Posted By Gordon Thelwell I see the langauge of the law as a moral one, of common law duty, obligations, precedents and rules that 'should/must' be followed. Penalties for not complying are well known, but if you consider looking at these penalties as supposed control measures, would they themselves be considered suitable and sufficient? For many, the benefits of ignoring our H&S laws far outwiegh the costs than if they are caught, someone is injured or sick, or if somewhat is slaughtered whilst at work. Until this balance is reversed the blood and bones of people at work will continue to be spilled and broken. I would wish to see a discussion regarding a fixed percentile fine of an offending companies profits. Who might i approach with this idea, any suggestions?

Posted By Sean Fraser Interesting thread. Over the last few months I have been quietly contemplating the percieved increase in flagrant lawbreaking of a minor nature - breach of the peace, underage drinking, incompetent driving (it gets very quiet in Scotland as winter draws near . . .!). I came to the conclusion that it was lack of enforcement combined with a disdain for the penalties involved even if "caught". We can no longer seem to appeal to an individual's sense of decency as a means of encouraging them to be more community spirited and considerate towards others. Example - if an individual was allowing their dog to foul the pavement, then walks off, and is politely asked if they are going to pick it up (not needing to mention that the "illegal to foul pavement" sign is on the bin less than 5 meters away - likely response? - "What's it got to do with you?". Apart from being a concerned citizen, you mean . . .? The point is, what could I, as an ordinary individual, do about it? Police won't be interested, there are no wardens around, so what deterrent is there? In terms of company compliance with the law (I got round to it eventually), the decisions are more often than not financial. What will it cost us to do this? More importantly, what will it cost us NOT to do it? And this is where I see the value in a pro-active approach from insurance companies. As we all know, there is less emphasis by the enforcement body (HSE) on inspections and more on preventive measures (eh?). So, not only are there going to be less "how are we getting on" visits, but the possibilities of anything other than a fatality prompting an investigating visit are getting lower (and reports are that even fatalities are not being investigated). No deterrent there then, unless or until the accident actually happens. But prosecution is only one aspect of the consequences of poor management (I believe that safety, quality and environment are only facets of all good general management practice, not optional). The other danger is civil claim for compensation, and we should be clear that this is a much more likely prospect as a consequence of an accident than a prosecution. Who pays the costs and the penalty? The insurance company. So they base their premium cover based on a risk principle - and this is where a proven (perhaps certified) formal management system will reduce the potential risk of a payout needing to be claimed. Of course, the company can run the risk of not having the mandatory EL insurance. This decision needs to be made knowing that they will carry the cost of accident that may include cost of civil and criminal court representation, compensation to victims, fine paid to court, and further fine for not having the mandatory insurance! In other words, for most organisations, the cost of failing to prevent an accident will probably mean liquidation - most should not survive flagrant abuse where cost was their ONLY consideration when deciding to operate without EL insurance. Perhaps this is where the insurance companies can step into the vacuum created by a downgrading of HSE activities, promoting a preventive environment through risk mitigation. None of us believe we are going to have a serious accident related to our activities, certainly we never plan to have one - yet they happen, even in supposedly lower risk environments. Sometimes we don't realise the cost involved until it happens. Good education/promotion by the insurance companies would raise awareness of the probabilities, not just possibilities, of it all going so horribly wrong and the consequences involved. Therefore we are more likely to pay insurance premiums to offset that eventuality - but a poor management system will entail high risk and high premiums, whereas a good management system and corporate culture will reduce the potential for serious accidents occuring and hence lower risk means lower premiums - even for traditionally higher risk industries. Actual cost is reduced, with the assurance of full support should the unplanned and unexpected happen. We live in a culture that is waking up to the possibilities of civil litigation - the danger of being dragged through court is increasing, regardless of prosection risk, and insuring against that possibility is vital - or go under. Lowering the premium payout is the goal for all - certainly, insurance companies like the high premium but hate the probability of paying out and would rather avoid it - thereby running the risk of the loss (in lives and money) should not be an option. Those that don't insure - hit them harder, and the others will fall into line. Risk = severity x possibility. High severity, coupled with high probability - still worth the risk?

Posted By Sean Fraser Jay, Excellent links! I am ashamed to say that I wasn't even aware of these pages on the HSE website until now, but they will help drive the message home! All we need now is better promotion nationally of the risk of non-compliance.

Posted By Sean Fraser The HSE is in an impossible position - it seems that people want it to be all things to all men, yet no-one is willing to fund it properly. All of us working within cost limitations and can only keep going with what we are given, of which the government is no exception. But when resources are tight, the first to go are usually the softer targets. Unfortunately for HMG, they cannot slash the training budget as companies would (edukayshun, edukayshun, edukayshun) so the next candidate to go is safety - and lets all keep our fingers crossed hoping nothing bad will happen. Now lets spread it around so no-one quite knows who is repsonsible for what and all end up ignoring it anyway - after all, they have other priorities. Short term thinking still rules. It would be a national disgrace if our premier safety body was dimished to the point where it is routinely ignored and becomes relatively impotent in the face of any crisis - but I fear we are in danger of seeing a good reputation spoilt. However, I still thought the Ready Reckoner was a good idea and it looks a useful tool to commend.

Posted By Sean Fraser Benedict, You're right to point this out - there was a discussion on the forum not long ago where someone noted that some companies were unable to obtain any cover at all - there might be a legal obligation to obtain the insurance, but theres no corresponding legal compulsion to provide it - an obvious contradiction and one of serious concern. Those who are trying to comply with the law are prevented from doing so and lay themselves wide open to potential claims and perversely, a prosecution for not having the compulsory insurance! My comments were what I feel should be provided - unfortunately, there is a huge gap between my ideal situation and the reality out there. One choice is no choice at all, and it all comes down to competition and cost-effectiveness. The insurance companies are under the cosh right now, many claiming that they are paying out more per pound received overall, and sometime soon the money will simply run out unless something is done. And what is that something? Upping the premiums for all, and to me that isn't the right response. So what would I do? Twofold - one, up the premiums of those businesses who I believe create the highest risk, based on management, not industry. As I said previously, just because you are in a "high risk" industry doesn't mean you should not be able to reduce your premiums to as low as reasonably practicable - but it will still be higher than an office-based organisation due to the increased likelihood of a claim being required. This should be based on good assessments on a case by case basis, not automatically allocated by rote. Secondly, I would actively attract well managed organisations to insure, on the basis that I would try to establish a close co-operative relationship with my clients where we work together to insure against the possibility but work to remove the probability. A lower income, agreed, but balanced by the much lower risk of payout and in turn it will attract more low risk companies seeking the lower premiums. An example of this latter approach is already available from a well-advertised company trying to attract maturer drivers of proven ability who have 4+ years no-claim bonus. However, the reality is that the insurance companies have cut costs along with many others and no longer have the man-power to effect this close contact approach - what price are we all paying for quick quotes through call centres and no face-to-face contact? I believe in paying for what I get, and insurance comes under this principle too. If I am a high risk then I should pay accordingly. But if I am low risk, I shouldn't be paying for the ineptitude and mistakes of others.

Posted By Jay Joshi The insurance market is global in nature and complex in its operation. Many of the problems faced today are a result of unrealistic premiums when there was stiff competetion, excessive claims culture, especially in USA, underestimating health risks etc. Not all the problems can be attributed to Health and Safety claims in UK! Asbestosis claims in USA and 9/11 attack claims also account for hike in premiuims. Regarding the Insurance Market and Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance(ELCI), there was a consultation on its review in December 2002. The outcome of the review was published in June 2003. The June 2003 DWP press release states that:- In the short term the Government will: Scrutinise the market to seek raised service standards including minimum notice periods for policy renewals so that businesses can shop around for Employers' Liability cover Work with the insurance industry towards fairer 'risk related' premiums to reward companies with a strong health and safety record, particularly small and medium-sized businesses. Reform enforcement proposals to ensure 'cowboy' companies dodging insurance cover cannot gain advantage over law-abiding businesses Develop with insurers self-assessment packages to enable business to provide insurers with better information on how the company manages health and safety risks In the longer term the Government will: Focus on legal costs, maximising the benefit of existing initiatives and considering faster and more cost effective dispute resolution arrangements Make rehabilitation play a more central role in the UK compensation system Engage with business, insurers and other stakeholders to further evaluate the evidence for separating long-term occupational disease risks from accident risks - more evidence would be needed to assess whether a radical separation is justified. I have included relevant links, should anyone be interested:- 3rd June 2003 Government proposals on employers' liability insurance to help business http://www.dwp.gov.uk/me...03/june/emp0306-elci.asp Publication - Review Of Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance http://www.dwp.gov.uk/pu...583_employers_review.pdf Publication - Employers Liability Compulsory Review Ministerial Statement http://www.dwp.gov.uk/pu...0min%20statement%20x.pdf Publication - Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment http://www.dwp.gov.uk/pu...20initial%20ria%20xy.pdf 12th December 2002 Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance review details announced http://www.dwp.gov.uk/me...002/dec/emp1212-lins.asp DWP Consultation on Review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance http://www.dwp.gov.uk/pu...ety/eli-review/index.asp There is also a good background paper from the Association of British Insurers:- http://www.abi.org.uk/Di...nt_market_conditions.doc

Posted By Jack There was something in the Guardian this week on employers liability insurance. See link http://www.guardian.co.u...y/0,3604,1038135,00.html

Posted By Jay Joshi There is an ABI press release that provides more details:- "ABI initiative will recognise good Health & Safety standards in business Making the Market Work will improve access to the employers’ liability insurance market, particularly for smaller firms" http://www.abi.org.uk/newsreleases/default.asp The press release states that under the initiative: Trade associations or other similar bodies can submit details of their health and safety schemes to an ABI Joint Standing Committee for assessment against best practice features that insurers expect to see in place. These features have been drawn up by the ABI, in conjunction with several trade groups. The Committee comprises of senior underwriters from the leading EL insurers. The Committee will report back to the trade association with a specific assessment of their scheme, together with any suggested improvements. There is no ‘pass’ or ‘fail’. Once completed, details of the assessment will be sent by the ABI to all ABI members writing EL insurance. Insurers will take into account this information when assessing the risk from firms who belong to the particular trade association or body’s health and safety scheme.