Grenfell inquiry: Failed fire test not a ‘deadly secret’, says cladding firm boss

Claude Schmidt admitted more tests ‘should have been carried out’ but said cladding panels were ‘flammable but not necessarily dangerous’

The Grenfell Memorial Wall in the grounds of Kensington Aldridge Academy (PA)

The boss of the company that produced cladding used on Grenfell Tower has denied that a failed fire test on the panels is his firm’s “deadly secret”.

According to a 2004 test, a “cassette” version of Reynobond PE (polythylene) cladding panels that was used on the west London high-rise block burned faster and released around seven times as much heat and three times the rate of smokes as a sister product.

Claude Schmidt, president of the French division of multinational firm Arconic, told the inquiry into the disaster that “extra tests should have been carried out” on the panels, which he said were “flammable but not necessarily dangerous”.

The company’s Reynobond panels come in two variants - cassette and rivet - but the inquiry heard that there were “very great” differences between their fire performance and that the cassette version performed “spectacularly worse” in the 2004 test.

Despite this, the test data was not shared with certification bodies or customers and the cassette panels were sold under the same fire safety certificates as the rivet form, which had better fire performance, the inquiry heard.

Richard Millett QC, the inquiry’s lead counsel, suggested that Arconic Architectural Products (AAP) regarded the results as “rogue” because the manufacturer had a “general expectation that the cassette ought to have performed better than rivet”.

He said: “Is it not the case that Arconic’s view that the test was a rogue is no more than an untested assumption?”

Mr Schmidt, who gave his evidence through a French translator, said: “Not confirmed, yes.”

Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said: “One possible view of the way that Arconic responded to that test we are discussing is that it was irrational and irresponsible not to carry out further tests to establish whether the cassette system performed as badly as the first test suggested.”

Mr Schmidt replied: “Yes. As I said, I think that extra tests should have been carried out.”

Sir Martin has already found that the panels acted as a “source of fuel” and were the “principal reason” the flames shot up the tower at such speed in June 2017, claiming 72 lives.

Mr Schmidt agreed with Mr Millett that “if the Grenfell Tower fire had never happened, no one would ever have known about the failed test”.

However, when asked if he accepted that the test was “Arconic’s deadly secret”, Mr Schmidt replied: “No. Because, once again, the product that was sold is not dangerous in itself.

“It did have some risks which were dealt with differently in different countries and according to legislation... there are many things we do use every day which do give rise to certain risks.

“The test shows that the product is flammable but not necessarily dangerous.”

A fire certificate issued by the British Board of Agreement (BBA) in 2008 made no distinction between the variants and effectively presented both as having a rating of Euroclass B in fire tests.

The cassette variants achieved no rating in the 2004 tests and eventually achieved the second lowest classification of Euroclass E in 2010 tests, the inquiry heard.

Westway Trust, which supported Grenfell victims, has failed to ‘understand, identify and address racial disparity’ over the years (Steve Parsons/PA)

Mr Schmidt accepted the BBA certificate contained a “false statement” by not differentiating between the panels, but said he could not explain “why that false statement was made” as he was “not involved in drawing up the BBA certificate”.

“That was the responsibility of the technical service and I don’t know why that was not communicated directly,” he added.

Earlier in the proceedings, Mr Schmidt was asked why he did not “seek to understand thoroughly the testing and certification which supported that product” when he became managing director in 2007.

Mr Schmidt replied that it “wasn’t my priority”, but when asked why “fire safety and life safety” were not his priority, he said he thought these words were “a bit too strong”.

Arconic has always held the position that it simply produced the raw materials for cladding systems and did not necessarily know how they would be used, therefore making it impossible for the firm to know if the materials meet building regulations.

A statement from Claude Wehrle, a technical manager who worked for Arconic who is refusing to give oral evidence to the inquiry, said staff were “puzzled” by the 2004 test results.

He said it was “not seen as a key issue or priority at the time” and “the company had no reason to suspect this was anything other than the rogue result of a standard classification test”, and did not carry out further tests.

Mr Schmidt is due to continue giving evidence for the rest of the week.