Posted By steve e ashton Muppit! Simple answer - no. There is no 'legal' obligation for an employer to provide glasses ('corrective appliances') for anything other than DSE use. And then only where the 'normal' glasses do not provide adequate correction at the specific focal length required for DSE use. Driving is seen as a normal life activity. When the DSE regs were made, computer use wasn't as prevalent as it is today. So there is no 'legal' obligation to provide drivers with prescription glasses (or when lab workers need eye protection with prescription lenses, or when ... you get the idea). The employer is not 'legally' obliged to pay for specs. BUT.... Several good employers do so. It is becoming more common. If the work activity requires good visual acuity, and can be performed effectively be people wearing glasses - then why shouldn't the employer pay? Not because they are forced to, but because they see it as an essential part of safe service delivery. And it helps the workforce do their job and feel valued. It's a convoluted argument. But some do and many don't. There is no legal obligation. Steve

Posted By David Matthew Are these the same glasses that your driver wears for driving a car? Regards, David

Posted By David Matthew Hear what your saying Bob but the fundamental question is does the employees current glasses meet the requirements of the eyesight standard for driving in the uk. I wear glasses because I'm short sighted and don't meet the standard without them. I'm also a company car driver. I don't however expect my employer to pay for glasses. If the employee in question only drives on company business in the company vehicle and never drives any other vehicle on his own behalf then IMHO the employer should pay. If not it's up to the employee unless the employer has extremely deep pockets. Regards, David

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Muppit has enquired 'Is the employer required to fund the cost of the spectacles, as the employees normal eye wear is not suitable for driving (according to the professional opinion of the optician)?' adding 'Any clarification gratefully received.' While Bob has usefully clarified root issues, I wonder whether another useful angle may be to consider very carefully how PUWER applies to the employee's use of the vehicle (which a crafty contingency-fee lawyer might well do, in the event of an accident). After all, since the employer who is supplying the vehicle, it's reasonable to argue that appropriate spectacles are required for its safe control.

Posted By Bob Youel its interesting reviewing the various arguments and as usual it appears that farsighted employers consider all aspects where those who only see £ signs do not Its got to be cheaper to supply glasses as to answer the posting on this site has bought a pair in the first place - My local supplier can supply proper glasses for the average person at ~£35 per pair not hundreds as you hear about! And that's another question what about supplying hearing aids?

Posted By Kieran J Duignan While the comments by Ian, etc. clarify aspects of the issue raised, it's simply impossible to access all the relevant information necessary to reach a definitive view. Both the Employment Rights Act and The Disability Discrimination Act may be relevant; there's no way of knowing without details of the contract of employment of the guy and of how he was appointed: if his selection did not include an eye test, a claim could arise about disability discrimination or, were he to leave, constructive dismissal. The issue inevitably may have implications for other employees. Unless managers prefer to choose to risk spending a lot of unpaid time of their own in hassle and litigation, it's more economically rational to pay for (one) pair of specs to enable the guy to drive safely.