Heather Yes indeed I did read it and it still simply reinforces the view that 1) The exemption of 29 concerns the refusal of a witness to give police information at the scene - nothing to do with employment 2) S35 can apply to employers but in the circumstances of legislation permitting it 3) My web link indicates that the Courts and HSE recognise limits Thus if an inspector is so keen to demand details and threaten S20 powers then it is perfectly proper for the employer and others to wonder why. People can be contacted by their employer quite legitimately and this is the obvious route unless there are other matters afoot. Of course also one would have to wonder why an inspector should inspect confidential personnel files when looking at an accident or simply inspecting. Bob

Heather Originally gave a fairly straightforward NO but threads being what they are many people start to view S20 as an absolute trump card for the inspector which it is not. HSE HQ and courts have made this clear. Others have also suggested an inspector can trawl through what are confidential personnel files at their whim - again such actions need to be clearly justified as proportionate. The enforcer is not at total liberty to act as they wish just to secure whatever they are intending to secure. I hold to the belief that law must be enforced strongly but fairly Bob

Spelling error in the previous post - convicting, I meant convincing

Having followed this thread for the last few days. I am in agreement with the majority of those that have posted and believe that an enforcement officer when carrying out his duties and investigating an accident/incident is entitled to the home contact details of an employee. As some have implied, failure to comply with such a request may in the most serious of cases result in an "Obstruction" charge against the company.

Oh! Turns out links go live automatically - wonders of technology.

As another recent former Inspector, I'd take issue with the black and white views here. In my experience the Inspector doesn't automatically think obstruction. It depends very much on the reasonableness of the exchange with the employer and how they respond. A blunt "No, I'm not telling you" would get pretty short shrift. A measured response of "I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I can give you that information without being in breach of DPA legislation. I am happy to pass the request to the employee..." etc is likely to go down a bit better. And what is the problem with interviewing an employee at home? Particularly if they are still off work with their injuries? What would be the purpose of insisting they come into work to do this? Looking at it from the other side, one could suspect ulterior motives on the part of the employer. And I really don't buy this stuff about solicitors. In over 12 years with HSE, the vast majority of times I had a witness "request" a solicitor it turns out to be the company one with a less than enlightened view on what constitutes a conflict of interest. Trying to persuade a witness not to have proper, independent legal representation is wrong. Trying to ensure that a witness is able to give a full and frank account without the company-imposed presence of their solicitor isn't. But that opens up a whole other debate!

Mylesfrancis BWM et al had opened up the issue of obstruction and not I so my response is addressed to this view. I am quite happy for interviews at home if the employee is comfortable to do so but BWM did suggest that it was to remove pressure by the employer - which was not part of the original post anyway. You are also proving my concerns re the HSE view of the use of the same soliciotrs as the company and paid for by the company. You appear to be stating that a solicitor is unable to work in the best interests of his employee client - the law society would be interested in your views. Note however I did carefully state the same "firm" of solicitors not the same solicitor. Steve A 14 - 4 majority does not make anything correct and if you look I did provide a supporting link from HSE to demonstrate their and the court concern over disprpoprtionate use of powers. Even the inspectors posting are wary to state they would jump to S20. I am concerned that an employer is being bounced simply by the belief that the HSE have a total right to demand anything they chose even when the law around that demand is at best grey. I also do not believe that a differing interpretation of the DPA exemptions as I set out is simply my opinion - it is just as valid as any opinion that others care to posit. I have no problems with inpectors interviewing witnesses wherever they may BUT let us do it in a manner that is proportionate and does not force the employer into a corner. I am concerned however as I say above that some inspectors view employers as potentially obstructive and one makes some imputations about the legal profession as a whole. Bob

Bob - I suggest you read his posting again more carefully. He said nothing of the sort. In fact he said just about the complete opposite!

It has been a good debate but I am glad that we have now come to a conclusion and we can move on. Steve

We already give that sort of information routinely to the HSE anyway. When reporting an accident undr RIDDOR Part C of the form F2508 asks for the IPs name, home address, phone number and age. How many ask for the IPs permission before disclosing those details. Not many I bet.

Do I have to release the personal information requested? We understand that most people will want to help the police to prevent crime or catch a suspect, but it is up to you to decide to release personal information under this exemption. Even if you decide that the exemption applies, you still do not have to release the personal information. If you have genuine concerns about releasing the personal information (for example, because you think you have other legal obligations such as the information being confidential), then you can ask the police to come back with a court order requiring the release of the personal information. If the court decides you should release the information, you will not break the Act by obeying the order.

Sorry for being 'rather silly' Bob, was merely govong a different slant to the OP. Won't bother again.

I haven't been about so much lately, but after reading all of the debate many seem to have misread the OP's original quetion (first part) in my view. "Can you tell me if the powers of inspectors extends to allowing a persons home contact details be made available to them with asking first for that person's permission?" The employer is first asking the person whether they are willing for them to give the inspector the information requested. Surely if the employee agrees to that then the DPA doesn't come into it?