Hello all, I have spent the last day with an ex HSE Inspector of over 20 years experience. He has left the HSE because the Government want only minimal compliance in all areas of business. New revisions of ACOPs will be downgraded and sent through business associations, cutbacks to the HSE enforcement teams will mean less guidance given to small and medium based business and the cost retrieval scheme, FFI, will cause even more negativity from business & the HSE seen as no more than extra tax collectors. Is it me or have we gone backwards to the pre 1974 era when proactive thought and actions were just not a subject for business WRT safety - or - is this safety regulation by the insurance industry as demonstrated in the USA????? or is it soemthing else????? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Stephen

stephen Times are certainly changing, but then nothing stays the same these days for long. The role of the HSE has always been as enforcer and adviser with an emphasis on the latter. It appears the emphasis will be on the former when FFI comes on board. In principle I see nothing wrong with those companies who do not run their business safely being charged to put right what they should have done in the first place. The devil is in the detail and we will have to wait and see how FFI is implemented. In recent years there has been too much intervention by insurance companies, which has been driven by claims lawyers making a quick buck, or at least that is the perception. Hence we have unwittingly engineered a risk averse society. This has been compounded by the HSE who have produced reams of complex and overly prescriptive guidance, plus there has been a distinct lack of consistency with prosecutions. We need to find the middle ground - wherever that may be. Ray

Your HSE friend will know as well as anyone that these things are entirely cyclical. The next big incident that pricks the interest of the general public (sadly usually involving significant loss of life - Herald of Free Enterprise, Bradford City, etc.) will soon have these same politicians clamouring for more and improved Regulation. Such is the burden we all bear (not only in H&S but life in general) by virtue of a cyclic system of governance based on a series of stuttering short-term policies and objectives. No business would survive long if subject to such constant regime and policy change or strategic whim. Why anyone thinks this is the best way to run a Country (or indeed a World economy) beats me.

Phil, I accept that those on different sides of the fence will have differing views. However, my concern with insurers is that they tend to default to a risk averse paradigm - plenty of evidence on these forums. Okay, those representing insurance companies might argue that it is their job...but I still think that there is too much influence in society from insurance companies, plus too many caveats in insurance policies. I am not suggesting that insurance companies influence government, or even they are the worst culprits - claims lawyers fill that void, but these drivers all contribute to a claim and blame society where no one accepts responsibility for their own actions and people fear litigation more than the law. For instance, many company policies and procedures are written to insulate the organisation or individuals from litigation as opposed to protecting the health, safety and welfare of the workforce. Nothing personal, indeed I enjoy reading your posts on these forums.

Ray, I must say that I always find your input most useful. I do agree that there are some classic examples of (alleged) insurance driven examples of poor risk assessment/management. I recall one that involved a play area where tree stumps were set vertically into ground to act as stepping stones - they were "condemned" as being trip hazard. I would suggest that in the workplace environment such examples are pretty hard to find. Insurers simply do not enter the vast majority of workplaces. And there are generally statutory standards to rely on - or ACoPs to refer to (but perhaps not for much longer!) My own personal conundrum is with small construction sites - they have poorest safety/accident record and yet we (and I guess most insurers) simply do not have the resource to visit and try to improve standards. Outside of the workplace, where we are considering Public Liability the issue is far less clear. There is legislation e.g. Occ Lab Act but often matters rest on case law as you know. I often have to resort to "importing" approaches such as risk assessment in order to get the policyholder to undertake the risk management steps required to enable them to discharge their duty of care. But that runs the risk of being criticised as requiring too much of the duty holder. And I think this is perhaps where insurers might be criticised with some justification. Phil

When I suggested as much as this thread in my own posting on Victorian Values it was pulled by the Mods so I do hope this one is left alone. The attitudes to H&S in my view are a reflection of some very deep and significant moves by a number of government departments. These are I think intended to pander to interest groups whom the government believes have votes or other matters to offer them. We should not thus see the changes/attack on H&S in isolation from the other attacks on the poor, disabled, married persons, pensioners or anything which threatens the comfortable life of the elite. Bob

The Inspectorate in the rail industry during the late70s and 1980s were fearsome characters who had a huge influence over industry regulation. They were quite often appointments from senior posts within the rail industry so had a huge amount of knowledge and credibility. Nowadays, the Regulator seems to try to be 'everything to everyone'

Chris, I fully understand your frustration about what are sometimes described as "economic settlements". I'll try and set out some of the issues. The Assoc of British Insurers (and others) are generally agreed that legal costs are c30-35% of total costs. But the % rise alarmingly as value of claim drops. Thus to pay c£3,500 in compensation could cost of the order of £2,000 in legal fees. Negotiated settlements are usually on basis of each side bears their own costs. BUT If one fights a case and the claimant "sticks it out" - which they are entitled to - then there is a risk that the case will end up in court. If that happens the insurer (acting on behalf of the employer) has effectively lost control. Anything can happen on the day in court - from the "collapse" of your star witness to a bad tempered judge. If you lose in court then the insurer pays both sides costs making the cost of claim much higher. I do understand the employer's desire to have their day in court but it can prove expensive. However, there is an added challenge - employers often say "settling will only encourage others to claim". There is some truth in that but for accident claims no two claims are ever that similar. There will always be subtle differences in circumstances e.g. training of the employee, the % of contributory negligence etc. I do not believe that economic settlements - in general - lead to other claims. Especially when one bears in mind that most small employers have a claim every third/fifth year . BUT BUT BUT What you describe Chris is what I regard as the worst case scenario. Obviously can't comment in detail but with disease claims, especially MSDs, skin condition etc there is a much greater risk attached to making an economic settlement. And it seems especially bad approach if as you say there was compelling evidence that condition was not occupational. I'm with you that this was a bad decision that came back to bite the employer/insurer. Phil PS And for ClaireL Insurers can't place restrictions on EL policies

Bob, the current campaign against "elf 'n safety" is about a subtle as being hit with an anvil. There is hardly a day goes by without some disparaging remark on TV - both live broadcast and programmed. Just last night it was Neil Morrissey's character saying "health and safety - this is not a designated pursuit car" and then promptly ignoring the warning. PhilG, so far as insurers are concerned, once again I am in danger of biting the hand ...etc but my clients tell me that settled spurious claims are an incentive to others and it is not the biggies that cause the problem, it is precisely those small claims that annoy H&S propfessionals who believe they have good defences or even grounds for full repudiation. The excuse that insurers lose control in court is frankly very poor. If the evidence is strong enough then insurers should have the confidence to proceed. And if a few are lost then examine whether the preparation was adequate! I do work for liability insurers and value that work. Furthermore, the work I do is valued by those companies I advise (genuine feedback) and I take great pride in assisting them in improving their H&S management systems. The external overview is almost always well received.

The future of H&S enforcement is a key concern for the future and I am not convinced that government truly understands the effects of their subtle anti safety messages. The profession is ultimately blamed as barmy killjoys who make decisions that are beyond common sense and who are the cause of the compensaton culture. It is not stated explcitly BUT society has taken the message. We have to work with government but we do need to be aware that they can be uncomfortable bedfellows with an ultimate agenda very different to our own. Bob

I have kept out of this debate effort a bit but I feel it is time to add my tuppenniworth. I don’t think the government want to recreate the Victorian era: they are not that imaginative. I think that they have been gotten at by lobbyists and free market thinkers who would like to “roll back the state” and to “restore the balance” in the economy. This means amongst other things they think that it would be ok to loosen up H&S a bit. Unfortunately they don’t know how much they really want to loosen it up. They are assuming that H&S is just a matter of common sense and that if they want to make things easier for British business then all they need to do is get rid of some of this “red tape”. They do not appreciate (as few of them have had a proper job in a proper workplace) how much effort it takes to keep things on a steady course. This means that if they start tinkering with the systems we have, the thing will start to fall apart eg replace proper inspections by an independent enforcement body by a auditor paid for by the company (which is how company accounts are audited). The question they have not answered is, what is an acceptable level of H&S ie how many injuries and deaths should society accept in the workplace? We can’t stop them all but is it right to say we should not try or should we say that 200 or 300 deaths per year is acceptable?

A Kurziel An interesting point at the end of your post..Could we please have legislation that requires a banker or MP or similar to be euthanised for every person killed at work and also one could also be euthanised for every ten with a major injury or illness? Certainly make some people think harder. It is never the policy makers and movers and shakers who suffer the consequences of their decisions. Bob

Graham NOW WE ARE REAALLY COOKING. Safety will climb the priority list very quickly if we did this. All we need now is for the event to be on TV. Bob

A very interesting post and reading this it is quite apparant that some H&S professionals cannot agree on if insurers push the matter on regulations or indeed drive employers to go that step further in anti-litagation preparation. My view is it will be interesting to see who gets the blame if accident statistics start to rise and if the number of deaths start to rise. Will the government stand up and say 'Oops', will they defend what they have done. Changes are happening and flexibility is a key component for the H&S professional at the moment. I know a lot of people having to justify staff levels for H&S and budgets within organisations. The post earlier about insurance companies paying out even though they can defend a claim, I have been in that situation and the answer was simple - cheaper to settle than it is to win a case in a court of law. Short term thinking/saving, IMO yes, as the flood gates are opened. My opinion is that with bad economic times people look for answers and search (some may same blame) other areas to take the heat away from the real problems of the economy. Regulation will increase when accidents happen it is the general response and a sad state of affairs that someone (or a group of people) will have to suffer inc families before it will maybe be strengthened. Look at the financial sector, problems and talk of more regulation. The one plus side I see is although regulations will be potentially reduced I see a better H&S culture (not perfect yet!) embedded in most major playing organisations that is harder to eradicate than a piece of paper.

I concur with a number of posts that there has been a strong but misguided campaign to rubbish H&S and blame it for every-thing (surprised it hasn’t been blamed for causing all economic problems). One of the high profile elements in the campaign to rubbish H&S as been Top Gear and a certain presenter (obviously only in a joking manner). I wonder what a freedom of information request would result in; looking at how much is spend on safety by the BBC in the production of top gear, (breaks, tyre risk assessments specialist advice etc. etc.) would IOSH like to ask?