Day 127 - 23 May 95 - Page 69


     
     1   Q.   We see (and this is why I stopped you a moment ago and I am
     2        sorry for my bad manners but if I get taken out of order
     3        things get in a muddle) on page 802:  "Introduction"
     4        subheaded "Background", do you see that?
     5        A.  Yes.
     6
     7   Q.    "McDonald's was chosen as a candidate for a central
     8        approach because issues identified by Environmental Health
     9        Officers during routine visits to local restaurants were
    10        perceived as having 'national' implications."   Do you know
    11        whose quotation or inverted commas marks those are around
    12        the word "national"?  Do you know what that is supposed to
    13        imply?
    14        A.  Well ----
    15
    16   Q.   It is not a McDonald's quote?
    17        A.  No.  I suspect it implies that we had Environmental
    18        Health Officers that were not just concerned for their
    19        local restaurant, but also felt that what had happened in
    20        their local restaurant should be taken up and applied to
    21        the other ones that we had as well.
    22
    23   Q.   Then it goes on:  "Examination of the reported injury
    24        records for the take-away catering sector showed that a
    25        large proportion were reported by McDonald's, though this
    26        was undoubtedly due to general under-reporting in this
    27        sector."   I am not sure, Mrs. Barnes, that I follow the
    28        logic of that, but never mind.  At this date when this work
    29        was being done, end of 1991/beginning of 1992, what was
    30        McDonald's reporting rate, do you know?
    31        A.  We estimated it then at around about 80 per cent.
    32
    33   Q.   We are talking about RIDDORs?
    34        A.  Yes.
    35
    36   Q.   So there was maybe 20 per cent of RIDDORS that escaped
    37        reporting?
    38        A.  That got away, yes.
    39
    40   Q.   Do you know what the rate is now in 1995?
    41        A.  Yes, it is closer to 90 per cent.
    42
    43   Q.   Closer to 90 per cent.  Do you, Mrs. Barnes, take any
    44        credit for that?
    45        A.  Well, I think it is mostly down to our Operations
    46        people, really putting some effort into improving the
    47        reporting procedures yet further, and it is difficult for
    48        them sometimes to push for that.
    49
    50   Q.   Do you know what the reporting rate for the catering 
    51        industry generally was estimated to be in 1991/1992? 
    52        A.  It was thought to be about 16 per cent. 
    53
    54   Q.   16?
    55        A.  About 1 in 6 of every accident.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Of RIDDOR ones?
    58        A.  Yes, were actually reported.
    59
    60   MR. RAMPTON:  What is the figure now?

Prev Next Index