Select Committee on Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Minutes of Evidence


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.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 20 December 2005