No win no fee earns H&S a bad press again!

The BBC’s One Show was taking a cheap shot last week, with an item on an ex WWII RAF Spitfire pilot. Apparently, the old boy wasn’t allowed to get in to a Spitfire that had been restored by a group of volunteers. The reason given for the prohibition was of course given as ‘health and safety concerns’, which of course was greeted by derisory comments from the one Show presenters, similar to those made in national newspapers earlier in the week.

Interestingly, the film clip they showed was edited to show the OAP first standing next to the cockpit and then, as if by magic, sitting in the aircraft. No doubt climbing in to the aircraft for the 90+ year old pensioner was not as quick or slick as the producer would of liked and no doubt had some potential health and safety implications, they didn’t want shown on early evening TV.

Trivialising health and safety concerns in this way, does nobody any good and completely ignores the aircraft owners genuine reasons for refusing the ex-RAF pilot’s request – the fear of being sued by a no win, no fee lawyer. Had this old gentleman come a cropper, either climbing in or climbing out of the Spitfire, do you think either he or his relative would of accepted it as just one of those things? Or would they have been on the phone to the first no win, no fee lawyer they found in the phone book? Even if they hadn’t initiated the legal action, there’s every possibility one of the numerous ambulance chasing firms, that advertise daily on day time TV, would probably have been on the phone to them!

As long as the no win, no fee legal system remains unchanged, people will continue to respond in this way to what would otherwise be a very straightforward request.

Cameron picking the wrong target in his H&S crusade

David Cameron’s comments on Health and Safety legislation must be a source of great frustration to those working to improve safety in the work place.

His confused thinking is summed up by just one sentence from his speech. “Everyday they battle against a tide of risk assessment forms and face the fear of being sued for massive sums”. He criticises the use of risk assessments and then goes on to talk of the risk of being sued when things goes wrong – does he understand just how ridiculously contradictory this sounds? On the one hand he seems to suggest that risk assessments are an unnecessary blight on businesses, yet in the same breath, he acknowledges that these same businesses are vulnerable to being sued when things go wrong!

The logical conclusion here, is that by addressing the compensation culture that has been created by the no win no fee legal system, you can also dispense with the need for risk assessments. This would be throwing the baby out with the bath water and then some.

By all means, stop the compensation culture in its tracks, by stopping the lawyers from inflating their fees, but leave the well understood and totally justified work place risk assessment requirements in place. There is a clear danger that the current pariahs of the workplace, no win no fee lawyers, will be replaced by cowboy employers, who feel they can ignore worker safety in pursuit of profit, because the Prime Minister says so.

The Health and Safety Executive should be the ones determining the level of safety monitoring and assessment needed in the work place, not the politicians.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24025525-health-and-safety-laws-are-holding-back-business.do

Cameron picking the wrong target in his H&S crusade

David Cameron’s comments on Health and Safety legislation must be a source of great frustration to those working to improve safety in the work place.

His confused thinking is summed up by just one sentence from his speech. “Everyday they battle against a tide of risk assessment forms and face the fear of being sued for massive sums”. He criticises the use of risk assessments and then goes on to talk of the risk of being sued when things goes wrong – does he understand just how ridiculously contradictory this sounds? On the one hand he seems to suggest that risk assessments are an unnecessary blight on businesses, yet in the same breath, he acknowledges that these same businesses are vulnerable to being sued when things go wrong!

The logical conclusion here, is that by addressing the compensation culture that has been created by the no win no fee legal system, you can also dispense with the need for risk assessments. This would be throwing the baby out with the bath water and then some.

By all means, stop the compensation culture in its tracks, by stopping the lawyers from inflating their fees, but leave the well understood and totally justified work place risk assessment requirements in place. There is a clear danger that the current pariahs of the workplace, no win no fee lawyers, will be replaced by cowboy employers, who feel they can ignore worker safety in pursuit of profit, because the Prime Minister says so.

The Health and Safety Executive should be the ones determining the level of safety monitoring and assessment needed in the work place, not the politicians.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24025525-health-and-safety-laws-are-holding-back-business.do

Many MP’s have a conflict of interest

Following on from the story that Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, is berating the health and safety culture in this country, I’d like to ask why it’s taking the politicians so long to address the real problem?

Health and safety legislation saves lives and prevents people from being seriously injured everyday. Unfortunately, it also encourages some officials, managers and bosses to go over the top, make silly decisions and sometimes lead to the H&S legislation becoming a laughing stock and an easy target for the press, but why? What are all these officials, managers and bosses afraid of? No win, no fee lawyers, that’s what.

Are our politicians kicking this issue in to the long grass because so many of them were themselves lawyers, solicitors, or even barristers before entering Parliament? It’s more than likely that, having been ‘in the job’, those who should be confronting this issue head on, are still closely associated with the profession in some way. This could be through a business partnership, a family member, or just having close friends plying the legal trade. If so, many of these MPs will be very keen to avoid biting the hand that feeds them, or upsetting the no win, no fee gravy train their professional mates are enjoying such a cushy ride on.

Health and safety is NOT the problem

Today’s newspaper contains a story that Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, is berating the health and safety culture that some bosses use to hide unpopular decisions behind. He is of course right to challenge this cynical use of H&S legislation, but this story smacks more of ministerial headline grabbing, than any serious attempt to address the issue.

Attacking health and safety in this wholesale fashion and demanding that everybody apply common sense when making decisions, is the lazy approach and ignores completely the reason why H&S has become both a blight and a joke to many – the no win, no fee lawyer.

Chris Grayling is calling for common sense from bosses, but without acknowledging that common sense immediately goes out of the window as soon as the lawyers become involved. How many companies pay up immediately they get that solicitor’s letter, instead of going to court and fighting their case, because it is nearly always the cheapest option.

The whole no win no fee system is obviously a lucrative business for the numerous companies now chasing every passing ambulance, as witnessed by the frequent adverts on television. If there was no H&S legislation, then there would be no law for these lawyers to sue under. However, lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s the no win no fee lawyers that need culling, not the H&S legislation that undoubtedly saves lives everyday of the week.

Unless these constantly circling sharks are dealt with, Mr Grayling is whistling in the wind and those who are vulnerable to being sued by a careless employee, or a customer or member of the public out to make a fast buck, will continue to play it safe – wouldn’t you?