Dear all
I am passing on this email I've had from Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, a parent at
Mary Magdalene. I've had this issue put on the agenda for the next Health
and Safety Committee, though I think we should be pressing for some answers
fairly quickly.
I think that the first thing that comes out of this is the tendency for
builders to ignore safety guidelines in the interests of bashing on with the
job. They have financial penalties for missing deadlines so they tend to cut
corners. We need to establish what the penalties are for Health and Safety
breaches of this nature and who is responsible for enforcing them. Where
does the buck stop with this? This is not the first incident of this sort.
In this specific instance we need to know what the consequence for this
contrator will actually be.
There is then the question of why it was left to the parents to contact the
HSE. What role is supposed to be played by who. There may be some issue here
about communication between the school and CEA H&S. We need to ask them when
they first knew about what had happened and what was then done.
There is the additional question of who is responsible for carrying out
sampling/analysis of suspect material? If it is not the HSE's job, who does
it?
There is then question of who gave the order to go ahead with the demolition
when the plans for the academy had not actually been formally passed? This
would be better brought up at tomorrow's joint Unions meeting under the
Academies item since it is not specifically Health and Safety.
What do you all think? is there anything I've missed? we can talk about this
tomorrow after the meeting and agree a set of questions/demands to get the
ball rolling.
>From:
>To:
>Subject: Re: Mary Magdalene Dust Cloud
>Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:43:06 EST
>
>Hi Paul,
We were alarmed that no-one took responsibility and so we did, as at 4.p.m. on
Monday it was like a smog, totally unacceptable for anyone particularly children at
such a close distance, (on the the Tuesday morning the bell to start school went and
a huge part of the building crashed down, lots of children and parents got covered,
and some had particles go in their eyes.
You could write your name in the dust, that lay on equipment, it was so thick. Info
Q: Was inadequate - no reassurances that the hazardous material was properly
removed, so we intervened and called HSE, see attached letter for local papers this
week.
Parental persp Q: The work would continue as behind schedule, but would wait until half term as suggested by HSE and as would need to use 6 hose pipes, they only had two, then had 4 and a cherry picker and still could not control dust.
Children persp Q; thought it a huge accident, then was a risk and some very worried about breathing, eyes, eczema and dirty feel to skin. some children had to use their asthma pumps which the majority had not used for some time previously, or had to increase their dosage's and some did not attend school because of this
Learn: Total lack of communication between contractors, Enviro. health, HSE, staff, parents, pupils. No-one wanted to deal with the problem once it was obviously a serious problem, envro. health said have no facilities to test hazardous materials - (we still have a sample) and they failed to update us, as if we were the ones who should be prosecuted, there should be massive fines to the benefit of the children, who are put at risk and there should be a proper chain of command, where everyone, including residents are kept informed with no risk, No Oops sorry's. as then they are able to just walk away as if nothing has happened.
This is what was sent today to papers.
Yours Faithfully,
>Cxxxxxx.
>
>Islington Gazette 16 Feb www.islingtongazette.co.uk
>Islington Tribune 17 Feb email: editorial@Islingtontribune.co.uk
>Dear Editor,
>Both Messrs. Kempton and Peryer have again given misinformation, now on
>the
>St. Mary Magdalene Primary School recent dust choking episode featured in
>your newspaper (date file://Feb). The truth
is that worried parents were
>forced to
>call in the Health and Safety Executive who was concerned proper
>procedures
>were not in force as he had no prior knowledge of the removal of asbestos,
>fibreglass or any other hazardous materials, nor the necessary
>certification.
>The dust was extremely hazardous to the children, many of which needed
>medication and were off school, so there was definitely a serious health
>hazard
>caused by this work. So much so the contract workers shouted at children
>to "keep
>away from the fibrous dust", (now believed to have been shouted
>fibreglass),
> the children had to be removed from the playground twice on the Monday
>6/2/06, work was then stopped on the Tuesday 7/2/06 9.15 am after anxious
>parents
>went and spoke directly to the contractors, as the HSE had said they were
>to
>have six hose pipes to control the dust, which they had not. Then to
>check
>if they could control the dust, before continuing the demolition. The
>council
> Environmental Health did not return parents phone calls, so the HSE was
>re-contacted, about the fibrous dust, it was then arranged work would start
>again during half term and the environmental health would get the dust
>analyised.
>(Don't hold your breath, they don't have facilities! But the contractors
>could assure them what was in the dust material). The removal of the
>asbestos
>details and certificates were only being sent to the HSE after Wednesday
>8/2/06 as this had not been done before. It is alarming that the
>so-called
>managers of this scheme are a) totally unaware of the safety regulations
>and
>procedures, b) have no intent to protect our children c) are
prepared to
>create
>a cover-up story d) should not be in a position to arrange demolition as
>the
>adjudicator has not made his decision (until the first week of March '06
>as
>to) whether the academy project is go ahead or NOT. e) they did not even
>ask
> for quotes from the contractor to ensure scaffold and adequate sheeted
>screening was provided, as promised to parents of our Primary School.
>f) failed to arrange demolition around the half term. g) failed to get the
>playground cleaned of the thick white dust after such a major demolition.
>h)
>rain does not wash away hazardous materials, i) this should have
been
>prevented if the promoters had attempted to manage this responsibly. None
>of this
>should have happened, and is totally unacceptable, and they should
>apologise
>and put into place professional safety measures.
>Islington Council has sold a very large school site in Barnsbury Road
>through to Offord Road to developers, (which makes at least six schools in
>the
>immediate neighbourhood) which would have provided much more suitable
>sites for
>a genuine Church of England Secondary School, as promised in their
>manifesto.
> Instead Islington Council is determined to destroy St. Mary Magdalene
>Primary School, which is one of the best primary schools in Islington,
>thus
>ignoring the wishes of over 80% of the parents and the vast majority of
>people in
>the wider community.
>Whatever happened to democracy - and integrity?
>Yours sincerely, X Xxxxx
>For and behalf of over 80% of the parents of St. Mary Magdalene Primary
>School