Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

The Minister of State has not made a coherent argument to support his conclusion. He stated that under subsection (1)(c) of the amendment, an inspector, in the course of an inspection, can give a direction. Unfortunately, as the Minister of State is aware, we have few labour inspectors and health and safety inspections are infrequent. If, as a result of the amendment, we must rely on an inspection to find flaws, it will be a hit and miss provision.

The notion of an annual risk assessment is good. It is like a spring clean in that one is required to undertake an assessment and one is aware that it is approaching. Deputy Morgan and I have not heard who will determine what is significant in the event of the removal of the requirement to carry out an assessment, except where there is significant change. How will it be determined? Is it possible that safety assessments will not be carried out for years in certain employments where practices, by and large, are not thought to change, even if the fabric of a building may be different, new technologies or work practices may have been introduced or certain areas may have degenerated in the meantime? Who will determine what triggers a risk assessment?

Surely an annual provision is preferable to the proposed provision given that it provides certainty that the assessment will take place. If an assessment is required more frequently, as instanced by the Minister of State, this can also be provided for but we should not remove the requirement for an annual risk assessment.

See this speech in context