How are we dealing with this proposal which is expected in October this year - will it make more or less work for the H&S team?

Ron, Section 69 of the Act has already been enacted and it is partially in force. All that is now required is an Order, or Regulations to being section 69 fully into force. Once in force, section 69 will make it more difficult for Claimants to succeed in a claim for personal injury arising out of work activities because the burden will be on them to prove the employer was negligent. I suspect that in seeking to prove negligence the Claimant's solicitor will take a much closer view at policies, procedures, safe systems of work and particularly, at risk assessments, which if found wanting will be used as evidence of the employer's negligence. More work for health and safety practitioners - Yes. A greater emphasis needed in respect of the competence of those practitioners - Yes. Regards. DJ

Without entering an opinion on the morality or ethics of making it harder for injured people to win compensation for injury or loss, I believe that employers should see fewer claims. It is currently much more difficult for an injured person to win a claim for damages by proving negligence, than by 'proving' a breach of statutory duty. Less chance of success means that specialist compensation lawyers will need to apply stricter criteria when deciding which claims to accept / pursue on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis. As a result, they are likely to take fewer cases, and will need to diversify or downsize as a result. It may be there will be an increase in the number of consultancies offering overly bureaucratic and paper heavy HSMS on the basis that this is what they have always seemed to believe H&S is all about. The good news could continue for businesses; since fewer successful claims means that employers’ insurance premiums should fall too. However, it may be difficult to see any significant cost saving against the background of recent inflation-beating premium hikes being reported for policies - I'm certainly not holding my breath. With fewer claims succeeding, I would hope employers will regain some confidence in the proportionate, risk-based advice of competent in-house or consultant health & safety specialists. This reduced fear of litigation could have a very positive knock on effect for all businesses. A reduced emphasis on bureaucratic paper chasing (driven by no-win etc lawyers chasing "simple" legislative breaches) coupled with increased attention to "sensible" health and safety can only be a good thing.

Indeed Ron. And herein lie some interesting times. The 1974 Act and the EU constitution have requirements not to reduce legal protection. As I recall in terms of redress we have to ensure individuals are able to receive civil justice when negligently harmed by their employer (Hence compulsory EL insurance) and our implementation and enforcement of the EU law is not diminished by our own legal texts. More learned minds than mine can provide the detail. For many years it was accepted that if an employer was in breach of H&S law this was a good indication that any related civil case had a high level of proof in favour of the claimant, or 'bang to rights' as a colleague used to say. Despite the 58% drop in Employer Liability settlements of civil claims in the last 6 years - there is no compensation culture - we can look forward to some meddling in this area. While some will think this will reduce the opportunities for solicitors to earn their fees and welcome it, I doubt it. Health and Safety professionals should be able to maintain good systems of record keeping to challenge any spurious claim - as they always have been. However as has been said by our insurance colleagues many times, their clients often leave them with no defence - ie 'Can you forward me your risk assessment?' Reply: 'What risk assessment?' Or 'Here's the one from 1984, ignore the coffee stain and wear a dust mask when handling it.' If this move is coupled with the costs that claimants will have to pay to start a claim and legal fees being paid out of any compensation award it could be anticipated that less claims will be made. I have no doubt some will welcome this because they see workers as money grabbing layabouts who are only looking to get one over on their saintly employers. Yet it does appear to be a weakening of rights to fair redress on behalf of negligently injured workers. As the UK has found to its cost in the past, EU judges tend to base their decisions on EU law, not the idiosyncrasies of the UK newspaper industry, where this alleged 'compensation culture' originated. A one to watch. Cheers. Nigel