Expert raises fresh concerns over transparency of 'toxic' school report

A public health expert is raising fresh concerns over a Scottish Government study which found no links between ill-health and two North Lanarkshire schools built on a toxic landfill site.

Professor Andrew Watterson from Stirling University says he has identified three apparent failings in the review.

It was ordered in response to concerns from teachers, parents and pupils at St Ambrose and Buchanan High schools in Coatbridge. Professor Watterson told Clyde News the review was not transparent enough. He said: “The review covered a great deal of ground in a very short space of time. It accessed a wide range of documents, not all currently in the public domain, on a complex site with a history of mining, industrial and landfill activity in the area. It provides some useful suggestions for taking matters forward but in a number of respects the review is still problematic and may not address all the trust, transparency and communication issues raised.

“The review indicates it has provided a snapshot and, in several instances, draws on accounts and records of what was meant to happen but sometimes not all relevant documentation was available to check. In places, the review therefore rightly offers a qualified view of what exactly can and cannot be established about site history, hazards, risks and potential effects. However, nowhere in the review report are limitations explicitly mentioned.

“The review provides additional information about various aspects of concern to staff, pupils, parents and the wider public relating to the staff cancer cluster, the health of pupils and some additional but limited soil, water and air tests conducted for the review.

“The review judgements about risk and their communication remain problematic in several places because of the continued lack of transparency, data gaps, methodological issues and the evidence base now available as well as the continued lack of transparency relating to some important material. Sometimes the brevity of the report compounded this problem

“The review provides constructive suggestions and ideas for taking some matters forward in Coatbridge with all interested parties to try to rebuild trust, improve consultation and the flow of information.

“Several important questions still remain unanswered about the site and past investigations. Further questions need asking about the cancer cluster, indoor air monitoring and the health profile and health status of the pupils in the two schools. The gaps that still exist in our knowledge and understanding of the site and past enquiries mean it is difficult to make categorical statements about what has occurred there and what may occur in the future. A public enquiry may now well be the best way to resolve a number of these outstanding issues.

“The advantage of the tight deadline for the review report meant that parents and staff had valuable information to inform ‘back to school’ decisions.

“The disadvantage of such a deadline is that more extensive and comprehensive monitoring and site investigation could not of course be conducted but will follow. Hence findings may be limited and based only on sources, opinions and documents available to the team at the time.

“There has been a sometimes inevitable but understandable tendency in places in the review to offer key points and summary assessments of scientific both literature and risks that omit both a deeper discussion of the issues and the weaknesses and limitations of work cited. In turn this can lead to the risk of overstating or not qualifying conclusions sufficiently which may damage the credibility of such reviews. A Panglossian view of risk assessment does not necessarily create confidence whereas qualified realistic assessments may do.

“The review looks distinctly rushed to the detriment of the more detailed discussion of the site, its development and maintenance, its hazards and risks and their significance and the relevant literature on remediation and containment failures. The review report for instance acknowledges that it could not identify documentary evidence in some cases relating to actions on site pollution because of limited time. The lack of time available to explore or check documents and related issues is mentioned in several other places.

“How the government, council, health board and review work has been done is a very important element in gaining and maintaining staff, pupil and community confidence in findings in the future. “This engagement and confidence building cannot be rushed and appears to have been neglected on several occasions and at critical points in the review process. This fact, compounded by the data gaps and unanswered questions both about the site and health of staff and students, has meant that some staff and some parents of pupils at the school still lack trust in the review findings or conclusions or both and continue to perceive a lack of transparency and inadequate communication

“The Scottish Government was right to act quickly to set up a review and, like the review team itself, was under time pressure. Arguments were made at the time that the priority for any review needed to be a thorough investigation of the case rather than a hasty approach which might lose the confidence of some or all key parties already sceptical about how matters had been handled.

“Where review meetings were held with parents and staff and officials and politicians, it was sometimes indicated there would be limited time for discussions – watches placed on tables, even an egg timer produced to try to limit lengthy opening contributions of parents to meetings with a reviewer. This sends out the wrong message about engagement and a willingness to listen.

“When the review report was released, parents and teachers were not provided with paper copies of the report in pre-briefings but the press were. Parents and staff were also told to send in questions for the pre-briefing meetings yet had not seen the review report. They were further told that only a limited number of questions would be allowed to the review team after a very short presentation on findings."

A spokesperson said: “The council welcomes the independent review, which reinforces the conclusions reached by experts in public health and pollution that the schools are safe, the campus is safe and there is no link to reported illness.

“Our focus is on implementing the recommendations of the review and working closely with pupils, parents and staff at these outstanding, safe schools."

A Scottish Government spokesperson said:

“The independent review considered a wide range of evidence, including environmental and clinical data, and commissioned new soil, water and air tests.

“The report provides reassurance that there are no links between ill-health and the campus. The recommendations will ensure statutory bodies engage far more proactively with parents, staff and pupils to rebuild the trust and learn lessons from this for the future.

“A key recommendation is the establishment of a Site Recovery Group, North Lanarkshire Council has now appointed its Chair and scientific advisor and the Group will meet next week to start its work."