Cemetery asbestos latest: Veolia workers to be interviewed and 'hazardous waste-asbestos' classification confirmed

In recent correspondence Cllr Duffy had pressed Brent Council on why Veolia cemetery workers who had witnessed events  had not been interviewed over the dumping of contaminated soil. In a letter today Conrad Hall, Chief Finance Officer and s151 Officer LINK, while doubting that it would yield anything useful has agreed to extend the investigation:

The likelihood of eye-witness accounts from 2010 ands 2014 being able to provide useable evidence is low given the standards of evidence that would be required for the purposes of any criminal investigation. However, given the need now to provide further public assurance we will extend the investigation to speak to Veolia staff who were employed at these times.

In another significant email Brent Council confirmed that a consignment note for a shipment of material from Carpenders Park Cemetery to the West London Waste Authority on 17th August 2015 (12.13pm) was classified as 'hazardous waste - asbestos'. The total weight of the mixed waste delivered for disposal 'including the piece of asbestos' was 60kg.

Brent Council to hold Public Meeting on asbestos controversy - February 6th

From Brent Council

Public meeting for anyone who has any concerns about Paddington Old Cemetery, where you can hear first-hand from independent experts as well as the Council. Tuesday 6 February 2018 at 7pm at Kilburn Housing Co-operative, Kilburn Square, Victoria Road, Kilburn, NW6 6PT.

Duffy asks, 'Why didn't Brent Council interview key witnesses over transportation of asbestos contaminated waste?'

Councillor Duffy has responded to Brent Council's replies to his questions about the asbestos contamination at Paddington Cemetery with this email to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive:

Thank you for letter you asked Mr Whyte to send on your behalf. I will study it and deal with the questions around the events of 24th June and 30th November and contamination in general in a second reply as I need to get more information. However this reply will focus on how the waste got to Paddington Cemetery, which is the most crucial issue. Firstly I am delighted you have said "I can confirm that the AAC report was initially restricted for its consideration by the Committee in December. it has been publicly available on the council’s website since the last Audit Advisory Committee on the 10^th January. I believe your decision to lift the restriction is a good decision for democracy and will allow an open debate around the report

As you know, until you published it, I was bound by the council standing orders not to reveal what was in the report. This was most frustrating as the report is flawed and omits crucial evidence. Only in Brent would a report that does not interview witnesses be acceptable. The report not only fails to interview anybody who witnessed the transportation from Carpenter Park to Paddington Cemetery (as they may tell a different story), it relies completely on what Senior Brent council officers say is true and does not seek relevant documentation.

As you know my allegations have always been the same since November 2017:

(1) The council knowingly/deliberate transported contaminated waste from Carpenters Park, putting the workforce and the public at unnecessary risk.

The report points out there were two known incidences of contamination in Paddington Cemetery. 

The first one took place in 2011, where the council received supposedly top-soil from a waste contractor. A council officer called Mr A dealt directly with the contractor named as company XX. He did not seek additional quotations as the contractor XX (this is normal for Brent not to seek best value) had previously carried out work in Willesden New Cemetery. Instead, Mr A met the contractor on site and agreed a price and raised a work order from the contractor to supply" Clean Top soil." 

While Mr A was off sick a Senior manager Mr F (rightly) challenged the workmanship of company XX and informed Mr A on his return to work that the company should not be used again. Mr F is now retired. Mr A however said the clay/soil was, he understood, to have been tested and no contamination was found. Bizarrely the investigating officer did not ask the name of the company who tested it or ask see a copy of the test results.

The second incident took place in Carpenders Park in August 2015, The work was being carried out by different contractor YY to carry out levelling work in section 3d in Paddington cemetery. Mr A was alerted to contaminated soil again .Mr A believed it to be (guessed it to be) "Asbestos cement", which he described as low risk. He removed some of the "Asbestos Cement"  and double bagged it and disposed of it to landfill and obtained a waste transfer certificate and the  remaining waste still contaminated  with asbestos fibres was transported to Paddington Old cemetery without a test being carried out to assert the level of contamination still within the soil this confirms the council knowingly transferred  waste to Paddington Cemetery knowing it to be contaminated. This is all confirmed at the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 of the AAC report.

I assume the waste was then taken to the West London Waste Authority (WLWA) Site on Abbey road NW10 as we are a member of that waste authority. WLWA are required to keep Waste Transfer notes for a minimum of 2 years. So it is very likely they will still have copies and that information would be a basic requirement to any investigation Date, Weight, description but this obvious avenue was yet again not pursued by the investigator.

However the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in a report and after nearly forty years experience, I am still not sure I believe what i read. It was the statement from the investigating officer saying "Although dealing with contaminated land falls within the remit of the ( the council's) environment monitoring team they stated they would NOT pursue a criminal investigation against the the contractor should evidence of an offence under the Environmental Protection Act come to light." This is the Environmental team telling the investigator and the committee, whatever he then finds, it does not matter because environmental officers will not pursue it.

As I say, I welcome your decision to remove the restriction on the ACC Report and i hope it get a full airing at the public meeting, however I believe the publishing of the AAC report makes an Independent public investigation carried out by a Health and Safety expert( to reassure the public) inevitable. I believe the idea that issues in the public interest can be dealt with by a restricted special committee where the council mark their own homework and give themselves an A+  has to be challenged 

I have only one question: Are you happy that the investigating officer did not seek relevant available documents and failed to interview key witness involved in the transportation of the asbestos contaminated waste to Paddington cemetery 

An early reply will be much appreciated. I will also get back to you on the other two points later in the week. Namely, 

(2) That the council knowingly instructed the workforce to work in the contaminated ground in full knowledge that it was contaminated with Asbestos 

(3)  That the council knowingly did not follow proper H+S regulations on the 24th of June and 30th of November.

Brent Council responds to Cllr Duffy's questions & announces public meeting on asbestos issue

Alleged possible asbestos dust a Paddington Cemetery

Cllr Duffy has received a reply from Brent Council to his questions LINK regarding the asbestos dump at Paddington Cemetery. His tenacity has succeeded in getting a fuller account than that given hitherto and getting more information put into the public domain. It is likely that he will have further questions to put to the Council.

Public Meeting on the asbestos contamination of Paddington Old Cemetery. Tuesday 6 February 2018 at 7pm at Kilburn Housing Co-operative, Kilburn Square, Victoria Road, Kilburn, NW6 6PT.

BRENT COUNCIL RESPONSE

Dear Cllr Duffy,

The council’s Chief Executive has asked me to respond to your latest correspondence on this matter (received Monday 29^th January). Your original email is provided below for reference (SEE LINK)

This response should also serve to answer the same (or very similar) questions raised in your email to Amar Dave, dated 24^th January.

I will deal with each of your points in turn.

-       I agree that the Audit Advisory Committee (AAC) report and the Delta Simons report are separate reports. They consider two separate matters, both raised by yourself.

-       The purpose of the AAC report was to investigate your allegation that the asbestos contamination was a deliberate and illegal act. No evidence was found to support your allegation.

-       This report did examine the 2015 transfer of soil from other Brent cemeteries to Paddington. Soil (not asbestos) was imported for ground levelling purposes from three other council cemeteries using bulk lorries provided by Veolia and another contractor. The council did not knowingly load, transfer, or receive contaminated waste. Despite your suggestion, it has not been established that this soil was in any way contaminated by asbestos.

-       The Delta Simons report was a different report, with a different remit. It recorded the findings of the most recent ground survey of the site and quantified the level of contamination. It gave a comprehensive risk assessment based on those findings.

-       In response to your references to the wellbeing of the operatives, I can confirm that Veolia, their employers, have been attentive to their health and safety throughout this matter. You are aware that excavations ceased in May when asbestos was found. Other simple ground maintenance has also been minimised since May. Two burials in family graves have been undertaken by a specialist contractor, not Veolia, and the removal of some soil was undertaken only after a risk assessment had been done. This was previously provided to you for your information.

-       Your further and repeated reference to the council knowingly transferring asbestos to the cemetery must again be challenged. That is simply not supported by any evidence. 

I refer now to the two dates listed in your section titled ‘The Perfect Storm’. I can provide the following details.

24^th June

It is not evident from the photographs what work, if any, is being undertaken. From May, when traces of asbestos were discovered at a depth of 6-7ft, Veolia exercised their duty of care and chose to cease burials and ground excavations until a ground survey was undertaken to establish the extent of any contamination. In the intervening period, only very occasional grass cutting is likely to have been undertaken by Veolia in order to maintain the amenity of this public site for visitors. This activity will normally require the use of protective equipment and will not be undertaken when members of the public are present. As you will appreciate, Veolia prioritise their duty of care to their staff and to other people. Such operations are usually undertaken by teams who might move from location to location and so the suggestion they were ‘bussed in’ is neither disputed nor unusual.

30^th November

Some soil was removed from the site by a licensed waste carrier. This followed a full risk assessment. The area was cordoned off and the soil was covered prior to its transfer (your photograph gives some indication of that). You were previously provided with the risk assessment document and the waste transfer note.

I refer now to your section ‘No new evidence’ and your three questions. I will respond to each of these in turn.

1.      Could you confirm that the AAC report is a internal restricted report and the public will never be allowed to view or reference that report?

I can confirm that the AAC report was initially restricted for its consideration by the Committee in December. However, it has been publicly available on the council’s website since the last Audit Advisory Committee on the 10^th January. LINK

2.      Can you confirm that you are aware the Delta Simons report states "The Client ( Brent Council) as landowner (and potentially as employer) has a duty to manage to ensure exposure is kept as low as reasonably practicable; further, the assessment has identified the potential for exposures to exceed a level at which has been considered in civil litigation as being a material contributor to a case of mesothelioma"?

The council accepts its obligation to undertake remediation of the site to ensure levels of potential exposure are kept to as low a level as possible. That will happen and the council has now commissioned specialist plans for that remediation. It is likely soil will be removed in bulk and replaced. This will be followed by a re-landscaping of The Mound. In terms of the exposure risk, this has now been confirmed as an ‘acceptable’ risk for walkers and casual visitors to the site and a ‘tolerable’ risk to those excavating the soil over a lifetime period. The report identified that ‘those working within the soils would be exposed to a greater degree of risk than those engaged in works that do not involve soil excavation; this may be considered part and parcel of the type and nature of work they are engaged in and remunerated for; any persons whose duties involve digging through soils or made ground will be exposed to contaminants including both ‘natural’ (e.g. arsenic) and anthropogenic inclusions. For comparative purposes, the concentrations, types and friability of the asbestos found are not uncommon from those encountered in many investigations of previously developed sites and the urban environment.’ Further discussions with Delta Simons last Friday confirmed that the contamination level across The Mound is 0.001%. Their view is that the risk is almost non-existent and is comparable to the risk encountered when walking down any street in Brent, or in a similar urban environment. They also made clear that the levels of contamination they measured during their survey means the soil can be considered ‘non-hazardous’ for disposal purposes. Their view on protective clothing is that it is not really necessary so long as basic hygiene precautions are undertaken by anyone working in the soil and that a simple damping down of the soil is sufficient in order to mitigate any risk when digging.

3.      Can you confirm that since new evidence has now been made known to you - in paragraphs  titled "Perfect Storm" and "Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH)” above - you will commission an Independent Investigation into the manner in which the council handled issues following the delivery of the contaminated waste in August 2015.

I refer you to the responses given at 2 and 3 above, particularly Delta Simon’s confirmed view on the levels of contamination and the risk. I ask that you consider these facts and that you reflect on the final conclusion of their report which states - ‘It is considered unlikely from the assessment undertaken that the risk identified would be sufficient to drive regulatory action by Statutory Regulators in relation to land contamination, nor is it considered likely that the conditions and concentrations encountered are likely to be of interest to the Health and Safety Executive in relation to asbestos under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.’

A further investigation is not proposed. As has been made clear, the enquiries conducted by Brent’s Internal Audit were considered and discussed by the council’s Audit Advisory Committee on two separate recent occasions, namely, on 5 December 2017 and 10 January 2018. This Committee has an independent role and is chaired by an experienced non-councillor member of the Committee. The Committee also has another member independent of the Council, Eugene Sullivan, who was the previous Chief Executive of the Audit Commission.

To infer in any way that the investigation and furthermore the oversight of the matter is not    

independent is not accurate.

On 10 January 2018, the Committee concluded that, unless any new information came to light, there was no basis for any further investigation. It found that there is no available evidence or in fact any other information capable of forming the basis of any further enquiry or investigation. In other words, there is nothing that can be usefully investigated to reveal who is responsible for the soil contamination and what happened at the time that it was received at the cemetery. This audit process has therefore established no evidence of anyone delivering or receiving contaminated soil deliberately or in a fraudulent way in order to gain any advantage. In the circumstances, continuing to investigate this matter would be futile and, having initially considered litigation, have now concluded that there is no prospect of the council being able to take any legal action. Besides, the very small levels of contamination (0.001%) that are not uncommon in such soil would seem to counter any suggestion the contamination would have been very obvious to any party at the time in any case.

A public meeting is proposed for next Tuesday, 6^th February. This will see the council present the facts and provide any further reassurance that may be needed.

Duffy probes further on hazardous asbestos dump at Paddington Cemetery

Cllr John Duffy has submitted further evidence to all Brent councillors and Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive Officer in support of his call for an independent investigation.
 

Dear CEO,

It appears there has been a misrepresentation of facts by Council Officers and leading Councillors concerning the Audit Advisory Committee (AAC) report into the discovery of Asbestos found within Paddington Old Cemetery and the Deltasimon report . The AAC report is a completely different report  which should have investigate how the Asbestos arrived at the cemetery and the report is a restricted report ,which the public are not allowed access to. The Deltasimon report is - an independent report to assess the level of contamination and  this report neither sought or commented on the legality of  council actions to transport contaminated to the cemetery, or the council actions following the discovery of the Asbestos in 2015.

The AAC (in-house ) report, is in my opinion, poor and largely irrelevant because of its failure to interview the work-force (gravediggers /gardeners) most at risk in the situation. The report also failed to seek important relevant documents that are clearly available. However the most glaring deficiency is the fact that the report ends in August 2015 - when the deliberate transportation of the asbestos to Paddington Cemetery by the council took place.  Most of the major issues raised by the Friends of Paddington Old Cemetery (FPC) relate to the contravention of health and safety regulations after the concluding date of the AAC report .  These contraventions took place between 9th May 2017 and 30th November 2017.They were not addressed in the AAC report and have since been ignored by officers and senior councillors since.

The issue the AAC report ignores is, I believe, the most important and fundamental. Namely - did the council put the workforce and residents at unnecessary risk by not implementing basic Health and Safety regulations concerning the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulation (COSHH) following its discovery in Carpenders Park and subsequent transfer to Paddington Old Cemetery.  It is accepted that the Council officers knowingly delivered contaminated waste and instructed the workforce  to undertake over 90 burials in the contaminated  ground. The Deltasimon report contained within it a quote  stating that the contamination was therefore "deemed to pose a significant risk to the Brent council contracted grave diggers". Yet not one Gravediggers /Gardeners who handle the asbestos in Carpenters Park Depot  and worked on the contaminated mound ,were interviewed in the AAC report.

The fact is the AAC report missed information than it gathered,  because it ended in August 2015 and ignores the two incidents most concerning local residents ,FPC and some parents .The incidents I refer to  took place on the 24th June 2017*  and  the 30th November 2017*, after the Asbestos  was discovered on May 9th 2017.

The Perfect Storm

The Council say continually that the Asbestos was low-risk (albeit they did not know that when they delivered it to the cemetery) and assert that the simple presence of asbestos does not represent a risk.  They go on to say a risk is only present if the asbestos is disturbed, at which point fibres become air-borne and can be inhaled.  They also say that the ground is damp and this hinders the process of fibres becoming airborne. This statement is generally true. However, the question at hand concerns the way in which the asbestos was handled/disturbed by the council and the question of whether government COSHH regulations were followed to safeguard the workforce, residents and local school. 

After the discovery of the asbestos on May 9th 2017 the council initially took appropriate steps.  They employed Eton Environmental Group asbestos specialists and a specialist sub contractor to undertake all the reopening burials. They carried out their task in a professional fashion, ensuring the area they were working in was protected from the public and the workforce dressed in protective face masks and disposable overalls. 

However, on June 24th 2017 (6 weeks after the asbestos was discovered) the council again instructed work on the mound and bussed workers in from outside of the cemetery (after - as I understand it - other workers refused to work on the mound).  The new workforce had no knowledge of the asbestos contamination. They also had no training or protective equipment, masks, overalls etc, but were instructed to work at the site. The area was not taped off to prevent members of the public visiting graves there. The workforce set about their tasks, as instructed, raising potentially hazardous dust which put themselves and the public at unnecessary risk.  I attach a photo below taken by a resident on the day which I believe illustrates plumes of hazardous dust and the danger that represents.

The suggestion that the ground was damp enough to hinder the asbestos fibres becoming air-borne is complete nonsense. On June 24th 2017, the temperature was between 30 to 32 °C. Three days earlier, Greater London recorded 34.5 °C - the UK's highest June temperature since 1976. The ground was completely dry. I believe both the workforce and public were put at unnecessary risk by the failure of the council to protect them from the airborne dust created by this work, in what can only be described as the Perfect (Asbestos) Storm. 

Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH)

I fully supported the council in employing the specialist contractors, who are both well known asbestos specialists and understand the COSHH regulations in regard to asbestos. They professionally re-opened the graves for burials on the mound and removed the contaminated waste by wheelbarrow from the mound and placed it to the side of the road by the school garden, where green sheeting was place on it to remove the risk of any asbestos dust being blown into the air. Taping was place around the waste to stop people walking on it.  Which would seem reasonably good practice.

However the employment of the company who removed the contaminated waste was neither efficient or as safe.  It would seem this company was not on the approved list of Brent Contractors; they are not asbestos specialists, just a standard waste management /skip hire company. The operation they undertook certainly does not appear to follow COSHH regulations.  Most importantly, they did not contact the school whose garden is immediately adjacent to ensure that no children went out during the operation.  Nor did they cordon off the surrounding area to ensure members of the public did not enter.

The operation failed to meet even basic standards when dealing with Hazardous/Contaminated waste. The use of the giant mechanical shovel (see attached photo) was completely inappropriate and bound to create plumes of hazardous airborne dust. The area was fully open to public throughout the operation, the waste was then placed in an open lorry rather than a locked skip (which is required in COSHH guidelines), and no protective sheeting was placed on the lorry as it drove off, leaving several pieces of asbestos (see attached photo) scattered along the path.

No new evidence?

At Monday's full council meeting The Mayor refused my request for a debate to appoint an independent investigation.  His decision was supported by Cllr Southwood and Cllr Choudry stating there was no new evidence for any further investigation. This position is untenable. There is ample new evidence that was over looked by the AAC report.  

Since that report, officers have received.

(A) The dates of the incidents on 24th June* and the 30th November* and the location of the incidents.  

(B) evidence that Workers were bussed in and instructed to work and they had no protective clothing. 

(C) photographic evidence of airborne dust plumes and that the fact the area was not taped off from the public. 

(D) photographic evidence showing that the removal of the waste was not carried out within Health and Safety regulations.  

(E) The temperature on that day - showing that there was an increased risk contamination because of the dryness of the ground.  None of this issues were even mentioned in the AAC report.

In light of this, could you please confirm three points:

(1) Could you confirm that the AAC report is a internal restricted report and the public will never be allowed to view or reference that report?

(2) Can you confirm that you are aware the DeltaSimons report states "The Client (Brent Council) as landowner (and potentially as employer) has a duty to manage to ensure exposure is kept as low as reasonably practicable; further, the assessment has identified the potential for exposures to exceed a level at which has been considered in civil litigation as being a material contributor to a case of mesothelioma"?

(3) Can you confirm that since new evidence has now been made known to you - in paragraphs  titled "Perfect Storm" and "Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH)” above - you will commission an Independent Investigation into the manner in which the council handled issues following the delivery of the contaminated waste in August 2015 - The independent investigator should have knowledge of Health and Safety regulations (COSHH) and a remit to interview all witnesses. The investigator should be agreed by the leader of the Council  (Cllr Butt ) and  the leader of the opposition(Cllr Warren) and a rep from FPC. 

Finally If you, Cllr Southwood and Cllr Butt continue to impede /refuse an independent investigation, will you please pass on the attached photos to  the Asbestos  consultants Deltasimons and ask them if they believe the actions taken by Brent council on the 24thJune and November 30^th 2017 are compatible with the statement in their report highlighted in bold in Question 2. 

'Shunned' Duffy: Labour will be haunted by cemetery asbestos issue

In a comment on this blog LINK last night Cllr John Duffy, said:

I have been, blacklisted, deselected, resigned and shunned by the some Labour Party members. However the issue of the asbestos in Paddington cemetery and how they treated the workforce will not go away and will haunt the Labour Party.

Cllr Duffy resigns from Brent Labour Group in protest over asbestos issue

Cllr Duffy's new seating position between Tory front bench and Cllr Carr

Cllr Duffy (Kilburn) resigned from Brent Labour Group  at the beginning of tonight's Full Council Meeting over the lack of support from the Group over the Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue (covered below).

Despite support for Duffy from Cllr John Warren (Conservative Group leader) the Mayor refused to allow discussion of the issue.

Cllr Tom Miller, a member of the Labour Group, tweeted:  'Frustrating at #BrentLive to have people trying to wedge in serious issue of asbestos without sorting out an agenda item or using the correct process generally. Gah.'

Later in the evening the Chair of the Audit Committee appeared to believe that a lengthy private discussion of a report on the asbestos dump and the participation of two independent members of the committee, made an independent inquiry unnecessary as they were satisfied  with the officer's report.

Damning photographic evidence of reckless asbestos removal at Paddington Cemetery

-->

 'We expect our children to be safe when we send them to school. We do not expect the Council to poison their air'

Cllr John Duffy has written the following email to Brent councillors:

Since I wrote my last email, I have received fresh photographic evidence from a resident that is most disconcerting. On the 1^st of December 2017, the council employed a firm to remove approx 15 tonnes of contaminated soil from the graveyard. This procurement seems to have been done in haste as the company employed are not, as far as I can research, experts in the removal of contaminated and waste and their employment followed no proper procurement rules - as if often the case for Brent. I  also do not know whether they are licensed to carry the contaminated waste.

The company removed the soil by mechanical shovel, which is totally the wrong way to proceed. The way the operation was carried out raised a considerable amount of contaminated dust. The council did not supervise the operation or ensure a risk assessment took place. The operation failed to fulfil the basic H+S standards when dealing with Hazardous /Contaminated waste. The use of the shovel and the removal should be carried out in a more controlled fashion to try and limit making airborne dust. The area was fully open to public while the operation took place ,the waste was then placed in an open lorry rather than a locked skip which is required in guidelines on the Control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH).

However the worst aspect of the operation was that it took place just feet from the children's playground/garden of  Salusbury Road Primary School.  No risk assessment was done and no effort was made to inform the school to keep the children safe inside during the operation.  Furthermore no effort was made to contain the dust clouds.

The CEO, the Leader of the Council and Lead Member for the Environment must now stop trying to impede an Independent Investigation establishing the full facts of how the waste arrived at Paddington Cemetery and the question of whether workers were instructed to work without protection. 

However, the first thing we must do as a priority is to contact the school and find were children and staff present during the operation. This can be done by comparing class timetables against the work schedule.(I have copied in the head of the school) and establish why the school was not informed that the operation was going on.

I am concerned that the Leader and Cabinet’s decision not to insist on an independent investigation and their failure to ensure the workforce be interviewed has brought the council into disrepute and undermined the workforce human rights. 

I will be moving at tonight's meeting that we set up an independent investigation, as set out in my previous email, to reassure, the workers, residents  grave owners and the school we have nothing to hide and there will be no more cover-ups.

Cllr Duffy adds:
 

I would like to thank Baroness Jones for adding her support to the Friends of Paddington Cemetery. Hopefully, we will now see the commission of an Independent Investigation, where all the individuals who were exposed to asbestos will be interviewed.I believe it is the duty of the CEO and the Leader of the Council, along with the Lead Member for the Environment, to cease the prevarication and answer the questions Baroness Jones has raised.

Namely - 

(1)      Did Council officers knowingly send waste contaminated with asbestos to Paddington cemetery in August 2015 in spite of the fact that they understood it would be disturbed during the burial and gardening process and this would lead to the work-force being exposed to the asbestos?

(2)      On the 24^th June 2017, did Council officers instruct workmen to work on the mound without protective overalls and masks and training?  I believe this to be a very serious matter that put both the workmen and public at risk .

(3)      Why are the CEO, Leader and Lead member for the Environment unwilling to contemplate interviewing the workforce who have been exposed to asbestos since August 2015 and including those exposed to the contaminated dust on June 24^th 2017?

On Friday I spoke to ACAS and they told me it is the responsibility of the CEO as the senior officer to ensure the council fulfils its duty of care to the council’s employees.  This means they should take all steps, which are reasonably possible, to ensure their health, safety and wellbeing. Demonstrating concern for the physical and mental health of your workers shouldn’t just be seen as a legal duty. Legally, employers must abide by relevant health & safety and employment law, as well as the common law duty of care, but they also have a moral and ethical duty not to cause, or fail to prevent, physical or psychological injury, and must fulfil their responsibilities.  I am sure everybody is aware that this would include knowingly instructing workers employees to work in an area contaminated by asbestos without protection.

Green peer adds her voice to calls for independent investigation into Paddington Cemetery asbestos dump

Dust at Paddington Cemetery (FPC)

Jenny Jones (Baroness Jones of Moulsecoom) the Green Party member of the House of Lords, has written to Brent Council supporting  the call for an independent investigation into the asbestos contamination in Paddington Cemetery LINK.

Jones writes:

Cllr Duffy has written to me on behalf of a the Friends Of Paddington Cemetery (FPC), a local residents group. The group have concerns around the issue of the inappropriate use of asbestos contaminated soil to create additional burial sites in the Cemetery. Having read their concerns I am troubled by the lack of transparency being shown by the council and by the secretive way senior officers and leadership of the council are conducting themselves.

Can you tell me how the waste arrived on site and did the council knowingly deliver contaminated (with asbestos) waste to Paddington Cemetery in August 2015?

I am further troubled by the failure of your in-house audit team to interview any residents or member of the workforce who may have been exposed  to the asbestos. NHS guidelines say "While asbestos can be dangerous, it does not present a health risk if left undisturbed, but if material containing asbestos is damaged, it can release a fine dust that contains asbestos fibres. When the dust is breathed in, the asbestos fibres enter the lungs and can gradually damage them over time.” 

The pictures provided by FPC  (above) clearly show a considerable amount of dust being raised by the workman on the mound after the asbestos was discovered. If the council allows those workmen to work on the mound without protective overalls and masks and training, it's a very serious matter that puts both the workmen and public at risk.

Based on the evidence I have seen I should like to add my support to FPC efforts to have an independent investigation. Cllr Duffy has suggested an expert on Health and Safety should oversee this which seems appropriate to me. I hope you agree to an independent investigation.