Ok I know all the recommendations wont be coming in right away but I would say in theory yes,

However the term low risk is key, putting my proverbial on the line and my interpretations of your queries below:

Water Hygiene, I amagine if your office environment has a regularly used sink and tap off the main riser there is low risk (no showers or long legs)
Your office is open plan no rooms within rooms and everyone can see their nearest fire exit, there is electrical equipment used but no flammable materials stored and all paper and wastes removed regularly, I imagine it would be low risk
DSE use would depend on the duration and frequency and type used, 1-2 hours a week to do accounts and few emails I imagine would be low risk (not defined as user, or using laptops etc.)

Workplace transport - sometimes working out of another office and using own or public transport to get there? low risk imo
equipment? not sure, kettles microwaves small paper guillitines printers sure. Lifting equipment and hydrualic presses I would not call low risk

Remember this is probably to target self employed, local shops, very small businesses, NOT an excuse for larger companies to try and get away with doing less.

However I am sure it will all become clearer in the future

Des

I thought it was the wording in the report that was confused, maybe it is me that is confused.

Aren't self-employed people already exempt from the requirement to record the findings of their risk assessment?

Kate,

Yes and as far as I am aware that goes back to the Health and Safety Policy. Statements (Exception) Regulations 1975 (SI 1975 ~ 1584)

Drafting legal definitions for the terms:"low hazard workplace"; "low hazard activity" and "simplified risk assessment" (none of the current statutes suggest that the process is intended to be difficult, and indeed the Management Regulations are not prescriptive in that respect, promoting a proportionate approach) will be quite a challenge should these Bills suceed, particularly given that the use of the word hazard in this context confuses the current accepted definition of the term, suggesting a quantification of "hazard" as opposed to the norm of quantification of the hazard effect and the risk.
Others have already mentioned legionella and fire, but what about asbestos? Is this also a challenge to Regulation 4 of CAR?
Hopefully, some nice chap from the Ministry will be along soon to explain to these petitioners that "I'm terribly sorry Minister, but you can't do that."
Then again, perhaps a system will evolve where the employer can pay a fee to the DWP in order to maintain a license granting him a "low hazard" exemption status for his workplace (hey - it's no less bizarre, I wouldn't rule it out).

there = these -sorry!

As the man( sorry the lord) says- it is Common Sense!

Surely a low hazard is just one that is close to the ground!

We don't need the Bill or an enactment - HSE have already done it!

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...officeriskassessment.htm

No legionella, no asbestos...............turning the clock back on DSE eyecare, with statements contrary to their own published guidance ("Employer pays for basic spectacles specific for visual display unit use (or portion of cost in other cases)").

The HSE would appear to be in thrall to the political hubris surrounding the Lord Young Report.

HSE Inspector's jobs could be rather awkward when they have to respond to an issue not on that 20 minute assessment!