Health and safety watchdog says bring back common sense!

Nov 9 2008

A top executive for one of Britain's largest health and safety watchdogs is calling for a return to basic common sense following complaints that bureaucrats are attempting to eliminate all risk from all manner of pursuits in order to avoid costly lawsuits.

Tom Mullarkey, from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, says 'absolute safety' is impossible and should be scrapped and people who put only themselves at risk, should be allowed to do so without intervention.

Mr Mullarkey has called for people to be able to 'get on with' activities and says the compensation culture has particularly affected children's activities, resulting in many childhood games being banned.

The call comes at a time when an 88 year old second World War veteran has been banned from carrying a banner of remembrance - despite his wishes - because he has become frail and there would be a 'problem with insurance'.

Earlier this year health and safety officials banned a retired builder from collecting firewood in his local woods because of the 'increasing constraints' of modern legislation.

Mr Mullarkey who was speaking at the charity's annual general meeting, says the quest for 'absolute safety' was impossible and should be abandoned and health and safety officials should stop intervening unnecessarily in public life.

Mr Mullarkey says information should be made available so people can decide for themselves whether to take part in a particular activity, by using their own judgement and says Britain is in danger of being branded a 'nanny state'.

Mr Mullarkey says applying common sense and balance is a much more reasonable attitude than "the seeking of mindless increments towards 'absolute safety' which is neither feasible nor, in all probability, desirable, since it would come at such cost to our freedoms".

Tom Mullarkey has told safety experts they will be accused of constructing a nanny state and damaging freedom if they meddle unnecessarily in people's private lives and says while there were some areas, such as nuclear power and aviation, where the most detailed and prescriptive state control over safety is necessary, there are cases where people should only be given information so they can decide what risks are worth taking.

Mr Mullarkey says a balance must be found between too prescriptive and too casual and a line drawn between intervention and laissez-faire.

He says someone who puts only themselves at risk should have the freedom to do so but if an act can kill or injure others, it must be proscribed or regulated.

Last year Mr Mullarkey highlighted the damage caused to children in particular by health and safety "extremists", whom he accused of hindering the development of young people by wrapping them in cotton wool and says that it is "positively necessary" for children to take part in activities that could leave them with a twisted ankle or a scraped knee.

This year Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, has tried to fight the "cotton wool culture" by insisting that pupils should be allowed to go on school trips and play traditional games such as 'conkers' but many teachers remain concerned they could be sued by parents if something goes wrong.