Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

While Sinn Féin is not opposed to allowing the Civil Defence Bill 2012 to proceed to Committee Stage, it has some concerns about the impact the Bill will have on the functioning and management of Civil Defence. The Civil Defence board, as constituted, represents a broad balance of interests, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Garda, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and the emergency services. There should be no doubt about the value of their input into how Civil Defence functions and, whatever changes are made to the body in this or other legislation, a mechanism must be included to ensure it can draw on the valuable expertise and opinions of these other groups.

If the Bill is passed in its current form and the property and assets are transferred back to the Department of Defence, the result will be a mere €60,000 in savings. This is a very tiny amount in budgetary terms but not to be sniffed at. An extra €60,000 allocated by the Department of Justice and Equality to a women's refuge would make all the difference in terms of how it could provide a service for vulnerable women and child victims of domestic violence. The point is that there is no value in proceeding with legislation on the basis that it will save €60,000 if the lack of expertise on the previous board becomes an issue. If a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of this lack of expertise demonstrates that it will cost more in the long term, obviously, it will not be worth continuing. On that basis, Sinn Féin is examining the legislation to ensure expertise is not lost in the restructuring of the Civil Defence board.

I take the opportunity to commend the work of Civil Defence - the ordinary people across Ireland who do extraordinary things acting in a voluntary capacity as members of communities. I saw this myself in my own home county of Donegal during the spell of severe weather in late 2010-early 2011 when we had snow and freezing cold weather conditions for a sustained period of two months. Civil Defence was deployed to assist the emergency services in keeping everything going. Its members are trained to professional standards and can be called upon at any time to volunteer in emergencies. They do great work and no change should be made that will have a negative impact on their ability to do it. We must maintain the resources and supports available to them.

We have a further concern that the parameters for funding are being changed. What was a responsibility of the local authorities is being transferred to within the Minister's discretion and funding could be cut. I should say this was a responsibility of the Civil Defence board in how it allocated moneys to local authorities, for which there are clear parameters and criteria in place. This will now be done at the Minister's discretion and the fear is that, in the context of ongoing cuts in local authorities, they may not be allocated the necessary resources to support Civil Defence activities in their respective areas. We must receive assurances from the Minister that funding will be maintained for Civil Defence training programmes and activities, as appropriate.

I am also conscious that, while Civil Defence acts in support of the Defence Forces and the emergency services in dealing with the effects of flooding and heavy snowfalls, the Government is engaging in a serious programme of cutbacks within the Defence Forces.

That in itself will lead to its own problems, but we must not allow a situation to develop where the Civil Defence ends up being the fall-back plan when it comes to emergency service provision because the Government has hammered away at it with its cutbacks agenda.

As I said to Minister about the Reserve Defence Forces and the changes in that regard, a mistake was made in not giving adequate time to the representative association to respond and make an input before the so-called value for money report was agreed and published. I do not doubt the Minister of State has the same value and respect for the Reserve Defence Forces and the Civil Defence as I have. It is not about that; it is about involving those affected in the change and the decision-making process. It is clear from the feedback we are getting from the Reserve Defence Forces that they are annoyed about that. I call on the Minister of State to involve the Civil Defence members’ representative association and to invite suggested amendments or ideas from it on the Bill as it moves through Committee Stage. I will do that, but I urge the Minister of State to do the same to ensure that we protect the integrity of everything that has happened to date. We must continue to resource the Civil Defence and give its members the necessary training because they are very proud of what they do. We must continue to facilitate active citizenship. The Minister of State and I both know members of the Civil Defence. They are wonderful people who have a sense of community commitment. They want to do more than the average citizen in terms of contributing and being a backup to the Permanent Defence Force and the emergency services.

The key issues are to ensure that the balance of skills currently available to the Civil Defence Board is maintained in the new arrangements, and that there is an advisory stakeholder role in the future management of the service by the Department. Local authorities must continue to be resourced by the Minister. I ask the Minister of State to give an assurance that will be the case and that the Civil Defence will have what it requires to support its activities. Participation in the Reserve Defence Forces and the Civil Defence are in the main voluntary contributions to community and society by some of our finest citizens. We must show in actions as well as words that we value the contribution and partnership they offer and that we will continue to resource them properly.

See this speech in context