Brian Jeffrey
On May 22, 2025, the National Assembly reviewed a proposal for amending the Inspection Law. Many representatives agree that there needs to be a reassessment of the rules regarding inspection duration extensions and the establishment of mechanisms to prevent duplication between inspections and audits.
Lan pointed out that local inspections often lack dedicated teams and thus rely significantly on coordination among various agencies.
She cautioned that if a dual inspection system persists at both governmental and provincial levels, it might lead to a scenario where there are “more managers, but fewer personnel.”
Lan expressed her worries, mentioning that the draft law fails to propose ways to enhance the effectiveness and power of inspection teams or to tackle restrictions that limit inspectors’ capabilities. Regulations should allow for greater flexibility to enable unannounced inspections over scheduled ones.
She argued that scheduled inspections tend to be ineffective, as lists are made public at the beginning of the year and approved by leaders, allowing the inspected parties to prepare their documentation in advance.
“By the time inspectors show up, goods are often concealed. Pharmacies may claim they don’t deal in certain products. Detecting violations becomes challenging when inspections are announced beforehand,” she elaborated.
Pham Van Hoa, a representative from Dong Thap, warned that the removal of inspection agencies at both ministerial and district levels would increase the burden on government and provincial inspectors. This is particularly concerning for provincial inspectors who will face a heavier workload at the grassroots level.
Thus, it is essential to clearly define the roles and authority of provincial inspections.
“Certain sectors, such as food safety, environmental protection, counterfeit goods, and poor-quality products, necessitate specialized inspection bodies. Is the Government Inspectorate capable of managing all these responsibilities without ministry-level inspections?” Hoa questioned.
Deputy Nguyen Tam Hung from Ba Ria – Vung Tau stated his objection to changing the term from “days” to “working days” in the draft Inspection Law.
“An extension of inspection periods to 120 working days, including re-inspections—equivalent to six months—is excessive and contradicts the government’s goals for administrative reform,” he remarked.
“This may disrupt the functioning of the inspected entities and diminish the effectiveness of state management,” he added.
He also proposed the inclusion of transitional provisions in inspection conclusions to eliminate legal ambiguities and ensure that agencies maintain their responsibilities.
Deputy Pham Van Hoa from Dong Thap concurred that prolonged inspection durations can hamper operations, and he called for clearer justifications regarding the change from “days” to “working days” in the draft. The existing regulation allows for inspections over 60 days, but the proposal’s “60 working days” effectively extends this time by around 40 percent, resulting in a total of 84 days.
Deputy Tran Thi Nhi Ha from Hanoi indicated that the draft merely addresses the principle of avoiding overlap between inspections and audits without outlining methods to manage conflicts between inspections and checks.
“This is a prevalent issue, particularly in business management. Redundant inspections and checks heighten compliance costs and adversely affect the investment climate,” she mentioned.
She referenced the Politburo’s Resolution 68, which promotes the cessation of unnecessary and prolonged inspections, ensuring that businesses undergo inspection only once a year unless clear violations are evident.
“Implementing this directive effectively will be difficult without a specific coordination mechanism between inspections and checks,” she stated.
Hoa from Dong Thap agreed with her, stressing the need for clear demarcations to prevent overlapping. While specialized inspections might be eliminated, ministries would still hold authority over specialized assessments, and the Government Inspectorate would handle inspections.
He recommended establishing clear regulations that prohibit re-checking previously inspected material, as this complicates matters for businesses.
“There needs to be a clear distinction between what constitutes an inspection and what qualifies as a specialized examination. Inspections can enforce penalties, whereas examinations typically only suggest actions. This lack of clarity may hinder the operations of the inspected entities,” Hoa asserted.
The proposed law introduces a unified definition of inspection, removing the differentiation between administrative and specialized inspections. Inspection is described as the process of reviewing, evaluating, concluding, and recommending actions by inspection bodies concerning the execution of policies, laws, responsibilities, and authorities of agencies, organizations, and individuals, in accordance with the law.
According to the Government Inspectorate, this definition comprehensively addresses both policy/law implementation and the duties and powers of agencies, organizations, and individuals.
The report elaborates that this definition is derived from the 2022 Inspection Law but with updates and enhancements to align with the latest inspection policies and processes.
