new cladding materials.

Liverpool’s ‘showcase’ fire

In 1991, a fire quickly spread through the newly installed rainscreen on the 11-storey Knowsley Heights in Liverpool, fortunately without causing any casualties. It was a £1 million refurbishment project described as a “showcase” for the regeneration of tower blocks across the country.

Instead, it should become a showcase for the dangers of overcladding. And it would have been if the BRE had drawn the government’s attention to the disastrous way in which the external wall system had reacted to fire.

Instead, the BRE report into the Knowsley Heights fire was cited in the Grenfell report for failing to “identify or assess significant contributing factors to the fire”.

It is also fair to say that the Government was aware of the risks associated with cladding but chose to ignore them. Indeed, its own body administering the national cladding programme asked its press officer to “downplay the fire issue” and the matter was dismissed as “not significant”.

Following a fatal 1999 fire at a tower block in Irvine, Scotland, a parliamentary committee investigated the dangers of cladding fires. It recommended clearer guidance to ensure cladding was “completely non-combustible”. But ministers ignored this, opting for BRE “large-scale testing” as the route to compliance.

However, as detailed in the final report of the Grenfell Inquiry, BRE’s own testing process was flawed and subject to manipulation by “rogue” manufacturers. Indeed, Moore-Bick accuses senior BRE staff of “unprofessional conduct” in advising clients on how best to pass tests and comply with regulations.

After 1997, BRE no longer served as a guardian of public safety. Privatization created an environment in which the government “was deprived of the full benefits of BRE’s advice and experience.”

The report found that BRE’s work, particularly in relation to external wall safety, was increasingly vulnerable to “unprofessional conduct, inappropriate practices, lack of effective supervision, poor reporting and lack of scientific integrity”.

BRE said it would “consider the report and its recommendations and continue to work constructively with government to ensure the new building safety and testing regime complies with the findings of the commission of inquiry report and is fit for purpose”.

What happens next?

While the Grenfell inquiry did not call for the state to re-take BRE, it did recommend the creation of a single national building regulator to take responsibility for its core activities of testing and certification.

Bringing BRE under national control, as called for by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and the Firefighters’ Union, would mark a decisive shift towards re-establishing building and fire safety research as a national priority.

We will not wait another seven years for justice to be done. The Prime Minister has promised “full accountability, including through criminal proceedings… as soon as possible.” We will hold him accountable for this.