The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 lays down general principles for all places of work.

One of the requirements of the Act is that all organisations, public and private sector, compile a safety statement which comprises two fundamental elements: the need for hazard identification and risk assessment and the need for organisational measures to ensure risk control.

Raymond Byrne, a law lecturer in DCU, reminds schools that it is a criminal offence not to have a safety statement. The patron, the principal and the chair of the board of management are responsible for ensuring the school has a well-defined safety, health and welfare policy. Byrne says "the principal should conduct regular audits of the policy in the safety statement: ideally, performance should be examined twice yearly, with more regular spot checks on particular issues. The board of management must ensure that the entire safety statement is reviewed from time to time.

A complete revision would normally be required about every three to five years. In addition, major changes to the premises, such as extensions, would necessitate substantial amendment to the safety statement."

The Education Act, which was enacted last year, affects schools' liability under the Health Safety and Welfare Act, says Byrne. Failure to comply with the 1989 Act can lead to a criminal prosecution against an employer, employee or other person.

He explains that in the case of primary schools, the Education Act 1998 (which must be implemented by December 2000), requires the school patron to appoint a board of management where practicable and this board will manage the school on behalf of the patron and will appoint a principal and teachers to the school. Thus, the board and the patron will be the employer and the principal and staff will be employees of the patron and board of management. The board of management will be a corporate body capable of suing and being sued in its own name. Prosecutions against corporate bodies, such as companies or local authorities, are the most common type of criminal prosecutions brought by the Health and Safety Authority and will continue to be so, he says.

Byrne also draws attention to section 10 of the 1998 Act which specifies that Ministerial recognition of a school will be dependent, inter alia, on the school complying with "health, safety and building standards are determined by law and any further such standards as are determined from time to time by the Minister."

While existing schools are deemed to be recognised under section 10 of the Act, section 11 specifies that recognition could be withdrawn where a school is not complying with the requirements of the Act. A somewhat mischievous suggestion by Byrne is that schools might apply to be withdrawn - this is not a recommendation, he is just drawing attention to the possibility, he says disingenuously.