In 2002, Dr. Michael Ryan was appointed chairman of the Civil Defence Board, However, in the short time that has passed since this appointment the Minister has allowed a situation to develop where there appears to have been a total breakdown in communications between his Department and the Civil Defence Board, and this has now resulted in the dismissal of the chairperson.

Speaking at the time of Dr. Ryan's appointment, the then Minister of State at the Department of Defence and Government Chief Whip, Deputy Brennan, stated he was delighted that people of the highest calibre had agreed to serve on the board. It is hard to credit that things could have gone so badly wrong in the short time since then. We must also have concern for the possible long-term damage to Civil Defence in Ireland that has arisen from this extraordinary situation.

The Minister has questions to answer on this matter. In the first instance, I want to know why he refused to meet with the chairperson and other members of the Civil Defence Board. The chairperson of the Civil Defence Board wrote to the Minister on 28 October 2003 and requested such a meeting. On 12 December 2003 a further letter was sent to an official at the Minister's Department with a similar request. More recently, on 24 March last, the chairperson of the Civil Defence Board wrote again to Minister and urged that he agree to meet a delegation at the earliest opportunity.

Organising such a meeting should have been a straightforward matter. Only a little over a year ago in May 2003, the Minister signed the order establishing the board and declared his full confidence in its membership. Why then did he refuse to extend the basic courtesy of a meeting to the members of the Civil Defence Board?

Decentralisation is also an issue in this astounding situation. I am aware that the Civil Defence Board has grave concerns that the facility selected for decentralisation to Roscrea will not meet the future needs for the development of Civil Defence in Ireland. The board has ambitious plans for the role and expansion of Civil Defence. Obviously, if the board has concerns with regard to the selected building, it has an obligation to voice these concerns. However, in raising this matter with the Minister the chairperson of the Civil Defence Board has discovered that the Minister is only interested in pursuing the decision already made, regardless of whether it meets the needs of Civil Defence. Voices of dissent will not be tolerated.

I wish to raise the failure of Minister to implement the Civil Defence Act 2002. This perhaps has been the most contentious point in the relationship between the Department of Defence and the Civil Defence Board. It is clear from the Civil Defence Act 2002 that the board must assume a variety of important functions, and that it does not exist simply to advise the Minister, although it does have some consultative and advisory roles.

It is clear that the Civil Defence Board has fundamental concerns that the key elements for which the board has responsibility, such as staffing, finance and facilities, have been retained by the Department of Defence contrary to the Civil Defence Act 2002. For example, the Minister has failed to appoint members of staff to the Civil Defence Board, and the budget and estimates for the activities of the board have been decided upon by the Minister without any consultation with the board. In failing to provide the Civil Defence Board with the staff it requires to carry out its statutory functions and in retaining all control on matters of finance and facilities, it is clear that the Minister has reserved to his Department functions that are clearly vested in the Civil Defence Board under the 2002 Act.

Civil Defence is critical to the security and protection of people in the State, and is relied upon for the smooth and safe running of many events around the country. Civil Defence volunteers offer invaluable support to the Garda and Defence Forces. This support should be built upon, not weakened. However, in failing to meet the Civil Defence Board, in railroading through decisions on decentralisation without any regard to concern or consultation, and in centralising power in his Department, the Minister has damaged Civil Defence and must account for his actions to this House.

On 23 April 2004, I requested the Secretary General of my Department to carry out an investigation of the manner in which Dr. Micheál Ryan had been carrying out his duties as chairman of the Civil Defence Board.

On 4 May 2004, having considered the Secretary General's report, I wrote to Dr. Ryan informing him that I was contemplating his removal as chairperson and as a member of the Civil Defence Board pursuant to paragraph 7, Schedule 2, of the Civil Defence Act 2002 on the basis that it might be necessary for the effective performance of the functions of the Civil Defence Board. I invited him to write to me within 14 days, namely, by 18 May, making any representations that he wished to make in regard to my proposed course of action. I undertook to consider his representations in conjunction with the report of the Secretary General before making a final decision. Owing to Dr. Ryan's absence abroad on holidays and at the request of his legal representatives, I extended the period for reply until 14 June.

A reply from Dr. Ryan's solicitors and a statement prepared by Dr. Ryan were provided on 11 June. I reviewed the report of the investigation carried out by the Secretary General of my Department and the documentation received from the solicitors. This review led me to form the opinion that Dr. Ryan's actions have hampered the effective performance of the Civil Defence Board's functions pursuant to sections 8(1)(n) and 8(1)(o) of the Civil Defence Act 2002. I formed the opinion that the functioning of the board was hampered by the following actions.

Dr. Ryan contacted the owners of properties adjacent to the property chosen for the Civil Defence headquarters in Roscrea, to use Dr. Ryan's words, "to seek out any potential objections or difficulties which may arise". The effect of this contact was apparently to ridicule the choice of Civil Defence headquarters. This led to one of the said owners contacting me through a third party and had the effect of undermining my decision to decentralise Civil Defence to Roscrea.

At a Civil Defence Board meeting on 4 March 2004, Dr. Ryan asserted that he needed to consider his position because of his relationship with the director general and adjourned the meeting, having advised the board that it could not convene in his absence. This had the effect of hampering the effective performance by the board of its functions and, in particular, the board's function of advising and assisting the director general pursuant to section 8(1)(o) of the Civil Defence Act 2002.

Dr. Ryan gave an address at a Civil Defence conference on 3 April 2004 in which he indicated that he proposed to fill the post of chief Civil Defence officer without sanction, contrary to the provisions of section 36(5) of the Civil Defence Act 2002 which are as follows:

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.

Dr. Ryan asserted that he did not infringe this section or advocate any course of action which sought to infringe the above section. What Dr. Ryan asserted, as referred to at the conference, was a proposal under which a part-time Civil Defence officer would be appointed to accept the role of chief Civil Defence officer on a voluntary basis at no cost to the State until such time as a fully sanctioned position as chief Civil Defence officer arose.

I therefore formed the view that, on his own admission, Dr. Ryan proposed to fulfil the post of chief Civil Defence officer without sanction. It is clear from the terms of section 36(5) that the terms and conditions of the chief Civil Defence officer are for me, as Minister, to determine. If it were proposed to appoint a chief Civil Defence officer on a voluntary basis, I would still have to sanction the terms and conditions of that officer's appointment. By referring to this proposal Dr. Ryan hampered the effective performance by the board of its functions pursuant to section 8(1) in general and section 8(1)(o) in particular.

I therefore decided, pursuant to powers conferred on me by paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 of the Civil Defence Act 2002, to remove Dr. Ryan as a member of the Civil Defence Board, with immediate effect, as it appeared to me that his removal was necessary for the effective performance by the board of its functions. In this regard, I wrote to Dr. Ryan on 24 June 2004 informing him of my decision.

There is no crisis within the board. I took the action of removing the chairman as I consider this course to be in the best interests of Civil Defence nationwide. The organisation continues to serve local communities in a voluntary and selfless way. I have appointed a new chairman to the Civil Defence board and I want the board to concentrate on the development of the organisation in the interests of local communities.

I intend to continue to assist it in every way I can. I have increased the Estimate for Civil Defence each year since my appointment. It has purchased 116 ambulances, we invested €2 million in protective clothing and we will continue to serve the interests of Civil Defence without fear or favour.