Day 129 - 25 May 95 - Page 09


     
     1   MS. STEEL:  As I say, if Mr. Rampton will provide the answer to
     2        the witness, it does make it rather pointless asking the
     3        question.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Unless you have some other information to
     6        gainsay what Mr. Rampton said, we have to observe legal
     7        privilege, whatever else we observe in this case.
     8
     9   MS. STEEL:  I can understand that if we started getting into the
    10        nitty-gritty about what the report said about what the
    11        cause of some incident was, or something like that, but
    12        I was not anywhere near that.  I really do not see I should
    13        not have been entitled to ask that question, which was
    14        asked in the end, but when it was too late to get an
    15        answer.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is not a line of questioning you could
    18        pursue in any event.
    19
    20   MS. STEEL (To the witness):  Have you read the statement of
    21        Mr. Clark from Strathclyde University?
    22        A.  No, I have not.
    23
    24   Q.   If he advised the Company to review cooking times and
    25        temperatures -- he does in his statement -- do you know
    26        whether the Company has taken any action as a result of
    27        that advice?
    28        A.  I do not, well, I do not really know how to answer that
    29        because I am not quite sure which bit of it -----
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not think you can.  Do you know any more
    32        than you have told us now about revising cooking times,
    33        that cooking times and/or temperatures were advised once
    34        after Preston; there may have been a second time but you
    35        cannot now recall.  That is, in a nutshell, what you have
    36        told us?
    37        A.  That is correct.
    38
    39   Q.   Can you add to that?
    40        A.  No, I cannot.
    41
    42   MS. STEEL:  McDonald's have admitted that, "In or before
    43        November 1994 at McDonald's in Shrewsbury three year old
    44        Juliette McIntyre was served under-cooked chicken McNuggets
    45        which contained salmonella.  The McNuggets were tested by
    46        local health official  and declared unfit for human
    47        consumption.  As a result of this incident, McDonald's
    48        stated that procedures for cooking chicken were being
    49        reviewed, in part due to staff confusion over the use of
    50        mechanical timing devices for the cooking of such 
    51        product".  You were involved in investigation into that 
    52        incident, were you not? 
    53        A.  Mark Hathaway, who works for me, was.
    54
    55   Q.   Mr. Kenny was asked about what investigations were carried
    56        out into that and he said:  "I did not carry out the
    57        investigations into that; it was a colleague of mine who
    58        did the investigations".  He was asked:  "It was your
    59        department?"  Then he said:  "It was not; it was not led by
    60        my department actually.  At the time it was led by someone

Prev Next Index