Written evidence submitted by Julie Winn, Chair of …Written evidence submitted by Julie Winn, Chair of the Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC) Executive Summary 1. JUAC is a trade

Written evidence submitted by Julie Winn, Chair of the Joint Union Asbestos Committee

(JUAC) Executive Summary

1. JUAC is a trade union campaigning committee comprising the six main education unions: Association of School and College Leaders; Association of Teachers and Lecturers; National Association of Head Teachers; NASUWT; National Union of Teachers; Voice; plus the education sections of Unite, UNISON, UCATT and the GMB. JUAC has the objective of making all UK schools and colleges safe from the dangers of asbestos. In the longer term we wish to see all asbestos removed from all schools and colleges. However JUAC recognises that, realistically, the focus in the short and medium term must be on safe management of asbestos in schools and colleges. In this submission “schools” will have the meaning “schools and colleges”.

The Key Issues around Asbestos in Schools 2. The main points of this submission are:

a. The full extent of the problem of asbestos in schools is not known as the statistics present an incomplete picture of the number of teacher deaths, there are limited statistics for support staff but there are no statistics for the number of pupils that have died. Knowledge and science is incomplete in terms of the vulnerability of children to asbestos and this calls for a precautionary approach to be adopted with schools being acknowledged as “unique workplaces”.

b. Existing statutory and regulatory legislation has focused on the dangers of ‘disturbing’

asbestos during maintenance or building work. Consequently unacceptable standards have been set in schools. The Government should re-instate proactive inspections to assess the standards of asbestos management in all schools, including academies that have left local authority control.

c. The Government’s policy of managing asbestos rather than planning for its phased removal

is flawed and does not present a credible means of safely managing the asbestos in UK schools. More than 75 per cent of Britain’s schools contain asbestos (i) .The Government should set a programme for the phased removal of asbestos from all schools, with priority being given to those schools where the asbestos is considered to be most dangerous or damaged.

_____________________________________________________________________ (i) E-mail Department for Education 20 Jun 2011

d. The precautionary principle should be adopted in assessing the risks posed by asbestos in schools. Reliable and complete data should be collected by Government to enable a proper cost benefit analysis to be carried out to allow proportionate resources to be allocated in prioritising removal in those schools containing the most dangerous asbestos. The Government needs to establish the extent and condition of asbestos in schools. It should urgently reverse its decision to exclude asbestos from the Property Data Survey Programme.

e. There should be an environmental airborne fibre level for schools and the Government

should commission a trial of air sampling to identify airborne asbestos fibres.

f. The Government should set standards for, and enhance the funding of, current asbestos management training for duty holders and asbestos awareness training for staff working on schools containing asbestos. The training should be mandatory.

g. As more schools move outside of local authority control and with the uncertainty

surrounding public liability insurance - the Government’s must now address the question of how future claims will be met.

h. There needs to be a policy of openness so that staff and parents are fully aware of the

presence of asbestos and what measures their school is taking to ensure that occupants are safe.

What evidence exists concerning the impact of asbestos (in its various forms) on young people and teachers 3. JUAC wishes to highlight that asbestos in schools impacts not just on teachers and young people, but on all staff in schools; including head teachers and support staff. 4. Exposure to asbestos fibres through inhalation is known to cause mesothelioma; a fatal cancer of the lining of the lungs. The disease is invariably fatal with most victims dying within 18 months of diagnosis. It often does not appear until around 40 years after the person first breathes in the dust and even low levels of exposure can cause mesothelioma to develop. 5. According to the available statistics the number of teachers dying from mesothelioma in Britain has increased from 3 a year in the 1980s to 14 a year in the last ten year period and more than 253 school teachers have died of mesothelioma since 1980 with more than 139 dying in the last ten years (ii). (ii)HSE Mesothelioma occupational statistics: Male and female deaths aged 16-74 1980-2000 Table 3,4 Southampton Occupation Group. 5 year time period 1980-2000 excluding 1981. E-mail HSE Statistics Unit/Lees 15 Jul 2008. Mesothelioma deaths in the education sector for males and females 2001-2005. HSE Mesothelioma mortality in Great Britain: Analyses by Geographical area and occupation 2005 Tables 11, 13 (2002-2005). HSE Epidemiology Unit CSAG, table 0977/Lees 2 Mar 2011 HSE Epidemiology Unit, table 0925./Lees+ 25 Feb 2011

6. The statistics are unreliable in terms of the actual number of teacher deaths caused by exposure to asbestos in schools. 7. The statistics do not include teacher mesothelioma deaths above the age of 74 years yet many people do die from mesothelioma above the age of 74 years. Teachers tend to be exposed to low levels of asbestos over a long period and this tends to lead to longer latency periods (iii). It is reasonable to assume that an above average number of teacher deaths occur above age 74 years. 8. We do not know the number of deaths per annum from asbestos exposure in schools in relation to support staff but from the limited information available we do know that school caretakers, cleaners, cooks, secretaries, teaching assistants and nursery nurses have died from mesothelioma (ii). 9. We know that pupils have died from mesothelioma as a result of negligent exposure to asbestos in school. There are no statistics for pupil deaths from mesothelioma. One of the main problems is that when clinicians take histories from patients these tend to be limited to occupational exposure. 10. All mesothelioma victims, irrespective of their environmental or later occupational exposure, have attended school and the Medical Research Council in its report Fibrous Materials in the Environment 1997 stated “Children attending schools built prior to 1975 are likely to inhale around three million respirable asbestos fibres …..It is not unreasonable to assume, therefore, that the entire school population has been exposed to asbestos in school buildings…Exposure to asbestos may therefore constitute a significant part of total exposure” (iv). 11. Childhood exposure to asbestos increases the risk of mesothelioma because children will live longer for the disease to develop (v). It has been estimated that a child of five is 5.2 times more likely to develop mesothelioma by the age of 80 than their teacher aged 30 (vi). The Committee on Carcinogenicity is considering whether children are intrinsically more vulnerable to asbestos because of their developing physiology but the science is thought to be incomplete. 12. Unless we have accurate and complete statistical and scientific evidence the extent of the problem cannot be known. However we know that the USA has assessed that for every teacher and support staff death from mesothelioma nine former pupils would subsequently die from their exposure to asbestos at school (vii). (iii) Asbestos exposures in malignant mesothelioma of pleura; a survey of 557 cases Bianchi Industrial health 2001,39, 161-167 . Malignant mesothelioma due to environmental exposure to asbestos: follow up of a Turkish cohort living in a rural area. Chestp2228. Metintas Mesothelioma: cases associated with non-occupational and low dose exposures Hillerdal Occup Environ Med 1999:56:505-513 (iv) Fibrous Materials in the Environment Medical Research Council Institute for Environment and Health P72 and 73 1007 (v) Asbestos. Vol 1 Final Report of the Advisory Committee. The risk to children. 1979 Para 112 P60 (vi) HSE Statistics Branch Darnton The quantitative risks of mesothelioma in relation to low-level asbestos exposure. BOHS 17 Oct 2007.

(vii) EPA Support document for the proposed rule on friable asbestos-containing materials in school buildings EPA report 560/12-80-003 p92. American Academy of Pediatrics Asbestos Exposure in schools Pediatrics vol 79, no 2 Feb 1987 p301- 305 Reaffirmed May 1994. 13. Proportionately this could in future years equate to well over 100 deaths a year in Britain. According to HSE cost benefit analysis this would represent a value for preventing a fatality of £200,000,000 per annum; taking the bench mark figure for death caused by cancer of £2,000,000 (2001 prices) (viii). 14. In the past when the issue of placing radio/phone masts at or near schools it was considered at that time that the knowledge and science were incomplete and the Government, rightly, adopted the precautionary principle. 15. It must be noted that staff and pupils cannot control their exposure to asbestos in school and do not assume the risks associated with the exposure voluntarily. As such JUAC considers that any policy approach that adopts anything other than a precautionary approach is socially and morally unacceptable and where there is uncertainty HSE policy is to and should err on the side of health and safety (viii). Whether current regulations and responsibilities for the management of asbestos in schools are adequate.

16. Legal responsibility for health and safety (including the risks posed by asbestos) in UK schools rests with the employer under the Health and Safety Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and, specifically in relation to asbestos, the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. Existing statutory and regulatory legislation has focused on the dangers of ‘disturbing’ asbestos during maintenance or building work consequently unacceptable standards have been set in schools.

17. There is no safe threshold below which it is safe to be exposed to airborne asbestos fibres (ix). As schools are unique workplaces asbestos risks in schools should be assessed using the precautionary principle. 18. Many Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) can be found in schools, e.g. lagging on pipes and boilers, sprayed asbestos insulating paint used on piping, walls and ceilings made with asbestos insulating board (AIB). ACMs are also present in door surrounds and within certain types of heaters. All of the three main types of asbestos have been used in school buildings. 19. Amosite (brown asbestos) was used extensively in school buildings between 1945 and 1975 and is up to 100 times more likely to cause mesothelioma than chrysotile (white) (x). Britain has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world. A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report concluded in 2009 that this was because Britain imported more amosite than any other country (xi). (viii) HSE Reducing Risks, protecting people HSE decision-making process 2001

(ix) WATCH committee minutes. 10 Nov 2009 http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/acts/watch/101109/minutes-nov09.pdf The Quantitative Risks of Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer in Relation to Asbestos Exposure Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 44, No. 8, pp. 565–601, 2000 Hodgson and Darnton Is there a threshold? (x) The Quantitative Risks of Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer in Relation to Asbestos Exposure Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 44, No. 8, pp. 565–601, 2000 Hodgson and Darnton Is there a threshold? (xi) HSE Occupational, domestic and environmental mesothelioma risks in Britain. 2009 . IMIG Congress Abstract 25-27 Sep 2008 20. In a school with asbestos in good condition background asbestos airborne fibre levels should not be greater than 0.0005f/ml (xii). 21. Schools are not subject to air sampling and so we do not know what the airborne levels are in UK schools. 22. Government policy relies on schools having robust asbestos management systems in place and Government says that it is safer to manage the asbestos than to remove it. 23. The policy is flawed. 24. So long as UK schools contain asbestos there is the potential for asbestos airborne fibre levels to be or become and remain significantly above background levels thus materially increasing the risk of mesothelioma for those occupants exposed. 25. Numerous asbestos incidents have occurred in UK schools (xiii). 26. Most recently following the closure of Cwmcarn High School following widespread asbestos contamination, a check on local authorities’ compliance with statutory duties was ordered by the Minister for Education, Leighton Andrews. The findings of this review left the Minister ‘not sufficiently assured’ that local authorities were discharging their statutory duty to manage asbestos (xiv). 27. When incidents occur the clearance indicator level is applied by HSE before allowing pupils back into the school (xv). This is an unacceptable standard to apply in a school. The clearance indicator level is 20 times greater than the background level of schools with asbestos in good condition. ________________________________________________________________________ (xii) Fibrous Materials in the Environment Institute for Environment and Health. P71 (xiii) See examples of asbestos incidents: http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/ASBESTOS%20INCIDENTS%20IN%20SCHOOLS%2014%20Dec%2009.pdf and: http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/npaper%20articles.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/acts/watch/101109/minutes-nov09.pdfhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/ASBESTOS%20INCIDENTS%20IN%20SCHOOLS%2014%20Dec%2009.pdfhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/ASBESTOS%20INCIDENTS%20IN%20SCHOOLS%2014%20Dec%2009.pdfhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/npaper%20articles.htm

Summary of enforcement action http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/HSE%20ENFORCEMENT%20SUMMARY%20%20NOV%2010%20to%20Jul%2011.pdf (xiv) Written Statement by the Welsh Government. Leighton Andrews, Minister for Education and Skills Asbestos in schools. 27 Nov 2012 http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/%20statement%20Welsh%20Government%20Asbestos%20in%20Schools%2027%20Nov.pdf (xv) HSC CAWR 2006 Work with materials containing asbestos ACOP 28. The Clearance Indicator is a workplace level for asbestos contractors. Because of the focus of the existing legislation, the Approved Codes of Practice and the Guidance unacceptable standards are being applied to schools 29. At the clearance indicator level teachers, support staff and pupils would inhale 6,000-10,000 fibres an hour. 30. As technology improves, the threshold levels on school exposure should be reduced to the lowest level possible and JUAC would wish to see an environmental (rather than workplace clearance) level set for schools as a minimum standard. 31. The Government cannot just say that it relies on schools having robust systems in place. It has to ensure that schools have robust systems in place. 32. It cannot do so if there is no national database recording the type, condition and extent of asbestos in UK schools against which HSE could then measure, by proactive inspection, the systems of asbestos management. 33. The Government claims that it is safer to manage asbestos than to remove it yet despite requests to the Department for Education no evidence has been produced to JUAC to support this claim. 34. In 2010 the CEO of Partnership for Schools stated that “80% of our schools are beyond their shelf life.” (xvi). The James Review concluded that “Significant parts of the school estate were and are in an unacceptable state.” The review also expressed concern about the particular vulnerability of children in schools by stating “Clearly, taking into account the potential vulnerability of young people, there needs to be good scrutiny and control over buildings in which they will spend much of their day.” (xvii) 35. HSE do not carry out proactive inspections of schools and so cannot provide reliable information on which to base a risk assessment. The limited information collected recently by HSE

http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/HSE%20ENFORCEMENT%20SUMMARY%20%20NOV%2010%20to%20Jul%2011.pdfhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/HSE%20ENFORCEMENT%20SUMMARY%20%20NOV%2010%20to%20Jul%2011.pdfhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/%20statement%20Welsh%20Government%20Asbestos%20in%20Schools%2027%20Nov.pdfhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/%20statement%20Welsh%20Government%20Asbestos%20in%20Schools%2027%20Nov.pdf

informs JUAC that a significant proportion of schools are not managing their asbestos to an adequate standard. 36. The 2011 HSE survey of a sample of non local authority schools resulted in enforcement action being taken against 17 per cent of the schools inspected (xviii). (xvi) Tim Byles, Chief Executive, Partnership for Schools Radio 4 Today Programme 1 April 2010 (xvii) Chief Executive PfS 1 Apr 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8598000/8598276.stm (xviii) Press release http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/hse-asbestosinschools.htm list of schools inspected: www.hse.gov.uk/services/education/asbestos-management-1011.htm HSE Enforcement data base: http://www.hse.gov.uk/notices/notices/notice_list.asp?PN=2&rdoNType=&NT=&SN=F&x=23&EO=LIKE&SF=SICD&SV=education&ST=N&y=10&SO=DNIS 37. Members of the Asbestos Consultants Association, who visit thousands of schools throughout the country, have also stated that “The evidence is that the system of asbestos management in many schools is not of an adequate standard. In some it is ineffective ,in others almost non existent and in some it is at times dangerous…” (xix) 38. Under existing legislation asbestos management surveys are not mandatory and when a survey is carried out the Regulations do not require a United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) accredited surveying company to undertake the work. Consequently schools can opt for the cheapest option rather than the best. 39. These failings in the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2012 (CAWR 2012) will inevitably lead to inconsistent standards of asbestos management in UK Schools. 40. Existing legislation does not go far enough to ensure that there are robust systems in place for the management of asbestos in schools. 41. The evidence from both HSE and the Asbestos Consultants Association suggests that A significant proportion of schools do not have robust systems in place. 42. Many schools will have commissioned a specialist survey in or around 2004 when the “duty to manage” asbestos regulation came into force. It is not known whether those have been reviewed by an asbestos expert since and few schools in the absence of a new specialist survey will have the competence to assess whether the condition of the ACMs has deteriorated. 43. A national assessment of the type, condition and extent of asbestos in UK schools with the data collated on a national central database would allow a proper risk assessment to be carried out so that proportionate resources could be allocated and a programme for

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8598000/8598276.stmhttp://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/hse-asbestosinschools.htmhttp://www.hse.gov.uk/services/education/asbestos-management-1011.htmhttp://www.hse.gov.uk/notices/notices/notice_list.asp?PN=2&rdoNType=&NT=&SN=F&x=23&EO=LIKE&SF=SICD&SV=education&ST=N&y=10&SO=DNIShttp://www.hse.gov.uk/notices/notices/notice_list.asp?PN=2&rdoNType=&NT=&SN=F&x=23&EO=LIKE&SF=SICD&SV=education&ST=N&y=10&SO=DNIS

phased removal of the most dangerous asbestos developed. 44. The Government claim that it is too late now to collect information within the Property Data Survey Programme (PDSP); JUAC called for this prior to the PDSP. 45. JUAC is not asking for asbestos surveys to be carried in individual schools and the surveys recorded; but simply for the information already held by local authorities on the asbestos in their schools to be collected held nationally (before more schools exit local authority control). 46. The failure to collect the available data on asbestos during the PDSP and to enter it onto the national database means that Government cannot realistically begin to assess the type, condition and extent of asbestos in UK schools. (xix) Assessment of asbestos management in schools Asbestos Testing and Consultancy Association 24 Jan 2010 http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/ASSESSMENT%20OF%20ASBESTOS%20MANAGEMENT%20IN%20SCHOOLS%20ATAC.%2022%20FEB%202010.pdf?zoom_highlight=atac#search="atac" 47. The Government is also unable to use the information in a cost benefit analysis to ensure that proportionate resources are allocated to the prevention of fatalities. 48. It is not known what the current annual costs of asbestos management in schools. 49. This is an important factor in the equation when cost benefit is being considered. Consequently we do not know what return the Government is making on the issue of the management of asbestos in schools. 50. We do know that if at least 14 teachers a year are dying then the annual Value per Fatality (VPF) is at a minimum £28,000,000; taking the HSE VPF figure of £2,000,000 per cancer death. 51. Despite the serious risk that the release of asbestos fibres poses many in the schools workforce are unaware of the presence of asbestos within their workplace and are not trained in asbestos awareness. 52. Asbestos is described by HSE in their campaign which focuses on those working with asbestos as “Asbestos - The Hidden Killer”. 53. In schools asbestos is often hidden in inaccessible locations (in ceiling, wall and floor voids) but it is also often in plain view (AIB walls). It has been known since the 1980s that routine classroom activities may cause the release of harmful fibres into the environment (xx).

http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/ASSESSMENT OF ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT IN SCHOOLS ATAC. 22 FEB 2010.pdf?zoom_highlight=atac#search="atachttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/ASSESSMENT OF ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT IN SCHOOLS ATAC. 22 FEB 2010.pdf?zoom_highlight=atac#search="atac

54. The lack of transparency around the issue of the presence of asbestos in schools and the gap in knowledge and expertise of those responsible for managing asbestos and those working in schools containing asbestos means that there is an ever present danger that staff and pupils will disturb asbestos resulting in fibre release. 55. A 2010 survey of over 600 school safety representatives showed that that only 28 per cent of respondents said the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) was clearly marked and only one third of respondents were aware that an asbestos register was kept (xxi). 56. None of the existing legislation makes it clear that asbestos management training for the duty holder is mandatory; some argue that it is not. None of the existing legislation makes it clear that asbestos awareness training for staff liable to disturb asbestos is mandatory; some argue that it is not. (xx)Asbestos in Schools The scale of the problem and the implications. 30 Oct 2011 P11-25 http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/AiSreportonASBESTOSINSCHOOLS.pdf (xxi) JUAC survey 2010 57. The Control of Asbestos Work Regulations 2012 and the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 are not sufficiently clear; such that confusion remains around the issue of mandatory asbestos management and awareness training. There is consequently a wide range of competency in schools around the issue of asbestos management and awareness. 58. We must look back to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and remind ourselves that the objective of that fundamental piece of legislation was not only to secure the health, safety and welfare of people at work but also the protection of people not at work against risks to their health and safety arising out of work activities. 59. We must also look to the future and consider the moves in the European Union and the work of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on “Asbestos related occupational health threats and the prospects for abolishing all existing asbestos”. Education has been specifically identified within the report as a key area for the start of action plans for asbestos removal (xxii). 60. As the number of academies rises and more schools move outside of local authority control there is increasing confusion as to who the duty holder is under the CAW 2012. 61. The legal responsibilities of trustees and governors in schools outside of local authority control may extend under CAW 2012 to include the management of asbestos in their schools (xxiii).

http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/AiSreportonASBESTOSINSCHOOLS.pdf

62. In advocating the precautionary principle JUAC would seek legislative change to make both asbestos management training for the duty holder (with a statutory definition for the duty holder) and asbestos awareness training for all staff working in schools containing asbestos mandatory. The impact of changes to capital building programmes on asbestos management in schools. 63. Soon after the Coalition Government came to power in 2010, the BSF programme, which had been due to either rebuild or refurbish every secondary school in England, was scrapped, leading to the cancellation of more than 700 school building projects. Instead the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, commissioned a review of capital funding for schools, the findings of which were published in April 2011. (xxii) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/empl/draft-reports.html?linkedDocument=true&ufolderComCode=EMPL&ufolderLegId=7&ufolderId=09306&urefProcYear=&urefProcNum=&urefProcCode=#menuzone http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-494.492&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=03 (xxiii) http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/education-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/the-role-of-school-governing-bodies/ 64. The ‘Review of Education Capital’, led by Sebastian James, was critical of the fact that there was no centrally-collated data on the condition of the £110 billion school estate in England and recommended that the Department should collate all existing information sources and establish a simple, well-designed database to manage this information (PDSP). 65. The Government accepted this recommendation; however it specifically excluded an audit of the extent, type and condition of asbestos in the school estate from the process (xxiv). This decision is perverse and illogical and should be reversed. Why should asbestos be included in the audit of school building stock? • Asbestos represents one of the largest costs in relation to both refurbishment and

maintenance.

• Effective management of asbestos is a continuous drain on resources – the Government should be in a position to quantify such costs.

• Even the most basic repairs are impeded by the presence of asbestos.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/empl/draft-reports.html?linkedDocument=true&ufolderComCode=EMPL&ufolderLegId=7&ufolderId=09306&urefProcYear=&urefProcNum=&urefProcCode=#menuzonehttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/empl/draft-reports.html?linkedDocument=true&ufolderComCode=EMPL&ufolderLegId=7&ufolderId=09306&urefProcYear=&urefProcNum=&urefProcCode=#menuzonehttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/empl/draft-reports.html?linkedDocument=true&ufolderComCode=EMPL&ufolderLegId=7&ufolderId=09306&urefProcYear=&urefProcNum=&urefProcCode=#menuzonehttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-494.492&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=03http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-494.492&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=03http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/education-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/the-role-of-school-governing-bodies/http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/education-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/the-role-of-school-governing-bodies/

• The longer that asbestos remains in schools, the more likely it is that its condition will deteriorate and the harder it becomes to manage.

• When schools are refurbished considerable cost overruns occur through unexpected asbestos

remedial and removal work.

• Each LA should already hold data on the extent, type and condition of asbestos in its schools, so it would be relatively simple, and also represent sound financial practice, to collate this data centrally.

• Central collation of data would enable the Government to make realistic funding estimates

and to allocate proportionate resources. Making financial estimates on poor quality data is something the James Review criticised and yet, by excluding asbestos from the audit, the DfE is doing nothing to address this criticism and is simply perpetuating the problem.

• If asbestos were included in the audit, it would enable schools to be prioritised for

refurbishment or replacement according to the risk they posed to occupants. (xxiv) Property data survey programme memorandum of supplementary information 17 Oct 2011 p8 See an analysis of the exclusion of asbestos from the audit of school buildings: http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/AUDIT%20EXCLUSION%20OF%20ASBESTOS.pdf Whether Government policy concerning asbestos in schools requires change. The Current Government Policy 66. Schools are unique workplaces because they not only contain employees but they also contain large numbers of children at risk from asbestos exposure. 67. There are two strands to current government policy: 1. Schools are declared to be a ‘low risk environment’(xxv) 2. Asbestos which is in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed or damaged is better left in

place and managed until the end of the life of the building as this presents less risk of exposure to the occupants than the process of removing it (xxvi)

68. This policy is dependent on:

http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/AUDIT%20EXCLUSION%20OF%20ASBESTOS.pdf

• the asbestos being in good condition; • schools having rigorous and effective asbestos management systems and the necessary

resources, including trained personnel to operate these systems. JUAC Comment 69. Successive governments have had the same policy of not removing asbestos. Consequently, most of the asbestos remains in situ in schools. It is likely that much is no longer in good condition and has been disturbed or damaged. 70. If asbestos is present there will always be the possibility that it will be disturbed and asbestos fibres released. There is an ongoing risk to occupants. Numerous asbestos incidents have occurred and are still occurring in schools. 71. Government policy requires change. For this to happen there needs to be recognition that schools are not low risk environments in relation to asbestos. They are unique workplaces because of the number of and vulnerability of their occupants. 72. HSE will only become involved once an exposure incident has occurred and pupils and staff put at risk. Enforcement is reactive and the outcome is a complete failure of the principle of “prevention of risk”. This is not a satisfactory long-term strategy for ensuring safe standards are achieved. Whilst the Government continue to move towards the deregulatory approach the fact that schools are unique workplaces and the economic, social and moral cost of another Cwmcarn school, mean that this cannot be allowed to happen around the issue of asbestos in schools. (xxv) Good Health and Safety for Everyone. Targeting and Reducing Inspections 21 Mar 2011 (xxvi) Parliamentary Written Answer Minister of State for Schools 8th February 2011

73. Although the DfE recently launched web-based asbestos awareness guidance, asbestos management training is piecemeal and non-mandatory. 74. Given that the Government has failed to commit to a national audit, let alone the prioritised phased removal of asbestos, it is essential that all those with responsibilities for managing asbestos – be they head teachers, bursars or governors – are trained according to their role. Such training should be mandatory and properly funded. It would appear that, having published basic on-line asbestos awareness guidance, that the DfE is satisfied that it has done enough for head teachers, governors and other managers to safely manage their asbestos. JUAC disagrees.

75. Large numbers of schools are leaving local authority control to become academies, thereby potentially losing the expertise of the local authority and compounding the problem of inadequate training described above. Policy Changes 76. JUAC proposes the following policy changes: 1. Risk Assessment The Government needs to establish the extent and condition of asbestos in schools. It should reverse its decision to exclude asbestos from the Property Data Survey Programme. 2. Phased removal There is a serious problem that must be addressed in a pragmatic way. The Government should set a programme for the phased removal of asbestos from all schools, with priority being given to those schools where the asbestos is considered to be most dangerous or damaged. 3. Inspections The Government should re-instate proactive inspections to assess the standards of asbestos management in all schools, including academies that have left local authority control. This is a necessary and proportionate response to evidence gathered by recent HSE inspection programmes and the increasing number of incidents of inadequate asbestos management in schools. 4. Training The Government should set standards for, and enhance the funding of, current asbestos awareness training and asbestos management training and it should be mandatory. 5. Airborne fibre levels There should be an environmental airborne fibre level for schools and the Government should commission a trial of air sampling to identify airborne asbestos fibres. 6. Information and openness There needs to be a policy of openness so that staff and parents are fully aware of the presence of asbestos and what measures their school is taking to ensure that occupants are safe. 7. Public Liability Insurance In general pupils and non-employees are not insured for asbestos exposure risks in schools (xxviii). Local authorities self insure, however most academies or schools outside of local authority control do not have the resources to do so. Governing bodies are legally responsible for meeting any future claims. How will Government address the issue of how these claims will be met in the future?

Conclusion 77. It is essential that Government Policy is reviewed and that a precautionary approach is taken on the issue of asbestos in schools. The HSE advice to Government is that the risk in schools is low; primarily due to the low levels of airborne asbestos fibres but it is accepted that low level exposure causes mesothelioma; a fatal cancer that is killing increasing numbers of teachers. There is a lack of transparency around the presence of asbestos in schools and it is time that action is taken to investigate these issues fully. February 2013 (xxviii) Parliamentary written answer Schools asbestos. Ian Lavery MP/ Minister of State Nick Gibb MP 21 Mar 2012

1 of 8

Asbestos Survey

1. Since the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations became law in

2004, there has been a requirement for all non-domestic premises,

including schools, to have a management plan for asbestos. The initial

work required to produce this plan is the carrying out of a survey to

locate, identify and quantify any asbestos containing materials. Have

you asked for a copy of your school's asbestos management plan and

survey? If no, go to Question 4 but remember that as a trade union

safety rep you are entitled to inspect this document and should

exercise this right.

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 51.0% 300

No 49.0% 288

answered question 588

skipped question 30

2. If so, were you given a copy, or allowed to scrutinise that plan?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 89.7% 279

No 10.3% 32


skipped question 307

2 of 8

3. Is the management plan acted upon?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 79.6% 265

No 3.6% 12

Don't know 16.8% 56



4. Has an asbestos survey been undertaken in your school in the last 5

years?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 66.5% 405

No 6.4% 39

Don't know 27.1% 165


skipped question 9

5. Is asbestos present in your school or college? If you are absolutely

sure that your school contains no asbestos, tick the 'no' box and go to

Question 14.

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 61.1% 372

No 13.5% 82



skipped question 9

3 of 8

6. Is it clear within your school which member of staff is responsible

for day-to-day management of asbestos?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 66.8% 373

No 33.2% 185


skipped question 60

7. If the answer to question 6 is 'yes', please give the member of staff's

position within the school. If the answer is 'no', please go to question

8.

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Head Teacher or other member of

senior management33.5% 125

Site Manager/Caretaker 53.4% 199

Health and Safety Manager 13.1% 49



8. Is there a process of consultation with trade union safety reps

whereby asbestos management is discussed within your school?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 30.4% 157

No 69.6% 360



4 of 8

9. Has an asbestos register, showing the location of asbestos, been

completed for your school? If 'no', or 'don't know', go to question 12. (It

may be that if there is an asbestos management plan in place, this

includes information about the location and condition of asbestos,

which equates to a register. If this is the case, tick 'yes').

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 63.7% 346

No 3.5% 19



skipped question 75

10. If yes, do you know whether the register is automatically shown to

contractors who undertake work at your school?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 63.5% 252

No 5.0% 20




5 of 8

11. Are all staff aware of the existence of the register?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 26.4% 110

No 39.3% 164




12. Where asbestos is present in your school, is it clearly marked?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 28.0% 152

No 39.4% 214



skipped question 75

13. Have staff in your school had any asbestos awareness training,

including information on preventing exposure to asbestos?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 21.9% 120

No 58.3% 319



skipped question 71

6 of 8

14. Have you ever raised concerns over the management of asbestos

in your school? If no, go to question 16.

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 27.9% 166

No 72.1% 429


skipped question 23

15. If yes, were your concerns responded to satisfactorily?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 64.8% 114

No 35.2% 62



7 of 8

16. Please provide the following information to help the trade unions

collate the information. Your trade union:

Response

Percent

Response

Count

ASCL 0.5% 3

ATL 2.8% 17

GMB 49.8% 305

NAHT 0.2% 1

NASUWT 19.1% 117

NUT 19.4% 119

Unison 7.7% 47

Unite 0.3% 2

Voice 0.2% 1


skipped question 6

17. Sector?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Primary 44.7% 267

Secondary 47.7% 285

Middle 2.2% 13

Special 5.4% 32


skipped question 21

8 of 8

18. Type of School/College?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Community 60.6% 347

Voluntary Aided 14.0% 80

Voluntary Controlled 4.0% 23

Foundation 9.8% 56

Independent 1.2% 7

Trust 4.7% 27

Academy 4.5% 26

Sixth Form College 1.2% 7


skipped question 45

19. School Postcode? (optional)

Response

Count

357



Written evidence submitted by Mr Michael Lees

Executive summary 1. More than three quarters of the schools in Britain contain asbestos. One of the more dangerous forms of asbestos,

amosite (brown asbestos), was extensively used and much is in locations vulnerable to damage from pupils. Because the Government’s policy is to manage asbestos for the remaining life of the building rather than removing it, most of it remains in situ. In the 1980s the Association of Metropolitan Authorities had a policy of identifying the most dangerous asbestos and progressively removing it, because they considered it was not only safer but in the long run it was cheaper.

2. Asbestos consultants visit most schools and they conclude that the majority are neither effectively nor safely managing their asbestos. Despite this asbestos training for school governors and staff is not mandatory. This has resulted in numerous asbestos incidents where staff and pupils have been exposed to cumulatively significant levels of fibres, sometimes regularly from common classroom activities. The government has cancelled the system of determining whether schools are managing their asbestos. As increasing numbers are leaving local authority control, the responsibility for ensuring they are safe rests on the governors, who invariably do not have the knowledge or expertise to ensure asbestos is allocated the resources it warrants.

3. Significant numbers of school teachers, support staff and former pupils have died and are dying of the asbestos related cancer mesothelioma. Based on U.S estimates it is possible that more than 100 former pupils are dying every year. The risks to pupils are such that in general asbestos risk insurance is not available.

4. The Government have not assessed the scale of the problem and have excluded asbestos from the Property Data Survey Programme, despite the fact that it is probably one of the most expensive items when a school is maintained or refurbished. This means that their financial forecasts will be meaningless. There is a lack of transparency and the risks are played down so that the public are generally unaware that there is a problem, which has meant that successive Governments have felt able to indefinitely delay taking the necessary action to make schools safe. This position is no longer sustainable.

Michael Lees 5. My wife Gina was a primary school teacher who died of mesothelioma at the age of fifty one. At her inquest the

coroner gave a verdict of death from industrial disease. Over the course of a thirty year teaching career she taught in twenty five schools, some as permanent posts and some as a supply teacher. Most of the schools contained asbestos, in some the asbestos was in a dangerous condition, in some the asbestos was regularly disturbed. In a number of schools there was no system of asbestos management and the school authorities were unaware of the location of asbestos, to the extent that in one school two former headteachers had no idea that the school contained any asbestos, let alone that all the ceilings were asbestos insulating board.

6. After my wife’s death in September 2000 the coroner asked me to determine where she had been exposed to asbestos. It soon became evident that she had regularly been exposed to low levels of mainly amosite fibres (brown asbestos) over the course of many years. The other teachers, school support staff and pupils had also been exposed to asbestos. It also became clear that this was a lot wider problem than just the schools my wife had taught in, as there is evidence that many other schools are failing to protect staff and pupils from the dangers of asbestos.

7. My concerns are also held by a wide body of interested organisations and individuals who consider that there is a considerable problem of asbestos in schools and that too little is being done to address it. In 2007 we therefore founded the Asbestos in Schools Group (AiS) to bring together our practical experiences and expertise in a coordinated operation to make schools safe from the dangers of asbestos.

8. The AiS Chair is Annette Brooke MP, our members and supporters include all the teaching and school support unions, the asbestos consultants association ATAC, solicitors, members of the medical profession, risk experts, the

independent bursars association, the asbestos victims support forum, the Hazards organisation, the London Boroughs Asbestos Group and people who have been directly affected by asbestos in schools. I am also a named member of the DfE Asbestos Steering Group.

The Problem 9. There is a serious problem of asbestos in schools. In February 2012 the All Party Parliamentary Group on

Occupational Health and Safety stated that this is a national scandal and urgent action is required.i

10. More than three quarters of schools contain asbestos, ii all the asbestos is old and much of it is deteriorating. 14,210 schools were built during the period 1945-1975 when the use of asbestos was at its height, and many others were refurbished. Amosite was used extensively in their construction, some contain blue asbestos (crocidolite), and the majority contain white asbestos (chrysotile). iii

11. Britain has the highest mesothelioma incidence in the world at more than twice that of France, Germany or the USA. An HSE report concluded that is because we imported more amosite than any other country. iv All types of asbestos can cause the asbestos cancer mesothelioma, but amosite is up to 100 times more likely to cause the disease than chrysotile, and crocidolite is up to 500 times more likely to. v

12. The occupants of schools are being exposed to asbestos and increasing numbers are subsequently dying from mesothelioma. The number of school teachers dying from mesothelioma in Britain has increased from 3 a year in the 1980s to 14 a year in the last ten year period. More than 253 school teachers have died of mesothelioma since 1980 with more than 139 dying in the last ten years.vi Perhaps some have been exposed elsewhere, but many are known to have been exposed at school and because of teachers’ career pattern the occupation recorded on their death certificate is likely to be the occupation in which the exposure occurred.vii

13. The occupational statistics do not include mesothelioma deaths above the age of 74, although almost as many people die of mesothelioma above that age as below. Studies have shown that lower exposures on average have longer latencies, viiiand therefore in a profession such as teaching it is reasonable to assume that as many, or perhaps more, teachers have died over the age of 74. If so, the occupational statistics significantly understate the actual numbers of teachers who have died. School caretakers, cleaners, cooks, secretaries, teaching assistants, nursery nurses and former pupils have also died of the cancer.ix

14. Schools are unique workplaces because they not only contain the workforce, but they also contain children who are more at risk from asbestos exposure than adults. Every child in the United Kingdom is required to attend school so the numbers facing potential exposure are much larger than in any other workplace. A report commissioned by the Medical Research Council examined the extent of asbestos in school buildings and concluded “It is not unreasonable to assume, therefore, that the entire school population has been exposed to asbestos in school buildings... Exposure to asbestos at school may therefore constitute a significant part of total exposure.” x It is equally reasonable to assume that the widespread exposure of a large number of people at a very young age has contributed to the exceptional mesothelioma incidence in Britain.

15. In 2011 the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment that Dianne Willmore had been negligently exposed to asbestos as a pupil at school and the exposure had materially contributed to her mesothelioma. They also accepted the expert medical opinion that there is no known level of exposure to asbestos below which there is no risk. xi

16. Although it is known how many teachers have died it is not known, because of the long latency, how many children have subsequently died. The USA assessed that for every teacher and support staff death from mesothelioma nine former pupils would subsequently die from their asbestos exposure at school. xii Proportionately that would equate to significantly more than 100 deaths a year in Britain. That is clearly a matter of national importance, but it has never been properly addressed.

17. The Government’s advisory Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC) are assessing the relative vulnerability of children to asbestos. Their provisional conclusion is that children are more vulnerable than adults because they will live

longer for the disease to develop. A child of five years old is about five times more likely to develop mesothelioma by the age of eighty than an adult aged thirty.xiii Although there is scientific uncertainty whether children are also more vulnerable because of their physical immaturity, it is known that if a child younger than five years old suffers serious damage to their lungs the damage will remain for life.xiv

Government Policies – Flaws in Basic Assumptions 18. At the February 2012 Parliamentary debate on asbestos in schools the Minister stated that “We will review our policy

on asbestos management and our advice to schools when we receive the (COC) committee’s report later this year.”xv

19. It is essential that government policy on asbestos in schools is reviewed as there is increasing evidence that the present policies are outdated and do not give adequate protection for the occupants of schools. They are a short term expedient and do not provide a long term solution.

20. The Government’s policy on asbestos in schools is: “Asbestos which is in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed or damaged is better left in place and managed until the end of the life of the building as this presents less risk of exposure to the occupants than the process of removing it.” xvi

21. Because successive governments have had the same policy most of the asbestos remains in situ. The longstanding policy is now flawed and outdated with the Education Capital Review concluding that “Significant parts of the school estate were and are in an unacceptable state.” It is in a dilapidated state through lack of maintenance, long term under investment, fair wear and tear and vandalism. The CEO of PfS stated that 80% of the school stock is beyond its design life.xvii

22. All the asbestos is now old and, as the buildings have deteriorated, so has the asbestos they contain. Consequently much of the asbestos is no longer in good condition and has been disturbed or damaged.

23. The techniques of asbestos removal have also advanced so that if carried out correctly they do not present a risk to the occupants. Some schools have already had asbestos removed safely as have many other buildings including the Houses of Parliament, Department of Education offices and the Department of the Environment HQ.

24. In addition there is an ongoing risk to occupants as numerous asbestos incidents have occurred, and are still occurring in schools.xviii If asbestos is present then there will always be the possibility that it will be disturbed and asbestos fibres released.

25. Although the total removal of asbestos must be the goal, it cannot be achieved overnight. In the 1980s the Association of Metropolitan Authorities had a policy of phased removal by prioritising the most dangerous materials, as it is safer and, in the long run, is also cheaper.xix The practice stopped when the organisation ceased to exist, however phased removal remains the policy of Nottinghamshire. If this is adopted as a national policy the problem will eventually be resolved, but if phased removal is not adopted asbestos will remain a problem in schools indefinitely.

Financial flaws in the policy 26. Effective asbestos management is a continuous drain on resources and the presence of asbestos in a school means

that extra costs are incurred for even the smallest maintenance task. The services in thousands of buildings have passed their design life but, if asbestos is present, they can only be replaced if the asbestos is removed first. If a school is refurbished or demolished then the cost of asbestos remediation can be one of the major costs and considerable cost overruns have occurred through unexpected asbestos remedial and removal work.xx However the scale of the asbestos problem in the nation’s schools is not known so realistic financial forecasts for maintaining, refurbishing or replacing schools cannot be made.

27. The Schools Capital Review was critical that the government does not know the condition of its £110billion school estate. They recommended that “The Department urgently needs to build up a better picture of the condition of the educational estate that it funds.... The first step should be to collate all existing information sources and to establish a simple, well-designed database to manage this information.” xxi Despite the recommendation DfE has specifically

excluded asbestos from the Property Data Survey Programme and will collate no information on asbestos into its database. xxii This will mean that any future financial forecasts based on the audit will be meaningless.xxiii

28. DfE have stated that the decision to exclude asbestos could not be reversed until after the present five years contracts have expired, and at a meeting with the Minister in January DfE claimed that the condition surveys of schools was too far advanced to include asbestos.xxiv Perhaps the excuses are valid if the intention was to include asbestos in the surveys of school buildings, however that is not the case. The proposal is that data on asbestos that is already available in schools and local authorities is entered on the DfE Asset Management Software system. Expert advice has been sought and there is no valid technicalxxv or logistic reason that cannot be achieved, even at this stage of the process.

29. Data should be collated on DfE’s Asset Management Software on asbestos in schools, so that the overall scale of the problem is known and those schools and local authorities with the worst asbestos problems can be identified. This would allow the government to make sound, long term financial forecasts. It would enable them to allocate proportionate resources so that the limited funds are targeted for maintenance, refurbishment or replacement at those schools in the greatest need and those that present the greatest risk.

Training and Management flaws in the policy 30. Government policy relies on schools having rigorous and effective systems of asbestos management with the

necessary resources available and all members of staff trained in asbestos awareness or asbestos management. However the evidence is that the policy has failed over a prolonged period of time.

31. Members of the asbestos consultants association visit thousands of schools throughout the country and they conclude: “The evidence is that the system of asbestos management in many schools is not of an adequate standard, in some it is ineffective, in others it is almost non-existent, and in some it is at times dangerous... These are not minor problems that have crept in over recent years; rather they are fundamental problems that are endemic in schools in the UK...”xxvi

32. In 2011 HSE published the results of inspections they had carried out in academies and schools outside local authority control to determine their standards of asbestos management. xxvii The inspections resulted in enforcement action being taken in 17% of schools for failures in asbestos management. More than half of the eighty schools that carried out their own maintenance and building work had failed to train their staff.xxviii

33. Two previous rounds of inspections of local authority schools resulted in enforcement action being carried out for failing to manage asbestos in their system built schools. In the first round of inspections improvement notices were issued in 17% of schoolsxxix and in the second round they were issued to 24% of the 42 local authorities inspected, in addition the remainder were given formal guidance to improve their asbestos management. In some cases the local authorities had failed to follow critical asbestos guidance in all their schools.xxx

34. In October 2012 a Welsh secondary school was closed with immediate effect on receipt of a report that identified damaged asbestos, widespread asbestos debris and classroom heaters that were blowing asbestos fibres into the classrooms. The school had failed to safely manage its asbestos and had even failed to follow guidance that had been issued thirty years before that warned of the potential for asbestos fibre release from the heaters. The type of heaters was one of the most common in schools, therefore the Asbestos in Schools Group asked DfE to issue an urgent warning to all schools about the inherent dangers of these heaters. As at 20th February 2013 this has not been done.

35. The Minister for Education at the National Assembly of Wales asked all local authorities “To confirm that they were undertaking their statutory duties in accordance with the legislation, along with copies of Asbestos Management Plans.” After analysis of the returns the Minister stated “I do not feel sufficiently assured at this stage that local authorities are discharging their statutory duties to manage asbestos and have sufficient plans in place.” xxxiThis adds to all the evidence that a significant number of schools are not safely managing their asbestos.

36. A new problem is that increasing numbers of schools are leaving local authority control to become academies. By doing so they will normally lose the expertise of the local authorities, and in many cases the governors and school authorities do not have the training or expertise to effectively manage their asbestos.

No proactive inspections in local authority schools 37. If a comprehensive system of inspecting the standards of asbestos management had been in place at the school in

Wales then their failure to manage their asbestos would have been identified many years before, and the asbestos exposure of generations of staff and pupils could have been prevented.

38. A second round of HSE inspections is programmed in England, Scotland and Wales for 150 schools outside local authority control, but this is a one off project that will inspect only 0.5% of all schools. Neither HSE nor local authority inspectors will carry out proactive inspections in local authority schools.xxxii Once the project is complete there are no plans to undertake further inspections, instead HSE will rely on school staff to report flaws in asbestos management. Also, depending on the seriousness of an incident, they will decide whether to carry out a reactive inspection after an incident has occurred. xxxiii

39. This is not a satisfactory long term strategy for ensuring safe standards are achieved. Proactive inspections have proved their worth, and if schools are expected to manage their asbestos there has to be a proper system in place to ensure that they are.

Workplace Control Levels should not be applied to schools 40. Workplace airborne fibre control levels for asbestos are applied to the occupants of schools. This is unsafe and

inappropriate as there is no known threshold exposure to asbestos below which there is no risk.

41. The Clearance Indicator is a workplace level for asbestos contractors, but, by default it has been adopted as a level at which classrooms can be re-occupied following work on asbestos or after an asbestos incident in a school. But it is not a safe level as a person will inhale 6000-10,000 fibres an hour. HSE advise it is not an acceptable environmental level for normal occupation, and revised guidance will reinforce this. xxxiv

42. A report commissioned by the Medical Research Council concluded that the background asbestos fibre level in schools with asbestos in good condition is 0.0005f/ml.xxxv The courts and expert medical opinion is that exposures above that level are “significant” and can materially increase the risk of mesothelioma developing.xxxvi The Clearance Indicator is twenty times greater than the background level and will therefore materially increase the risk of mesothelioma developing.

43. In 1979 the government’s advisory committee on asbestos warned about the increased risk to children “As children can be expected to live longer than adults they have more chance of being affected by carcinogens with long latent periods.”xxxvii In 1983 the Department for Education concluded that “It may therefore be not unreasonable to suggest that in schools the levels should be lower than those for an “average” population and a factor of, say, 1/80th to 1/100th of the occupational limits should be adopted.” xxxviiiThe proposals have never been adopted, however the Netherlands Government are considering a report by the Health Council of the Netherlands that considers that their present occupational levels are unsafe and recommends an occupational exposure limit for amosite some 300 times less than the EU level, and an environmental level at 3,000 times less than their present occupational level.xxxix The proposals have been accepted by the Netherlands Ministry of Social Affairs and are scheduled to be implemented from April 2013 onwards.xl

44. An environmental airborne fibre level should be adopted in schools in the United Kingdom.

Air sampling identifies risk 45. There have been a number of cases in schools where air sampling has identified that asbestos fibres were being

released into the rooms. In some cases it is probable that the releases had been taking place for many years but had passed unnoticed. For instance the release of amosite fibres from classroom cupboards, slamming doors, hitting walls and columns, from displaying children’s work and from heaters was only identified by air sampling.xli

46. The hazard is the presence of the asbestos, but the risk to the occupants is when the asbestos fibres become airborne and can be inhaled. Because the danger is the inhalation of airborne fibres there should be a method in schools of identifying whether asbestos fibres are being released into the rooms. (HSE disagree as they consider that air sampling has no place in the management of asbestos in schools, but they have offered no other solution to determine whether asbestos fibres are being released.xlii )

47. An asbestos survey identifies the hazard, but rarely identifies the risk, whereas widespread air sampling in schools would identify the risk and would allow targeted measures to be taken to prevent further releases. It would be cost effective as remedial measures could be targeted at those schools, and even rooms, where there really is a problem. In the long run it would not only save lives, it would also save money.

48. AiS propose that a trial is carried out to perfect the methodology for widespread air sampling in schools.

In general pupils are not insured for asbestos risks. 49. There are increasing numbers of asbestos related claims against schools and local authorities, which will inevitably

continue so long as asbestos remains in schools. Despite this children and non-employees are generally no longer insured. A Parliamentary written answer confirmed "there is a general asbestos exclusion for public liability insurance.” xliii The fact that insurance companies will not provide insurance cover for pupils puts the risks from asbestos into perspective. However, in the absence of commercial insurance, future claims can still be met in local authority schools as they self insure. But most academies and free schools do not have the resources to do so.

50. In February 2013 there were 2,673 academies and the legal responsibility for the safety of pupils and non-employees rests on the academy trust. Therefore they are legally liable for any claim that may be made against the academy. The Government have stated that they will not accept any liabilities but have not provided an answer to how future claims will be met. Instead DfE have said that they will deal with any future claims on a case by case basis.xliv This is a flawed policy because the long latency of mesothelioma will mean that the first claim from someone exposed in an academy might not be for thirty years, at which time it is far too late to realise there are no funds to meet the claims.

51. A government policy of managing asbestos cannot be considered viable if there is no credible means of meeting future asbestos claims.

HSE advises the Government but fails to follow its framework for the management of risk 52. An HSE publication describes the framework for their decision making on the management of risk:

“The framework makes clear that: • Both the level of individual risks and the societal concerns engendered by the activity or process must be taken into

account when deciding whether a risk is unacceptable, tolerable or broadly acceptable; • The decision-making process and criteria adopted are such that action taken is inherently precautionary.” xlv

HSE have failed to follow the framework in their advice to the Government on the management of asbestos risks in schools. The following is an analysis of these failings:

U.S Government assessed risks and considered them unacceptable. No assessment in Britain. 53. When decisions are taken and policy made the evidence that should be taken into account is that there is an

individual risk to many teachers, school support staff and pupils.

54. The Medical Research Council document concluded that there was extensive use of amphiboles in system built schools and that it is not unreasonable to assume that the entire school population has been exposed to asbestos in school buildings. Their assumption has been confirmed by frequent evidence of asbestos fibre release in schools and the exposure of the occupants. The inevitable consequence is that school teachers, school support staff and former pupils are dying of asbestos related disease.

55. In the 1980s the U.S Government assessed the scale of the asbestos problem in schools and the risks. They also took into account the greater vulnerability of children and the probability that they are being exposed to asbestos at the same time as their teachers. They therefore had a sound scientific basis on which to conclude that the risks are

unacceptable. Consequently in 1986 they introduced specific asbestos regulations for schools where preventative actions were taken to reduce the risks to staff and in particular to pupils.xlvi

56. This has not happened in the UK although the risks are far greater. Instead, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, the HSE has advised the Government that the risks from asbestos in schools are very low. Because of this advice the Minister has stated that if that is the case then spending large sums of money on mitigating the effects of asbestos cannot be justified. xlvii

HSE claim that decisions are inherently precautionary cannot be justified 57. The HSE advice and Government policy are not based on sound scientific evidence. Successive Governments have

failed to collate data on the scale of the problem and have cancelled the process of assessing whether their policy of managing asbestos is working. Instead they base their policies primarily on advice from the HSE. There is, however, a considerable, and growing, body of expert opinion that considers that the HSE advice is wrong.

58. Instead of taking all the evidence into account HSE cherry picks those aspects that support their advice that the risks from asbestos in schools are very low. An example is a paper they submitted to both the Government’s advisory committee on science (WATCH) and to the Committee on Carcinogenicity. The paper had been requested by WATCH to “Summarise the knowledge it has on airborne levels of asbestos in buildings for the next WATCH meeting.”xlviii The HSE paper included irrelevant data and excluded relevant data, it excluded any tests that had shown raised fibre levels and only included two exceptionally low levels that were an order of magnitude lower than had previously been found in UK buildings.

59. The same unbalanced and misleading summary was then supplied to the COC secretariat for the committee’s assessment of the relative vulnerability of children to asbestos.xlix Both committees accepted the evidence on face value, despite the COC being given authoritative evidence that showed that disturbance and fibre levels can frequently be considerably higher than HSE were telling them. Both committees advise the Government and yet the “scientific” basis for their decisions and policy are flawed.

60. Because all the teaching and support staff unions are concerned about the risks to their members from asbestos in schools they have come together to coordinate their resources to make schools safe from the dangers of asbestos. They have advised the Government, HSE and DfE that their policy of managing asbestos has not, and is not working. Because of it their members are dying, and will continue to die unless fundamental changes are made. The asbestos consultants have confirmed that many local authorities and schools are not effectively or safely managing their asbestos. The HSE are ignoring what they are told by expert organisations whose members are on the ground. The HSE assurances to the Government that their policy of asbestos management is working are not soundly based on the practical realities of what occurs in schools or on a proper analysis of the evidence.

61. The Government took the decision to exclude asbestos from the audit of school buildings despite advice from the local authorities, the unions, asbestos consultants and others. In addition HSE dismissed the request to undertake a trial of widespread air sampling in schools. These decisions cannot be justified as they deliberately exclude essential data that is required if there is to be a sound basis for assessing the risks and the financial costs.

62. When Coroner’s Courts have found evidence of significant exposure at school they have given verdicts of death from industrial disease at the inquests of school teachers and support staff. But those exposures have been dismissed by senior HSE officials and Government Ministers with the inference that they happened anywhere other than a school. In addition, without examining the evidence, HSE has also dismissed the verdicts, with the implication that the coroners were wrong.l Because they have dismissed the evidence of exposure and the findings of the Courts, valuable lessons have been lost.

63. HSE claim that their policy is “inherently precautionary.” But they have failed to collate data, they have selectively chosen data, ignored what experts on the ground are telling them and have dismissed the growing evidence that people have been, and continue to be exposed to asbestos in schools and that those exposures have already caused people to die, and will continue to do so. That is not inherently precautionary, rather it is a blinkered approach that

excludes or dismisses unpalatable evidence. By doing so they have failed to provide successive Governments with a sound scientific basis on which they can base their policies.

64. Successive Governments have been advised by HSE that the risks to the occupants of schools are very low. Consequently they have felt able to justify their policy that it is safer to leave asbestos in place and manage it than it is removing it. If HSE now publicly admit that they have been wrong then that would not only be embarrassing for them but also it would be embarrassing for the Government. It would mean that the Government would have to publicly acknowledge that their policies have been, and are, flawed. The direct implication of that would be a tacit acknowledgement that generations of school staff and pupils have been, and remain, at risk.

65. A European Environmental Agency paper published in January 2013 is directly relevant to HSE and their advice. It

says: “The scientific elites have also been slowly losing public support. This is in part because of the growing number of instances of misplaced certainty about the absence of harm, which has delayed preventive actions to reduce risks to human health, despite evidence to the contrary.” li

66. HSE has provided advice to successive Governments for almost forty years. That advice has played down the risks and provided the Government with the evidence they need to support their policy. Because of this each Government in turn has felt able to delay taking the fundamental preventative actions that are desperately required to reduce the risks to the occupants of schools from asbestos.

A lack of transparency avoids having to address “Societal” concerns 67. So long as the Government can keep the facts from the public then the problem of taking society’s concerns into

account are also avoided. But if people were aware of the extent of the problem then one must question whether society would consider it acceptable that school teachers, support staff and children are being exposed to asbestos and subsequently dying from the simple act of attending school.

68. It is apparent that successive governments have considered the problem of asbestos in schools too big to handle. This has led to a lack of transparency. Governments are concerned that if the public were aware of the true scale of the problem they would panic and demand the removal of all asbestos from their children’s schools. lii This irrational fear is the reason why an assessment has never been made of the scale of the problem and has meant that proportionate action has never been taken. The policy has led to “spin” being put on public statements and even science.liii It has also meant that many staff and parents have not been informed of asbestos incidents or of their exposure and that of their children.liv This lack of transparency is contrary to the open policies of both the Opposition and the Government.

69. As the facts have been kept from the public there has been no pressure on successive Governments to tackle the problem, and they have therefore been able to delay indefinitely having to take the action that is required. That policy is no longer sustainable as there is increasing public awareness so that parents, teachers, school support staff and the unions are questioning whether the assurances they have been given are justified. They are understandably concerned whether the schools they work in, or their children attend, really are safe. And if they are not safe they now expect positive action to be taken.

70. In contrast for more than twenty five years the USA has required parents and teachers to be annually updated on the presence and condition of any asbestos and the measures taken to manage it. lv This has not created panic, but it has meant that staff and parents are aware of the dangers of asbestos and has in general led to schools achieving acceptable standards so that the occupants are safe.

71. A decision making process often relies on a cost benefit analysis that weighs the financial cost of taking action against benefits. In the case of asbestos one of the benefits is measured in terms of the number of lives saved. Particularly where children are involved the process must be open to public scrutiny and decisions and policy must take into consideration society’s concerns. That has happened in the USA, but not in Britain. In Britain the scale of the problem and the risks have not been assessed, so decision making and cost benefit analyses have not been based on

sound scientific data. In addition, because of a lack of transparency, the public have not been included so that calculations and decisions have been without public influence and scrutiny.

72. All Governments, of whatever political party, have failed to properly address the considerable problem of asbestos in schools. All the parties should now practice their commonly stated policy of transparency, assess the scale of the problem and the risks and work together to solve the problem of asbestos in schools.

Recommendations It is recommended that:

• A policy of openness should be adopted. Parents, teachers and support staff should be annually updated on the presence of asbestos in their schools and the measures that are being taken to manage it.

• Data on asbestos in schools should be collated on the Asset Management System as part of DfE’s Property Data Survey Programme, so that the overall scale of the problem is known, financial forecasts made and those schools and local authorities with the worst asbestos problems can be identified and targeted.

• Standards in asbestos training should be set and the training should be mandatory. The training should be properly funded.

• Pro-active inspections to determine the standards of asbestos management in all schools should be reinstated. • An environmental airborne fibre level is adopted for schools • A trial of widespread air sampling for schools is commissioned. • The Government should set a programme for the phased removal of asbestos from all schools, with priority

being given to those schools where the asbestos is considered to be most dangerous or damaged. • A review of government policy on asbestos in schools is carried out. The review has to be independent of the

government. It is therefore considered that the Education Select Committee is the ideal body. Implementation of most of the above recommendations should not be delayed by the review.

February 2013

.pdf

i APPG on Health and Safety: Asbestos in Schools the Need for Action Feb 2012 http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/APPG%20report%202012 ii DfE Asbestos management in schools: What asbestos is and when it becomes a risk 22 Oct 2012 http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schoolscapital/buildingsanddesign/managementofpremises/b00215518/asbestosmanagementschools/whatasbestosis iii Fibrous Materials in the Environment. Medical Research Council Institute for Environment and Health. P72 . 1997 http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/MRC%20Fibrous%20Materials%20in%20the%20environment%20IEH%201997%20complete%20document.pdf iv HSE Occupational, domestic and environmental mesothelioma risks in Britain. 2009 . IMIG Congress Abstract 25‐27 Sep 2008 v The Quantitative Risks of Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer in Relation to Asbestos Exposure Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 44, No. 8, pp. 565–601, 2000 Hodgson and Darnton Is there a threshold? vi HSE Mesothelioma occupational statistics: Male and female deaths aged 16‐74 1980‐2000 Table 3,4 Southampton Occupation Group. 5 year time period 1980‐2000 excluding 1981. E‐mail HSE Statistics Unit/Lees 15 Jul 2008. Mesothelioma deaths in the education sector for males and females 2001‐2005. HSE Mesothelioma mortality in Great Britain: Analyses by Geographical area and occupation 2005 Tables 11, 13 (2002‐2005). HSE Epidemiology Unit CSAG, table 0977/Lees 2 Mar 2011 HSE Epidemiology Unit, table 0925./Lees 25 Feb 2011. E‐mail HSE Statistics Unit/Lees 21 Nov 2012 . Mesothelioma deaths in the education sector for males and females 2001‐2010. vii E‐mail DCSF Workforce Group /Lees 27 January 2010 15:47 Case Reference 2010/0004693 “The average length of service for full‐time teachers is about 30 years”. And Scottish Parliamentary written answer S2W‐15080 18 Mar 2005 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/spwrans/?id=2005‐03‐18.S2W‐15080.h Death certificate is based on last occupation. Therefore occupation on retirement or death. Average length of service at retiring age, early retirement or because of ill health is about 33 years. viii Asbestos exposures in malignant mesothelioma of pleura; a survey of 557 cases Bianchi Industrial health 2001,39, 161‐167 . Malignant mesothelioma due to environmental exposure to asbestos: follow up of a Turkish cohort living in a rural area. Chestp2228. Metintas Mesothelioma: cases associated with non‐occupational and low dose exposures Hillerdal Occup Environ Med 1999:56:505‐513 ix See: Asbestos in Schools. The scale of the problem and the implications. P34‐42 http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/AiSreportonASBESTOSINSCHOOLS.pdf x Fibrous Materials in the Environment .Medical Research Council Institute for Environment and Health. P72 and 73. 1997 http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/MRC%20Fibrous%20Materials%20in%20the%20environment%20IEH%201997%20complete%20document.pdf xi Supreme Court Judgment Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore 9 March 2011. .High Court QBD Liverpool District. The Hon Mr Justice Nicol . Dianne Willmore and Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council 24 July 2009 Para 4 .

http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/APPG%20report%202012.pdfhttp://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schoolscapital/buildingsanddesign/managementofpremises/b00215518/asbestosmanagementschools/whatasbestosishttp://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schoolscapital/buildingsanddesign/managementofpremises/b00215518/asbestosmanagementschools/whatasbestosishttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/MRC%20Fibrous%20Materials%20in%20the%20environment%20IEH%201997%20complete%20document.pdfhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/MRC%20Fibrous%20Materials%20in%20the%20environment%20IEH%201997%20complete%20document.pdfhttp://www.theyworkforyou.com/spwrans/?id=2005-03-18.S2W-15080.hhttp://www.theyworkforyou.com/spwrans/?id=2005-03-18.S2W-15080.hhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/AiSreportonASBESTOSINSCHOOLS.pdfhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/MRC%20Fibrous%20Materials%20in%20the%20environment%20IEH%201997%20complete%20document.pdfhttp://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/MRC%20Fibrous%20Materials%20in%20the%20environment%20IEH%201997%20complete%20document.pdf

xii EPA Support document for the proposed rule on friable asbestos‐containing materials in school buildings EPA report 560/12‐80‐003 p92. American Academy of Pediatrics Asbestos Exposure in schools Pediatrics vol 79, no 2 Feb 1987 p301‐ 305 Reaffirmed May 1994 . xiii HSE Statistics Branch Darnton The quantitative risks of mesothelioma in relation to low‐level asbestos exposure BOHS 17 Oct 2007. Watch Annex 2 Darnton 27 Oct 2010 p 15 http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/acts/watch/271010/watch‐asbestos‐annex‐2.pdf xiv Committee on Carcinogenicity. Lees contemporaneous notes 12 Jul 2012 xv Debate House of Commons Asbestos in Schools ‐ Tuesday 7 February 2012 ‐(Hansard text) penultimate paragraph. Also House of Lords Written answer Lord Hill HL15579 16 Feb 2012 : Column WA184 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120216w0001.htm#12021640000237 xvi Parliamentary Written Answer Minister of State for Schools 8th February 2011 xvii Chief Executive PfS Today programme 1 Apr 2010. 4 mins 24 secs http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8598000/8598276.stm xviii See examples of asbestos incidents: http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/npaper%20articles.htm http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/ASBESTOS%20INCIDENTS%20IN%20SCHOOLS%2014%20Dec%2009.pdf and: xix Association of Metropolitan Authorities. Asbestos Policy and Practice in Local Authorities. Sep 1985 para 2,2.xx For example: Select Committee on Education and Skills Jarvis plc memorandum >£1.4m Jun 2003.

8 p 2 Para

5.5. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmeduski/112/112we07.htm . Capital Programme Urgent works Nightingale Junior School £700,000 Derby CC Corporate Policy Cabinet meeting 24 May 2007. http://www.asbestosexposureschools.co.uk/pdfnewslinks/Nightingale%20mothballing%20700000%2024%20May%2007.pdf William Parker School: Approximate increase in cost of project due to discovery of asbestos in ceilings: £495,800 IEA Refurbishment and re‐clof 1970s classroom�

Documents

Written evidence submitted by Julie Winn, Chair of …Written evidence submitted by Julie Winn, Chair of the Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC) Executive Summary 1. JUAC is a trade