Dame Judith's comments are regrettable. Perhaps a period outside the HSE bubble might change her views.
She complains that consultants recommend "risk averse" solutions. I don't think I'm one of them with some 40+ years in H&S, but perhaps she would do well to consider the impact of S40 of the Health and Safety at Work Act which reverses the burden of proof for accused employers and requires them to seek extreme solutions to avoid conviction, coupled with the ongoing civil claims culture which again cultivates pressures to go beyond what is reasonable to defend oneself in civil litigation. If you fail to address these drivers, you shouldn't moan that employers are risk-averse or that consultants are recommending disproportionate controls.
Regarding FFI - the last case I had was where the HSE inspector arrived on site, toured the woodworking shop without seeing anything, then looked at my report and noted that there were two minor items the company had yet to complete although they had worked through all the rest. On that basis she made an FFI charge effectively for her reading my report and agreeing with my recommendations, which she herself had not noticed. my client was not impressed. While the HSE use FFI as an exercise to obtain money for their own pocket I find it hard to see how they can complain about their perception in the eyes of hard-working businesses