Following on from our discussion about the health and safety compensation culture a few days ago, the Beeb gives us on Lord Young’s report on the matter (pdf).
One of the curses of the health and safety issue is the rise in the no-win-no fee lawyer who advertises regularly on daytime TV encouraging a something for nothing attitude in their prospective clients. Or, as Young puts it:
The ‘no win, no fee’ system gives rise to the perception that there is no financial risk to starting litigation; indeed some individuals are given financial enticements to make claims by claims management companies who are in turn paid ever-increasing fees by solicitors.
This is why we have companies and local authorities behaving in such a risk averse manner. Yes, there are those who fail to understand how the legislation works and consequently over compensate, but for the most part, it is a fear of being sued that is the driver. The insurance companies have to foot the bill – because despite the attractive “no win, no fee” adverts, someone has to foot the bill, and it is usually the insurance companies – so they insist that their arses are covered. End result? Activities are either banned or severely curtailed and common sense is an early casualty.
Lord Young again:
The incentives for claiming compensation have to change.The system must be fair and proportionate without placing an excessive financial burden on the losing party. Claimants have a legal right to make fair and reasonable claims without undue bureaucracy. I propose that the scheme recently introduced for road traffic accidents be extended to cover straightforward personal injury claims.This will deliver a simple, cheaper and quicker resolution of claims. I also propose tighter regulation of advertising by claims management companies.
Here are the details of the road traffic scheme. And his solution to those over cautious local authorities?
In instances where local authorities have adopted an overzealous approach towards health and safety, I recommend that the public should be allowed an appeal process and appropriate recompense.
Now, that is looking like common sense to me. I’m still working though it, but if implemented, I would think that it addresses some of the matters we were discussing.
This is why we have companies and local authorities behaving in such a risk avers manner.
It certainly is – we have one just down from us – and until this culture is dismembered, we are all in deep faeces.
I hardly think the motor insurance business is comparable. In that instance the people doing the insuring are millions of individuals, who have to have insurance in order to drive their cars. There’s not much one can do to stop being sued – some drivers are more safety conscious than others, but that’s because they don’t want to be in an accident, not because they’re worried about being sued. At the end of the day no one says ‘You know what, I’m so worried about being sued for causing a RTA that I’m giving up my car’.
Whereas in the personal injury claim business its organisations and businesses who have liability insurance, and its millions of members of the public who are the potential suers. And there’s huge scope for bodies to say ‘No you can’t do that any more, someone might have an accident and sue us’. Making the claims system more streamlined is not going to change that attitude, unless in some way it discourages low level and vexatious claims. Given the history of motor insurance fraud (‘whiplash’ injuries suffered by every car crash victim, huge bills for tiny bumps, massive over charging for hire cars etc) I severely doubt that its going to make one iota of difference to businesses and public bodies decisions with regard to curtailing certain activities, or requiring reams of paperwork beforehand.
The whole compensation culture/H&S gone mad concept will only be turned round when people cease to see £ signs when an accident occurs. While that still happens the problem will continue to get worse.
Er, that’s why Young has made the proposals that he has. The road traffic principle is perfectly transferable. A simple graded approach that is relevant to the injury caused – and an end to the no win no fee system.
As for insurance fraud – that one rests with the person being sued to point it out. I’ve done this and the insurer refused the claim. I’ve known others who have done likewise. All it takes it to alert them and ask them to send an underwriter round to check the damage to the vehicles and to look closely into the claim being made. Remember if they have a reason not to pay out, they will take it. It is in our hands.
Well, we’ll have to wait and see. I reckon teachers will still have reams of paperwork to fill in for taking classes on field trips, and councils will still be refusing to do stuff on ‘H&S grounds’ in a few years time whatever new rules are enacted.
It’s these very things that Young’s report is proposing to tackle. As I said, I’ve only started to look at it, but it does seem to be a sensible starting point. One thing he mentions is much simplified risk assessment for low risk enterprises and a removal of the requirement for businesses to employ expensive H&S consultants when they don’t need to. In other words some rolling back of the statute, which is no bad thing.
Any attempt to bring a little common sense back into the fold has to be a good start. I just hope this chap doesn’t go down the same path as Andrew Lansley.
Lord Young never had it so good and quit didn’t he?