Joint Union Asbestos Committee,
c/o D. Buttle,
Association of Teachers & Lecturers,
7 Northumberland Street,
London WC2N 5RD
Email: [email protected]
Sian Woodward and Catherine Tyack - Committee Clerks
Public Administration Select Committee
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Email: [email protected]
23rd March 2016
Dear Sian Woodward and Catherine Tyack,
Re: Complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman by the Joint Union Asbestos Committee and the
Asbestos in Schools Group
As the Chairs of the Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC) and the Asbestos in Schools Group (AiS) we
wish to make you aware of our dissatisfaction about the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s handling of a complaint
surrounding the actions and investigations of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in relation to an
asbestos incident at Cwmcarn High School in Wales.
In 2012 Caerphilly County Borough Council (CCBC) closed the school because of concerns about asbestos
contamination and the serious risks this posed to children and staff. Extensive contamination had been
confirmed after testing and investigation was carried out by Santia, accredited asbestos consultants. They
also confirmed that because of the presence of asbestos the school buildings had not been safely maintained
so that repairs could not been carried out on leaks in the roof and essential safety checks on services had
not been completed.
Santia found that essential safety guidance had been ignored over a prolonged period of time. The cabinet
heaters released asbestos fibres into the classrooms, there was evidence of widespread asbestos
contamination in the ceiling voids with the potential to enter the rooms, damage and disturbance of
asbestos materials and large areas of asbestos materials remained vulnerable to damage from the children
and staff.
The HSE carried out their own investigation and, contrary to the evidence, concluded the school was
essentially uncontaminated. They appointed the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to carry out air
sampling tests in the school. The evidence is that the HSL test methodology was manipulated to produce
Page 1 of 3
the lowest possible results. HSE then used the tests as the basis of a risk assessment which, incorrectly,
concluded the risk of exposure to asbestos fibres was negligible. Also contrary to the evidence, HSE then
assessed the standards of asbestos management as appropriate and advised that the school was perfectly
safe to reopen.
The school commissioned another firm of asbestos consultants, Ensafe, to undertake a comprehensive
asbestos survey. Ensafe confirmed the conclusion of the Council and Santia that extensive asbestos
remediation and removal was necessary to make the school safe for reoccupation.
CCBC had strong reservations about the HSE’s assessment so that they sought advice from an independent
expert, Mr Robin Howie. He concluded that the design and conduct of the HSL tests and the interpretation
and presentation of the data were deeply flawed and significantly underestimated the release of asbestos
fibres that would have occurred when the school was occupied.
The Council, two firms of asbestos consultants and an independent expert concluded that the school was
unsafe to reopen but HSE’s conclusion was diametrically opposed. Concerns about the HSE investigation,
the HSL testing at the school and the subsequent HSE advice led to JUAC and AIS making formal complaints
to the HSE, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) and finally the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
In February 2016, the Parliamentary Ombudsman rejected our complaint.
JUAC and AiS do not accept the Ombudsman’s decision. Set out briefly below are our key reasons:
1. The Ombudsman’s reasons for not examining scientific evidence are not credible and for failing to do
so their conclusions are unsound. They have failed to address the following key issues in the JUAC
and AiS complaint:

The merits of the scientific approaches by HSE and HSL.

The HSE submission to the GCSA on the six principles was flawed as it failed to address our principle
concerns about the HSE investigation and the HSL tests.
2. The Ombudsman’s investigation of our complaint was unbalanced and procedurally and scientifically
flawed in that:

The Ombudsman failed to consider key evidence before reaching their decision.

The Ombudsman dismissed authoritative evidence without giving a valid reason for doing so.

The Council and the independent expert’s opinion should have been central to the Ombudsman’s
investigation. But it was not.

The Ombudsman held a meeting with the HSE but not with the complainants, the Council or the
independent expert. The Ombudsman quotes extensively from their discussions with the HSE but
Page 2 of 3
fails to give sufficient weight to the expert opinion of the Council, two firms of asbestos consultants
and the independent expert.
For more information please read the attached detailed response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman
decision.
The importance of this issue is that the HSE investigation, HSL testing and HSE’s subsequent report has
set an appalling example to other schools of the standards in asbestos management and the level risk to
children and school staff that the HSE consider acceptable.
We therefore adjudge that the Ombudsman’s decision in relation to our complaint is entirely unsatisfactory.
We wish to register a formal complaint and make you aware of our dissatisfaction. It is in the public interest
that these issues now be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Yours Sincerely,
Julie Winn
Chair Joint Union Asbestos Committee
Rachel Reeves MP
Chair Asbestos in Schools Group
Attached:
JUAC/AIS Formal Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman
Parliamentary Ombudsman Decision
JUAC/AIS Response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman Decision
Page 3 of 3