Labor must urgently remove asbestos from schools | Letters
The Guardian’s investigation into underinvestment in public buildings vividly shows its damaging effects (revealed: 1.5 million children in England studying in unsuitable school buildings, December 27). It is therefore encouraging that a government spokesperson stated that “immediate action would be taken to remedy the state of disrepair”.
However, the UK surveys into the condition of buildings and asbestos regulations do not include a measure of the risk of staff and children developing incurable mesothelioma cancer as a result of long-term exposure to asbestos in buildings such as schools.
Britain now has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world, and the evidence indicates that hundreds of thousands of children and staff could die in the future because of exposure to asbestos in their former schools. My research into this What is the real risk of asbestos in schools?was published last year by the National Education Union.
The government must take immediate action to develop asbestos regulations and funding for the identification and remediation, if necessary, of all schools with unsafe levels of asbestos. Our children deserve no less.
Dr. Gil Reed
Former technical advisor to the Union Joint Asbestos Committee
Twenty years ago I was responsible for preparing both the school organization plan and the asset management plan for a local education authority (LEA) of approximately 10 secondary schools and 60 primary schools, special schools and kindergartens. I have calculated that (at 2004 prices) £10 million should be set aside annually for the planned replacement of school stock over a rolling period of 60 years, £4.5 million for capitalized planned maintenance, £3 million for curriculum developments that support adaptation and require modernisation, and £2.5 million for unpredictable issues arising from government initiatives – health and safety legislation, removal of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, asbestos, disabled access – and the list goes on on and on.
This would stabilize the school supply situation, but only after one-off expenditure of around £12 million to catch up.
Since the 1970s, the annual government ceiling on loans for investment in schools in my LEA has never exceeded £2 million. Deterioration was inevitable. One-off approvals for new schools were not great. Due to insufficient appropriations for private financing initiatives, the LEA had to find an annual shortfall of £5 million to pay the concessionaires.
A belated acknowledgment of the problem is welcome. Perhaps the time is now right to break the bizarre rules governing public sector lending requirements.
Ed Campbell
Morpeth, Northumberland
I am skeptical about the concerns raised regarding the lack of construction data (Safety checks ordered amid concerns over thousands of post-war school buildings in England, December 29). For example, the Clasp (Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme) system used across Britain is well documented in the Department for Education’s Building Bulletin guides.
It is likely that the steel and wood construction will remain sound in the many Clasp buildings still in use. This is not to say that detailed site surveys of system-built schools are not necessary at this time, but they should be carried out in the light of available information.
Colin Porteus
Emeritus Professor of Architectural Studies, Glasgow School of Art