asked the Minister for Defence if he considers it appropriate that uniformed Civil Defence personnel should be used for security purposes at public meetings of local authorities; the training Civil Defence personnel get in relation to these duties; and if he will made a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Civil Defence Personnel.
8.
It is not the practice that uniformed Civil Defence personnel are used for security purposes and I do not consider it appropriate that they should be so used; they are not trained for security purposes.
The Deputy obviously has in mind a specific incident, involving Limerick city Civil Defence personnel, concerning which he put down a previous written question in March 1985. I was subsequently assured, and so informed the Deputy, that the personnel were not used as security men on that occasion.
The Minister is correct in saying that I am referring to the Limerick incident. Is the Minister aware that on the occasion referred to— I have a letter from a member of the public which I can give him—the Civil Defence personnel refused entry to the public to the council chamber on 4 March 1985?
I am not aware of that. My information is that they were there in a stewarding role to assist in controlling the crowds which were expected. It is quite possible that in discharging that role they had to refuse or restrict admission into a chamber which was overcrowded.
Obviously, as the Deputy appreciates, one man's security might be another man's stewarding and it could be a difficult border line to establish. I would not be altogether happy to see Civil Defence personnel in a role that could lead to ambiguity in that regard.
I appreciate that the Minister is taking that view of the matter because I am also unhappy that Civil Defence could be used in that way. Is the Minister aware that some of the Civil Defence personnel were present without uniform, that one of them was inside the chamber on the occasion and had the control of locking and unlocking the door, that the chamber was empty at the time and the personnel outside the door, in fact, physically manhandled a member of the public who attempted to open the door? Does the Minister consider that that person acted in a security fashion rather than in a crowd control fashion?
I am not aware of the details to which the Deputy has referred but certainly I imagine that if any question of manhandling arose I would have heard about it loudly and long before now. I would certainly deprecate anything like that. If there is a case where there could be any ambiguity as to the nature of their role I would prefer that Civil Defence personnel would not be present. Certainly, whenever they are present in a marshalling or crowd control role it is essential that they be in uniform.
If I pass the letter I have to the Minister will he investigate the matter and let me know the outcome?
I will.
I welcome the Minister's confirmation of the role of Civil Defence. Will the Minister indicate if he is satisfied with the amount of finance available for the promotion of Civil Defence? Is he satisfied that the local authority officers responsible for the co-ordination and promotion of Civil Defence are making a positive effort to expand its role?
I am satisfied that the budget available for Civil Defence activities is adequate. Obviously, I would like to see a greater budget but we are working under financial constraints, as the Deputy is aware. There is an adequate budget. With regard to the officers of Civil Defence, I am satisfied that they are committed and fully aware of the valuable role of Civil Defence and that it will get the emphasis it is entitled to in local operations.