4.5 Brian Waddell: leaving army after 22 years – looking for work experience in the field of H&S.

4.7 Bob Bertram: commenting that we should remember that the "The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2003, only applies to England and Wales. Branch Exec will seek presentation in 2004-05 Programme to update members on Scottish proposals if any.

4.8 Membership: awaiting March figures.

4.9 Scottish Chamber of Safety: Conference 2004: Safe in the Knowledge: Dunblane: 7 April

5.0 BRANCH EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR - Liz Young.

6.1 PUBLIC SERVICES – Marion Johnstone: Nothing to report

6.2 CONSTRUCTION - Roddy McLean. Nothing to report

6.3 FIRE RISK MANAGEMENT - Dave Sinclair. Nothing to report

6.4 HEALTHCARE - Martin Scott-Smith. The Scottish Executive had recently issued a Consultative Document on protection of emergency workers – more stringent penalties were proposed.

6.6 OFFSHORE - Tam Boyd: Nothing to report

6.7 RAILWAYS - Need a representative

6.8 CONSULTANCY - Derek Cawkwell:

New Chair of Consultancy Group appointed - Gordon Allan

Consultancy SG to have information stand at Harrogate Conference 20-21 April

Consultancy SG Seminar to be held, Autumn, at the Grange with presentations on - tool kit for new consultants, PI Insurance, Terms & Conditions for consultants, competence.

Details of report on competence to be delivered at next SG Meeting.

Uptake on networking scheme poor though further events planned for 2004, including Scotland.

Consultancy group looking for feedback re benefits; will circulate questionnaire to members shortly.

Any queries, please contact me, Derek

6.9 SAFETY SCIENCES - Steve Boucher: Nothing to report

6.10 TELECOMMUNICATIONS – Graeme Lyall. The Group were considering the consultative document on the new Working at Heights Regulations. This did not seem to propose anything that wasn’t already the industry standard. They were also concerned that the proposals for a revised NVQ/IVQ seemed to remove all reference to Health and Safety.

6.11 EDUCATION – Allan Dick. Nothing to report

No report.

8.1 Anne James, Deputy Head of Health and Safety, WGH would like some advice on what SHE advisors have to cover under Environmental Management, as part of their job. Email: [email protected]

8.2 Rachel Robertson: McClure Naismith: issues a bulletin via e-mail which deals with health and safety matters as well as liability insurance more generally. It may be of interest to IOSH members. The Secretary proposed to send out one copy to all members (after review) who should thereafter email her if they wish to continue to receive it. This was acceptable. Email: [email protected]

8.3 Roger Midson Challenge Trophy: Target shooting with air rifle/air pistol near Fenton Barns (Drem). Date agreed – 21 May afternoon. All those interested contact Jim McCraith Email: [email protected] (capital letters necessary as shown).

8.4 Site Visit: East Fortune Airfield. £3 per person with group guide at no extra cost. Date agreed - Fri 25 June. Full details later.

8.6 AGM: Nominations forms had to be received today and such nominations would take precedence over any received thereafter. All four principal office bearers are eligible for re-election. Three Executive members have come to the end of their two year period of service (Andy, Graeme and Roddy) and they are also eligible for re-election. The Branch Constitution was downloadable from the website. The AGM would be in the West Building (to the NW of the main (Playfair) Building) with a free buffet from 1230. Map on website.

8.7 Members’ 10 minute presentations. K Lloyd hoped to make one on Fellowship at the May meeting.

Marion Johnston, introduced the speaker for that afternoon - Geoff Bilton - to the group, indicating he had a background of several years within the Insurance and Claims industry such that from what she had heard over lunch, she expected a presentation to match his physique – lean and mean.

Geoff provided a brief indication of his background, which showed he had been associated all of his working life with accidents and compensation payouts and whilst most of them had not been associated with occurrences on the health & safety side of the industry, being more associated with public liability, he felt sure that the details which he was about to present would still be an accurate indication of the conditions of the market.

He indicated that during the afternoon he intended to cover –

• What accidents cost, despite the fact there are a lot of possible different answers depending on the original stance
• What impact accident can have on a business
• What is recovered through insurances
• What makes up the uninsured costs of incidents
• Benefits of good health & safety management

A lot of these factors were of course those which would be included in any effective H&S Plan for and organization and also figured in the HSE Targets of reducing fatal and serious injury incidents in the workplace by 10% by 2010 and to ensure the information was both accurate and pertinent, Geoff had examined –

• details and studies contained in the web site for the HSE/HSC = www.hse.gov.uk
• studies undertaken by Zurich Municipal
• one particular case study which he would explain later in the session

The "iceberg" effect was illustrated where you only see a small portion of the toal above the water – this was likened to the costs of accidents, where the insured costs are usually a small proportion of the uninsured costs. Comment was made about the HSE Ready Reckoner on the HSE web site. The speaker indicated that some ½ million copies of the report were distributed, but it was not widely recognized by the members present.

The speaker indicated that according to HSE figures, accidents cost up to £6.5billion per annum and a study by Lawrence Bamber a past President of IOSH showed typical costs of an injury resulting in absence being in the order of £2,097, whilst a simple incident requiring First Aid treatment would be £141. The enormity of the total cost of accidents can be seen when you consider that HSE indicate a typical cost of £17 to £19k and an annual figure of 27,000 major injuries.

There are several ratios which can be considered with respect to accident costing – Insured –Vs -Uninsured, Premium cost –Vs- Other uninsured costs, etc and they will all tend to show a ratio between 1:8 and 1:36. In other words for every £8 covered by insurance, there is likely to be another £8 to £36 of further costs involved in the incident. But whichever ratio you use, there is a definite need to consider "Risk Management" in its broader terms and following the suitable actions of correct risk management should benefit the wider "us" rather than just the Insurers.

Injury compensation – that paid out as legal liability for compensation of an injury or other loss. But few cases ever go to court – most of them are settled out of court by negotiation as it is seen to be a more effective settlement method.

Events which do end up in court are likely to involve a number of specialists = Doctors, Engineers, Consultants, Expert Witnesses etc all of which will involve heavy expenditure and they often disagree with each other such that there is not always a clear definitive answer. They all make for substantial legal costs which normally have to be borne by the loser, except that where the plaintiff is on legal aid, that is not possible. In the end the only ones to win from a court case is the lawyers who will have made hefty incomes.

Recent changes to the Department of Work and Pensions operations means that quite substantial amounts of compensation may well have to be reimbursed to the DWP should they have been making payments during the continuance of the case.

The speaker showed a substantially long list including =

• Lost time
• Extra wages & overtime payments
• Sick pay
• Production delays
• Fines
• Loss of contracts
• Damage to products, plant, buildings, tools & equipment
• Clearing the site
• Investigation time
• Excess on any claim
• Loss of business reputation

But said he would not be spending any time going through the content as he was sure the members knew of them and could probably add more to the list particularly as the list would probably vary from industry to industry.

We need to ensure we learn from past mistakes and mot repeat them and toward that end there is a definite need to heed the near misses.

The speaker then showed the Bird triangle, as modified by Loftus –

Ignore the near miss incidents at your peril – it is only luck that they weren’t serious

He then went on to provide an example from his own experience – when investigating arson at a school that he learned there had been several previous attempts which had resulted in minor fires etc which nobody took any real notice of – too late when the school had burned down.

In 2000 – 2001 Dundee City Council decided to undertake a study, and a copy of a leaflet relating to the study was made available to members present.

The study recognized the common error which can so easily be made even by the experienced in overlooking the "hidden costs" of incident and claims. It is human nature to concentrate on the immediate impact of an accident or claim whilst overlooking the knock-on effects and subsequent expenditure that may arise directly or indirectly as a result of a claim.

The report concludes that local authorities should expect to spend an additional 47% of the aggregate value of each year’s public liability claims to deal with claims. This would probably be the main factor in determining Service Quality = Time. It is not unknown for smaller Companies to cease to exist following a major incident and the time involvement for officers of the council with claimants must not be discounted

Three factors are needed to be considered in any action to achieve a reduction in accidents and the related costs =

• Risk Assessments = The all important factor of how is the job done, can it be done in a safer manner, what controls are in place and what more are needed.
• Training = Make sure that everyone is trained to do the task correctly and that includes those involved in accident investigation. Poor and incomplete investigation can miss the important factors to enable effective prevention.
• Pay heed to incident/near miss reports = Look to a pattern, learn from the mistakes which have already happened, especially those where there has been little aftermath.

As the speaker’s background had been mainly within the claims against Local Authorities he had chosen a particular case under Occupiers Liability Act typical of those which all to often made for substantial claims, but in this instance had gone to the House of Lords to set a standard which indicates you have a lesser standard of care due to a trespasser than a visitor,

The case in question being – John Tomlinson – having an accident back in 1995 at Brereton Heath Country Park in Congleton Borough Council area, and whilst the incident being back some 8 years plus, it had only had the final appeal in the House of Lords in 2003. Should your require the full text of the case =

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030731/tomlin-1.htm

per LORD HOFFMANN

May Bank Holiday week-end in 1995 was unseasonably hot. John Tomlinson, aged 18, had to work until midday on Saturday 6 May but then met some of his friends and drove them to Brereton Heath Country Park

In about 1980 Congleton Borough Council acquired the land, surrounding what was then a derelict sand quarry, and laid it out as a country park. Paths now run through woods of silver birch and in summer bright yellow brimstone butterflies flutter in grassy meadows. But the attraction of the Park for John Tomlinson and his young friends was a 14 acre lake which had been created by flooding the old sand quarry. The sandy banks provided some attractive beaches and in hot weather many people, including families with children, went there to play in the sand, sunbathe and paddle in the water. A beach at the far end of the lake from the car park was where in fine weather groups of teenagers like John Tomlinson would regularly hang out.

After sitting in the hot sun for a couple of hours, John Tomlinson decided that he wanted to cool off. So he ran out into the water and dived. He had done the same thing many times before. But this time the dive was badly executed because he struck his head hard on the sandy bottom. So hard that he broke his neck at the fifth vertebra. He is now a tetraplegic and unable to walk

…. The law provides compensation only when the injury was someone else's fault. In order to succeed in his claim, that is what Mr Tomlinson has to prove.

In these proceedings Mr Tomlinson sues the Congleton Borough Council and the Cheshire County Council, claiming that as occupiers of the Park they were in breach of their duties under the Occupiers' Liability Acts

Mr Tomlinson claimed that the Council was in breach of its common duty of care under section 2(2). His complaint was that the premises were not reasonably safe because diving into the water was dangerous and the Council had not given adequate warning of this fact or taken sufficient steps to prevent or discourage him from doing it. Notices had been erected at the entrance and elsewhere saying "Dangerous Water. No Swimming"

The Council said that once he entered the lake to swim, he was no longer a "visitor" at all. He became a trespasser, to whom no duty under the Act is owed

Mr Tomlinson's advisers, having reflected on the matter, decided to concede that he was indeed a trespasser when he went into the water. Although that took him outside the 1957 Act, it did not necessarily mean that the Council owed him no duty. At common law the only duty to trespassers was not to cause them deliberate or reckless injury.

… be unduly burdensome to require landowners to take steps to protect the safety of people who came upon their land without invitation or permission

During questions the speaker agreed the outcome of the case may well have been quite different if it had involved a small child – where the parents may well have been said to be in control and also for employees the duty of care is one of reasonable rather than the standard at common law for members of the public.

 10.1 District: 1 April : ‘Thinking of Moving’: Manual Handling Assessment Charts: Nancy Hamilton - Health and Safety Executive

10.2 Branch: 8 April: AGM: Richard Jones, Head of Technical Affairs, IOSH HQ. Interest speaker: Col Douglas Spratt, Edinburgh Military Tattoo.

11.0 CLOSURE: After reminding people that tea and coffee were available and this was a goos opportunity to mingle, the Chair closed the meeting.