Emergency effort lacked grit of clear leadership

ANALYSIS:Politicians shirked their responsibilities in the recent severe weather

ONE OF the key debating points over the recent severe weather and flooding crises has been the question of precisely who is responsible for mounting a swift and effective emergency response in any given emergency scenario. For example, exactly two weeks and six days into the arctic weather conditions, Minister for the Environment John Gormley stated on RTÉ's Primetimethat he was not the "Minister for Snow", citing "the legislation" as a rationale for delayed reaction from central government.

The issue of exactly “who is supposed to do what?” in a major emergency has been used as a rhetorical tool by Ministers in recent weeks to evade the question of political responsibility for a timely response to crises. Uniquely, the recent flooding and severe weather crises were slow-moving, entirely predictable emergencies – unlike fast-moving and unexpected events such as tsunamis or earthquakes, for example. The response of central government to these slow-motion emergencies, however, has been inexplicably and indefensibly slow.

In the realm of emergency planning, inaction or delayed responses are defined as risk multipliers and damage multipliers. In other words, if a lead government department, agency or service drags its feet, it exposes citizens to unnecessary and avoidable higher levels of injury, stress or damage.

Therefore, for a government minister, agency or service to prevaricate, procrastinate or dither in the face of an emergency is to fail in their duty of care to the citizen. Inaction or delayed responses represent a clear failure of leadership. The excuses offered by various Ministers in recent days to justify delayed reaction and inaction – at central government level – revolve around legalistic and technical questions of responsibility and demarcation.

However, the Government’s own documents in relation to emergency planning are highly specific and explicit in terms of who is supposed to do what in times of emergency.

Under the Framework for Major Emergency Management, the Government identifies over 30 major emergency scenarios that, in theory, might confront the State, ranging from nuclear accidents to incidents of international terrorism. Annex A of the document, titled Roles and Responsibilities in Emergency Planning, consists of key headings.

The first heading "Emergency Incident Type", outlines the hypothesised emergency. The second heading identifies the "Government Minister" with responsibility for leading the emergency response. The third heading lists the "Lead Response Agency" in regional or local emergencies. The document is a very useful Who's Whoguide to emergency response within the State.

Painstakingly drawn up over a number of years in a consultative process involving all government departments and the primary emergency response agencies, these documents are an idiot-proof guide to who exactly is supposed to do what.

They are available to every Government department and are also online.

For severe weather, the document identifies the Department of the Environment as the department with responsibility for co-ordinating a national response in emergency situations. The website for the Office for Emergency Planning also cites severe weather as a contingency that requires a central government response.

This being the case, despite his protestations to the contrary, it would appear the Minister for the Environment is indeed the “Minister for Snow” or “Heavy Rain” or “High Winds” as the case may arise.

In its latest online version, the Revised Annex A to Strategic Emergency Planning Guidance, the Government document specifies that "All major emergencies requiring Cabinet or Cabinet committee and central media/communications response" are the responsibility of the Department of the Taoiseach. While Taoiseach Brian Cowen instructed the National Emergency Response Co-ordination Committee to convene in response to the severe weather crisis on Thursday of last week, he did not take a leading communications role. That, it would appear, was left to Gormley.

So, with the issues of demarcation and responsibility clarified beyond any doubt in the Government’s own guidelines on major emergency management, there remains only the question of a swift response.

The Government guidelines carry a simple definition of “major emergency”: “an event . . . which causes or threatens death or serious injury, serious disruption of essential services or damage to property, the environment or infrastructure beyond the normal capabilities of the principal emergency services”.

With over 10,000 fractures treated nationwide and over 70 per cent of schools closed due to the cold – and with a nationwide shortage of salt to treat the roads – the severe weather, along with the floods in December, clearly meet the definition of major emergency.

The document states that any of the three departments of Health, Environment or Justice can “declare the emergency”. The guidelines urge a swift and prompt declaration of emergency.

The document further states that the Government’s “core principles” as they apply to emergency management include: the “protection and care of the public at times of vulnerability, clear leadership in times of crisis, and early and appropriate response”.

It would appear the State has the resources to meet most of the major emergencies identified in the documents.

It would also appear the principal Government departments along with the Health Service Executive, an Garda Síochána, the Coast Guard and the Defence Forces have evolved detailed plans to deal with most eventualities under the auspices of the National Emergency Response Co-ordination Committee.

The crucial missing link, however, in recent major emergencies has been Government Ministers with the political skills necessary to declare an emergency and provide “clear leadership in times of crisis”.

Tom Clonan is Irish TimesSecurity Analyst. Further information available at www.emergencyplanning.ie