Vol. 536 No. 2
71 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding the review of the Civil Defence; the number of full time officers; the number of members and units in each city and county; the value of equipment supplied to the Civil Defence in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13796/01]
195 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the strength, male and female, of the Civil Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14029/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 71 and 195 together.
The Towards 2000 Programme for Civil Defence which was launched in 1992 consisted of 12 development activities designed to focus the organisation to better serve the needs of the local community. These included stewarding; providing an enhanced search and rescue capability; river, lake and coastal area search and recovery; major and radiological emergencies and environmental problems; flooding, blizzards and forest fire-fighting problems and evacuee reception.
Following the success of that programme, local authority Civil Defence elements were asked to submit an ongoing development plan in line with their local requirements and this process was given major impetus in February of last year with the introduction of the White Paper on Defence. The White Paper committed the Government to providing the necessary infrastructure and training to enable the Civil Defence to continue to develop its capacity to respond to emergencies as a high quality second line emergency service and facilitate community support activities while preserving the voluntary nature and ethos of the organisation.
As a signal of its intent in that regard the Government committed an additional £500,000 to the Civil Defence budget for 2000 and beyond. In addition to the staffing costs of the Department's Civil Defence branch, total expenditure by the Department in 2001 will be about £3.2 million and this level of expenditure on Civil Defence is expected to be maintained over the period to 2004.
The Government is also committed to providing the necessary framework for the future development of Civil Defence by modernising the legislation governing Civil Defence by means of a new Civil Defence Bill which will be published shortly together with additional measures to assist with the recruitment of new members to Civil Defence.
There are 41 authorised Civil Defence officers in the organisation. These consist of 34 full-time and seven part-time officers. Of these 41 officers, seven are female, one of whom is part-time.
The Civil Defence organisation is administered on the basis of local authority areas rather than on a county or city basis and there are 32 local authority administrative areas. At present there are approximately 6,000 active volunteers in the organisation and some 3,000 trained persons who are no longer active but are available for emergencies. On the basis of the most recent available figures, the gender balance within the organisation breaks down fairly evenly between male and female members.
The total value of equipment supplied by the Department to local authorities for Civil Defence purposes for the past five years amounts to almost £3.5 million as follows:
Civil Defence Equipment Expenditure 1996-2000
|
1996 |
£619,000 |
|
1997 |
£635,000 |
|
1998 |
£661,000 |
|
1999 |
£530,000 |
|
2000 |
£1,046,000 |
|
Total |
£3,491,000 |
I compliment the Civil Defence on its efforts during the recent floods, when it did fantastic work. A great concern over the years has been the need for equipment to be updated. Is the Minister of State satisfied that, given the increased finance available, there is enough funding to upgrade the ambulance and transport fleet, which is a matter of major concern?
Also, has a decision been taken on the future use of Ratra House when the Civil Defence has been relocated?
I join Deputy Ryan in paying tribute to the Civil Defence for its great work over the years. I know he will join me in complimenting it on its work in preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease recently. The Civil Defence was out in force for about two months taking part in the disinfection procedures and stewarding. It provided support for other services for those two or three months of more than 2,000 man hours in total. We owe the Civil Defence a debt of gratitude for standing in the breach and we should salute it, as it was an essential part of preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease here. I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to say that.
No decision has yet been taken on Ratra House. No new use for the building has been decided yet. The equipment budget for this year is £1,046,000, which is a considerable increase on previous years. In 1996 it was £619,000, in 1997 it was £635,000, in 1998 it was £661,000, in 1999 it was £530,000 and in 2000 it was £1,046,000. That is a total of £3,491,000. That does include the ambulances to which the Deputy referred.
Will the Minister of State indicate the role of the Civil Defence in monitoring fall-out from nuclear explosions such as that in Chernobyl or any possible accident at Sellafield? Is he satisfied the Civil Defence has the necessary equipment to monitor such fall-out?
This is why we are bringing in new Civil Defence legislation. The organisation's existing duties date back to 1946 legislation and 1939 air raid precautions. The role of the Civil Defence has evolved substantially over the years and it no longer sees itself as primarily having to respond to nuclear situations. Its role has broadened considerably, as we saw in the recent foot and mouth crisis, while there are other agencies which carry out the technical measurement of radiation, such as the energy boards, rather than the Civil Defence. Its job is not so much measurement of radiation but responding to an emergency once one is identified. That is its role rather than one of strict measurement.
Should a nuclear reactor from one of the old Soviet Union countries explode, posing a danger of fall-out to this country, is the Minister of State—
We are moving away from the substance of the question.
—satisfied that the Civil Defence has adequate equipment and training to deal with it?
We are moving on to the next question as we have spent over six minutes on this.
The Chair is making a habit of talking over every question I ask.
No I do not. If the Deputy—
The Minister of State is prepared to answer.
I suggest the Deputy submit a question on this matter.
That matter is the question. The question relates to the functions performed by the Civil Defence and the Minister of State's proposed policies. It falls correctly within the remit of the question raised. In fairness to the Minister of State, he wishes to reply.
The question, for the benefit of the Deputy, states: To ask the Minister for Defence the position regarding the review of the Civil Defence; the number of full time officers; the number of members and units in each city and county; the value of equipment supplied to the Civil Defence in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The review—
The second question states: "To ask the Minister for Defence the strength, male and female, of the Civil Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter." That is different from what the Deputy said. We are moving on to the next question.
I am assuming – if the Chair does me the courtesy of allowing me to respond – I am raising the capacity of the Civil Defence to deal with a nuclear emergency.
I am not allowing the Deputy to respond. I am calling Question No. 72.
I have been a Member of the House for 20 years and have never been treated with such discourtesy. Deputy O'Hanlon is diminishing the position of the Chair with the manner in which he is conducting himself this afternoon. It is outrageous.
The Deputy will withdraw that remark.
The Chair has consistently talked over me all afternoon—
The Deputy will withdraw that remark.
—and is ignoring the substantive content of my question.
I am asking the Deputy to withdraw the remark. Do you wish to withdraw the remark or leave the House?
I have no wish to leave the House and withdraw the remark but if the Chair—
