• Westminster tenants reject asbestos assurances
• Islington painters show solvents won't wash
• Government proposes to sabotage working time directive
• In Parliament:
•    RIDDOR figures faked
•    Dignity at Work Bill

Westminster tenants reject asbestos assurances

Former tenants of Westminster's Elgin Estate took issue with the country's most eminent asbestos epidemiologist at a public meeting on 4 February, in a debate of vital importance for all tenants living in asbestos-ridden buildings.

All eyes were on Professor Julian Peto of the Institute of Cancer Research, commissioned by Westminster Council and Walterton & Elgin Community Homes (WECH) to report on the health effects of asbestos exposure among the estimated 3,000 people who lived at Chantry Point and Hermes Point tower blocks between 1968 and 1991 when tenants were finally decanted. The blocks were demolished in 1994.

The health scandal was revealed by the January 1996 Barratt report which accused Westminster Council of failing to manage the asbestos in the buildings and of moving homeless families into the blocks of flats in the knowledge that they were riddled with asbestos. Brown asbestos was sprayed on to steel beams housed in panels of asbestos chipboard; internal walls were made from asbestos-faced chipboard; asbestos cement was used to cover heaters, floor tiles contained asbestos and service ducts were enclosed by asbestos panels. Large voids between flats allowed circulation of asbestos fibres from the steel beams around the block and into flats.

At the meeting organised by the Association of Former Residents of Chantry and Hermes Points (ARCH), Prof. Peto presented his report to the former tenants. Peto claims that the odds are 20 to 1 against even a single one of the 3,000 tenants getting cancer. He sees no point in monitoring their future health.

Although he claims to have "erred on the side of caution in several aspects of the risk calculation", he also admits that "there are, of course, many uncertainties in such predictions". He goes on to say that "the central assumption that the risk will be 10,000 times less when the exposure is 10,000 times less, although scientifically reasonable, is impossible to test".

LHC worker Mick Holder argued that Peto didn't have enough data to draw these conclusions. The HSE took a single set of 33 samples in March 1985. Peto himself admits that they are unsystematic. They give no clue to higher levels that might be caused by cleaning, decorating, high winds or different heating levels. It was left to a postgraduate environmental health student to investigate asbestos levels caused by DIY work such as drilling, sawing and sanding. Peto uses studies of other buildings to draw conclusions from this slight evidence. He talks in terms of averages and has no way of assessing whether some tenants may have had higher exposures than the average.

Although the risk increases with the level of exposure, people exposed to small amounts have developed asbestos cancers. Bromley Council tenant Jean Walker died in 1994 of mesothelioma caused by redecorating the asbestos cement internal walls of her house: Bromley council recently paid #70,000 in an out of court settlement.

Prof. Peto's previous work led the HSE to underestimate the risk of asbestos exposure to construction workers. In 1995 he finally admitted that very many more construction workers were to die than he had previously predicted. The government's safety police, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), then mounted a massive campaign alerting construction workers to the problem in an attempt to prevent future exposure to the deadly dust.

After hearing the debate and the Centre's criticisms of the report, the tenants couldn't endorse Professor Peto's conclusions. "Professor Peto's report seems reassuring but is flawed," Will Rolt, Chair of ARCH, told Daily Hazard. "I am concerned that he could come to such definite conclusions from what he himself admits is insufficient information. Myself and other former tenants are therefore left with the stress and concern caused by our exposure to asbestos. We shall continue to pursue claims for adequate compensation from the Council. Somebody must make sure that the health of former tenants is properly monitored, for the sake of future generations."

Ex-tenants have been advised to make sure that a record of their exposure is kept by their GPs. WECH has set up a database of ex-tenants and will keep a record of any asbestos-related diseases that develop. Although a proportion of them would be expected to contract mesothelioma and lung cancer independently of their exposure to asbestos at home, it should be possible to identify whether that exposure increased the risk of contracting these diseases.

This controversy is of local, national and international significance. Local newspapers reported Peto's conclusions with headlines like "Asbestos is 'low risk': official" which can only breed complacency amongst both tenants and local authorities. Meanwhile, Peto's reputation is such that the international asbestos industry will use this report to defend the use of its products, to the detriment of tenants and people working with asbestos everywhere.

Asbestos Hazards Handbook, London Hazards Centre, £5 (£12 to commercial organisations) + £1 postage

Islington painters show solvents won't wash

Trade unions at Islington Council building department scored an important success in January when the council agreed to replace hazardous solvent based paints with safer water based ones.

The solvent in 'oil-based' paints is what makes the paint a liquid: once on the wall, it evaporates into the air you breathe. The vapour attacks the central nervous system, which is why painting can give you a headache. The lasting effects can include asthma, dermatitis and birth defects or miscarriages. In the long term it can cause permanent brain damage and pre-senile dementia; 'Painter's dementia' is a recognised industrial disease in Denmark. When used in housing and schools solvent-based paints are a particular hazard to children and the elderly, and can cause or intensify allergies and asthma. They are a fire hazard: in 1993 a YTS trainee burned to death when he was overcome by paint vapour which then caught fire.

More solvents also have to be used to clean the paint from equipment and skin: they then have to be disposed of safely.

Since 1990 UCATT and other unions, and tenants organisations, have negotiated bans in Manchester, Sheffield, Southwark and elsewhere. Paint makers are talking about moving entirely to water based by the year 2000, spurred on by European Union moves towards a ban.

Islington Council agreed to test various brands of solvent-free paint after Peter Farrell, UCATT Safety Representative and the joint shop stewards committee presented the case. It has taken two years of trials and safety committee debates to get the decision through. Peter, a painter and decorator, previously worked for Camden Council, where he persuaded a council safety officer to prohibit the use of solvent-based eggshell paints at a nursery.

As well as the health advantages, Islington found that water based paints dry more quickly, so jobs can be done in a single visit with less disruption. Joinery can be painted before it leaves the joinery shop, something previously impossible due to the vapour hazard and the lack of drying space: the finish is much better than for items painted on site.

The paint chosen is about 15 per cent more expensive than solvent-based, a reasonable price in the Council's view, but there should be savings on equipment costs (they're easier on brushes), undercoats, cleaning solvents and work time. It dries poorly in cold damp conditions, so external painting needs to be done between April and September. It won't be used on radiators etc. until the manufacturers come up with something better - as they certainly will. Surface preparation is important and application is slightly different, so some training may be needed. All these costs are seen as reasonable when set against the benefits to health, convenience and quality.

Sadly, self management of schools and local management of estates may mean that thousands of schoolchildren and tenants won't benefit from Islington UCATT's work. But the argument that water-based paints are impractical or expensive won't wash any longer: tenants, parents and building workers should be pushing for them from now on.

Resources:

A chart of waterbased products is free from the Paintmakers Association, James House, Bridge St, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7EP. Tel: 01372 360660.
LHC published a 2-part factsheet on Paints in Daily Hazard no 31-32 - ring 020-7794-5999 for a copy or send SAE.

Government proposes to sabotage working time directive

The consultation period on the transposition into UK law of the European Community Working Time Directive ended on 6 March. The government may try and slip regulations through this Parliament but it will have to do this by 9 April. This is the latest that Parliament can be prorogued before a General Election.

The Government's continuing hostility to the Directive as a health and safety measure is maintained in the implementation proposals. It clearly states its intention to "minimise disruption and avoid undue burdens" on business and ignores the benefits of protecting working people's health.

If the current government is defeated in the General Election, the incoming government may be more sympathetic to those in favour of the Directive. However, it has to be said that in all the arguments of the last few months, the case linking excessive working time, shiftwork and nightwork to adverse health effects has rather gone by default. As part of the campaign over the particular piece of legislation, the health and safety argument on working time must be put forcibly so as to challenge the Government's contention that it is purely an employment conditions issue.

Long working hours commonly result in physical and psychological fatigue and stress leading to increased risk of disease and accidents. Night and shift workers are especially at risk because of the disturbance to the body's natural rhythms caused by such work patterns. The suppressed Department of Health report "Mental Health and Stress in the Workplace" stated that 'research has shown that working more than 48 hours per week doubles the risk of coronary disease' [not sure where I got this from - what was the official report that was covered up?].

The Government has found a way to disable the Directive as a health and safety measure by means of its proposals on enforcement. With one exception, the enforcement route would be by workers taking a case to an Industrial Tribunal. The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities would have no role in determining compliance by employers.

The one exception is nightwork. In this case the Government proposes to give the health and safety authorities the power to require employers to produce relevant documentation. However, it would be at the discretion of the authorities whether to request the information nor is there anything they can do with it once received. Employers would not have to make automatic returns.

In non-union workplaces, the DTI proposes the election of employee representatives with the power to make agreements with employers about working hours. This is a step forward from the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations which only provide for consultation.

LHC handbook Hard Labour: stress, ill-health and hazardous employment practices, £6.95 + £1 postage
Hazards magazine: front page article in issue 57, just out; factsheet "Overwork: fatigue, long hours and pressure of work", no 49, 1995 (£2.50 each from PO Box 199, Sheffield S1 1FQ)

In Parliament

RIDDOR figures faked

Labour party health and safety spokesperson Graham Allen has questioned the validity of statistics collected under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR). An early day motion by Allen and 3 other MPs alleges that Sheerness company Co-Steel pressurised workers to take holidays when injured at work, or come back on light duties before they were fully fit, so that Co-Steel could avoid reporting the incident.

Co-Steel won a British Safety Council award on the basis of the cooked figures, which was later withdrawn. Allen has spoken to Co-Steel employees and has over 30 written statements supporting the allegations.

Early Day Motions don't get debated but enable MPs to publicise or support a concern - rather like a petition. The other originators of this EDM are Harry Barnes, Kevin McNamara and John Austin-Walker.

Please ask your MP to sign EDM no 469 on Non-Reporting of Industrial Accidents at Co-Steel.

Dignity at Work Bill

Bullying is a widespread work hazard and is being increasingly recognised. The Dignity at Work Bill is a proposal supported by the Campaign Against Bullying At Work (CABAW). Proposed by labour Lord Monkswell, it would create a right to be treated with dignity at work, enable an employee to complain to an industrial tribunal without having to quit the job, and award compensation for bullying on the same scale as racial or sexual harassment. At the moment the only recourse through a tribunal is a complaint of constructive dismissal.

The bill is completing its passage through the House of Lords and CABAW is seeking supporters to sign up an open letter for publication in the press.

To support CABAW and the Bill, contact Chris Ball at MSF, 33 Moreland Street, London EC1V 8BB (0171-505-3000).

Resources Page