Good question Chris and I am not sure. It sort of depends. If the point of reporting them in the first place was to find where Occupational Diseases lay in the UK (such as the print industry for skin conditions) then maybe it's done its job. We know where they are now, they can be targeted and there's no real need for more data. However, if that means that new sectors giving rise to OD slip past unnoticed then that's a bad thing. Now, does that mean that sectors with high instances think that because that don't have to report anymore and therefore they don't have to bother about their employees either? I am just fortunate enough not to work for someone like that, but I'd agree that others may well see it that way. As with other changes, some of this similar questions depend on what your view of RIDDOR is. For us, it's simply something we have to do. We don't use the figures in any way, we don't report them internally, or have them as KPIs in fact they could repeal RIDDOR tomorrow and it would make no difference to us. That's not arrogance, it's just that we take care of things in our business without the need to be 'told' to. We care. Sounds corny but it's true. Are there others out there who actively seek to do the minimum in order that they 'comply'? I have to say that in my experience, minimum compliance would be a target for some employers to aspire to!! And by that token, changes in the law don't really affect their thinking that much. Jericho

Sorry if I have missed something here, but if the employees are having to clean mud / grit off the glasses every few minutes, without them would this mud / grid not be in their eyes instead ?. So aren’t the glasses doing what they are supposed to be doing? Yes I had the same thoughts, I understand the point that the information they get via RIDDOR is incomplete, rather than find a way to make it work they are going stop bothering. As you say I feel this will possibly unintentionally send a message that it is not important for employers to worry about, as it will no longer affect their statistics. I admit I only skim read it the first time, but I seem to recall they are intending to rely on those affected / their families to make a fuss and report it. That will be effective won’t it!

I agree with earlier comments that drastically reducing the categories of occupational disease which need to be notified to HSE may send a wrong message to some employers. However, massive under-reporting of occupational diseases already exists under the present version of RIDDOR. Part of this stems from the notion that most doctors don't suspect occupational disease in their patients even though about 25% of ALL patient conditions seen by doctors have an occupational cause. This assertion is based on comments made by EMAS doctors and other OH specialists during presentations at IOSH and other OS&H meetings in NW England over recent years. If doctors, especially GPs, are not diagnosing cases of occupational disease as they should be doing, the system is already inadequate. The system further relies on employers being sufficiently diligent to pick out and report notifiable conditions from details on completed 'fit to work' forms (formerly 'sick notes) handed on by employees. Therefore, perhaps a better arrangement would be to revert to the pre-1985 system by which doctors were obliged to notify occupational diseases direct to HSE. During my decade with HSE I jointly investigated with EMAS a fair number of cases which were notified by this route which was based on regulations made under the Factories Act. Moreover, doctors were entitled to a payment of 12.5p per notification. Though this was a trifling sum by the time the notification requirement became obsolete in 1985, it was probably a reasonable amount when the regulations were made. However, whatever system is used would still depend on the capacity for doctors to suspect and diagnose occupational disease. Sadly, the extent of training given to medical students and qualified doctors in the UK about occupational disease and health has reportedly declined over the past decade or more. Unless appropriate changes are already afoot and are being kept very quiet, much greater attention should be given to the need for more training for the benefit of everybody affected or liable to be affected by occupational disease. This includes those running businesses and also taxpayers funding the NHS. For example, an occupational doctor speaking about occupational asthma (OA) to a recent meeting of the inimitable Public Services Section of IOSH Manchester & NW Branch stated that OA was estimated to cost the UK economy over £1 billion/year. Though it's impossible to prevent all cases of OA, early diagnosis and appropriate management would greatly help to reduce the economic burden for the UK as well as the misery experienced by individual sufferers. Therefore, this aspect should be included in approaches to politicians, etc., as to why effective OS&H is vital for the UK.

Graham Whilst I entirely agree with your comments, my experience is that with GPs it can work both ways. A considerable amount of my work seems to be in investigating occupational skin problems (rather than preventing them in the first place!), diagnosed as such by the person's own GP. It seems to be that the assumption is often that if you work in that factory up the road, then your skin problem has to be occupational. The investigation often reveals that the true cause is non-occupational. (I even had a case where the anaphylaxis, diagnosed as latex allergy, turned out to be a non-occupational psychosomatic reaction.) Even where there is an occupational element in the cause(s) - and with irritant contact dermatitis it is almost unknown for this to be caused by a single chemical - the 'diagnosis' is often incorrect. Even dermatologists, if not correctly briefed, can do a clinical diagnosis and end up with a result that is clinically correct but occupationally irrelevant. I would not target just the medical profession, however. How many occupational health and safety practitioners have had sufficient training on occupational diseases to be able to play their full role should damage to health in one or more workers occur? Chris

Jericho Had the consultative document indicated that whilst removing the reporting requirement this was because a more effective procedure was being developed/introduced, then I would have been very happy. However, this does not appear to be the case. So the impression that HSE is creating in some minds is that they simply cannot be bothered. This may not be your reaction, but the reality is that this is what a lot of people will think. Bear in mind that many employers are SMEs who are already struggling with health and safety issues (just see what the FSB says on this). I can see the reaction from many of them. "So occupational disease doesn't have to be reported any more so I don't need to worry about it then." Given the way employers' liability is structured in the UK I wonder how we could introduce a more efficient system for reporting of occupational diseases - and I am not concerned here purely with skin. Even in those countries where they have a more effective reporting system than the UK (e.g. Germany, Finland, Sweden, etc.) they will tell you that underreporting (and misdiagnosis) is endemic. Chris

The previous RIDDOR revision to take away >3 day reporting effectively told Eurostat and WHO that the UK wasn't interested in contributing to Industrial Injury statistics in any meaningful way. You may recall from the last consultation exercise that the HSE proposed to compile and provide "synthetic estimates" to Eurostat for >3 day figures. In my book, "synthetic estimate" equates to guessing (but there may be Statisticians out there who can keep me right here). The requirement on European Member States to provide >3 day stats is a Legal one. I wonder if there are similar legal requirements to provide stats for occupational diseases?