Now I have not seen or heard about this, but was notified through the IOSH site, so I can assume it is legitimate.
As a fully qualified HSE Manager and come up through the HSE ranks, from an operations supervisor (a quick CV there), I have to agree that there seems to be an awful lot of HSE-A requirement. To what end? To protect the workforce, provide business / industry solutions, or to become a self propagating authority, much like the lecherous “Injury Lawyer”.
That may sound like a derogatory opener, but lets step back a bit.
Take the advert on the TV where the guy falls off the faulty ladder (yes he knew it was faulty), and in steps your "all concerned, ever helpful" injury lawyer, and wins the guy his due compensation. Yes it is a commercial, but it also drives home the fact that people who are responsible for their own safety, who fail to recognise the immediate hazard effects through their own actions, have a place in a court of law. Does this encourage any prospective business? To provide “belts and braces” in fear of prosecution is a “loose loose” scenario.
This is where a once powerfully industrious nation has become derailed, where a union once stood to represent the workforce, in steps the greedy injury lawyers with nothing more in sight than money, forget what is right and wrong, it's all about trousering the cash.

Don't think it's H&S law that is driving this, it is Civil litigation.

As long as a company has done all that is reasonably practicable, which would include training, instruction, information and adequate supervision and managerial monitoring, then they should have little to worry about. If the employee is at fault and the employer can show they did all that is reasonably practicable, then the employee bears the responsibility.

David Cameron is using unsubstantiated examples to back up his argument that H&S law has gone mad. The underlying motive for this is to create a public perception that will be favourable when the tories seek to prevent HSE/LA H&S Inspectors from carrying out routine insoections of big businesses. This has already been muted and indeed the larger retail organisations have been calling for it for some time.

IMO - we need H&S Inspectors and we need more of them. They seem to be running scared in my experience and it's time they made a stand.

A lot of the cases of Rapacious Legal Greed are taken by law companies paid for by unions.
Who have an excellent track-record for success.
In fact my union "boasts" a 93% success rate (they don't take cases that are non-starters !)
In any case, whoever wins the next election (it won't be us) the heat is going to be on H&S.
The blue party will allow large companies (above 1 worker ?) to not allow access to HSE inspectors....the red party will allow them, but remove funding so there will not be any anyway !
The other party (yellow/orange/pink ????) hasn't decided what it will do yet, but promises a green paper in 2510AD.