SEDERUNT

C E White R Lovering M Johnstone R McLean L Young

I Wilson R Reed J McCraith K Lloyd M Burns

B Howden M Hinchcliff J Craig C Black E McKie

B McDonnell G Lamond G Sutherland R Wilson G McNab

D Forfar A McCartney M Galloway R Walker J Conway

R Paterson D Cawkwell S Chisholm B Johnston A Green

J Shepherd G Anderson M Bancroft L Beattie

APOLOGIES

K Wilson I Murray D Brown J Smith D Gladwin

G Lyall

1.0 CHAIRMAN Brian Pill

The Chair was taken by B Pill. Welcome was extended to all, particularly new Members and Guests. Mention was made of the sad death of Ernest Rogers, a retired member of long standing; copy of the Address was available. The successful AGM and excellent buffet introduced a new Chairman and fresh blood to the Executive – J Smith and R Reed. The importance of the fire procedure, security arrangements, parking facility and signing of the Sederunt was explained. The Chairman mentioned his first task as being a pleasant one and thanking Donaldson’s College for their hospitality over the past year. He gave a small cheque and some presents.

1.0 MINUTES

The 113^th Minute – March 2000 – was tabled. The Minute was proposed by J McCraith and seconded by M Johnstone as a true and accurate record.

2.0 MATTERS ARISING

• Item Number 2.0 Minutes. The Secretary explained that some difficulty is being experienced over the circulation of the minutes but stressed that it is the decision of the Executive that all Members wishing copy will have one posted to them. He requested that Members check the hard copy list made available.
• Item Number 7.0 Members Items. Members requiring information or questions circulated through the minutes were asked to leave a forwarding contact with the Secretary, as previously it had proved difficult to forward good information being sent in by helpful members.

3.0 CORRESPONDENCE

3.1 Letters

• Barbara McLean. Hearing Consultancy information.
• Karen Niven. Fellowship and apologies.
• Vic Stewart. Spontaneous combustion information.
• David Search. Vehicle for recognition – Post Office.
• Brian Pill. Confirmation of fishing trip.
• R Paterson. Difficulty obtaining work experience.
• A McCartney. Assistance to gain work experience.
• Secretary. All AGM election candidates.
• Secretary. Executive Committee meeting.

4.2 Fax - I Murray. Generous offer regarding Branch regalia

4.3 E-mail

• R Lovering. Speaker precis.
• A Sharman. Help and directions.
• G Lyall. Apologies.
• R Paterson. Assistance request.
• J McCraith. Books and floods.
• Secretary. Construction Specialist Group
• Secretary. Executive Committee meetings.

4.4 Minutes

• Fife Chamber of Safety. Feb as Open Forum. Mar as HAVS
• Scottish Construction. March as Driver Safety.

4.5 Membership. The monthly detail has not been provided due to the changing procedures at HQ but it is hoped this will revert in the near future.

4.6 Headquarters

• Fern Barrell. PR Admin. Branch detail missed from THSP
• Label detail missed to Branch
• Sarah Hamilton, International Affairs. Requested detail.
• David Bloodworth, Manager Specialist Groups. Construction
• Jane Grist, Branch Liaison co-ordination. Past details.
• Rob Strange, Depute Chief Executive. Council precis.

4.7 Adverts

• Keele 4/6 September – MAPS Conference
• HQ Control assurance in the NHS @ £40
• Comrie 19 May Fishing for RMCT

Copies of all the above mentioned correspondence was made available for the Members present. Further information is available upon request from the Secretary.

5.0 BRANCH EDUCATION OFFICER L Young

The BEO had to stand down at the last AGM as she had been on the Executive Committee for four years. A token of appreciation was offered by the Chairman who then informed Liz that she had been co-opted back specifically for her branch educational expertise.

6.0 SPECIALIST GROUPS

6.1 MAPS CO-ORDINATOR

Marion was elected as Branch Representative at the AGM and will represent us at Specialist Group meetings held in Leicester.

6.2 CONSTRUCTION R McLean

Roddy was elected at the AGM and had already represented the Branch at a Construction Specialist Group meeting at Leicester. He reported the main points from this meeting as:

• CITB Course equivalent to NEBOSH Diploma part 1 thwarted when NEBOSH refused to co-operate. City and Guilds been approached.
• Successful HSE prosecution for inadequate welfare facility only two days on site – Fine £17K costs £45K (after appeal)
• HSE to endorse scaffolding handbook. Above 4m wear harness and hook on.
• Wrexham scaffold erector fined £400 with £400 costs after 10ft fall. Was wearing harness but not hooked on.
• Group conference at Harrogate 7/8 November

6.3 ENVIRONMENT J Smith

7.0 MEMBERS ITEMS

• Health Education Board for Scotland. (HEBS) are seeking survey assistance for Workplace Health on-line course. The members were invited to complete and return a questionnaire, which was distributed by Rubecca Lancaster, a representative from ENTEC – the company commissioned to carry out the survey for HEBS.
• Certificate Awards. The Chairman presented Certificates of Awards to the following:
  • George Lamont – Registered Safety Practitioner
  • Kevin Lloyd – Fellowship

  The Members added their congratulations to these achievements.

• Designatory Letters. The Secretary reminded the members about the use of designatory letters. Both the new Fellow and RSP were now allowed to add designatory letters on business cards – FIOSH and RSP. It was stressed that Associates of the Institution do not have this right and the use of AIOSH is not correct. It had been noted that some official papers had indicated the use of AIOSH behind the names of Edinburgh Branch Members.
• District Forming. K Lloyd informed the members of the proposed meeting to be held later this month to progress the forming of a District of this Branch. All those having answered the open letter will be contacted but others are invited.

  Wednesday 31 May 2000 at 7.30pm and venue being The Windlestrae Hotel, Kinross

• Socials. Mention was made of the Challenge Trophy (RMCT) taking place on Friday 19^th inst. and places still available. Names to B Pill. Also the Site Visit being to the RY Britannia 16^th June and places available. Names to L Young.

8.0 GUEST SPEAKER

The speaker was introduced as Margaret Burns of the Health & Safety Commission. She is an elected member of the Commission and has been for the last two years. Additional to the work at the Commission she is also a lecturer at Aberdeen University.

Introduction

The speaker noted that the paper scheduled for the next meeting was headed Drugs & Alcohol and she was grateful for the fact that she had not been tested for the presence of either on her arrival at the meeting. The reason for this was that she was currently suffering from a very heavy cold and had consequently dosed herself up with "Night-nurse" and "home made toddies". For this reason she expected during her presentation to either - fall asleep - or at least to suffer from a bout of coughing during the afternoon, but she would attempt to cover the topic before either took hold.

It made a pleasant change for the speaker to be talking to a group who already appreciated the difference between the Health & Safety Commission (which she was a member of) and the Health & Safety Executive. All to often she found she had to spend inordinate periods of time explaining to the audience the difference between the two before being able to present a paper. She likened the HSC (Health & Safety Commission) to a board of directors in a Company = setting policy, defining the standards (the Law, ACoPs, & Guidance Notes) and defining the strategic aims of the HSE (Health & Safety Executive). The HSE being the operational arm fulfilling the role of enforcement and guidance.

Margaret explained that she is one of ten members of the HSC and she attempts to cover Scottish needs, however she is not THE Scottish Commissioner of Health & Safety – there is no such thing. Health & Safety was not devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it remains within the domain of Westminster and they cover Health & Safety related issues for the whole of Great Britain.

Scottish Variation

There is no justification in any variation between Scotland in terms of health & safety and the rest of Great Britain, particularly when you consider the position of the ‘Stakeholders’ – most of who operate in a Great Britain-wide way, as do in fact the Trade Unions. Of course currently we have to consider the International standing effects rather than just the requirements of Great Britain. The HSC have had a major part to play in getting the bulk of the European standards now in place, but they are intent on ensuring they have an influence on any future developments.

Generally there is no reason for the H&S legislation for Scotland to be any different to the rest of the UK = the effects of poor scaffolding work is the same in Edinburgh as it would be anywhere else in England or Wales. Currently something in the order of 20% to 30% of the HSC budget is spent on research – if that budget was to be split three ways (England, Scotland & Wales) the size of the budget would not be adequate to undertake the level of research work that is currently being done.

HSC do recognise there are differences which relate to local variations and the accident levels in Scotland is one of the examples currently under consideration. The trend in fatal accidents in all areas is a downward one, but it has been noted that Scotland has an apparently higher rate of fatal accidents to the number of workers. In 1998/9 there were 153 fatal accidents in England whilst there were 27 in Scotland. If this figure is normalised by considering the numbers employed in each of the countries we see a ratio in England of 8 fatalities per million employees, whilst in Scotland the figure rises to 13 fatalities per million employees. This variation was the topic for some research – to identify why there was a difference by the area and a report on the findings is due to be published next month. Initial indications however are that there is not such a variation in the fatal accident ratios if you consider the actual employment categories involved. Scotland employs a lot more people in the high-risk occupations of Construction, Agriculture and offshore.

Margaret did indicate that once the report is released they would be very pleased to receive comment, views and opinions on the findings from members.

The HSC is responsible for safety, through ‘joined-up’ working with other Scottish departments. They have now appointed a Scottish Director – Alan Sefton, who is an ex-off-shore inspector – to head up the HSE in Scotland. He will be responsible as the Head of the field operations arm, but they will also use him as being the focal point for H&S issues in Scotland.

The system of working for the HSE in Scotland is primarily the same as the rest of the UK, but they have to take into account the variations in the legal system and the use of the Procurator Fiscal. The speaker indicated that she was pleased to hear the comment made earlier by the Construction Section Representative of the heavier fines being levied on poor scaffolding operations, this she felt was an indication that H&S was perhaps being taken seriously. She also indicated that she believes that we may in the next 1 or 2 years see a new offence of Corporate Killing – where a Company could be held to account rather than just it being aimed at the individuals

There is a lot of talk with ‘Stakeholders’, but the speaker believes the HSC are not very good at reaching people in Scotland. Local Authorities (who act as enforcement agencies like the HSE) are somewhat nervous that the Scottish Government changes relating to food hygiene may have an adverse effect in budgetary allocations to H&S, but she is convinced that HSC will ensure the correct priorities will be set for both. Budgetary allocation is now done on a three year basis which gives real opportunity to plan ahead in comparison to the original budget which was set on an annual basis.

Currently the HSC are looking to release a new corporate plan in June 2000 which has a number of specific targets, which she believes to be very far reaching.

The five major aims as she sees them being: -

1. Raise the profile of Occupational Health = Health risks at present are not taken as seriously as Safety risks. The HSC will be pushing the adage "Good health is good business" and attempting to get the connection between the two recognised at board level. Publications will be coming out soon on Occupational Health – aimed at reducing sickness absence.
2. Key risk area targets = Such activities as construction, where they may try a ‘Blitz’ or extra enforcement, and agriculture where 10 children are killed every year in accidents.
3. Competitiveness and quality = Often the cry from small firms is that H&S is too expensive, they would do it if they could afford it. There is a need to show H&S doesn’t need to be expensive and that lots can be done to prevent accidents.
4. Improve the engagement of employees = There is a need for more safety Reps. Research has shown that where more safety Reps are employed the H&S performance of the Company is better. HSC wish to improve the willingness of the workforce to get involved in H&S matters
5. Try to be much more open = There is a need for people to understand what HSC is and what it does. They will be releasing the minutes of HSC meeting on the Internet and gaining more feedback from organisations such as IOSH on how they are doing.

The Corporate Plan has obviously much more detail and content than just these 5 elements, but one thing they are trying to do is to get more political backing for H&S, as was indicated by the recent paper "Revitalising Health & Safety". A further paper and consultation will be published in June.

The key as the speaker saw it was education – starting right back in the schools for basic risk assessment techniques. This should then be followed through the professional and college studies and hopefully getting away from the architect who designs buildings full of glass which cannot be cleaned safely. The Dome is a prize example – no one knows how to clean it (if it becomes necessary). We must get the designers to consider how to safely – erect, clean, maintain and demolish the buildings they are involved with.

The Public Sector do not have a good record and Local Authorities are not good as employers despite the fact that an element of their employees are involved in enforcing the H&S legislation.

Worker participation is key. Motivating employees to get involved and taking that motivation and connection right through to board level, where annual reports include an indication of their health & safety performance

A lively question session followed which included the following topics amongst others =

Enforcement = The speaker saw the need to ensure the correct balance between preventative actions and prosecution – she believes that Robens' got it right in his report

Safety Representatives = Better performance could be noted where they were present, but the speaker did recognise that it was often the committed Companies where the attitude was right all the way through the Company. It was a long way off before we could look to them being given enforcement powers although the Trade Unions were keen to see this.

CDM & the ‘paper mountain’ = Margaret commented that ‘Planning Supervisors’ were she believed wrongly defined, as they neither Plan nor Supervise. The original intention of the regulations was to ensure competence by those involved in the process.

H&S Publications = The HSC recognise that whilst there is a lot of literature on a wide variety of topics, all too often it does not reach the desired audience. The Internet may help, but there will still be place for the printed leaflet.

Board level commitment = The speaker indicated that she would like to see H&S taken more seriously at board level. It is strange that those organisations where safety is of paramount importance as part of normal operation do not always have a Director of Health & Safety until after some very serious event has occurred. There will be a requirement on companies to include details of H&S performance in their annual reports. The HSC is not blind and when they visit any organisation it is sad that the picture that is painted during their visit to the shop floor is never the same as the picture painted by the board of directors.

The Chairman voiced a Vote of Thanks and a small token of the Members appreciation was offered – the members responded warmly.

9.0 DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Members were reminded that the next meeting had been set at:

With the topic being

Mr Brian King, Euromed Limited Eastern Office

10.0 CLOSURE

The Chairman thanked all for their attendance and contribution and bade them a safe journey homeward; then closed the meting with the invitation to have tea and then mingle.

Christopher E White FIOSH RSP Edinburgh Branch Secretary    Brian Pill FIOSH RSP Chairman