The Government’s health and safety tsar has confirmed that the ‘burden’ on small businesses caused by the costs and bureaucracy of complying with the law in this area will be a main target of his upcoming review and recommendations for reform.
In an interview published in today’s Daily Telegraph (27 August), Lord Young of Graffham said the fact that small firms are spending up to a day a month ensuring they are complying with regulations is “a burden that we have to eliminate”.
He went on: “What we have got to do with health and safety is to reduce bureaucracy. It is all cumulative and it adds to costs.”
The Tory peer’s comments were welcomed by representatives of small businesses – as long as they result in “genuine help” for the sector. Chris Gorman, of the Forum of Private Business, told SHP: “Whatever they do we hope it will, in practice, have very measurable benefits for small businesses. We hope this is a genuine desire to help and not just political gimmickry.”
Lord Young indicated that no-win, no-fee lawyers are also firmly in his sights. He told the Telegraph: “These firms are inciting people to bring claims. They are not bringing cases that will win in court – they are just looking to bring cases that will last two or three letters until the other side pays them off. There is no magic bullet, but it is a matter of bringing these claims management firms under control.”
However, the Law Society refuted any suggestions of the existence of a “compensation culture” and said the myth has arisen because of attention being focused on “a tiny minority of cases, which have a disproportionate impact and which are quite unlike the majority of compensation cases”.
A spokesperson for the Society told SHP: “In a just society, a person harmed by the avoidable negligence of others should be entitled to compensation. English law achieves no more than that; it does not grant unjustified windfalls. There is enough flexibility to enable the courts to achieve just results within the parameters of the existing law, on a case-by-case basis.”
IOSH declined to comment until the publication of Lord Young’s report, which is due early next month.
As an auditor, a major driver for excessive documentation is insurers trying to eliminate risk and make claims denyable. However, when claims do arise, invariably they take a view that a little payout will make the problem go away as opposed to fighting spurious claims and denying the feckless an easy windfall. This then provides a feeding frenzy for others who simply jump on the bandwagon! Recording significant risks only!!!! What a laugh! Let’s get sense back into safety management!
Our experience is that many ‘no win – no fees’ are money chasers as they take on belated claims and when writing to us quote incorrect regulations that have been repealed!
On contacting them I usually find the office is operated by a number of administrators with one solicitor who is often not present leading me to believe that the costs charged are for qualified solicitors time when work is being undertaken by novices.
I worked for a company that immediately and automatically paid £500 + costs to every claim because sadly this is less than the three or four letters from legal sharks would cost to deal with. These sharks know this so quickly settle out of court. My response: Reply with a counter-claim for Malicious Prosecution and watch the result!
Personal example: a lady ran in to my car. I was stationary, she was ON FOOT! , insurers settled out of court. Lets sort out insurers & sharks not H&S
So, Lord Young thinks that only people with the financial wherewithal to instruct a lawyer should be able to obtain legal redress when they’ve been the victim of a legal wrong.
Let’s bring back hanging, and trial by combat!
I’ve lots more I’d like to say about this vital issue but there’s not enough room.
The usual spin from that old fashioned, Luddite, de-facto trade union the Law Society. Defending and promoting its members interest in the worst Scargilite tradition. High time action was taken and next should be ‘brothers & sisters’ involved in the so called human rights and the data protection industries.
I work in Utilities, we dig holes in urban streets. Claims from compensation lawyers refer to clients tripping over or even falling into holes several months before, long after we’ve reinstated and cleared the site. Rarely are photos include. Impossible to verify! I worked for a county council once. I was astounded at the amount of money paid out for alleged trips over uneven slabs. What insurance doesn’t cover is taxpayers money. MHSAW for employees, the public also need to look where they walk
A typical response from the Law Society.It’s easy for them to ride the gravy train when they’re able to avoid any expense or penalty.Perhaps if they were to incur penalties for unsuccessful claims,lawyers would be a little more selective.In the workplace we have Serial Claimers,who supplement their wages by submitting fraudulent claims,often financed by the Unions.When these claims are dismissed why doesn’t compensation flow the other way?Companies should use section 7 more often.
I feel that there is a culture of compensation claim which in many case is becuse the claims are settled out of court so the truth is never known nor are the facts revealed. There is one example on TV (admittedly an advert so it may not be true) where the claimant got £7500 and I believe he should have been charged under the the Safety at Work act for failing to carry out correct Risk Assesment procedures as Emplyees have a legal responsibility as well.
The spokesman from ‘The Society’ must be living in a parallel universe if he thinks that the law does not provide ‘windfalls’. I have experience of a very resent case which was won by someone playing the system and the judge clearly not understanding the concept of reasonably practicable. There is no doubt that society in general is being encouraged to look for someone else to blame instead of taking responsibility for their own actions and thereby making the world less risk averse.