Day 131 - 06 Jun 95 - Page 35

     
     1        since, and a lot of organisations are only now beginning to
     2        get round to it.  It is a fairly complex process, if you
     3        have, for instance, a factory or whatever it may be.
     4
     5   Q.   Do not be offended by this question, but answer it,
     6        please:  do you keep your eye on trends of this kind in the
     7        industry generally by reading professional magazines?
     8        A.  I do, yes.  I take two professional magazines every
     9        month; and, obviously, I am still a member of the Centre
    10        Council for the Institution of Environmental Health and,
    11        consequently, the other people are all scattered throughout
    12        industry in similar circumstances and, obviously, we
    13        discuss current issues.
    14
    15   Q.   Was or is risk assessment a current issue?
    16        A.  Well, it was and it is.  I think it is fair to say it
    17        is something that we have discussed over the years.
    18
    19   Q.   Turning next to page 22, the last paragraph, this is a
    20        statement by Richard North that you are commenting on?
         A.  Yes.
    22
    23   Q.   Just read the last paragraph to yourself.  I will not read
    24        it out just now.
    25        A.  Yes.
    26
    27   Q.   What do you know of safety systems in the United States?
    28        A.  Well, a lot of the modern safety thinking in a way did
    29        originate in work that was done in the States.  Certainly,
    30        some of the leading USA companies are world leaders in
    31        health and safety.  I am sure there are a lot of bad
    32        companies as well, but, generally, a lot of research has
    33        been done over there, and all the work on loss control,
    34        which is now seen as the basis of safety systems,
    35        originated with a man called Frank Bird who was working out
    36        of South Georgia.
    37
    38   Q.   Penultimately, Mr. Purslow, a question I forgot to ask you
    39        in relation to floors.  You mention on page 23 that floor
    40        construction is a balance between hygiene requirement and
         slip resistance?
    42        A.  Yes.
    43
    44   Q.   "McDonald's have gone to considerable lengths to research
    45        the greater quality finish and this now continues."
    46        Suppose I decided that, to improve slip resistance as far
    47        as I possibly could, I put down, let us say, something like
    48        the face of a ping-pong bat on the floor, would that
    49        present any problems from a hygiene point of view?
    50        A.  Yes, it would be a disaster.  You would not be able to 
    51        clean it.  It would certainly become discoloured very 
    52        quickly.  Grease would build up in it.  Ultimately, it 
    53        would defeat itself, because it would no longer have its
    54        non-slip characteristic.  But it would be outside the law,
    55        in any case.
    56
    57   Q.   It would?  Why?
    58        A.  Because under the Food Safety Act you are required to
    59        have a floor that is readily cleansable.
    60