Vol. 169 No. 18
Section 4(2)(a) states:
Regulations under this Act may–
(a)include any incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions that appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient.
Will the Minister indicate what he may consider necessary or expedient?
Section 4 of the Bill states:
(1) The Minister may make regulations–
(a) prescribing any matter referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed or in relation to any matter referred to in this Act as the subject of regulations, and
(b) for the purposes of, and for the purposes of giving full effect to, this Act.
(2) Regulations under this Act may–
(a) include any incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions that appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient,
(b) apply either generally or to a specified class or classes of persons or to any other matter that the Minister may consider to be appropriate, or
(c) include different provisions in relation to different classes of person.
In the usual way these regulations would have to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. The Government of the day might want to make regulations about the type of person who might be eligible to join or the type of uniform necessary. It is not meant to overtake the provisions of the board. It is just a standard provision.
When a Minister gives authority to a board, he reserves the right to make regulations on some matters, which are covered in the Bill. These may include regulations about the length of time to produce certain reports or the number of times it should meet. It covers incidental, supplementary and consequential regulations and not substantive ones.
Consequential on what?
If the board is instructed to do one thing, something else may be consequential on that and it would have to do that also.
It appears very complicated. Can we get a practical example?
I raised this point already and the Minister more or less concurred with what I said. For an organisation such as the Civil Defence, there is no need for this section. The board should be made up of the experts and should not need consultants or advisers to be hired to make decisions on matters relating to the Civil Defence. There will be representatives of the Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and the Radiological Protection Institute. In deciding on the four nominees from his Department, I hope the Minister will select people with the necessary expertise, skill and vision. Given that in most cases civil defence is a practical, straightforward and operational matter, the idea of appointing consultants is a nonsense and the provision should be withdrawn.
Notwithstanding what I have said, I have much sympathy with the Senator's views. By and large, I agree with her. From a legal point of view there would be difficulty in deleting the section. It provides that the board "may, from time to time, engage any consultants or advisers that the Board or the Minister, as the case may be, consider necessary for the performance by the Board of its functions." If this was not provided for it would mean the board probably could not engage consultants. That would make this the first legislation to ban a board from engaging outside advisers or seeking outside advice, which could mean a legal challenge going as far as the Supreme Court. It might be unreasonable to tie the hands of the board by preventing it from acting in this area. The provision does not mean the board must engage consultants and in this regard it should take account of this debate and the wish of us all that it would not lightly take such a course of action.
The consultants envisaged may not necessarily be of the business type. They could be technical or specialist. For example, in the nuclear area the board may wish to engage a consultant or adviser because it may not have the required expertise. In view of this it should be allowed the option to engage consultants. The provision refers to "may, from time to time". It would be impossible to make it weaker in intent.
Will the Minister indicate the types of grant paid to the board and the discretion it will have? There will be a cost factor involved in establishing and running the board, including the expenses incurred by board members. Will consideration be given to providing additional funding for the operation of the board, separate and apart from Civil Defence operations?
The budget for 2002 is €4.1 million, which covers equipment, operating costs generally and non-direct staff costs. There are approximately 30 members of staff, including the Civil Defence training school and the present staff and officials supporting the Civil Defence endeavour. I will probably be able to obtain for the Senator the operating costs of the organisations around the country. The local authorities are also involved in part funding them. Apart from having access to the board, the Civil Defence officer locally reports to the county manager. The budget has increased by €500,000 this year over last year.
This is an unusual section. I am interested in the powers vested in the board regarding gifts it may accept. Section 22(4) states: "Any funds of the Board that are a gift or the proceeds of a gift to it may, subject to any terms or conditions of the gift, be invested by the Board in any manner in which a trustee is empowered by law to invest trust funds." Will the Minister elaborate on what is meant by this?
This is a standard section and it applies where a board or statutory body is being established. The legislation must provide for the body to be able to receive gifts. When people pass away they often leave funds to different organisations. If this provision was not included the board would not be able to accept them. The purpose of subsection (4) is to make it clear that the board is not allowed to engage in any activities or invest any funds in areas that would not be legal. If it has received funds by way of a gift or the proceeds of a gift, depending on the terms of the gift, which could, for example, be laid down in the will of the donor, it could only be invested by the board in a legal manner. The trustees would have to be allowed by law to invest it in an item before the board could invest money in it. The provision seeks to copperfasten what the board would have to do in any event.
I am intrigued by what the Minister of State has said. Will he indicate if anybody has ever left money to the Civil Defence? I could imagine people leaving gifts to charitable organisations, such as the missions and St. Vincent de Paul, but I did not think people would leave large sums of money to the Civil Defence. Perhaps they have happy memories of their days in the FCA.
The answer is no in the sense that to the best of our knowledge nobody has left money to the Civil Defence centrally.
Perhaps it is a triumph of optimism over experience.
Occasionally local Civil Defence organisations are left funds by well wishers. That is done through the local authority structure, reported in the local authority accounts and spent by the Civil Defence, depending on the wishes of the donor. I gather it is not much.
I welcome this section. It provides that the secretary general of the board will have responsibility to appear before the Houses of the Oireachtas to account for the activities of the board. That level of accountability is important and can be mutually beneficial. It can also enhance the role and power of the board and the Civil Defence. In appearing before the Houses of the Oireachtas and the committees, positive publicity could be given to the Civil Defence, which could be used constructively.
I congratulate the Minister on this Bill. It is long overdue and I compliment him on his hard work and endeavour over the lifetime of the Government. It has been an honour and a privilege to have served on the legislation committee under the stewardship of the Minister. He has streamlined the passage of many Bills through the Oireachtas. As Chief Whip of a minority Government, his expertise and ability have allowed him to steer 400 Bills through the Oireachtas. He has played a significant role in the survival of the Government, the longest serving one since the Second World War.
The Minister has assisted this House in the initiation of 61 Bills over the past five years. I can only hope that he gets the recognition he deserves and is rewarded for his efforts with a full ministerial post after the next election. He has earned it. It has been an honour for me to work with him.
As Government spokesman on Defence in the Seanad, I thank the Minister of State for bringing forward this legislation. It is the first such legislation for over 50 years. The fact that there was no division in the House on the Bill is an indication of the Minister's astute approach. I support all the comments made by Senator Cassidy. I wish the Minister well and I know that he will be back in the Dáil after the general election. I predict that there are big things in store for him.
The Cathaoirleach is so au fait with procedure that I was amazed to hear him call two Government speakers in a row.
My apologies to the Senator.
I merely jest. You are meticulous in your observation of procedure, a Chathaoirligh.
The Cathaoirleach was not going to get away with that anyway.
It was unusual to hear the Leader make the type of speech he just made. It was astonishing. At the concluding Stage of any Bill, one usually refers to the contents of that Bill, rather than engaging in a state of the nation address. The Leader took his opportunity to address an issue that was of no relevance to what the Minister brought before the House today. Nevertheless, I join Senator Cassidy in complimenting the Minister on the Bill. I hope that it proves to be very successful and that it enhances the role of the Civil Defence. I hope that the board proves to be a vibrant and committed one. I thank the Minister for his courtesy and for his responses to the questions raised here today.
I made a very small contribution on this Bill. However, there is a certain level of charm in it, not least in its evocation of air raid shelters, which I am old enough to remember. I thank the Minister for his courteous, efficient and prompt response to my question. It suggests that there is a level of good feeling towards the Civil Defence from former members. The fact that people leave small amounts of money to that organisation makes it all the more effective. They are obviously ordinary people who enjoyed their involvement with the Civil Defence so much that they left the organisation some money in their wills.
I too compliment the Minister. He is a remarkable politician. He sat there, scarcely twitching with a smile, while the most outrageous compliments were heaped on him by Senator Cassidy. The only disagreement I have with Senator Taylor-Quinn's remarks is her use of the word "astonishing". It was not astonishing at all – it was absolutely par for the course for Senator Cassidy. In fact, we have already had it once this morning on the Order of Business. This is the way he works and that is why it is an unusual experience and privilege to work with Senator Cassidy. He is a kind of national treasure.
He is unusual. He is a national treasure.
It was good, partisan stuff and it is what we have come to expect from Senator Cassidy.
How do I follow the remarks of Senator Norris?
I thank the Senators for their co-operation throughout the passage of this Bill. I pay special tribute to my officials, who have worked so hard on this legislation for so long. I also thank the Director General of Civil Defence, Michael O'Donoghue, for his co-operation and leadership of that organisation. I am grateful to everybody who is involved in Civil Defence, from the upper ranks to the 6,000 volunteers.
When I saw in what sort of activities the Civil Defence engage, I became genuinely interested in legislating for its role in society. I saw young men and women from all over the country giving up their free time to participate in this organisation. Their enthusiasm was fantastic. I wanted to put a Bill in place that would set them up for the future, so that they could plan their own direction with some excitement. That is why I am particularly grateful to the Senators for the spirit with which they adopted the legislation.
I do not want to respond to Senator Cassidy's remarks because I know that the House would not tolerate a party political discussion—
Absolutely not. Twice in one day is enough.
Senator Cassidy is so fond of this House and has served it so well that he is now endeavouring to get out of it. If the people of Westmeath are half as clever as I think they are, they will certainly elect him to the Dáil. I wish Senator Cassidy, and all those who will be contesting elections, well in the coming months. I thank the Senators for their co-operation in seeing 400 Bills through their various Stages, with or without amendment. I thank all the Senators for their kind comments.
My colleagues and I in the Dáil have put a lot of work into Dáil reform in the last 12 months. We reconsidered the procedures of the House, which culminated in electronic voting, a new leaders' question time, reform of the committees, a new way of questioning Ministers and new time limits, and it has made a big difference. We have been able to process legislation in a much more effective way. The House is much more responsive now than it was a few years ago.
Gone are the days when the whole country was discussing a particular issue but the Dáil was not. The Dáil now discusses the issues of the day, if not within minutes, certainly within hours of the rest of the country. That is a direct result of the parties getting together and deciding that the Dáil would not just do its job but be seen to do its job, and in so far as I can pass on that experience to the Seanad, I do so, and I recommend that the next Seanad gives the issue some consideration. I thank Senators for taking this Bill and endorsing it so enthusiastically.
