Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 323)
THURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2005
MRS EILEEN
DALLAGLIO AND
MR JOHN
PERKS
Q320 Harry Cohen: That is a good
point there about improved—
Mrs Dallaglio: Forgive me, but
I feel very strongly about these points. I think you would each
feel the same if you were in my position.
Q321 Harry Cohen: I think that is
a good point made there about improved contributions to the victims'
families in the legal process. That is certainly worth taking
on board. Aside from the issues covered so far, do you have any
other concerns about the drafting of the offences in the draft
Bill at the moment?
Mr Perks: I do not want to cover
ground again, but, as I said, there are strong points. I think
the other thing we must look at—which I did make a note
of when sitting in the corridor—is that people have nothing
to fear from laws that are put in place to protect the public
and everybody within the public system. Responsible executives—and
there are thousands and thousands—managing directors, if
they are all equipped with the knowledge to deal with such matters
of health and safety—not themselves but those people who
are answerable to them—have no fear of new laws. Especially
in construction, you have the CDM cushion. Safety plans, method
statements and risk assessments, all these are in place. If we
are looking for that controlling mind, if all these things are
aware for these responsible executives, what do they have to fear?
Nothing. Nothing at all. If you do not put those in to protect
you and be conversant with them, you should not be running the
company in the first place.
Mrs Dallaglio: Could I raise one
other point that caused me a great deal of concern in the question
of liability and who they handed the liability to. In the case
of the Marchioness tragedy, within about five months of the disaster,
Lord Justice Sheen set up his court and all the lawyers were there
for both sides, plus steering committees and what-have-you. The
companies were there to limit their liability and they were allowed
to limit it to the tune of £870,000. Given that the Marchioness
is a passenger vessel and was carrying 131 passengers that night—and
51 lost their lives and God knows how many were traumatised—by
law that vessel had to be insured for £6 million. That £6
million was paid into court. Under Lord Justice Sheen, the judgment
debt rate at the time was 15%, and Lord Justice Sheen agreed that
it should remain at 15% for the duration of those claims, for
a lengthy period of time. Needless to say, interest rates from
about 1993 began to drop, as a result of which, as my case came
to court for Francesca's civil claim, they were then fighting—cross-summonses
went in—to make sure they got below the Calderbank offer
by lowering the judgment debt rate to 8% from 1993. I had a High
Court judge, a Court of Appeal judge, who took a point of law
made by an eminent judge, upheld by another judge at divisional
court level, and, on a purely subjective view, turned it around.
It was as if he was saying to me, "Not only am I not going
to increase these damages, but I am effectively going to decrease
them by 8%," hence the cheque for £310.46. I had to
mention that because it is food for thought.
Q322 Chairman: Those of us who have
been watching Bleak House on Sundays would think that not
much has moved on since Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Charles
Dickens' day.
Mrs Dallaglio: It is a joke. The
trouble is it would not, because there has been set a precedent
in law. That is what upset me. Not that this wretched judge did
not increase the damages—that did not upset me at all. What
really upset me was that he took a point of law, made by an eminent
judge, upheld by another judge, and on a purely subjective view,
because he was in the Court of Appeal—huh!—he turned
it around. And people who might follow my tragic path in the future,
they will quote that point of law. That has upset me. That upsets
me. Not the money. The money was irrelevant.
Mr Perks: To finish your question,
if I may—and I will be very brief: it is our experience
and there is a groundswell in the public that these companies
and organisations are directly dictating to this House.
Q323 Chairman: Mrs Dallaglio and
Mr Perks, thank you very much indeed. You have put your points
very forcefully and very clearly. I think, quite fairly, you say
it is the responsibility of Members and in due course the laws
in this House to tackle these matters. I think you have helped
us enormously, both in the detail but also in giving the background
as to why this legislation is coming in front of us now. I hope
we will be able to reflect some of what you have said when we
report on the legislation in the House.
Mrs Dallaglio: May I thank you
all, and you personally, because you are the Chairman, obviously,
who makes the major decisions here, and I thank you for inviting
us to give verbal evidence. We are not lawyers. We are ordinary
simple people who were thrown into a major disaster and had to
cope with it.
Mr Perks: May I also add to that
response. Thank you Chairman, thank you Committee members, for
listening to us today. I hope you can take on board some of the
answers we have hopefully provided to the questions.
|
