Day 132 - 07 Jun 95 - Page 30


     
     1   Q.   It is a fact of life that prominent concerns attract
     2        attention and I am assuming -- you tell me if I am wrong --
     3        that there is a certain advantage in environmental health
     4        if you from time to time do make an example of a prominent
     5        name.  One can think of restaurants and hotels in Greater
     6        London which have been prosecuted from time to time and
     7        automatically there is quite a lot of publicity which,
     8        presumably, the Environmental Health Department might think
     9        is all for the good because it might encourage others?
    10        A.  A Westminster Senior Environmental Health Officer once
    11        said to me:  "You know, Chris, that one prosecution like
    12        this is worth 1,000 Chinese restaurants".  It is exactly
    13        the point that you are making, my Lord, I agree.
    14
    15   Q.   It does not surprise me.
    16        A.  In other -- as well it has to be fair to say as well a
    17        busy McDonald's has a very considerable food turnover.  An
    18        enormous amount of meals are served during the course of
    19        the day and, quite rightly, I am sure an Environmental
    20        Health Department would say that that is a significant
    21        business and, obviously, it needs close monitoring, so
    22        there is that too, but certainly ----
    23
    24   Q.   It is not just my point then, that if you prosecute a
    25        chain, whatever it is, for a shortfall in one of its
    26        outlets, you hope that that will have a beneficial effect
    27        throughout the rest of that chain?
    28        A.  Well, that is absolutely so, my Lord and, as you
    29        rightly say, if a major name is prosecuted, it encourages
    30        the others wonderfully.  Yes, I agree.
    31
    32   MR. MORRIS:  If we go to page 11 at the bottom, you say:  "Long
    33        hours and fatigue can be a factor in safety".  Do you agree
    34        with that?
    35        A.  Yes.
    36
    37   Q.   Go to page 11?
    38        A.  If we take that as taken out of context, because I then
    39        go on to say:  "But it has to be looked at in terms of the
    40        risk element of the job", and so on, and whether we are
    41        talking about failures of perceptions, rather than just
    42        generalised fatigue.
    43
    44   Q.   Yes OK.  Page 12.  I am not going to go through the factual
    45        basis of these comments because that is a matter of
    46        evidence but -----
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Remember that these have not been read into
    49        the evidence.  I am not going to take them into account
    50        save in so far as Mr. Purslow gave specific evidence in 
    51        answer to Mr. Rampton's questions or save in so far as you 
    52        or Ms. Steel brings anything out.  So you need not worry 
    53        that I might have read it and taken some account of it.
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  I am taking it from a different angle.  Can I just
    56        say that we are certain to finish today, and I would like
    57        to look at the Health & Safety Commission Annual Report
    58        over lunch.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I would like you to do is deal with the

Prev Next Index