Day 132 - 07 Jun 95 - Page 28
1
2 Q. It may sound obvious but?
3 A. Indeed.
4
5 Q. You agree with that? I have to ask you because it has not
6 been taken as evidence.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think that is common ground.
9
10 MR. MORRIS: If we go to page 10, you then talk about the lack
11 of formal action by EHOs, yes, in your last line there?
12 A. I am sorry, what page?
13
14 Q. Page 10.
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: 252 in the bundle.
17
18 MR. MORRIS: In the last line you talk about lack of formal
19 action by EHOs?
20 A. Yes.
21
22 Q. We have talked about informal action.
23 A. Yes.
24
25 Q. You have just talked about just now, and recommendations
26 and contacts?
27 A. Yes.
28
29 Q. Formal action by EHO, is that quite a time consuming thing,
30 do they have to prepare a special report?
31 A. It is indeed, yes.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is time consuming and it can be expensive
34 especially if you start going to court over matters?
35 A. It can be, indeed. However, that is what they are
36 there for, I hasten to add.
37
38 MR. MORRIS: But there is a general attitude amongst EHOs is
39 that you avoid formal action if you can possibly help it?
40 A. No. In fact, I can quote authorities which work in
41 quite the opposite way, and actively seek prosecution.
42
43 Q. So if McDonald's failure to report 10 or 20, or whatever,
44 per cent, that is in their own estimate, of RIDDOR
45 accidents ---
46 A. Yes.
47
48 Q. -- illegally failing to report those, the fact of them and
49 in the time specified, then how come the EHOs are not
50 picking this up?
51 A. Pass. Obviously, I cannot comment on that. If they
52 know about it, presumably, they will take action, but they
53 may not consider it worthy of prosecution. I can
54 understand that. They may consider it a technical offence
55 if there is no intention to defraud.
56
57 Q. So when you say "always vigorously scrutinized"?
58 A. Yes, absolutely.
59
60 Q. The sector may be, but in terms of any particular
