Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-90)
MR PATRICK
MCDONALD,
MR STEVE
COLDRICK, MR
CHRIS WELLS,
DR PETER
WRIGHT AND
MS ANNE
KIRKHAM
22 NOVEMBER 2006
Q80 Viscount Simon: Going on one
step further in this particular aspect, are other students or
undergraduates made aware of the allergic conditions that some
other students or undergraduates might have?
Mr Wells: Not automatically.
Q81 Viscount Simon: The Royal College
of Paediatrics and Child Health has expressed concern with the
fact that hay fever sufferers under-perform quite regularly in
their end of term exams in the summer. Is there any particular
reason why these exams are held at the peak of the hay fever season?
Should they not be changed?
Mr Wells: I think
you have asked a question that is asking me to undo centuries
of history, and I rather suspect the answer is no.
Q82 Viscount Simon: Not to mention
the seasons of the year!
Mr Wells: It is historical;
there is a whole host of different reasons. Accepting that it
is a serious question, seriously put, to which I do not have an
answer which is likely to change the examination timetable, with
the greatest respect, I think what is critical, from an educationalist's
point of view, is that we are, first of all, very, very clear
that a teacher's job is to differentiate the way in which they
teach across the year to help to suit the child or the young person's
particular circumstances and, secondly, that when it comes to
exam times of course, young people do have the right to particular
support if they have a condition which is going to seriously affect
their likely performance. The extent to which universities or
schools make sure that they use well ventilated rooms, not right
by a source of pollen, I guess is a local issue which I cannot
regulate for, sorry.
Q83 Chairman: I wonder if we can
move on and possibly, Ms Kirkham, a question for you relating
to housing health and safety. I am wondering how the Housing Health
and Safety Rating System regulations support local authority officers
dealing with environmental health issues which affect tenants
who suffer from allergies?
Ms Kirkham: If I
may try and answer the question in two parts. First of all, very
briefly I will try to explain how the Housing Health and Safety
Rating System operates and then how local authorities would implement
it in relation to different parts of the rented sector. In terms
of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System itself, it is a
series of 29 different hazards that you could find in domestic
premises and which would impact on the health or safety of residents.
If you simply look at the 29 hazards as prescribed in the regulations,
none of them specifically relates to allergies, so allergy does
not appear on the face of the regulations. However, when you look
at the operating guidance which supports the implementation of
the Rating System, there are four hazards where the health outcomes
specifically relate to the possibility of allergic responses by
the occupants of the building. Of those four different hazards:
the first relates to damp and mould growth, which specifically
references the impact of mould spores and dust mites; the second
is in relation to fuel-combustion products where the impact of
nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide is also referenced; the third
relates to volatile organic compounds and the potential allergic
responses, and the final one is the hazard which covers domestic
hygiene, pests and refuse, which again picks up on allergic responses
some people might have to pests. Therefore, any local authority
officer engaged in the operation and the implementation of the
Rating System has their attention drawn to the possibility of
allergic responses in relation to specific housing conditions.
The system was newly brought into force in April this year. It
is a much better tool than its predecessor, the old fitness standard,
in helping assess the health and safety impacts of many aspects
of a home on its occupants. In particular, those implementing
the Rating System in terms of what action they might take, are
particularly asked to look at the circumstances of the individual
occupant. It guides people to differentiate between people in
different circumstances. For example, somebody in a home where
there was evidence of mould, and therefore the possible hazard
of mould spores, may take different action if the occupants of
that home were healthy young people as opposed to somebody who
may be asthmatic. That is very clearly set out in the guidance.
In terms of how that impacts on specific people and specific conditions,
if we take the private rented sector, then a local authority would
only become engaged in response to a complaint from somebody living
in that property. They would then inspect the property, determine
what hazards were present, and determine the severity of those
hazards in relation to the likely health outcomes. The hazards
are graded in terms of categories. Category one and category two
hazards have the more severe health or safety outcomes for people.
Where you have a category one or a category two hazard the local
authority is able to take action of differing degrees of severity,
depending how you look at it, from the simplest, which is simply
serving a notice on the person responsible for that building,
called the Hazard Awareness Notice, pointing out there is a hazard
and what action might be taken to remedy that, going right through
to a prohibition order which says all or part of that building
should be closed.[2]
Q84Lord Soulsby of Swaffham
Prior: I think the final question is on your evidence, where you
state that there would be cost implications for local authorities
and the building industry if control provisions were extended
beyond those in Building Regulations or HHSRS guidelines. What
are these?
Ms Kirkham: Again,
if I may give an answer in two parts. They are two issues related
to costs: one would be extending the scope of either Building
Regulations or the Housing Health and Safety Rating System to
cover a much wider range of potential allergic responses than
the current regulations and guidance cover. If I take the Rating
System, that is an evidence-based system and those assessing it
are dependent on the evidence that is available which determines
a very clear linkage between a particular problem in the building
and the likely health outcome. The evidence for a number of other
potential allergic things is much weaker and we do not have that
very strong base of evidence in order to help people come to a
judgment. A cost would be in trying to establish and deliver that
much broader and wider evidence-base. That would be the first
point. The second would be a cost in relation to taking action.
In terms of, for example, the Building Regulations the provision
of adequate ventilation is a key aspect of reducing the possibility
of health outcomes from mould, and an aim of the present regulation
is to try and maintain not more than about 70 per cent humidity
in the building, which tackles mould spores. To tackle dust mites,
you would have to get humidity down to something like 50 per cent.
Ventilation systems to do that would be more expensive to implement,
it is something of the order of £1,000 to £1,500 per
property. In addition, the more complex the ventilation system,
the greater energy use of that system, and therefore there are
other implications in terms of the Climate Change Agenda by having
systems which consume considerable amounts of energy.
Q85 Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior:
Is there any system of including into new buildings guarantees
against allergic problems lasting a period of years, before the
house or the building, whatever it is, gets into operation? It
may not be identified at the time when it is built, opened and
occupied but due to damp and mould and the build-up of various
things, due to poor building practice or poor architecture, it
would become apparent in three, four or five years time. Is there
anything in the Building Regulations that would look at that sort
of situation?
Ms Kirkham: As far
as I am aware, Building Regulations will not specifically pick
up those things if they occur later than 6 months after completion.
If it was a significant problem, as all new homes are covered
by a guarantee, it is a question of whether a severe problem would
be noted and the occupier would be going back to the builder to
seek redress for whatever that particular problem was. For existing
buildings, you do have the Housing Health and Safety Rating System
but, again, it would be dependent on a local authority officer
being brought in to look at that property to pick up whether there
are any specific problems.
Q86 Chairman: If you are talking
about a ventilation scheme costing about £1,000 per property,
is that to install it?
Ms Kirkham: That
is to provide the additional ventilation over and above what is
normally provided to reduce humidity to below 70 per cent.
Q87 Chairman: If you compare that
with the cost of a hospital admission, that seems to be very cheap.
Ms Kirkham: On an
individual property basis, yes, clearly it is a relatively small
cost, but to put that into every single property where not every
single property is occupied by people who would need that additional
ventilation, there are other ways people could do that, by installing
dehumidifiers themselves which, again, are perhaps more cost-effective.
Q88 Chairman: Dr Wright, you were
talking about those people who are eligible for a benefit and
I wondered how the information that you have over people eligible
for benefit, and indeed receiving benefit, feeds into the information
to the environmental health officers in relation to the workplace
in which they are working because if their exposure is decreased
then the severity of their allergic response will decrease?
Dr Wright:
The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council advises us on the scheme,
both the future of the scheme and the administration of the scheme
and figures, such as we have them, are published and are looked
at regularly by the Council. The Council has a representative
there from the Health and Safety Executive who can feed back and
it can be fed through the Executive, as I understand it, to environmental
health officers insofar as they carry out health and safety inspections.
I am looking at my colleague and fortunately he is nodding.
Q89 Chairman: It strikes me that
you could have a situation of someone claiming benefits with an
ongoing allergic-related disease and if there is nothing done
to modify the workplace or feed back to the workplace, you are
never going to decrease that morbidity.
Dr Wright:
There will be a feedback to the workplace if we have a situation
where somebody is claiming and is at work because we would approach
the employer, as part of assessing the claim, to ask the employer
their perception of what has been going on, what the exposure
is, and so on and so forth. The assessment process obviously involves
a claim from the individual, and if the individual is still at
work in the workplace where the exposure occurred, then the employer's
view would be sought. The employer would surely be aware that
the allegation that occupational asthma was occurring in his workplace
had been made.
Q90 Lord Colwyn: You mentioned your
four main hazards from a list of 29, can I ask you whether electromagnetic
toxicity was included in that list at all?
Ms Kirkham: I do
not know. The guidance manual is a relatively thick document so
without looking back at it I would not be able to say. I do not
think it was, from my recollection, but we would have to confirm
that to you. 3
Chairman: Can I thank you all for coming
and helping us by giving this evidence as we explore the different
issues before us. I would like to invite you, when you go away
from here, if there are other issues which you would like to draw
to our attention, you are welcome to send them in writing. In
the light of our discussion they will be drawn to the Sub-Committee's
attention, and written material, like oral evidence and other
written evidence, will be available to the Committee and published
alongside the transcript. Thank you very much for coming today.
3 In the Housing Health and Safety Rating System,
electromagnetic toxicity is included under "Radiation",
which covers threats to health from radon, microwave leakage and
electromagnetic fields.
22 NOVEMBER 2006
2 The powers of local authorities to take statutory
enforcement action following HHSRS assessments are available in
respect of owner-occupied properties and those in the control
of private landlords. In the case of properties in the control
of local authorities and registered social landlords, HHSRS assessments
form part of the Decent Home standard, which requires a property
to be free of category 1 hazards. Back
|
