64 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence if he is considering replacing the chairman of the Civil Defence board and appointing a new chairman; the basis on which this will be done; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17823/04]

On 4 May 2004, I wrote to the chairman of the Civil Defence board regarding his position. A response has been received within the last few days. I will consider the response at the earliest opportunity but pending such consideration it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the issues involved at this stage.

I am a great supporter of the decentralisation policy.

The Deputy should make sure not to take the side track on this. He should keep on the road.

Fan go fóill. Does the Minister accept that the decentralisation situation of the Civil Defence board does not augur well for the decentralisation programme announced in the budget? Four years after the move to Roscrea was first announced the move still has not taken place and less than half of the staff have indicated——

The question is about the appointment of the new chairman, not about decentralisation.

The Chair should hear me out, it is part of the situation. Will the Minister confirm that a premises in Roscrea has been located? Has a contract been signed and will he indicate from whom the building is being leased? These questions have to do with the chairman's position.

The public in my area and this House are aware of the circumstances involved. It is well known that I was anxious this decentralisation would take place to the old Sacred Heart convent in Roscrea. Unfortunately, because of costs associated with the restoration and development of the building to meet the requirements of health and safety, that proved too expensive.

The Office of Public works, which has direct responsibility for the matter of providing Government offices for civil services, then asked for expressions of interest. I understand there were four of these and the OPW decided on one of them independently. Work has been carried out on that building and I understand the tender process for fitting out the final stages is in hand. Some 12 members of the existing staff in Dublin have indicated their wish to transfer to Roscrea and over 100 other applicants from other Departments have also signified an interest in coming to Roscrea. It is clear sufficient numbers are interested in moving there.

The premises is owned by six people who live in or near Roscrea town. One of those was a Fianna Fáil public representative. The decision on that premises had nothing to do with me and I had no hand, act or part in the matter. I resent the implications that I have been involved in some way. It is well known I did not want the Civil Defence to go to that building but to the old Sacred Heart school where it could continue the tradition of education. The Office of Public Works, for good sound reasons, could not proceed on that and independently sought other premises.

I stand over the arrangements made and resent the insinuations. The people of my home town responded positively to them in a way which is the only democratic answer I can give.

Will the Minister confirm that the chairman of the Civil Defence regards the proposed premises as totally unsuitable? Is it appropriate that he should seek the removal of the chairman of the board simply because he objects to the poorly thought out plan?

I have no say in the type of building which will be decided on by the Office of Public Works for the Civil Defence. The OPW decides independently and is an expert in such decisions. I will not go into detail as to why I sought the chairman's resignation, although I admit the decentralisation to Roscrea is part of the reason. There may also be other more fundamental reasons.

At this stage I do not wish to say any more, beyond the fact that when the building is fitted out and people see what has been done, I am quite confident the people who will come and work there will be very happy with the accommodation provided for them.

Will the Minister agree that the central difference of opinion or the crux of the difference of opinion between him and the chairman of the Civil Defence would be the selection of premises in Roscrea?

No.

If it is not the selection of premises in Roscrea, is it perhaps the move to Roscrea?

That among other things. The answer to the first question is "no".

Does the Minister agree that this is indicative of the Government's approach to decentralisation, namely, no planning, consultation or co-ordination——

We must proceed to Question No. 65 as the time has expired for the question.

——and actions being taken on the hoof? It is four years since decentralisation was announced and nothing has happened. Will the Minister say when the Civil Defence will be transferred?

The Chair has called Question No. 65. I ask the Minister to deal with Question No. 65. The time has expired for this question. I have given the Deputy ample latitude.

I just wish to have the position clarified by the Minister. Is he saying that the chairman saying the premises were unsuitable is not the reason he is being removed from office?

I said it is not the only reason. There are more fundamental reasons.

Was that part of the reason?

What are the reasons?

I have called Question No. 65.

I extend my second invitation to Deputies McGinley and Sherlock to inspect the premises since they are much more capable on this matter than I am.

I ask the Minister to deal with Question No. 65.