In August I told health and safety pedants to "get a life". 

I made that comment at the launch of our sensible risk campaign. Rather than a traditional stakeholder conference for the launch, we chose to visit our initiative at a children’s activity centre in North London. The smiles on the kids’ faces were a perfect example of the good that comes from managing risks sensibly rather than trying to eliminate them altogether. It was there that I told health and safety pedants – those who use health and safety to stop everyday activities - to get a life and let others get on with theirs. 

Now, there is a certain surprise factor in the regulator - or "Nanny in Chief" as the Daily Mail dubbed me - calling on people to do less.  It’s essentially a "man bites dog" story.  As a result we secured some very good coverage on BBC TV, a host of radio shows and in the national press. Somehow the story even made it onto the Today programme’s "Thought for the day" slot and the New York Times!

So what prompted me to take this course of action?  Well the Prime Minister’s call last year for a "sensible debate on risk management" certainly had an effect. But to be honest we were already underway with our sensible risk work.  The main prompt was my growing frustration at the way the good work of HSE and others in protecting people at work was besmirched by stories of ludicrous health and safety decisions.  As I said at the launch: "I am sick and tired of hearing about petty health and safety stopping people doing worthwhile and enjoyable things, when at the same time others are suffering harm and even death due to poor management and complacency."

It is true that a good proportion of the "elfandsafety" stories you hear are without foundation: Devon fire service never banned firemen’s poles and trapeze artists were never made to wear hard hats. However some of the stories are undoubtedly based on a grain of truth; someone, usually with the best of intentions, has gone well beyond what the law and common sense dictate. School kids being made to wear goggles to play conkers is perhaps the most often quoted example.

Looking at the stories, it quickly becomes obvious that there’s little argument about our approach to the health and safety of workers.  And in reality that is our core area of work – we were after all established by the Health and Safety at work Act. Rather the concerns and stories arise about issues of public safety in which become involved – or are perceived to have become involved. It is in the sphere of public safety where emotive factors such as personal freedom clash with expectations of protection – particularly for children. And it is here that our decision making is at its most complex.

We strive to ensure that our regulatory decisions are commensurate with the level of risk. We draw upon research and hard statistical evidence. But I would like to make clear that we do not operate some kind of algorithm, in which we enter the figures one end and and a result tumbles out of the other end. In reality the data informs our decisions, it does not make them for us; a degree of judgement is required.

As Prof John Kay said to the Lords Economic Affairs Committee’s inquiry into Government Handling of Risk, public sector decisions are in reality too complex to make on a rigidly rational model. To pretend otherwise simply conceals the truth. We must reflect the level of risk, but we must also take stakeholders and the public with us. Therefore we weigh the hard data alongside factors such as societal concerns and reach a decision in the round. I believe that by following this approach – and being open about the factors we consider – we have the best oppportunity to reach the right decision.

So, whilst we are not perfect, we strive hard to ensure that regulation is risk based and has the confidence of those affected, but we are still faced with those "elfansafety" stories. It would be easy to wring our hands at the foolishness of others and reply "nothing to do with us guv". But I do not believe that is the position that a responsible regulator should take. We need to take a leadership role, working closely with others to bring a sense of proportion and focus. We need to ensure that what happens out there in practice is closer to what we as the regulator intended.

We found that as soon as you start to discuss these kind of issues the finger pointing starts pretty quickly – it’s our fault as the regulator, it’s insurers, it’s lawyers, it’s health and safety advisers, it’s the press. Despite repeated questions we refused to be drawn into apportioning blame. What we need are solutions – not a blame game.

Our principles of sensible risk management – copies of which you should have - are the key to that solution. They were informed by research, a public debate and a good deal of discussion with key stakeholders. The launch of those principles is a start, we need to continue our work with stakeholders to make them a reality through practical actions. HSE have already overhauled it’s core guidance on risk assessment so that it is simpler and makes clear how much is enough. 

This work is important because as a regulator we need to be trusted. People need to trust that we are focussing on practical actions that protect people from real harm and suffering, not bureaucratic back-covering. We may be established by statute, but it would be a huge arrogance for us to sit back and rely upon that mandate. I firmly believe that all of us regulators must work to earn and maintain the trust of our stakeholders and the public at large.