This article made a lot of sense, I would like to see this issue being raised at the next election

Robert McGuiness, London,

When I started out in industry back in 1980 Health and Safety used to be sensible and useful. But it has gone too far. The reason lots of people think that things have gone too far is that lots of people have experienced it for themselves.

It needs to be reeled in. And this is one of the points of the article:

"It is a symptom of the overweight State that administrators at the top come to rate intellectual debates about risk management higher than the gut instincts of the brave people at the bottom."

...an attitude repeated right the way down to the merest Health and Safety rep.

Mondeo Man, Dagenham,

naturally of course state control has to be paid for through ever increasing taxes, you mention house possesions, I absolutely guarantee that HMRC still demanded its share of the family income even when they were about to become homeless.

the "state" is every families single biggest overhead and it's increasing, the plethora of reports and papers produced by the state every month is mind boggling and this new quango simply adds to the paperwork adds to the burden and increases the tax.

john graham, london, uk

Absolutely right the Governemnet seem to have gone raving mad. I have long thought that if they wish to reduce public sector costs/borrowing it would be well worthwhile closing down ALL quangos and unelcted bodies and see how many are missed.

Phil Race, pulborough, UK

Camilla, I feel a strong empathy with your thoughts on our society. You give excellent examples of how absurd our nanny culture has become. All political parties must take some blame for this as our society has enfeebled our would-be heros and skilled workforce. I am not sure how we begin to repair our society but we cannot continue with the burden of a large bureacracy which is a drain on our ability to pay our way in the world. It is clear from trade inbalance, public and private debt and burgeonning pension deficits that we need to seriously rehabilitate our economy; starting with a 20% real cut in public expenditure!

Steve Marchant, Broadhempston, UK

D Case - Get a grip. The Tories cannot find billions in savings just by axing a few quangos. These groups may waste money but not in the same league as anything significant. The Tories anyway want to match spending not cut it which would mean these salaries would get paid anyway. Speaking as a former Tory member I'd say neither party has any clue how to get rid of bureaucracy and neither wants to because it is afraid to get rid of its hangers-on. The Tories, given some recent policies, would create hundreds more of these offices anyway to replace the ones they would allegedly slash. Despite their runaway lead they are now no closer to government than they were in 2005 because they just can't come up with a policy platform to match Labour's in 1997.

As for HSE, "common sense" didn't serve us very well and I don't think Labour created it. Going back before the Labour Party even existed would be a return to the 1890s, which I'm sure would be a victory for "common sense" indeed.

Louise Stanley, Reading, UK

It is quite wrong to denigrate matrons as "just another level of management". The point about matron is that she possesses both nursing or medical competence AND managerial clout. If a floor is dirty and she orders that it be cleaned then it will get cleaned, properly, and fast, even if the non-medical CEO has to do it himself. This is what is wrong with the British health service at every level: the people who know what should be done have no authority.

Rosemary, Germany,

Could one of the good jouranlists of The Times tell us how many people in the UK are employed by H&S nanny organisations? At what financial cost? And what cost of annoyance to the rest of us?
Certainly some level of care is needed for those either unendowed with much practical sense or who genuinely are endangered by the conduct of others. But other than that, this is a vast job creation scheme that has now gone too far - i.e. it is annoying many more people than it employs and helps. I came to this conclusion when I was not given a plaster in my gym "because in case I was allergic to it a qualified nurse had to give it to me"......

JK, London, UK

The problem is that H&S want to remove all risk. Take the example of changing a light bulb. The first step is quite logical, make sure the electricity is turned off. But how can this be guarenteed - employ a certified electrician who has the knowledge to check this. Okay next step is, we have to climb a ladder. So now we have to have the ladder checked and certified. This can be done by maybe a BS or similar mark. Next how de we ensure that the individual knows how to use it properly. Some form of training. Okay now we have somebody who is qualified to change the bulb and climb the ladder.

What's the next risk? They might fall. So now we have to put in place 'something' that will stop them falling.

What's the next risk? The bulb might break. The perosn needs to be trained in how to handle this scenario.

it goes on and on and on and on a.........

We do need H&S but it has gone too far. Whatever hapened to common sense??

John, Reading, uk

So the ' elites ' have decided to set up more ' elites ' to handle the peasants-again. How about people who are actually affected by these regulations come up with ideas. ? Do not let them take a lot of time to do this, a month would be sufficient. Any longer, and the sirens of priviledge would call. Also the Government would have to implement their ideas immediately. If they screw up, what would be the difference. ?
Government of the people, by the people. While they are at this task, just say ' NO ' to the Peoples Republic of Brussels. That would sort a lot of things out for the better.

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx

Entirely in support. We need to cut back the size of government significantly. We need to simplify our laws and regulations, and stop the probophiles and micro-managers running the show.

Peter Davies, Halifax, West Yorkshire

Only seven? I wonder how much this 'jobs for the boys' is costing'. I bet none are on less than £100,000pa. But of course the poor dears will have to put in at least 5 hours a month and manage on £30,000 pa. expenses

This government asked how the Tories planned to finance their proposals made at their annual conference. I would think there will be a billion or two to spare when all these 'jobs for the boys' quangos are wrapped up. Problem is we will have to pay many many thousands of these liggers unemployment benefit

D Case, Newquay,

As long as 250-odd people are dying in workplace accidents every year - and thousands more seriously injured - the HSE needs every penny.

Yes, there are too many workplaces implementing pointless H&S measures - conkers, hanging baskets and armbands. The reasons for this have been well identified in the second paragraph of Jon Livesey's post. The answer is NOT to throw the baby out with the bathwater: The answer is "smarter" H&S, focusing on areas of real risk rather than a "ban everything" approach.

The way to achieve this is to take H&S seriously: To take the trouble to understand it, and to engage properly competent advice. No-one would employ an electrician without making sure they really were an electrician, yet too many businesses leave H&S in the hands of the first volunteer - without considering their knowledge & experience.

It's a shame that Camilla Cavendish marred her otherwise well-considered column with a swipe at an agency which is striving to achieve just that.

Paul Duell - H&S Professional, Southampton, UK

Useful piece in some ways until you attack in a mindless fashion elf&safety. The real target is the political nanny state developed by labour and should not be the HSE and the many Chartered Safety and Health Practitioners who fight every day to ensure that the employees who go to work each day return to their homes fit and healthy.

As you correctly identify it is the political elite who have no understanding of risk who devlop these ridiculous rules and "regulations". But the media itself is trying to find elf&safety in everything - witness the BBC presentation concerning field trips today on R4

Robert Lewis, Chapel en le Frith, Derbyshire

Far from burgeoning, the HSE has suffered budget cuts and is having to reduce the number of staff.

Paul, Worcester, UK

Nice piece. You might want to add that the entire structure of "Helf'nsafety" rests on a well-known fallacy.

People fear consequences but aren't very good at estimating risk. They get worried about germs passing from armband to toddler because they can imagine the consequences if some very dangerous germ did pass, but they really have no idea of the chances of such a thing happening.

And since they have no idea of the chances, they tend to vastly over-estimate them, because, they reason, under-estimating them is a risk in itself.

And so the whole mess feeds on itself circularly.

Brown has fixed nothing. All he has done with "RRAC" is to give us yet another layer of solemn fools who will sagely discuss other solemn fools who discuss risk without any of the whole bunch understanding it.

Instead of adding more layers of folks who don't understand risk, sweep the whole thing away and go back to the common sense that served us well before the Labour Party even existed.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA