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

Return to Islington Campaign Against Academies Website