A recent debate in the House of Lords has sparked calls for the Building Research Establishment (BRE) to cease its certification role in modern construction methods.
- Concerns have been raised following the Grenfell Inquiry, criticising BRE’s inadequate testing and oversight practices.
- Confidence in modular building safety is questioned due to BRE’s current role in certifying construction methods.
- Key figures, including Lord Rooker and Baroness Wheatcroft, are demanding an independent body for construction certification.
- The BRE defends its impartiality and vows to continue collaborating with the government on building safety.
The House of Lords debate has brought significant attention to the Building Research Establishment’s (BRE) ongoing role in certifying modern methods of construction (MMC). This call to action comes in the wake of the Grenfell Inquiry’s final report, which critically assessed BRE’s performance and found its testing methods insufficiently rigorous. The inquiry uncovered practices marred by unprofessional conduct and a lack of scientific scrutiny, shaking the foundation of public confidence in BRE’s capabilities.
Further compounding the issue is the assertion that BRE’s certification of modular buildings could hinder the uptake of this innovative construction method due to diminished trust. Former Labour minister Lord Rooker underscored the need for an independent and professional approach to certifying modern construction techniques, emphasising the importance of public safety. Cross-bencher Baroness Wheatcroft echoed this sentiment, stressing the untenable position of expecting the public to invest in properties reviewed by an organisation under such scrutiny.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, representing the housing communities and local government ministry, acknowledged these concerns while affirming the government’s commitment to safe housing. She highlighted the equal applicability of building regulations to both traditional and modern construction methods, ensuring compliance across the board. Additionally, she insisted on developers’ responsibilities to adhere to these regulations, emphasising that innovation must not come at the cost of safety.
In its defence, BRE has stated its intention to continue contributing to the built environment’s safety, citing its robust, science-led approach. Despite being privately owned, it claims adherence to industry standards with a mission grounded in independence. BRE’s spokesperson highlighted the organisation’s longstanding role as a UKAS accredited body, maintaining their commitment to testing and certifying building products meticulously.
The debate over BRE’s role is part of a broader discourse on modern construction methods and the need for transparent, reliable certification processes. Fresh concerns have been voiced about clarity on the government’s MMC strategy, with previous committees seeking detailed insight into plans involving Homes England. Moreover, BRE remains steadfast in its mission, welcoming the Grenfell report and promising to act on its recommendations to prevent future tragedies.
The future of BRE’s role in construction certification remains contested amidst calls for independent oversight.
