These Stages have to conclude at 6 p.m. if not previously concluded.
Civil Defence Bill, 2002: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 11, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"10.–(1) (a) The Government may by order transfer to the Minister a function or functions of the Board where, in the opinion of the Government, there is an emergency or apprehended emergency that involves a serious risk to persons or property of such a nature or magnitude that it is necessary and expedient that the function be performed by the Minister.
(b) The Government may by order amend or revoke an order under this subsection (including an order under this paragraph).
(c) If a provision of an order under this subsection that transfers a function is revoked, the function shall thereupon become and be vested in the Board.
(2) (a) An order under this section may contain such ancillary, subsidiary and inci dental provisions as the Government may determine, including provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities associated with a function or functions so transferred.
(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), an order under this section may—
(i) specify terms, conditions and restrictions upon and subject to which a function transferred by the order is to be performed by the Minister,
(ii) provide for the use by the Minister of the services of the staff of the Board,
(iii) provide for such financial arrangements and adjustments between the Board and the Minister as are considered proper by the Government,
(iv) provide for such other matters as are considered by the Government to be necessary to enable the transfer of a function to which the order relates to have full effect and to enable the function to be performed by the Minister.".
On Committee Stage I proposed to introduce an amendment on Report Stage which would allow the Minister, on foot of a Government order, to make a declaration that a situation of major or national emergency had arisen and to take over the functions of the board for the duration. This provision would only be exercised with the full authority of the Government. This amendment provides for that contingency. The Deputies will recall that I indicated on Committee Stage that this proposal was necessary to allow the Government of the day to withdraw the powers of the board and to take them over in the case of an emergency. This amendment provides that the Government may withdraw the authority of the board in those circumstances only.
This is a desirable amendment, which the Minister of State flagged on Committee Stage, and I am happy to agree to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 is in the name of Deputy Wall. Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, are related and amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are alternatives to amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 5 is consequential on No. 6 so the proposal is to take amendments Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(b) an officer of the Minister appointed in that behalf by the Minister,”.
The argument I make is for the inclusion of a nominee of the General Council of County Councils on the Civil Service board. I have had numerous representations on this matter. As they have a certain status in local government, councillors are of the view that they should have representation on relevant boards such as the Civil Defence board. We agreed on Committee Stage that the report would be produced every three years rather than every five years. I supported the view that a report should be produced every five years because there would be too much pressure on a local authority to produce one every three years, but the Minister of State, in his wisdom, decided on three years having made a case in that regard.
That puts more emphasis on including a member of the General Council of County Councils on what will be the Civil Defence board because what is expected of the board and in terms of the reports will relate back through the system to the local authorities. Thanks to the general secretary and the board of the General Council of County Councils, local authorities are well organised in terms of getting information to councillors and this is an ideal opportunity for the Minister to acknowledge that. The Minister would be giving positions to people who want them. They want to be involved in the mechanism of better local government and the three yearly Civil Defence report will be part of that improvement in terms of Civil Defence involvement in local authorities.
I hope the Minister will accept a nominee from the General Council of County Councils, even among one of the four ministerial appointees, because they can bring their expertise to the board together with the Garda and Defence Forces representatives and perhaps give an opposite view to that of the county managers association. We would then have a full brief in terms of Civil Defence matters and the full involvement of the local authorities through the representative of the general council. I hope the Minister will consider that favourably because the relevance of such a proposal cannot be over-emphasised. The other amendments are fairly technical. There is nothing of consequence in them so I appeal to the Minister to consider one of the appointees to be a nominee of the General Council of County Councils because of the way it has organised its conferences and the way it relates to every local authority throughout the country. It is to be congratulated on that and if it does not get this position it will be a rebuff to the council in terms of all the work it has done to date.
I thank the Minister of State for bringing forward some of these amendments which are in line with issues raised by Deputy Wall and me on Committee Stage. We both referred to the desire to have a member of the Defence Forces on the board for expertise and linkage purposes. The Minister pointed out that the position is similar in the case of the Garda Síochána. The amendment is welcome. I hate harking back to Roscrea, but I want to confirm whether Roscrea will be the headquarters of the board? Deputy Wall's point that one of the board members should be a representative of the General Council of County Councils is the main bone of contention. It is provided that one representative will be nominated by the County and City Managers Association. The idea behind the devolution of power to ensure better local government and the concept of directly elected mayors is to give power back to the elected members of local authorities. In many respects, the work of a local authority impacts to a much greater extent than the work of central Government on an individual in his or her day to day life, yet elected representatives have little or no power. Often they are there almost as a sufferance to management in the council. That will change in the future. It would be desirable if a member of the General Council of County Councils were represented on the board. I would like to hear the Minister of State's view on that. Amendment No. 19a provides for the deletion of lines 34 and 35 on page 14, which refer to disqualifying a member of a local authority from being on the board. Perhaps the Minister of State will elaborate on that proposal, if that is in order – there may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I will deal with the Deputy's last point first. We will remove that prohibition so that a member of a local authority can be a member of the board. I do not disagree with the principle of the desirability of having local public representatives on a board such as this. Our difficulty is that it is already provided that the board will have 14 members. Apart from the director general, there will be a nomination to the board from the County and City Managers Association, a person nominated by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government with expertise in emergency planning, a nominee of the Radiological Protection Institute, a person nominated by the Environmental Protection Agency, a member of the Civil Defence officers, a volunteer member of the Civil Defence and a member of the staff of the board. In response to points made by Deputies Timmins and Wall, I have added two more members to the board, a nominee of the Garda Commissioner and a nominee of the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces. I take the point that if the Civil Defence has to deal with emergencies, those two authorities should be represented on the board.
I think I have met the Deputies' requests more than half way to the extent of removing the prohibition against a councillor being on the board. This is appropriate and I am glad the Deputies brought that to my attention.
In response to Deputy Wall's point, the Minister of the day will appoint four nominees to the board and it would be appropriate that one of those nominees would be a nominee of the Gen eral Council of County Councils. I do not have a problem with that proposal. We will seriously consider doing that in regard to the first board. That is the right way to proceed.
To the extent that there is a political dotted line, rather than the nominee bodies, the political dotted line will come from the Minister of the day in the form of his or her four nominees. If one of those four is a nomination from the General Council of County Councils, there is an appropriateness about that proposal.
I have met the Deputies' requirements in two ways, by removing the prohibition against a member of a local authority being a member of the board and indicating my personal support that one of the Minister's four nominations should be a nominee from the General Council of County Councils.
Amendment No. 3 proposes that the Minister's four nominees to the board should be reduced to three. For obvious reasons it is better to leave that number at four because it will allow for more members.
Amendment No. 4 deals with Deputy Wall's proposal that one of the members of the board should be a nominee of the General Council of County Councils, to which I responded. Amendment No. 5 is a typographical one. Amendment No. 6 is in my name. Amendment No. 7 in Deputy Timmins's name proposes the inclusion on the board of additional members. I indicated that a member of the Garda Síochána and a member of the Defence Forces will be appointed to the board.
The Minister of State has come up with an Irish solution to an Irish problem. As he has given a clear indication that the Minister of the day will appoint a nominee of the General Council of County Councils to the first board, as permitted under section 10(c) – I hope it will be a case of once one gets a foot in the door it is hard to put one out – I will be happy to withdraw amendments Nos. 3, 4 – although it is also in Deputy Wall's name – and 7.
I will also withdraw the amendments in my name. The Minister of State's approach might be an Irish solution to an Irish problem but it is a sensible one. The Minister of the day will have to deal with the General Council of County Councils in following up on what the Minister of State said. I appreciate what he said and thank him for what he has agreed to do. I am sure the General Council of County Councils will be more than pleased that a provision will be made to allow one of its nominees to be a member of the board and that such a provision will be facilitated by way of the Minister's four nominees.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 11, line 21, to delete "and".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(h) an officer of the Defence Forces nominated by the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces,
(i) a member of the Garda Síochána nominated by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I want to clarify that this Bill is to conclude not later than 6.30 p.m., not 6 p.m.
Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 8 and they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11 to delete lines 25 to 27 and substitute the following:
"(3) In making appointments to the Board under this section, the Minister shall ensure that not less than 4 of the members of the Board shall be women and not less than 4 shall be men.".
As I indicated on Committee Stage, I have taken further advice on this matter. I consider this amendment will adequately allow for appropriate gender balance on the board, as requested by Deputies McGennis and Wall during the Committee Stage debate. The amendment will ensure that at least four members of each gender will be included on all future Civil Defence boards, even where only a minimum of eight members are appointed.
Amendment No. 9 in Deputy Wall's name proposes a different formula to achieve the same objective. Rather than provide for a percentage, my legal advice is that it is better to proceed this way, to lay down in law that at least four members will be women and four members will be men. That will allow the other six members of the board to be dealt with as the need arises. I expect the nominating bodies to play their part in this. As has happened previously in respect of a number of Bills, such bodies have left that matter to the Minister of the day and have not taken account of it. I expect future Ministers to ensure that the list of bodies that will make nominations to the board will take account of the gender balance requirement. This is a good formula and is not far removed from what Deputy Wall wants. My advice is that this is a better way to do it from a legal point of view.
I accept what the Minister says. I am pleased to note that we have made the change as it is important that we take account of gender balance in any legislation under which such boards exist. When this issue arises I hope the Minister of the day will inform members of the nominating body that it is expected that the gender balance of the nominees will reflect that of the board. I have no problem withdrawing the amendment.
I welcome amendment No. 8 which deals with gender balance and takes into consideration Deputy Wall's amendment. Can the Minister clarify one point? Each independent body has a right to nominate anybody it likes whether male or female. Is it the case, therefore, that the only power the Minister will have is to refuse a nomination? If a body decides to nominate Mr. X and the Minister is seeking a woman he can refuse to accept the nomination. Is that the only thing he can do?
That is precisely the case. The section states that the board should consist of at least eight members but not more than 14, who shall be appointed by the Minister. All of the nominating bodies, such as the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, will send the names of nominees to the Minister who could, under the legislation, refuse to make the appointment. I presume the Minister will be required to agree with the nomination. There is no time limit but the Minister will ultimately be required to agree with the nomination under the Act. A Minister could, in the first instance, refuse on the basis that no attempt was made to reflect gender balance and I expect that the Minister of the day would prevail in that argument by not making the appointment until he is satisfied that the requirement was met.
Although it is probably too late for this, would it be possible to have something written into the legislation to provide for the rotation of bodies which produce nominees? Maybe that would be too prescriptive. I am not sure whether that could be done.
It probably is too prescriptive and it would become very cumbersome. We are putting into law the requirement for a minimum of four men and four women. I expect, and I will insist with regard to the first authority, that the issue of gender balance be taken seriously by the nominating body and I expect future Ministers to do exactly the same. There are a number of precedents for this. I recall from my time as Minister for Education that on a number of occasions I had to return nominations from bodies because they had not taken account of requirements such as this. Once I had taken that action there was no difficulty. The bodies reconsidered the nominations and they were mostly accommodating. In this day and age a heavy hand should not be applied. I am happy that the Minister of the day will have the authority to insist on a proper gender balance in the nominations and that it will not be left to the Minister. Whether it is acted upon by the nominating bodies or by the Minister, four and four is a good formula.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Amendment No. 10 would provide for the Minister, rather than the board, to lay down requirements for elections.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Amendment No. 12 is an alternative to No. 11 and Nos. 16, 26 and 27 are consequential on No. 11. We will discuss amendments Nos. 11, 12, 16, 26 and 27 together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 13, to delete lines 24 to 30 and substitute the following:
"13.–(1) There shall be a chief executive officer of the Board who shall be known and is referred to in this Act as the ‘director general'.
(2) The first director general shall be a civil servant appointed by the Minister and shall, upon such appointment, be a civil servant in the Civil Service of the State.
(3) Each subsequent director general shall be appointed by the Minister, with the agreement of the Board, on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commissioners and shall, upon such appointment, be a civil servant in the Civil Service of the State.".
This is to do with the chief executive officer of the board. I indicated on Committee Stage that I had given much thought to the appointment of the first and subsequent directors general of the board. I am satisfied this amendment provides a mechanism for the smooth and efficient establishment of the Civil Defence Board and its administration. It also provides for flexibility in the management of the board in the future. The amendment is very carefully crafted, especially section 13(3). I have had extensive discussions with my officials about this. I am proposing that the first director general will be a civil servant. That is important for continuity. Due to the fact that Civil Defence is in the business of dealing with emergencies it is also important that the director general has the kind of State authority a civil servant would have. The director of Civil Defence has been a civil servant for many years and that has been very useful due to the direct connection with the Department.
Thereafter, directors general are to be appointed with the agreement of the board. Any competition is to be organised by the Civil Service Commission which will then recommend a person. However, once a person, who may come from outside the Civil Service, is selected he or she will become a civil servant. We arrived at this formula after much discussion. I accepted the view that it would be useful if non-civil servants were able to apply for the post down the line. Somebody who worked in a similar organisation in Canada or the USA, for example, might be available to take up such a post and his or her experience could be useful. However, that person would then be appointed to the Civil Service of the State because from the point of view of links and the possibility of emergencies it is desirable that the person at the centre of the organisation has the authority necessary for dealing with the Garda, the Army, the Minister and various bodies.
The Minister flagged this amendment on Second Stage and mentioned it on Committee Stage. I would have had some concerns if it had been intended that the competition be confined to a certain group for ever. There is merit in what the Minister said. In the current climate and in the interest of getting the post established it is perhaps better on this occasion that a member of the permanent Civil Service be appointed to the position of director general. It is also desirable that people from outside the Civil Service be able to apply for the position subsequently, even though somebody else from the Civil Service may eventually be appointed and do a better job. I am happy not to move amendment No. 12.
The Minister has obviously put much thought into this amendment because there was a great deal of discussion about it on Committee Stage. I received a letter on the subject from a Civil Defence officer, from which I will read the following paragraph:
The current system of the Civil Defence Branch of the Department of Defence and interaction with Local Authorities and Civil Defence Officers has worked well, however it may be seen in a different light under a new structure with a Board and a Chief Executive Officer/Director General. Will Civil Defence Officers be able to apply for the position of C.E.O/Director General? Will local Civil Defence Officers have to report to two masters? What will be the length of service of the Board?
Obviously, Civil Defence officers will not be able to apply for the post in the initial stages but will subsequently be in a position to do so. I support the Minister's amendment which addresses the queries raised by my party on Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 14, line 4, after "Parliament,", to insert "or".
Any director general appointed under the Bill will become a civil servant of the State and would consequently be prohibited from election to any of the bodies named in the section. This prohibition is being deleted. It is consequential on our earlier discussion.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 14, line 7, after "Parliament,", to delete "or".
Any director general appointed under the Bill will become a civil servant and consequently any provisions relating to terms and conditions, including superannuation, are not applicable and therefore require to be deleted. This too is consequential on our earlier discussion.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 14, to delete line 8.
This is to amend typographical error.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 has already been discussed. I call on the Minister to formally move amendment No. 16.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 14, line 10, to delete "(including the director general)".
As indicated on Committee Stage, I have considered this matter further and accordingly, in bringing forward these amendments, I have removed the prohibition on a member of a local authority becoming a member of the board.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 14, line 14, after "Parliament,", to insert "or".
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are to amend typographical errors.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 14, line 17, after "Parliament,", to delete "or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 14, to delete line 18.
We are deleting the reference to staff members to reflect the same position as that applicable to board members in regard to their prohibition from being members of the board.
Amendment agreed to.
I call on the Minister to move amendment No. 19a which arises out of Committee proceedings.
I move amendment No. 19a:
In page 14, to delete lines 34 and 35.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 is consequential on amendment No. 20. I call on the Minister to move amendment No. 20.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 22, line 8, after "person", to insert "or persons".
This amendment allows for a little more flexibility in regard to the committees. The Bill as originally drafted stated "a person" and we now wish it to read "or persons" to allow more flexibility.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 22, line 8, to delete "has" and substitute "have".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 23, line 7, to delete "9 months" and substitute "12 months".
I have given this matter some thought having taken into account what Deputies had to say on Committee Stage. We are extending the timeframe within which local authorities must submit their civil defence plans to the board. We are giving them an extra three months.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 28 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 26, to delete lines 19 to 23.
This amendment relates to the Director General being a civil servant and the requirement to delete any provisions relating to terms and conditions.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 has already been discussed with amendment No. 11. I call on the Minister to formally move amendment No. 26.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 31, to delete lines 15 to 20.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 has already been discussed with amendment No. 11. I call on the Minister to formally move amendment No. 27.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 31, to delete lines 44 and 45.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 has already been discussed with amendment No. 25. I call on the Minister to formally move amendment No. 28.
I move amendment No. 28
In page 32, to delete lines 1 to 37.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Deputies for their co-operation, in particular Deputies Timmins and Wall who have been with me throughout the debate on this Bill. This is the first Bill on Civil Defence for 50 years. Everybody's input has been useful. This Bill will provide a structure to lead the organisation into the 21st century. I thank Members opposite for their co-operation.
On behalf of Fine Gael, I welcome this very desirable Bill which has grown out of the White Paper on Defence. I know it will be welcomed by many Civil Defence officers who do excellent work and who, up to now, have had no central focus. We must ensure we provide them with sufficient funding in the future. I thank the Minister of State for the positive manner in which he approached the Bill which I hope will be of benefit to all concerned.
I wish to be associated with Deputy Timmins' remarks. It is important we recognise the work undertaken by the Civil Defence. They have not been found wanting in the work they do, be it social or humane. It would be inappropriate of me not to thank the Minister of State for the manner in which he addressed the amendments we tabled to this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.