5 February 2001

Dear Ms Hallman,

Many thanks for sending the Centre a copy of the draft of the "Ready Reckoner" document.

I apologise that the Centre failed to respond to your initial draft, however we have two major concerns about the current document.

1. There is no mention in the document about the potential costs to a company linked to an HSE/EHD investigation and prosecution.

This absence is particularly noteworthy since a number of the DETR action points concern the need for increased penalties and new sentences. The HSC is also currently consulting on a new "Enforcement Policy Statement"

The leaflet fails to mention that when an injury or dangerous occurrence takes place, there could be costs linked to its investigation and possible prosecution. If the incident is investigated by an HSE/EHD inspector, the interviewing of witnesses etc. will take up the time of employees when they would otherwise be involved in production.

If the inspector considers that the injury is a result of a breach of health and safety law, an improvement/prohibition notice could be imposed which might result in high costs for the company; or it could result in a prosecution which could result in high fines.

The leaflet does not deal with any of these issues.

2. Use of the term "accident"
The leaflet uses the word "accident over 18 times. The Commission has agreed that the word "accident" should be used as little as possible because of the conflicting connotations the word can have. Some injuries may be fortuitous; others the result of criminal conduct.

In our view the term "accident" should not be used in the leaflet.

In many cases, the word "accident" can simply be replaced by the word "injury". The title, for example, should be: "The Costs of Injuries and Ill-Health".

A number of other alternatives are also available. These include:

• injuries and dangerous occurrences;
• injuries and near-misses;
• incidents

I hope that these comments are useful

Yours sincerely,

David Bergman
Director