I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Séamus Brennan, to the meeting.
Civil Defence Bill, 2002: Committee Stage.
Acting Chairman
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 2 is related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, subsection (1), lines 14 and 15, to delete "who performs civil defence tasks" and substitute "who is registered in the Register of Civil Defence Members under section 34;”.
These are clarification amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following definition:
" 'register' means the Civil Defence Register established under section 34;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The role of the Civil Defence is to facilitate, through the Local Authorities, Civil Defence responses for emergency relief and support to ensure the operation of vital services and the maintenance of public life and to provide other community supports as directed by the Government.".
It is important to define a role for the Civil Defence. One of the difficulties members of the Civil Defence experience is explaining the role and function of the Civil Defence. I am aware this definition is included in one of the Schedules to the Bill, but is it possible to include it in the Bill proper?
I agree with the Deputy's thinking but am advised it is inappropriate from a legal point of view to include it in the Bill. This is because the proposed strategy statement from the Department for the Civil Defence covers this and the definition contained in Schedule 1 to the Bill equates with the internationally accepted definition of civil defence. In any event, the functions of the board contained in section 8 cover all the elements comprising the strategy statement. I am advised the amendment is probably superfluous and the intentions behind it are fully covered in the requirements of the strategy statement and the functions of the board in section 8. I am advised it is inappropriate to put this into legislation in the way contained in the amendment, but I accept the principle behind what the Deputy says and it is covered.
I thank the Minister and withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, subsection (5), line 43, to delete", 12(5) or 26” and substitute “or 12(5)”.
This is a textual amendment. It is brought forward to obviate the necessity from a practical point of view to bring before the House each order which may have to be made in future regarding directions from the Minister concerning the use, provision or lending of equipment by the board. In current circumstances, for example, where there is a threat of industrial action, instructions may have to come from the Minister relating to the use, provision or lending of equipment by the board. The amendment clarifies that it is unnecessary for the order to come before the House each time the Minister wishes to issue a direction. It gives him or her a general power to issue these instructions to the board.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are related and all may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "14" and substitute "12".
I am aware Deputies Timmins and Wall have tabled amendments to the effect that an Army officer or member of the Defence Forces should be on the board. I would like to hear the Deputies' comments on that matter and reconsider it for Report Stage. It has been pointed out to me that there is no representative of the Garda Síochána on the board and, on a day-to-day basis, the Civil Defence works more closely with the Garda in that it is regularly called in by the force rather than by the Defence Forces. It probably would not be very balanced to have one without the other.
Although I do not have a problem with appointing an Army officer or representative to the board on the nomination of the Chief of Staff, which is what Deputy Timmins wants to do, and while the Defence Forces would have a great deal to offer on a board such as this, the matter will have to be examined in conjunction with the Garda Síochána aspect of it. It strikes me that representatives of either both or none would have to be appointed because the Civil Defence works closely with both organisations. I would like to hear the Deputies' views on the matter and, if they feel strongly about it, we will examine it between now and Report Stage.
The expertise needed for Civil Defence is also available to the Defence Forces and is broader than that available to the Garda. In this regard, one would complement the other and the experience of the Defence Forces in search and rescue etc. would be of invaluable assistance to members of the Civil Defence. This is not available generally from the Garda.
I agree with what the Minister of State said concerning the Garda and that the first link is between the force and the Civil Defence. My concern relates to how the benefit and expertise of the Defence Forces would be of assistance to the Civil Defence rather than to the issue of with whom it interacts. It would be a case of expertise being handed down by the Defence Forces relating to its workings and development, the benefit of which would be of assistance and mean a great deal to the Civil Defence. I understand what the Minister of State said about the Garda and how that is the commonest ground in which we see the Civil Defence working, but the participation of the Defence Forces still has something to offer concerning the overall development of the Civil Defence. That was my view in tabling the amendment.
I have had representations for which it was unfortunately too late to table an amendment, although we may be able to examine them later, relating to the General Council of County Councils which is upset that it was not included on the board. We are debating the requirement of local authorities to compile reports, yet a representative from the General Council of County Councils has not been included on the board. Perhaps the Minister of State could review that and come back to us on Report Stage. In the context of requiring local authorities to compile reports, it would create a link to have a representative from the General Council of County Councils on the board. Perhaps the Minister of State would address that when replying to this amendment.
Given the difficulties we had following 11 September with the concept of a national emergency plan and having seen the reports of the State archives of the 1970s which stated that moving the Irish Army to the North would have required the use of CIE transport, one of the shortfalls in this country is that we have to reinvent the wheel to a certain degree each time we have an emergency. I referred on Second Stage to the cross-pollination of bodies. While we should not be like the Israeli state where the police and military run everything, it is important that groups with certain expertise which may have contact with each other during an emergency have that communication without having to set it up from scratch each time an emergency occurs.
The point the Minister of State mentioned is valid, and I appreciate that the Garda has a role, albeit a different one from the military, vis-à-vis the Civil Defence. I would appreciate it if he could examine this for Report Stage. Perhaps my amendment should have been drafted so that the representative would have been appointed by the Minister for Defence and perhaps something could be included for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am happy to withdraw the amendments if the Minister of State will examine this for Report Stage.
In this regard, how fares amendment No. 5, which corrects a mistake in the Bill? It refers to the fact that 14 members would constitute the board while the Minister's amendment refers to 12. Does that amendment stand or will it be withdrawn? We could go back to the 14 and include one from the Garda and one from the Defence Forces.
Before coming to that, I omitted to mention that in relation to section 9 it is my intention, on Report Stage, to put down an amendment which would allow the Minister to take over the functions of the board in the case of a national emergency. Obviously that is not part of the Bill yet. In other words, the Minister could take back that power. I give notice that I will bring forward an amendment to that effect on Report Stage. If the Government deems it necessary in the case of a national emergency, the Minister will take back those powers and the board's powers will be suspended.
Regarding the Deputy's point about section 10, I have listened to both Deputies and I want to consider their comments. It is obvious that if I reduced the number to 12 now it would not be possible to include the Garda and the Army, and certainly not the county councils. It is worth pointing out that the Red Cross has 12 members on its board and that 12 is a very traditional figure, whether it is for juries or apostles. It is unrealistic to go beyond a certain figure. A long list of people are represented. Deputy Wall mentioned that county councils and county and city managers are being represented, though I appreciate they are not members of councils.
That is why we have had representations on this. The General Council of County Councils is an active body. Every councillor in the country is happy with it, even if they are not happy with the negotiations that took place. The general council is very active under Liam Kenny and is active in relating to councillors. I am a county councillor and on a regular basis I get information from the General Council of County Councils. If we are to have a report prepared by the local authorities, a representative on the board would obviously be helpful as the General Council of County Councils would bring him or her up to speed. In that light there is a positive aspect to including such a representative on the board.
I declare an interest in that my late father was a member of the Army medical corps in St. Bricken's hospital. He was also an instructor for the Civil Defence and Red Cross in what was then first aid but is now paramedic training. I do not know if it is still the norm in the Civil Defence but he did the entire training with its members. In light of the amendments put down by Deputies Timmins and Wall, it would be ideal to have a person in that position on the board if the Minister of State considers an amendment for Report Stage.
If this amendment is withdrawn the number will stay at 14 and we will consider what has been said. The idea was to have as many representatives as possible on the board of people with executive functions, for example, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, county managers and so on. We will give some thought to what has been said and we will consider it on Report Stage. I will withdraw amendment No. 5.
I appreciate that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, subsection (2), line 3, to delete "include" and substitute "be".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, subsection (3), lines 23 and 24, to delete all words from and including "have" in line 23 down to and including "time," in line 24 and substitute "comply with the requirement that not less than 40 per cent of the members shall be men and not less than 40 per cent of the members shall be women.".
This is a straightforward amendment. Is it taken that in each board established the gender balance has to be adhered to.
There is a standard provision in all legislation.
It is not written into the Bill as far as I can ascertain.
Section 10(3), page 11, states that the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of an appropriate gender balance as he or she may determine from time to time in making appointments to the board under this section.
That is the Attorney General's advice. That is a fairly standard provision in legislation nowadays. The Deputy wishes to use numbers - 40% and so on. That is not normally done in legislation. Numbers are not included in the Bills I have read.
As I understand it——
We need to be very careful with the Chair on this issue.
The sap is rising.
I see Deputy McGennis is in favour of this as well. I could nearly put this to a vote.
If it is accepted that is the norm I am happy, but it is imperative that if we are to progress the Civil Defence as an equal status organisation we need to ensure that happens.
I would prefer to leave the standard definition.
I will withdraw my amendment.
I do not know if this is the standard definition but it was not the definition up to when we specified 40%. I do not want to muddy the waters but whatever way this is done the 40% should be adhered to. We had a very lengthy presentation - more than two and a half hours - last week from the National Women's Council of Ireland, who gave statistical proven research to show the barriers that exist, particularly for women and decision-making. This is a very important board and if the Minister of State is amenable to the 40% we would all be extremely happy.
Most members of the board will not be nominated by the Minister directly but will come from nominating bodies. I will formally ask the nominating bodies to have regard to this and I would not accept nominations or proceed if they did not respond to that.
When the Minister of State receives a more elevated position after May, I am sure whoever takes on his job will ensure the same.
I cannot comment on that.
I do not want to muddy the waters either and while I agree with the principle of the amendment it will be difficult to implement. Perhaps the Minister of State should examine this before Report Stage. Is he going to get a certain number of bodies to nominate females and a certain number to nominate males? Some organisations have only one member and it could be difficult to implement.
We will rotate in the best possible sense.
I am discussing with officials whether it would be possible to give the Minister the power to refuse the overall board if the nominations coming forward were not gender balanced.
I recall having this difficulty many years ago when I was Minister for Education. Nominations came in from nominating bodies and they had to be sent back.
Perhaps the Minister of State can look at the issue and report back to us on Report Stage.
I would be reluctant to give numbers because I would prefer to stay with a standard definition. I am open to including a clause whereby the Minister will have to be satisfied that a gender balance is being achieved, without which the whole board would not be proceeded with. I will consider something along those lines.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 11, subsection (5), line 29, after "subsection (2)(h)” to insert “after those members have been elected in accordance with procedures for election determined by the Minister for the purposes of such first election”.
The purpose of this amendment is to give impetus to the organisation to elect someone itself. It would create a new image for the Civil Defence in that it would elect someone to a very important position. I hope it is feasible to do so. When there is an election people right across the board are interested. Obviously people will be very interested in this case. I recall that when the Red Cross was setting up a new board there were many representations to me from individual members who wished to be on it. I am sure the same will apply in this instance and that many rank and file members of the Civil Defence will wish to be on the board. I hope the Minister will consider this aspect so that the ultimate can be achieved in terms of grassroots members having a say on the board of the Civil Defence.
I want to clarify the Deputy's objectives in this regard. Is he suggesting the Minister rather than the board should lay down the procedures for electing volunteers?
That is correct.
How?
The procedure would be determined by the Minister of the day, even though the members would decide who should be appointed to the board.
Given the requirement to get the board up and running, what is intended here is that the Minister of the day should nominate volunteers. However, once the board is assembled and begins to do its business, one of the items on the agenda would be how to elect volunteers and put in place a procedure and system which would allow the next batch of volunteers to be elected by the volunteers rather than appointed by the Minister. The section seeks to manage the change-over from nomination by the Minister to the election. The board would probably be in a better position than the Minister to organise the election on a day-to-day basis and negotiate with volunteers as to how this is done. I do not think it would be practical for the first board to have such an election. I do not have strong views on the matter but it may be difficult for the first board to organise an election.
Given the changes envisaged under the Bill, the idea was that this would create an initial interest in the board and an election would create further interest. I would be happy if after the first board is elected or nominated ordinary members can elect members to the board.
That is the intention. Is the Deputy talking about volunteers?
That is all.
That is the intention. The reason this cannot be the case from the beginning is that volunteers do not have an organisation. There are 6,000 Civil Defence volunteers, a great bunch of very enthusiastic people. The gender balance among volunteers is improving dramatically and there is a lot more buzz in the organisation. However, there is no organisation, as such, for volunteers. The board will have to put in place immediately some sort of organisation which can elect members to the second board. I agree with what the Deputy is trying to achieve.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 13, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) The director general may be appointed from outside the permanent Civil Service.".
I tabled the amendment in anticipation of the Minister tabling an amendment that the director general would have to be a member of the permanent Civil Service. Even though he has not tabled such an amendment, perhaps he intends to do so on Report Stage. Therefore, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, I would appreciate if the Minister could signal his intention in this regard.
This has proved to be a difficult issue on which there have been many discussions with officials. My original intention was that the first director general would be from the permanent Civil Service, and that remains my intention. Under the current structure, the organisation is headed up by a director who is an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Defence. That person is the Director of Civil Defence. The current Director of Civil Defence is an Assistant Secretary and, therefore, a permanent Civil Servant. To move in one fell swoop from that situation whereby it is locked into a Department, which has many advantages in terms of management and resources, to the board placing an advertisement in the newspapers and appointing someone from outside would be too big a jump too quickly. It could be very disorientating if the Civil Defence was managed for years by a board of 12 or 14 members who may not have previously worked with Civil Defence sitting around the table with a director general who had not previously worked with Civil Defence and had not been in the Department of Defence.
I am now addressing whether subsequent directors general could be appointed by the board members themselves either from inside or outside the Civil Service. We are currently discussing that aspect. To begin with I was thinking along the same lines as the Deputy. However, it has been put to me very strongly that it might be a jump too far to move directly from within the Civil Service to appointing a new board from outside, which may have no connection with the Civil Defence. This would be to almost privatise with one fell swoop the Civil Defence. If there was a national emergency it might be comforting to have a director general who had the necessary telephone numbers rather than someone appointed from outside who may not be familiar with procedures. It is a judgment which must be made.
I agree with the Minister of State. This goes back to the original amendment relating to members of the Defence Forces. There certainly should be some continuity. However, while I appreciate what the Minister of State has said, it is a bit unusual to restrict personnel who can actually apply for the job to members of the permanent Civil Service. I will withdraw the amendment but will perhaps return to it on Report Stage.
There is nothing in the section or Schedule that says that cannot happen.
As I said on Second Stage, the intention is that an amendment will be tabled to confine the director general's post to the Civil Service. While I began with the same point of view as Deputy Timmins, and I still have views in that direction, the representations being made to me are quite strong in regard to the first director general having a firm link with the Civil Defence and the Department of Defence. I am not sure if a new board would have the confidence to advertise the post and deliver a director general. I do not know if that would be possible but I will consider the matter between now and Report Stage.
There is also a trade union issue here, the background to which is rather deep. It relates to the partnership agreements and the role of the permanent Civil Service on State boards. Many other issues arise from this, which I could spend days explaining. I am reasonably convinced that the first director general, for the sake of transition, should be a civil servant. After that I would like to open up the post and I am taking legal and official advice in that regard.
Is it the intention that the Minister will appoint the first director general, or will it be open to competition among civil servants?
The intention is that the Minister will appoint the first director general.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment for the moment.
The appointment would not be a surprise. It would be within the context of the present organisation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 13, amendment No. 17 is cognate and amendments Nos. 18 to 20 are consequential on amendment No. 17. Therefore, amendments Nos. 13 to 20, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 1, to delete "is".
These are contextual amendments intended to clarify the intention of the Bill. They do not change the substance of the section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 14, subsection (1)(a), line 2, before “nominated” to insert “is”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 14, subsection (1)(b), line 3, before “elected” to insert “is”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 14, subsection (1)(c), line 5, before “regarded” to insert “is”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 14, subsection (2), line 11, to delete "is".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 14, subsection (2)(a), line 12, before “nominated” to insert “is”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 14, subsection (2)(b), line 13, before “elected” to insert “is”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 14, subsection (2)(c), line 15, before “regarded” to insert “is”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 16, subsection (1)(d), line 17, before “a consultant” to insert “any other person engaged by the Board,”.
This amendment is brought forward to include non-civil servants engaged by the board in the provisions regarding the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. The Bill provides for a uniformed chief civil defence officer. Section 18 will cover him or her with regard to unauthorised disclosures of confidential information. The section forbids the disclosure of unauthorised information by members of the board.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 19 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 23 is an alternative to amendment No. 22 and amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are consequential. Amendments Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive, may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 21, subsection (4), line 7, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) the Recruitment, Education and Training Committee, and”.
I see a need for a link between the recruitment committee and the education and training committee. One committee would be dependent on the other to ensure the best possible requirements were laid down for volunteers and for the Civil Defence as a whole. I do not see how a recruitment committee can function separately from an education and training committee. Communication between them is essential so that feedback from the education and training commitee can be applied to recruitment procedures. Proper recruitment, education and training are most important in ensuring the enthusiasm needed to increase the numbers in the Civil Defence. We all want to see the Civil Defence expand and new branches created throughout the country. We hope membership will increase from the current number of 6,000. Communication between those concerned with recruitment, education and training would be of major benefit in that regard.
I concur with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Wall. Four sub-committees is probably too many. Three would be adequate.
I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 23 in favour of Deputy Wall's amendment.
Both Deputies are concerned to reduce the number of committees and they also believe recruitment should not stand on its own. I approached this matter from the point of view that recruitment was a big issue and should be separate from training, education, safety, health, procurement and so on. The Deputies amendments differ in that Deputy Timmins wants to put recruitment with the procurement committee while Deputy Wall wants to put it with the education and training committee.
It has also been argued that recruitment should be the responsibility of the planning and development commitee because recruitment and the expansion of membership is a strategic matter while training is concerned with the training of existing members. I would be happy to accept the Deputies' amendments, although the argument that recruitment should be the responsibility of the planning and development committee is also valid and I would be happy to bring forward an amendment to that effect. That might be more appropriate than leaving recruitment with the training committee. The training committee will be concerned with the training of existing volunteers while the recruitment committee would, with public relations experts, devise ways of persuading more members to join the organisation.
I would be happy to reduce the number of committees from four to three, but recruitment would be better dealt with by the planning and development committee, which would become the planning, development and recruitment committee. I think that accepts the spirit of the Deputies' amendments and I will bring forward an amendment to this effect on Report Stage.
I am happy to accept the Minister's proposal.
Acting Chairman
The Minister's proposal to draft a new amendment is agreed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 27 agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 22, subsection (1), line 17, to delete "6 months" and substitute "9 months".
This amendment proposes to extend the period of the first strategic plan from six to nine months. The subsection will now read, "not later than nine months after the first meeting of the board". It provides more time and it has been put to me that such a time period is required.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 23, subsection (1), lines 8 and 9, to delete "a plan (in this Act referred to as a 'civil defence plan')" and substitute "a civil defence plan".
This amendment clarifies the section by deleting "a plan" and substituting "a civil defence plan".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 23, subsection (3), line 24, to delete "3" and substitute "5".
In the debate on Second Stage, I said I had been talking to the Kildare county manager about the various plans and reports before the local authority. This is another one we will have on a regular basis. I do not see the reason for a review every three years. The new board, in its wisdom, would not want to have a report every three years, especially in the initial stages. It would be more appropriate to have a review of the board's workings every five years, along with its links to the local authorities and other interested parties, including the Garda Síochána. A three year review period is too tight for local authorities. Five years would be far more appropriate and would relate to the new recruitment initiatives. There would be more to gain from an overall review of the Civil Defence by local authorities every five years.
The Deputy spoke about this on Second Stage and I understand his viewpoint. Strategic plans in the public service are currently held every two to three years, and that system has become commonplace. Five year plans are almost in the realm of fortune telling. One cannot have five week plans in politics, not to mind five year plans. Most organisations have given up the idea of such a lengthy cycle, because by year three or four the figures do not add up. Most large organisations encapsulate their planning in the annual report, which is what we have provided for in this case. They lay out their strategic intentions for the coming 12 months. Even laying down plans and programmes for three years can mean stretching matters.
I know what the Deputy wants to achieve. He wants to reduce the bureaucracy and I share his view on that. Perhaps we can build something into this section to state that a strategic plan does not have to be a 300-page document with charts, graphs and photographs of the chairman, which is what they usually look like.
And the members of the committee.
And the Minister. Strategic plans do not have to be like that. Increasingly, and particularly in the United States, strategic plans for major organisations consist of two or three pages where they lay down the direction the organisation will take. They do not start crunching the numbers, which is fictitious. Nobody can foresee the next five years, although they can set a general direction to take.
To respond to the Deputy's point, I will leave the period at three years and instruct them to keep this strategic plan in summary form, pinpointing the directions and main issues towards which they are aiming, without producing enormous reports. If it were changed to five years they may sit back after the first year and say, "We don't have to make any strategic announcements for four more years". One could lose out as a result because it would be better to hear from them on a regular basis as to where they are going. Perhaps a slim, summary plan would be best. We could insert the words "a summary strategic plan every three years" if that would help the Deputy. I would be happy with that.
The Minister knows - the other two Deputies present are members of local authorities also - that every time we have a council meeting we receive a large number of reports and reviews. It is not feasible for members of local authorities to address that amount of material. The amendment aims to give local authorities the benefit so that they would give some thought to the matter. The Minister's suggestion of a summary plan would certainly be of some benefit to local authorities. I would be happy with that.
Under section 29(2)(b), the Minister can lay down that the plan be prepared in the form and manner the Minister may from time to time direct. We could direct that it be prepared in summary form every three years. We could provide a template and advise local authorities accordingly.
Okay, I agree with that.
If we could do that with the Estimates it would be terrific.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 30, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Section 30, line 7, states, "no later than nine months after the establishment day, each local authority shall submit to the board a plan". I expressed my concern about this on Second Stage. Is it not unreasonable to say a local authority will not prepare the strategic plan until the board has completed its plan? Perhaps I am missing something here. Initially, six months after the establishment day the board had to have its plan. The Minister's amendment has extended that period to nine months. I am a member of a local authority and I would be very slow to establish the authority's plan until the board's plan was established. I would take my riding instructions from the board.
The Deputy is right in saying they need to be aligned. I will look at how that might be achieved.
That is fair enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 31 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 26, lines 12 to 25, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
"(5) The Board shall appoint a person who shall be a uniformed officer to be known as the 'Chief Civil Defence Officer' to perform such ceremonial or related functions as the Board may determine and who shall hold office on the terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to remuneration and allowances for expenses) that the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may determine.".
This proposal, which I mentioned on Second Stage, is in line with other organisations, such as the Army, Garda, the Order of Malta, the Boy Scouts and so on, which have an individual at the head who is a uniformed person who performs ceremonial and other duties. At present, the Civil Defence has only volunteers and civil defence officers, above whom is the Assistant Secretary at the Department of Defence, but there is no figurehead for the organisation. We thought that "Chief Civil Defence Officer" was the most appropriate title. This officer will perform mostly ceremonial duties as the board's chief executive will undertake the executive work.
Will it be based in Roscrea?
The national organisation will be.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 36 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 29, paragraph (3), line 10, to delete "subparagraph” and substitute “paragraph”.
This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 32 is consequential on amendment No. 33, and both may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 29, paragraph (8), line 31, to delete "(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 29, paragraph (8), lines 40 to 42, to delete subparagraph (2).
Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 31, paragraph (d), line 5, after “material” to insert “or other chemical, biological or radiological emergency”.
This amendment expands the statement in the Schedule and I hope the Minister will include it so as to have a wider brief in this area.
I thank Deputy Wall for including this as it is valuable and I accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 31, paragraph (3), line 25, to delete "(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
FIFTH SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Fifth Schedule be the Fifth Schedule to the Bill."
In the Fifth Schedule, I may bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to clarify the position of the director general, arising from our discussion about it being a Civil Service post. I give notice of that now to avoid technical difficulties then.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I thank the members and my officials for their work. It is the first Civil Defence legislation in 50 years. It is important and will stand the test of time. The constructive way in which it has been approached in the SelectCommittee and the House is appreciated. It enabled the Government to accept amendments from the Opposition, which is useful for such legislation.
I thank the Minister also and hope it goes to Report Stage as soon as possible.
It will be before Easter.
I also thank the Minister. He was helpful with our amendments and I hope he will reconsider the one relating to local authorities.
I too thank the Minister and his officials. I suggest that the Minister, if he has time on Thursday, take the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, which we might also deal with in the same amicable, positive fashion as today, because it might not be dealt with in that way.
The Chief Whips are always amicable, as the Deputy knows.