Rather than amending the regs a better understanding by professionals would be better in understanding exxactly what they require.

The lack of a risk assesment can never bring harm to anyone. It is the activity being carried out that creates the risk but that does not mean that harm actually arises. The purpose of a risk assessment is to identify the level of risk that arises from a particular activity and leads to the development of a method to minimise the risk becoming an accident. Risk assessment has been blown up into the demon of everything, but done in the proper manner and the right level of action identified it does make someone aware of it asnd they can then decide what preventive measures are needed to control that risk to an acceptable level. Risk assessment done correctly is a very very useful tool and should be required by law because to simply make it only a voluntary thing wouild mean it wont be done.

Statute bar h&s regulations and provide guidance on riddor like OSHA do for their regs.

Deja Vu. I'm sure we had this very question some weeks ago. My answer then: Ditch the DSE Regs. I do hope the upcoming EU review will identify these as superfluous, and the requirement for provision of free eyecare an absolute nonsense.

While I would agree that the DSE Regs are one of the least (properly) used regulations and the eye test wrong on many levels, they are far from superfluous. Upper limb disorders etc. etc. It's a big problem and being sat at a desk for 8 hours a day can create and/or exacerbate ULD's. I know - I'm in constant pain because of it! As previously mentioned, maybe a bit more understanding of the risks by industry is the key.

The UK government, along with all other European governments, were in at the start of the directive designs. The EU is a convenient scapegoat used to get off the hook by member states.

I would like to see a complete overhaul of RIDDOR not just a cosmetic change. There is another posting re RIDDOR which has around 40 replies, tho some posters have 2 posts, and it is about 19 to report the OP's scenario and 12 not to report. If we as practitioners cannot agree on the reporting criteria surely that indicates a few fundemental problems with interpretation. For the record I think the posts that concentrate on it being a work reklated activity or arising out of or in connection with conditions, work station, environment etc are correct and not reportable. Being at work does not automatically make it reportable. I aslo agree that DSE has become dated and many responsibilities are covered in other Regs

Why, then we would not have any regulation dealing with substances hazardous to health, one of the five particular points in section 2 of the HASAWA: "arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances;" Just drop the H from IOSH and HSE!

As Health and Safety professionals, it is incredible that we seem to be treating some of the "soft", but potentially long term health-effect issues such as DSE use /WRULDs etc as if it does not matter. The estimates of loss to the national economy due to work-related ILL-HEALTH runs into billions of pounds. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/index.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/cost.htm When the DSE Regs came into effect in 1993, yes, there was much to adjust/upgrade in context of furniture, equipment and also environment i.e lighting and so on. Now, as most organisations would have upgraded all that, DSE assessments, in my personal view are fairly straightforward, simple and do not take too much time. We use a 3 tiered structure that starts with a self assessment (with guidance/information) , a line manager sigh off and any issues identified are dealt with. It can be escalated to myself and finally occupational health professional. Do not forget that if you do not deal with specific health issues of individuals that have the potential to be made worse due to work and do not undertake reasonable adjustments, you could be looking towards significant claims. At the EU level, there is already a proposal to combine the Manual Handling & DSE directives into an Ergonomics one. Regarding COSHH, it need not be complex. Even now, thousands of employees have illnesses due to chemical exposure that is not adequately controlled. Even if we did only have HASAWA, we would still have the ACoPs specific to individual topics/subjects and in my view the outcomes similar! (It was in the Robens Report that the primary act would be supplemented by ACOPs)