Letter: No slackness in safety inspections
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The article by David Bergman 'Inexperience of safety inspectors criticised' (15 July) is simply not an accurate representation of the internal Health and Safety report on which it was supposedly based.
For example, the report does not say that company directors and managers have escaped prosecution for health and safety offences because HSE inspectors lack experience and training.
One of its recommendations is indeed for more prosecutions of individuals holding senior management posts. However, the report recognises that to achieve this, additional training will be needed on obtaining evidence from individuals. This is required because of recent developments in the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The police already tape-record all interviews, and it is possible the courts will come to expect this of all enforcement agencies. We are running a pilot study to assess the feasibility of tape-recording all interviews and, of course, inspectors needed training for this study.
We have never made any secret of the fact that, following recent successful recruitment campaigns, a number of our inspectors are relatively lacking in experience. However, it is simply not true to suggest that employers escape prosecution as a result.
New inspectors receive enforcement training early on in their career and are as keen as more experienced staff to put this to good use.
We are used to being accused of leniency. The charge never sticks, because the facts do not support it. For example, I doubt whether the company director we prosecuted last month for not complying with a prohibition notice, who found himself disqualified from holding a directorship of a company for two years, would agree with Mr Bergman. But there again, the court could also have imprisoned that director for two years. In that respect, he had a lucky escape.
Yours faithfully,
DAVID EVES
Deputy Director General
Health and Safety Executive
London, W2
15 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments