Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 10: To ask the Minister for Defence if, in relation to the removal of a person (details supplied) as chairman of the Civil Defence Board, he can reconcile, on the one hand, the statement of his predecessor in Dáil Éireann on 29 June 2004, that this person's actions in relation to three specified matters, which he had reviewed, had hampered the effective performance of the Civil Defence Board's functions pursuant to sections 8(1)([i]n[/i]) and 8(1)([i]o[/i]) of the Civil Defence Act 2002 and that his removal was necessary for the effective performance by the board of its functions, with, on the other hand, the terms of the agreed statement in settlement of the judicial review proceedings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12354/05]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The terms of the statement of settlement referred to by the Deputy were agreed by both parties in the context of the former chairman of the Civil Defence Board agreeing not to proceed with his application for judicial review. I consider, therefore, that it would not be appropriate for me at this stage to comment either on that statement or on the statement of my predecessor in this House on 29 June 2004.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The record speaks for itself. I was in the House when the former Minister for Defence made the statement. I am raising this question because the former Minister made a serious allegation against a former chairman of the Civil Defence Board, Dr. Michael Ryan, that I believe should not be allowed to remain on the record. That is the purpose of tabling this question.

On 29 June 2004, the previous Minister suggested that Dr. Ryan had to be removed from his position because he had hampered the effective performance of the Civil Defence Board's functions, and that this removal was necessary for the effective performance of the board's functions.

When Dr. Ryan took a court action for unfair dismissal, the matter was settled on 24 November 2004. As part of the settlement a statement was read by the Minister referring to the honourable and dedicated service of Dr. Ryan, and praising the manner in which he had carried out his responsibilities.

The question is whether the statement made by the Minister or the statement read out in court is correct. Which is it? Does the Minister accept that a serious injustice was done to Dr. Ryan? Will he now formally withdraw the serious accusation against Dr. Ryan? The accusation was made but was changed afterwards by the Minister.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not proper for the names of people who are not Members of the House to be mentioned in the House.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to know exactly what the Minister has to say. An accusation was made but that was changed in court. The accusation made against that person cannot remain on the record of this House.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not make the allegation. I will briefly explain the background. I cannot dispute the validity of anything Deputy Sherlock has said, but except for the settlement, all these events preceded my time in the Department of Defence. When the individual referred to in the question was sacked as chairman of the Civil Defence Board, he initiated an action for judicial review. I told my officials in the Department to keep the matter at arm's length from me because I know the gentleman. He resides in Limerick and does business there, and as I know him personally I did not want to be personally involved in any way.

On the steps of the court an agreement was made that the individual would not pursue his case if the Department agreed certain matters. I was asked by the Secretary General whether I would approve the matter being settled out of court rather than proceeding to a major court case and incurring costs. Being a member of the legal profession, I believed an out of court settlement was the most sensible way to proceed, and said so.

That was my only involvement in the case. I made no allegations and it serves no purpose for me to comment one way or another on allegations made by any other Member of the House.

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He was the Minister's predecessor.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. He made a statement, and in the agreement between the individual concerned and the Department of Defence, the Department made its own statements. As far as I can determine, the matter is now closed.