Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I can accept bad English if it serves a purpose but can the Minister of State state that my analysis is not wrong and that the circumstances of danger could persist without triggering the danger in the second clause? That is what this debate hinges on. The term "circumstances of danger" is quite different from "danger persisting". If it were not so, the Minister of State would have included the word "danger" in the first clause. The circumstances of danger could still be persisting but the employee in the Minister of State's drafting would be deprived of the protection of the section because the employer would insist that no danger, as defined by someone else, persisted. If this is the case, there is a real difficulty with the Minister of State's drafting and I want his clear attention and assurance on this point.

See this speech in context