LONDON—U.K. risk managers hope an ongoing review of health and safety law will yield better enforcement of employers liability insurance rules as well as improvements in the personal injury claims system.

Last month, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron appointed Lord Young of Graffham, a former cabinet minister, to advise on health and safety law and practice and to conduct a review into health and safety law and the “compensation culture.” Many commentators believe U.K. society has become more litigious and that health and safety legislation has become too onerous, stifling innovation and growth.

“We need a sensible new approach that makes clear these laws are intended to protect people, not overwhelm businesses with red tape,” Mr. Cameron said in a statement.

Lord Young is expected to report on his findings within a few weeks.

Commenting on the review, the Assn. of Insurance & Risk Managers characterized enforcement of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 as “woefully inadequate.” The act requires most employers in the United Kingdom to buy employers liability insurance, which covers on-the-job injury and illness.

London-based Airmic said in its submission to the review that while it recognizes “the obvious legal and moral imperative to protect staff,” its members often are at a competitive disadvantage because they buy employers liability coverage while other companies do not.

According to the Assn. of British Insurers, which last year launched a service for claimants to trace the employers liability policies of their former employers, about 98% of employers liability claimants are able to make a claim against a valid policy.

But one source, who asked not to be named, said anecdotal evidence suggests that as many as 5% of employers may not buy sufficient—or any—employers liability insurance coverage.

The U.K. government's Health and Safety Executive oversees the enforcement of the employers liability law through visits to companies, which are required to display a certificate of insurance.

But even though such coverage typically is renewable every year, many years can pass between such visits, said Paul Hopkin, technical director at Airmic.

And while Airmic members purchase the correct levels of insurance, if they subcontract work to other companies, they must ensure that those companies also have bought employers liability insurance, said Mr. Hopkin.

Airmic believes that enforcement of the act needs to change, said Mr. Hopkin. For example, he said that policing the law through the National Insurance Contributions Office of H.M. Revenue and Customs might be more practical, as national insurance— a tax on salary that goes toward Social Security—is another compulsory coverage.

Airmic also called on the government to relax health and safety laws in areas where they have become “too prescriptive” or overly onerous.

For example, rules may require that certain pieces of equipment be replaced every 10 years even though such equipment, with proper maintenance, can be useful for much longer than that, Mr. Hopkin said.

Airmic also called upon the government to simplify the claims process for personal injury claims.

The association would like to see such claims made as simple and as inexpensive to process as possible, to ensure that where there are genuine claims, employees are paid swiftly and receive as much of the settlement as possible, without funds being swallowed up by legal costs, Mr. Hopkin explained.

One area Lord Young is studying as part of his review is the way personal injury law firms operate. Such firms usually operate on a contingent fee, or no-win, no-fee basis, and are sometimes viewed as aggressively seeking to bring actions. And he has expressed a wish to ban television advertisements promoting claims management companies, which Lord Young described as “ambulance chasers.”

The London-based Assn. of Personal Injury Lawyers, in its submission to the review, said it shares many of Lord Young's concerns.

“For every argument put forward to help educate people about the compensation system for personal injury, which can be notoriously complex and stressful, we appear to see or hear an advertisement which glosses over the realities,” it said. “Yet we do still believe there is a place for legitimate advertising, as it can help people with genuine personal injury claims to find the help they need.”

APIL said it would welcome “an approach from advertisers which clearly explains that compensation is not available for an accident but only when the injury is a result of negligence.”

In its response to the Young review, London-based labor union the Trades Union Congress said it believed there was a need for greater investment in health and safety.

It highlighted particularly the small-to-medium-sized enterprise sector, where it claims too few employers conduct basic risk assessments.