Seymour Crawford
Question:6 Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Defence the progress in the preparation of a new White Paper on defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38082/10]
Other Questions
White Paper on Defence
Bernard Allen
Question:27 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Defence if it is his intention to have the White Paper on defence published before the end of the year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38080/10]
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:33 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Defence the progress made on developing a new White Paper on Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37988/10]
Róisín Shortall
Question:49 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Defence when it is intended to publish a new White Paper on the Defence Forces, in view of the fact that the previous White Paper ran from 2000 to 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38111/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 27, 33 and 49 together.
The renewed programme for Government sets out the commitment for the preparation of a new White Paper on defence, for the period 2011 to 2020. I have circulated a draft memorandum to my Cabinet colleagues outlining the proposed approach to developing the new White Paper. I intend to bring a memorandum to Government in the near future seeking approval to formally launch the process. The new White Paper will build upon the first White Paper on defence, which was published in February 2000. This has provided the policy framework and a development strategy for the modernisation, reform and transformation of the defence organisation during the past decade.
The new White Paper will set out defence policy for the period to 2020 having regard to the defence and security environment and the roles assigned to the Defence Forces. It will chart a course for the continued development of the defence organisation and will facilitate planning for and delivery of the required defence outputs. The process of developing the White Paper will include a broad consultative process encompassing other Government Departments and agencies, the general public, academic experts and other stakeholders. Submissions will also be sought from the Defence Forces representative associations. I expect to have a draft White Paper prepared for submission to Government in the second half of 2011. The current White Paper on defence will continue to provide the policy framework pending the adoption of the new White Paper.
Is it correct that the White Paper will not be available until the second half of 2011, which is another 12 months away, even though it was supposed to have been prepared by now? Have submissions been received from representative organisations or interested bodies? Has the Department advertised or asked for submissions from interested bodies or organisations? Have advertisements been placed in the national media in this regard? Will there be public consultation on the White Paper? Is the Minister satisfied the key recommendations of the previous White Paper have been achieved?
The proposals in the first White Paper in 2000 have had a huge influence on the development of the Defence Forces into a highly professional, highly organised, well-resourced organisation and this would not have happened in the same away or as effectively in the absence of the White Paper.
With regard to the new White Paper, I have invited a number of interested parties, among them the Defence Forces representative organisations, to have an involvement in the process. I have advised Departments that I intend undertaking that process. People who wish to make a submission or to have their voices heard need a reasonable period within which to do that. A number of months in the early part of next year is the appropriate timeframe for that and it is worth doing. Some organisations and individuals, including some in the academic world, with an interest in this area are anxious to have a constructive input to the process. I am hopeful the Houses of the Oireachtas through the relevant committee will also be centrally involved in that. I am not aware of any advertisements being placed at this stage but I will check that for the Deputy.
Has virtually no work been done yet on the preparation of the White Paper? Is the Minister saying nothing has happened, no advertisements have been placed and no submissions have been invited or received? What will be his main goals for the Defence Forces as a result of the White Paper? It looks like we will not see it for at least another year. Can he assure the House it is his intention that the Defence Forces complement will remain at 10,000 and it will not fall below that? Will he publish guidelines regarding what he wants to see in the White Paper? Has he any work done on it to date?
Considerable work has been undertaken in the Department and I have been involved in trying to advance some of that. The military authorities have been considering the implications for themselves and trying to predict what challenges their organisations might have to deal with over the next decade. One element of that is an environmental analysis and much of that work will be done internally in the military and in the context of the defence and security environment both nationally and internationally. Considerable knowledge and background information is available. People may make submissions that have a fundamental impact on the direction and shape of the White Paper.
It would be extremely damaging for the process if a Minister or somebody else in a position of authority relating to the White Paper set out narrow parameters within which he or she would constrain any submission that might be made. We need on this occasion to do something similar to what was done in 2000, while learning from the experience of the past ten years, namely, to set out wide parameters and to encourage people to make their submissions in that context but not indicate to people that there are exclusions before the process of consideration commences.
Will the ongoing value for money review in respect of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, have an impact on the White Paper? When does the Minister expect that to be produced? There are also inordinate delays in getting that to his desk.
He did not answer my question about his intentions regarding the size of the Defence Forces. Will the complement remain at at least 10,000 in any event? Will he also endeavour to ensure the White Paper is published while the Dáil is in session in order that we can debate it? Many of these papers and reports are published at the end of the summer session as the Dáil rises and three or four months go by before anything happens. Can he ensure this is published while the Dáil is in session in order that we can debate it while it is fresh and not have everyone else in the country debating it bar us?
The size of the Defence Forces was agreed in the context of budget 2010 and that stands independently of the White Paper process. I expect, however, the process to set out the requirements of the armed forces for the next ten years. I always felt the figure of 10,000 was dangerous in the sense that it was open to attack on that basis that it could be said it was plucked out of mid-air. I would have been happier with 10,100 or 9,750 because 10,000 seems to be a contrived figure. In the context of the White Paper, I expect all the stakeholders will have an input and one of the underlying considerations will be what role the State expects of the military. When the role is established, the size of the Defence Forces will flow from that. If, for example, the White Paper were to envisage the role we discussed at a committee meeting yesterday regarding an overlap with the education system, that would have implications for the number of people involved and for the role of the military. I am entirely open to considerations of that nature. Ultimately, a decision will have to be made on the role and that will reflect on the strength subsequently.
Will the memorandum the Minister is presenting to Government contain an estimated cost for producing the White Paper? Will he give an indicative date by which it should be completed?
Deputy Stanton asked about the value for money review of the RDF. Where does that stand? Will it be concluded in time to be considered in the context of the White Paper? A member of the general staff should head up the RDF because there is a view within the organisation that until that happens, it will never be taken as seriously as it should. I have raised this with the Minister previously The Minister indicated he favours the participation of RDF members in overseas missions. I take it that will be considered and included in the White Paper.
There has been speculation recently that the Irish Army's participation in battle groups could be directed towards natural disasters and similar events. The Minister has an interest in this. Is this likely to be considered in the White Paper?
I apologise to Deputy Stanton; I missed the question about the value for money review for the RDF and another question he asked about the reserve earlier. It is clear that a White Paper on the Defence Forces has to consider centrally within it the role of the reserve. At the risk of being seen to overly impact on the process, it is instructive and interesting to consider the experience of countries where a model has evolved with a large reserve element and a small permanent element. We ought to be prepared to learn from other people's experience in that regard. One thing which disappoints me about the development of the reserve, or what some Deputies refer to as its non-development, is that it seems in the 2005 review several actions were pointed out as necessary to progress matters. I have examined carefully the material available in this regard and it seems all these actions were implemented. Most people maintain the desired outcome was not reached and this must be taken into account in examining the reserve element of the White Paper.
Equally, the value for money element will form an important part of the process of the deliberation of the White Paper. I cannot predict what the value for money review will propose, but there may well be recommendations to make with regard to the training of reserve people, joint exercises or, as Deputy O'Shea said, the deployment of reserve people overseas. To be fair, the intention was to include some reserve people and that would have happened had other circumstances, unrelated to the process, not taken place. That is a reasonable point and Deputy O'Shea often makes the valid point that some reserve people have capabilities, training and capacity which could be very useful in some circumstances. That is a fair point and I believe it will be borne in mind.
Regarding the memorandum for Government, I have already circulated a draft memorandum to other Departments. One thing which bedevils us is an attempt to operate completely independently of others. I have circulated the draft memorandum which will give other Departments an opportunity to make observations. I do not expect to be delayed for too long before going with the formal memorandum and announcing the process. A large part of the intervening period ought to be given to allowing people an opportunity to have an input.
The question of cost from Deputy O'Shea has exercised me somewhat. I have put it to my officials that in so far as it is possible we should try to do it from within our resources and, in the main, I believe we have the capacity to do so. It appears difficult to do so but if possible I wish to do it.
We need to move on.
Will the Civil Defence be included in the White Paper?
It is not my intention to include the Civil Defence because of the organisational structure under which it operates.
I missed one question put by Deputy O'Shea, an important question concerning battle groups. One of my colleagues, the Swedish Minister, indicated his interest in the deployment of battle groups in humanitarian disaster areas. On occasion, the capacity of battle groups could be entirely appropriate. Sometimes, the capacity which battle groups bring may not be helpful in a particular situation. For example, it could be argued that in the case of Haiti, helicopter and aerial support would have been the key requirement and current battle group configurations would have been unlikely or unable to provide such support. On the other hand, from our point of view and that of our military people with their professionalism and expertise, it is important that their capability be developed to the standard of the battle group in the first instance. It is even more important in the context of deployment overseas that the highest level of interoperability between various nations be achieved such that we can make our contribution in any international area where we are operating in a relatively seamless way.
Defence Forces Personnel
Liz McManus
Question:7 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Defence the number of claims for compensation received from the Defence Forces arising from road accidents involving the Defence Forces in each of the past five years; the number of cases settled in respect of each such year; the amount awarded in compensation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38100/10]
The State Claims Agency deals with claims arising from accidents involving Defence Force vehicles in Ireland. The Chief State Solicitor's office deals with claims arising from accidents involving Defence Force vehicles overseas. The information requested is set out in the following table:
|
Year |
Number of Defence Force road traffic accident claims received |
Number of resolved Defence Force road traffic accident claims |
Compensation paid out (rounded to the nearest €1,000) |
|
€ |
|||
|
2006 |
7 |
17 |
434,000 |
|
2007 |
10 |
8 |
258,000 |
|
2008 |
24 |
16 |
356,000 |
|
2009 |
18 |
31 |
572,000 |
|
2010 (to date) |
7 |
21 |
625,000 |
|
Total |
66 |
93 |
2,245,000 |
The total cost of the claims settled is €2,245,000 for the 93 claims I am dealing with. The State Claims Agency works with the Defence Forces on an ongoing basis to examine incidents in order to identify and, if possible, obviate any potential risk of injury to civilian and Defence Forces personnel. The State Claims Agency advises that the directorate of transport and maintenance has done considerable work in this area.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I note a question that his predecessor answered two years ago to the effect that in the preceding five years the amount for claims was €1.1 million. The figure the Minister has given us today is €2.45 million. This indicates there has been an increase in the settlements although, as the Minister rightly points out, some of the claims settled in more recent times were historical claims and we should not read too much into the figures.
I am interested in the co-operation between the State Claims Agency and the Directorate of Transport and Maintenance. Are there any particular trends emerging regarding the nature of accidents? Has it anything to do with the age of the fleet or the quality of the army vehicles? Is there any evidence or information emerging that would pinpoint the areas that give rise to most accidents?
I do not believe such detail is available. Apart from the age of the vehicles, to which Deputy O'Shea referred, the variables might include the number and length of journeys undertaken, the number of personnel involved and similar issues which may not be easily extrapolated from tables of this nature.
I have some additional information with regard to outstanding cases. I made the point that some 66 cases arose during those years but 93 cases were settled. Clearly, several of the cases settled predated 2006 and that would have led on from year to year. In 2010, a total of seven claims have been made up to this point. It appears that two of these have been settled and five remain unsettled, a relatively high proportion in a short time. In 2009, some 15 of the 18 cases were still not settled.
It seems there is a considerable time lag between the time of an accident and its resolution although I have seen some information which suggests that the involvement of the State Claims Agency has shortened that timescale. There are some long-standing historical cases which have not been progressed. They remain part of the total because they have not been resolved one way or another. As for the kernel of the question, I have not been able to find a pattern that would indicate the causes.
How many cases are outstanding at this stage? Are any civilians involved in any of the claims? Has the roll-over protection system installed been reviewed or is there any intention to review it? How is it working?
Several claims have been outstanding for a very long period and are, de facto, dormant, dead or unlikely to be reactivated in some instances. There is a total of 53 including those for 2010. At least 15 of these predate 2006 and one goes back to 1998. These are not active in any sense.
Regarding vehicles, the close interaction between the transport people and the State Claims Agency has undoubtedly led to changes. It is not dissimilar to our discussions previously on the ombudsman; we learn from what takes place. I am unclear how many civilians were involved and I must get that information for the Deputies but I believe there would be some involvement.
Go raibh maith agat. On the face of it, with the caveat that one can read too much into figures and that one may not come up with sound conclusions because the figures cover a timespan, we do not seem to have many serious accidents. How many of the claims settled can be described as serious accidents and how many are relatively minor accidents? The safety record of the Army seems to be quite good. Have comparisons been made with other defence forces to shed light on the subject?
Deputy O'Shea is correct that there is a considerable amount of movement by military vehicles on a daily basis through several parts of the country. There is a major number of opportunities in terms of exposure to the road. I do not have a breakdown in respect of the seriousness of accidents. The number of fatalities is thankfully small, but any fatality is one too many. By serious accidents, I presume Deputy O'Shea means accidents where people have permanent incapacity of a major nature. I do not have the detail on that but I will try to find it for the Deputies. It may be difficult and may take some time but it is interesting information and may feed into what one can learn from this.
Kathleen Lynch
Question:8 Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Defence the percentage of women at all levels in the Defence Forces; the way this percentage compares with that of other European Union defence forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38099/10]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:223 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the number of women at all ranks in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38399/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 223 together.
The number of female personnel serving in the Permanent Defence Force on 30 September 2010, the last date for which figures are available, was 557, of which 456 were serving in the Army, 32 in the Air Corps and 69 in the Naval Service. In terms of rank, the breakdown of female personnel serving on 30 September 2010 was 143 officers, 167 non-commissioned officers and 247 privates. The percentage of female personnel serving on 30 September was 5.79% of the overall strength of the force on that date.
The Government is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for men and women throughout the Defence Forces and to the full participation by women in all aspects of Defence Forces activities. Unlike many other national armed forces, the Defence Forces has no restrictions as regards the assignment of men or women to the full range of operational and administrative duties. All promotions and career courses are open to both genders on merit. The Department does not have access to statistics on the percentage of female members in other national armed forces. The Defence Forces prides itself on providing a gender neutral working environment. Policies on equality are being constantly communicated to all ranks. The military authorities are alert and vigilant to this issue and are committed to addressing this matter in a continuing and proactive manner.
It seems there is a very slight reduction in the number of women serving compared to the information given out by Deputy Killeen's colleague two years ago. There is a higher percentage of women serving at the rank of captain and lieutenant. The total figure for officers was 9.2% at that time. The Minister's predecessor addressed the issue of women in 2006 by reducing the height requirement from 5 ft. 4 in. to 5 ft. 2 in., increasing the potential recruitment pool of women from 60% to 90% of the female population. Has the reduction in the minimum height requirement brought about an improvement in the number of female applicants? Two years ago, the percentage of women serving at NCO level was4.09%. This seems to be quite low. What are the Minister's comments on these observations?
Deputy O'Shea is correct. The percentage of women eligible increased from 60% to 90% of the population through the decision of the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, in 2006. In 2007, the TNS MRBI study was commissioned to examine the retention and recruitment of women to the Defence Forces. I have asked for information on the applications to the current recruitment drive. The final figures are not available but for one of the divisions the percentage of female applicants may be lower than 2%. I will revert to the Deputies when I receive the final figures on this. If that turns out to be the final figure, it seems an extraordinary change. Heretofore, the number recruited slightly exceeded the percentage of applicants at the initial phase. It is too early to know if this will be the case but I am concerned about what I am hearing because we would be moving in the opposite direction. This would be undesirable and we may have to take action in respect of recruitment policy. We have discussed the subject of retention in a previous Question Time and concerns exist, although it is not as dramatic as the matter I have just mentioned.
Did the TNS MRBI survey from March 2007 make a number of recommendations and can the Minister tell us what has been done to implement those recommendations? Can he point to recommendations implemented? There was a recommendation that women need role models in the Permanent Defence Force. Has anything been done in that regard? What has been done to promote a dual gender image for the Permanent Defence Force rather than the current masculine image? Does the Minister have plans in this regard?
I understand some progress has been made on virtually all of the recommendations arising from the TNS MRBI survey. Some of the recommendations are under way in respect of family friendly policies in the Defence Forces. It will be difficult to judge in the short term but one expects, over a period of five to ten years, to see a marked improvement in retention figures. However, if that was undermined at the recruitment end by a lower cohort of applicants, one would have a particular challenge that requires a different approach.
A high level of satisfaction expressed by serving female members in the TNS MRBI study. On the subject of job security, pay, benefits and the variety of work on offer the rate of satisfaction was 70% or 80%. Is it timely to gauge the level of satisfaction again? This may have some bearing on the drop-off the Minister referred to in respect of female applicants. If these figures turn out to be true, something is seriously amiss and this must be identified and addressed.
The bulk of the recommendations arising from the 2007 report related to internal matters and much work has been done in that regard. The external issue of presenting a particular image is somewhat more challenging and the problem appears to be borne out if the application figures are as low as is indicated. This may be a function of a larger cohort of males being available and interested than was the case previously. The total number of female applicants may be static but may represent a smaller percentage of the total application cohort. We must examine this in great detail. My initial reaction to updating the survey findings is that the 2007 is fairly recent. I do not have a closed mind in that regard.
National Emergency Plan
John Perry
Question:9 Deputy John Perry asked the Minister for Defence further to parliamentary Question No. 313 of 7 July 2010, when the Government Task Force on Emergency Planning was established; the number of times it has met to discuss emergency planning issues; the expert advice which has been received by the group to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38077/10]
David Stanton
Question:214 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Defence further to Parliamentary Questions No. 202 of 27 May 2010 and No. 10 of the 8 July 2010, the details of the membership or employees' names, positions held, location, staffing grade and so on of each office, committee or group respectively (details supplied); when each committee, office or group was established; if it is still in operation; the terms of reference, functions and remit of same; the total cost to the State per annum, in any; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37535/10]
I propose to take Question Nos. 9 and 214 together.
There are two committees dealing with emergency planning that come under the aegis of my Department, namely the Government taskforce on emergency planning and the interdepartmental working group on emergency planning.
The Government taskforce on emergency planning, which was established in 2001, is comprised of Ministers and-or senior officials from all Departments and key public bodies that have a role in emergency planning and response. The taskforce supports co-ordination of emergency planning across Departments and agencies. It provides a forum for keeping emergency planning high on the agenda of all Departments and it examines cross-cutting issues that impact across Government.
The taskforce meets on a regular basis. The most recent meeting was held on Thursday last, 14 October, which was its 67th meeting. The interdepartmental working group was also established in 2001. It supports the work of the Government taskforce and carries out specific tasks under the direction of the taskforce. It has met on 57 occasions. The most recent meeting took place on 20 September 2010.
The taskforce is a forum for sharing information among the key stakeholders and much of the expert advice is provided from within the taskforce. External experts are invited to make presentations to the taskforce from time to time on a range of emergency planning issues. The taskforce has recently sought expert advice for drawing up a template which will inform Departments and agencies of the key benchmarks against which emergency responses may be reviewed. The work is currently being carried out by the Dublin City University business school and will be completed shortly.
Representation on the taskforce can be at ministerial level or, more usually, at senior official level while representation at interdepartmental working group is at senior or middle management level. The names of the officials currently serving on the Government taskforce on emergency planning and the interdepartmental working group are listed in the tabular statement which will be circulated. There is no additional cost to the State arising from either of these committees as the officials attend and participate as part of their normal duties. The office of emergency planning is a joint civil and military office within the Department, which supports the Government taskforce and the interdepartmental working group. The office also manages the National Emergency Co-ordination Centre, which was activated during last winter's severe weather events and during the volcanic ash emergency that occurred in April to May of this year. All costs associated with the office of emergency planning and with the National Emergency Co-ordination Centre are met from the Defence Vote.
Membership of the Government Task Force on Emergency Planning:
(Principal and Deputy Representative)
Deputy Tony Killeen,
Minister for Defence (Chair)
Office of Emergency Planning
Fred Bradley
Col Declan Hayes
Jerry Kelliher
Department of Defence
Brian Spain
Michael O'Boyle
Defence Forces
Major General Ralph James
Col S. O'Giollain
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Martin Heraghty
Joe Shortall
Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
Aidan Ryan
Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs
Mary Hurley
Department of Education and Skills
Martin Hanevy
Brian Brogan
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation
Brian Whitney
John Newham
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
Des Dowling
Sean Hogan
Met Éireann
Gerald Fleming
Aidan Kelly
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland
Dr. Ann McGarry
Dr. Tom Ryan
Department of Finance
Patricia Coleman
Derek Moran
Office of the Revenue Commissioners
Gerard Moran
Finbar O'Leary
Office of Public Works
Tony Smyth
Les Lennox
Department of Foreign Affairs
Barrie Robinson
Tim Mawe
Department of Health and Children
Dr. Tony Holohan
Luke Mulligan
The Health Service Executive
Gavin Maguire
Pat O'Riordan
Department of Justice and Law Reform
Ken O'Leary
Martin Power
An Garda Síochána
Assistant Commissioner Noreen O'Sullivan
Chief Supt. Pat Hogan
Department of Social Protection
Brian O'Raghallaigh
Paul Carroll
Department of An Taoiseach and GIS
Philip Hamell
Ray Henry
Government Information Service and Press Office
Eoghan O'Neachtain
Kate O'Toole
Department of Tourism Culture and Sport
Paul Bates
Susan McGrath
Department of Transport
Dermot McCarthy
Eddie Burke
Membership of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Emergency Planning:
(Principal and Deputy Representative)
Office of Emergency Planning
Mr. Fred Bradley (Chair)
Col. Declan Hayes
Comdt Larry Rooney
Ann Corrigan
Department of Defence
Michael O'Boyle
Defence Forces
Lt. Col M. Smyth
Comdt. Patrick Power
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Joe Shortall
John Byrne
Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
Aidan Ryan
Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs
Mary Hurley
Department of Education and Skills
Brian Brogan
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation
John Newham
Richard Barry
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
Sean Hogan
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland
Dr. Ciara McMahon
Dr. Catherine Organo
Department of Finance
Derek Moran
Dermot Keane
Office of the Revenue Commissioners
Finbar O' Leary
Office of Public Works
Les Lennox
Department of Foreign Affairs
Ray Walker
Department of Health and Children
Luke Mulligan
Peter Hanrahan
The Health Service Executive
Gavin Maguire
Pat O'Riordan
Department of Justice and Law Reform
Dermot Woods
Nellie Dennehy
An Garda Síochána
Det Supt. Liam King
Det. Insp. Brian O'Reilly
Department of Social Protection
Paul Carroll
Vincent Hegarty
Department of An Taoiseach
Ray Henry
Mary Murphy
Government Information Service & Press Office
Kate O'Toole
Jacky Bryan
Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Paul Bates
Susan McGrath
Department of Transport
Eddie Burke
John Conroy
The Irish Coastguard
Chris Reynolds
What role does the Reserve Defence Force have in emergency planning? Has it been used during the past 12 months in the various weather emergencies that have occurred?
Could the Minister outline the various types of emergency for which we are preparing? Is he satisfied the Defence Forces are called out in a timely fashion? At times it appears the Defence Forces are called out very late in the day. Has any work been done to assess whether it would be better to call on the Defence Forces earlier than has been the case? I accept they cannot act on their own; they have to be invited to assist by the Garda or civilian authorities. Does the Minister agree it would be better if they were called in at an earlier stage in some cases? If that were the case they could provide greater help rather than at the last minute when the state of emergency has become acute. It appears the Defence Forces are seen as a last resort.
I am aware the Reserve Defence Force was deployed in at least one situation during the weather emergencies because I saw it happening. The Reserve Defence Force is available to be called in when the judgment is made that the Defence Forces are required. It is difficult to be specific or prescriptive about when to call in the Defence Forces. The Defence Forces are represented on the taskforce. The judgment is made at Defence Forces level in the area in which an incident is being dealt with.
There are either 43 or 46 individual emergency types set out in the framework. In each of those cases the lead Department is specified, as are the support agencies and Departments that would come into play in each case. The most recent emergency was the incidence of volcanic ash in which the Department of Transport was the lead agency. In the case of both the severe ice and snow and the prior flood events the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was the lead agency, although in practice on the ground the local authorities were responsible. Prior to that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was the lead agency in the pork dioxin crisis. Immediately prior to that was the avian flu issue on which the Department of Health and Children was the lead Department. Many examples are set out and in each of them the lead Department is specified.
There is a question about the type of emergency involved, whether it is local, regional or national and whether, when, if and how a state of emergency ought to be declared. The taskforce has worked on some trigger mechanisms that give guidance in that regard. Inevitably, each crisis that is dealt with by the taskforce better informs the response for the next one. Many exercises are carried out jointly by agencies and Departments in anticipation of having to deal with emergencies.
The issue of personal liability for actions carried out during an emergency was brought to my attention by a senior local authority official. He told me members of the Garda Síochána are covered, as are members of the Health Service Executive. I assume members of the Defence Forces are covered. However, members of local authorities are not covered. Could the Minister shed light on that issue? If there is a problem, is there a proposal to deal with it?
The issue of personal liability arose in the past three or four taskforce meetings I attended. A number of initiatives are under way in that regard. I understand the Department of Justice and Law Reform has introduced legislation to clarify the situation with regard to some personnel. As a general principle my understanding is that if people carry out whatever duties they undertake with due care and attention and in a professional manner their position is copper-fastened.
Issues have arisen in terms of intervention by individual householders in clearing ice on the footpath outside their premises or in the case of voluntary organisations being called in to support agencies to deal with an emergency. I do not refer to the Reserve Defence Force or the Civil Defence in this instance, rather a local sporting organisation. Issues arise in that regard. I have sought clarification from the Attorney General on how best we might address that. Regardless of legislative change I have no doubt but the principle of responsibility in the event of one doing something inappropriate would be likely to apply.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.