There are lots of variables but two to consider are; - There are significantly less people in work - in the current climate people may be less inclined to claim for fear of retribution when the axe falls. Also many claims will be made that are not successful. This won't show up as a settlement but will eat up enormous amounts of none value added time and money. I would think there's a fair few on this forum getting the 'try it and see' claims but have good systems in place to provide evidence to defend claims and probably weren't responsible in the first place.

Should be 'also many'

Nigel As John J comments at #2, many claims are started but relatively few are succcessful. Even so, I guess that many businesses and other organisations spend significant amounts of time, money and effort dealing with claims directly or pay others to do so on their behalf. It's likely that others who are employed by sizeable organisations as OS&H advisers like me will confirm that part of their workload includes dealing with requests for help from their employers' insurance sections and claims handlers. In my case a goodly proportion of the claims received by my employer, a sizeable local authority, are frivolous and unlikely to be successful. Nevertheless, dealing with/defending against such cases almost certainly costs a significant amount of taxpayers' money. Some claims are valid and relate to cases where employees or others have suffered significant injury or ill-health (including mental ill-health) through negligence by employers and others. However, it's likely that the volume of frivolous claims instigated by no fee-no win companies and the nature of the handling systems established to deal with such claims makes it harder for valid claimants to receive compensation. Another aspect is that the law requires recipients of claims to respond to them within a prescribed period of time. Therefore, requests to OS&H advisers for help with information and/or advice/comment tend to be urgent. Therefore, they can result in planned OS&H work being deferred. Another theme which seems to recur on this forum is the making and recording of risk assessments, probably excessively so in some organisations, in order to be able to provide them in response to any claims which may be made in future. This approach may stem from the fact that claim letters, many of them cunningly worded, usually include a request to be provided with a wide and quite often spurious range of risk assessment documents. Therefore the "covering one's back with paper" attitude might help to explain why OS&H - or a misperception of it - gets confused by some people with the alleged compensation culture/industry. It's important to add that I'm no expert regarding such matters. My comments above mostly reflect some of my experience and understanding over 25 years as an OS&H adviser and 10 years before that as an HSE inspector.

- There are significantly less people in work - in the current climate people may be less inclined to claim for fear of retribution when the axe falls. There are not significantly less people in work, just less and not significant. Anyone making a claim against their company have always had reason, good reason, to fear retribution. That cause to fear has always been present, never mind the economic downturn. Persecution of "disloyal" employees is a very real part of English industry. I liked the part about RIDDOR recorded injuries. Would that include the 90% of self-employed injury not recorded (whoops, question answered) or the 50% of employed injuries not recorded (guess not) Given the rampant dislike of the small employer to bother much about "elf" and "safety" I am surprised, and disheartened, that claims are not through the roof....pity said small employer has no similar dislike of tax evasion and insurance fraud. Good job that self-employed and small business are now the subject of intense tax investigation.......although I guess they will moan about that as well. Maybe NOW would be a good time for those who use self-employed labour to actually ask IF they ARE self-employed ? Because according to the revenue, if they catch someone earning and paying no, or less tax they will not only penalise the person receiving the money but the person PAYING it. You really don't want to get penalised....tax not received, plus interest, plus a penalty, then to court and a fine and costs.

Another factor for reduced claims is that some companies now self insure for civil claims so these will be settled outside of the EL figures.

An interesting assumption: That the 1.03 million were employed to start with. The "get the scrounging sickos' back to work" scheme/scam (AKA re-assessing the sick and disabled) has had the result of putting a load of people back onto JSA (jobseekers allowance) (IE: registered as unemployed) As we all know well, the equalities act means you cannot discriminate against the disabled (takes break while collapsing in hysterical laughter) so one assumes that the "used-to-be-sick", now the "used-to-be-sick-but-now-just-dole-scroungers" will soon find gainful employment again.... Meanwhile they swell the numbers unemployed. As of last year the number of ESA claimants was 2.6 million.....with 50% of new claimants assessed being found to have "no limited ability to work" (and old claimants similar...). So, unemployed does not necessarily mean they were ever employed (I personally have my doubts as to the medical ability of a doctor finding a terminal cancer patient being fit for work........) So there are lies. Damned lies. And government statistics. Never mind the governments intention to put the cost of legal action beyond the "commoners" reach...............I'll wait for their actions to forbid the unions from legally assisting their members by removing legal aid.... If you cannot run a workplace safely, you deserve to have your backside sued to extinction.

I think that 'compensation culture' is not in itself directed at employees or attributed to accidents in the workplace alone - I feel that the culture has a wider scope to include other personal injury claims - you only need to look at the recent comments from the Transport Minister on her intention to crack-down on the 'whiplash culture' - reckoned to put £70 on every UK policy!!!!!! Many of the factors posted here are absolutely valid and facts and figures can easily be distorted even to suit! - you may want to challenge the 70 quid! I believe there is a very strong compensation culture in the UK but I don't believe its centered around employees involved in workplace accidents - Many of the retail managers who post on here regularly will tell you about the claims culture in retail. It is an issue and much wider than the workplace.

Graham, sounds like a fabulous spoof using Scouse wit that completely fooled you. Probably an inside job aimed at a gullible colleague. Didn't you hear the guffaws behind the partition?

Couple of comments regarding previous postings: Out of court settlements: This will have no effect on the recovery of benefits - which is what the DWP's Compensation Recovery Unit is all about. Benefits have to be repaid when/where compensation is won. And that is irrespective of whether the claim went to court. Self-Insurance: Depends how that is measured but I would challenge that there are "many employers" who self-insure. The millions of SMEs don't! Larger firms might arrange some form of scheme whereby they set up a captive insurance company and pay the claims from that. BUT such an arrangement has to be "fronted" by an authorised EL insurer. It is that insurer who will issue the EL Certificate and may handle claims or that function may be outsourced to a specialist firm. But, however the claim is handled benefits are recoverable - see comments above. Hope that helps clarify things Phil