§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel categorised cases 01/005/03, 13/006/03, 17/012/03, 03/036/03 and 07/037/03 as "not classified as an incident" when they were reported to the Health and Safety Executive; and when ill health relating to a pesticide was alleged in these cases. [HL1157]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The objective of the Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel and the principle of case assessment were set out in my Written Answer on 24 January 2005(WA 141).
For the panel to accept a case as an ill health incident there needs to be a clearly defined incident, investigated by HSE (or a local authority), together with associated ill health. Each individual case is discussed by the panel, within the framework published in the annual Pesticide Incident Report, until there is consensus. Details of these discussions are not directly relevant to the panel objectives and not recorded.
The five investigations listed included the assessment of 10 individual cases. For eight of the individual cases the panel concluded that there was no discrete event linked to a specific pesticide exposure. For two of the individual cases the panel concluded that the alleged ill health was unrelated to any exposure and the two incidents involving these individuals were assessed as "unrelated".
§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, when 11 railway track workers were allegedly exposed to pesticides while working together on tracks close to a field, the Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel categorised four of the workers' cases as "insufficient information" while the other seven cases were classified as "confirmed" or "likely". [HL1158]
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe objective of the Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel and the principle of case assessment were set out in my Written Answer on 24 January 2005(WA 141).
Individual cases will be categorised as "insufficient information" where there are no data properly to assess either the exposure or the ill health. This includes where there is no clear route of exposure, known documents or medical reports are unavailable and where symptoms are inadequately defined. Each 192WA individual case is discussed by the panel, within the framework published in the annual Pesticide Incident Report, until there is consensus. Details of these discussions are not directly relevant to the panel objectives and not recorded.
Where, as in the case highlighted, incidents involve more than one person alleged to have been made ill, each individual case is assessed independently. Where the individuals receive a different assessment by the panel, the overall incident is classified according to the most serious individual assessment. It is categorisation of the incident that is of specific importance in enabling the panel to meet its primary objective and in this case the panel assessed the incident as "confirmed".
§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel case 01/008/03 was classified as "insufficient information" when the complainant had collected plant and soil samples, informed the Health and Safety Executive of this and contacted her general practitioner in writing asking him to record her symptoms in her medical notes. [HL1159]
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe objective of the Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel and the principle of case assessment were set out in my Written Answer on 24 January 2005(WA 141).
Individual cases will be categorised as "insufficient information" where there are no data properly to assess either the exposure (including an unknown formulation, no clear route of exposure, or unavailability of known documents) or the ill health (including inadequately defined symptoms, and unavailability of known medical reports). Each individual case is discussed by the panel, within the framework published in the annual Pesticide Incident Report, until there is consensus. Details of these discussions are not directly relevant to the panel objectives and not recorded.
The panel assessment is dependent on the availability of relevant information. Where the panel has knowledge that such information exists it will make every effort to obtain it. In the case of the incident highlighted, the information described in the question—the soil samples and GP notes—was not brought before the panel for consideration.
§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
What contraventions of regulations were found and what regulatory action was taken by the Health and Safety Executive in relation to all incidents involving sulphuric acid, investigated by the Health and Safety Executive's field operations director in 2003–04. [HL1160]
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe HSE does not routinely record contraventions of regulations unless enforcement action has been taken. One prosecution covering two alleged contraventions of the Control of 193WA Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended) is pending as a result of the incidents involving sulphuric acid investigated by HSE during the year 2003–04.
From April 2003 to March 2004, HSE investigated five incidents involving sulphuric acid used in agriculture where allegations of ill-health from exposure had been made. A further 11 incidents were investigated where sulphuric acid, used as a pesticide, had been involved in allegations of other types of harm.
§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Which primary school in which education authority is referred to in the Pesticides Incident Appraisal Panel incident 20/065/03 which involved sulphuric acid. [HL1161]
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamThe primary school referred to in the Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel incident 20/065/03 was Cellardyke Primary School, St Andrews Road, Anstruther, Fife. Since the alleged incident it has merged with Anstruther Primary School. The education authority is Fife Council.