In the next few posts, we'll explore what we think are critical fault lines at the heart of how the UK HSE regulates the risk from tree failure.

If someone is killed or seriously injured by a falling tree or branch, the HSE can take enforcement action under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

As a taster…

Let's start with the language.

Section 3(1)
"to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that persons not in their employment who may be affected thereby are not exposed to risks to their health or safety"

There's a major problem with "not exposed to risks."

We're all exposed to risks to our health and safety from trees, every day.

And "so far as reasonably practicable" doesn't make those risks disappear.

You can do everything that is reasonably practicable and still leave someone exposed to an Acceptable or Tolerable Risk.

That's how reasonable and proportionate risk management works.

The overall annual risk of being killed or seriously injured by a falling tree or branch is less than 1 in 1 million.

These risks are overwhelmingly Acceptable.

HSE's own Tolerability of Risk framework recognises this.

Tolerability of Risk Framework - VALID's version

So Section 3(1) only makes sense if 'risks' doesn't mean risks.

It only makes sense if 'risks' mean risks that are Not Acceptable or Not Tolerable.

And that's before we consider the many benefits trees give us, including the health part of 'health and safety.'

Then there's HSE's Enforcement Policy Statement

"We take enforcement action to prevent harm by requiring duty holders to manage and control risks effectively."

Here's another problem.

When managing the risk from trees, you can't prevent harm.

Just as you can't prevent risk.

What you can do is manage the risk, so far as is reasonably practicable, to an Acceptable or Tolerable level.

As we'll see, the language matters.