Tony Gregory (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 122: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason the Government has not acted on the main recommendation of the report, A Review of Public Safety in Ireland, which was commissioned by the Tánaiste and published in 2000, namely, the establishment of a statutory body, called the office of public safety regulation; his views on whether such an overall statutory authority, which would monitor and assess the lack, appropriateness and adequacy of regulations, Acts and guidelines to protect the public, is long overdue in view of the failure of any public authority to take responsibility for public safety, with resulting human consequences in the meantime; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31574/05]

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 351: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason the Government has not acted on the main recommendation of the report, A Review of Public Safety in Ireland, which was commissioned by the Tánaiste and published in 2000, namely the establishment of a statutory body called the office of public safety regulation; his views on whether such an overall statutory authority, which would monitor and assess the lack, appropriateness and adequacy of regulations, Acts and guidelines to protect the public is long overdue, in view of the failure of any public authority to take responsibility for public safety, with resulting human consequences in the meantime; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31720/05]

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 122 and 351 together.

The review group on public safety was established in November 1999. The group comprised representatives from Departments, various agencies and bodies. Its report entitled A Review of Public Safety in Ireland was published in 2000.

One of the recommendations of the review group was that an office of public safety regulation should be considered, which would not itself be responsible for public safety issues but would have some form of overseeing role of all the agencies and bodies involved. The review group also proposed that the functioning, appropriateness and continuing need for such an office should be reviewed within a five-year period.

The group was not in full agreement on its proposal due to issues relating to duplication of existing services and additional cost. Some members of the group expressed reservations about the need for such an office and the extra burden on State finances. In my view, this in itself questions the need for such an office of public safety regulation in the first instance and the establishment of yet another State agency, whose function is merely to oversee public safety matters, is not the right way forward.

The review group's recommendation was quite clearly inconclusive and a clear-cut case has not been made for the establishment of a new agency. Another State agency, whose function is merely to oversee other agencies on public safety matters, is not the right way forward. As outlined previously, it is not intended to act on the recommendation.