Amendment No. 1 is out of order. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are alternatives to No. 2 and amendments No. 7 and 90 are related. Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, 7 and 90 will be discussed together.
Grangegorman Development Agency Bill 2004: Report Stage.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, to delete lines 4 to 6 and substitute the following:
"‘Grangegorman neighbourhood' has the meaning assigned to it by section 4,”.
A map has been circulated which is relevant to the amendments being discussed and might be of help to Deputies.
The development of the Grangegorman site is of great importance to all Dublin. I accept the reservations expressed on Committee Stage regarding the proportionate interest of those living in proximity to the site as compared with those living in other parts of the city. Amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 90 to the definition of the Grangegorman neighbourhood are designed to reflect these views.
The neighbourhood now consists of eight electoral wards: Arran Quay, wards A to E, inclusive, Inns Quay, wards B and C, and Cabra east, ward C. The location of the Dublin Institute of Technology in this area will greatly enhance not only education and training, which underpin economic activity within the surrounding area, but will also enhance access opportunities, extend cultural facilities, provide for recreational and sporting facilities and the rebuilding and developing of large areas of dereliction, and create direct and indirect employment opportunities. Therefore, in drawing up the amendment, I have sought to reach a balance that will provide access to residents in those areas most likely to be affected and to benefit from the project.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are restrictive and would result in large areas in this part of the city being excluded from having a say in a project that would be of direct benefit to them socially, recreationally, economically and in terms of educational inclusion. I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
I generally accept the Minister's proposal. When we discussed this matter on Committee Stage, I sought to come up with a formula that would achieve what the Minister has outlined, namely, that the areas around the Grangegorman site would get some sort of preference as distinct from what was originally proposed, which was that the two entire local electoral areas, which extend much beyond that area, would be included. The Minister has come up with a fair compromise.
The purpose of amendment No. 3 is simply to give recognition to the fact that the areas surrounding the Grangegorman redevelopment site contain a range of residents and community organisations which have a long-standing interest in the site and have been awaiting the redevelopment of this area for some time. Given their interest, concern and obvious involvement with the site due to living adjacent to it, I felt that the members of such organisations, in particular, should be represented or that the areas they represented should make up the Grangegorman neighbourhood.
I accept the Minister's proposal. I am grateful to her for making the map available because it makes the situation clearer and shows where the wards are. It is a reasonable compromise between the two options and achieves what I sought to achieve in my amendment. Therefore, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I accept the Minister has moved on this since Committee Stage.
As I come from the mid-west, I am not as familiar with the area as my colleagues, Deputies Gregory and Costello. I thank the Minister for taking on board the comments we made on Committee Stage when we had a long debate on the issue of ensuring that the local residents in the immediate area would have proper consultation rights and proper involvement in regard to the Bill. I acknowledge the help of the local residents groups which met Members on this issue.
I share Deputy Gregory's sentiments. I accept the Minister's proposals. My colleague, Deputy Costello, who is more familiar with the area than I, will make any further points in this regard.
The various wards are outlined on map provided by the Minister. The problem we had on Committee Stage has been addressed by the Minister. We needed to ensure we did not cast the net too widely or too narrowly and that all the relevant associations which have been in contact with Members and which are contiguous to or adjoining the proposed development would be represented in the neighbourhood area.
I expected the boundary would run along the Phibsboro Road and that the area would not go beyond that road and Church Street. The line has now been extended to include Eccles Street and Dorset Street, so other residents' associations such as the Blessington Street residents' association and various tenants' associations from Dominick Street and Church Street will be involved. While I have no problem with that, the area involved is wider than I had expected and goes outside the area of interest indicated by the local community. I expected the boundary to run along the Phibsboro Road. It does not pose a problem for anybody but will require a greater range of consultation and we expected this to be in the first instance. However, it clarifies the situation and we know where we are going from here.
This was one of the main concerns expressed by residents and many of the amendments attempt to address the issue of consultation with the local community. Most people will be happy with the route the Minister has taken. Local residents worry that they only have one opportunity with regard to the matter. The neighbourhood includes groups which are very concerned about the development of this project. As was said on Committee Stage, the site is not the only important issue. It will also impact on the local neighbourhood and community and it is important that they feel part of the development. We talk of people taking ownership of a site, but it is a big plus to have the local residents and community involved. The Minister's amendment is a good indication of the direction the Bill will take and I look forward to the next amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 6, 13, 14, 17, 18, 24, 30, 33, 38, 50, 51, 56, 74 and 75 are related and must recommitted together. Amendment No. 34 is an alternative to amendment No. 33, and amendment No. 75 is an alternative to amendment No. 74.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 6.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, to delete lines 19 to 29 and substitute the following:
"(a) the Health Service Executive established under the Health Act 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Health Service Executive’),
(b) a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001,
(c) a Minister of Government,
(d) the City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee established under the Vocational Education Act 1930,
(e) the Dublin Institute of Technology established under the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992,”.
These amendments are consequential on the enactment of the Health Act 2004 which transferred functions previously exercised by health boards to the Health Service Executive. Amendment No. 6 refers to the substitution of the former Eastern Regional Health Authority and the North West Area Health Board with the Health Service Executive.
Amendment No. 33 is related to amendment No. 6. The purpose of this amendment is to allow the strategic plan referred to in subsection 11(2) to provide for the needs of the immediate locality of the Grangegorman neighbourhood and thus give due recognition in the strategic plan to local communities and residents in both the immediate area and the wider community.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"4—For the purposes of this Act the ‘Grangegorman neighbourhood' means the area described in the Second Schedule.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 40, to delete "Ghníomhaireacht" and substitute "Gníomhaireacht".
This amendment corrects the spelling of the Irish version of the name of the Grangegorman Development Agency, Gníomhaireacht Forbartha Ghráinseach Ghormáin.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 10, after "facilities" to insert the following:
"with full, active and ongoing participation of local residents, community groups and their elected representatives through the Consultative Group of stakeholders".
This amendment makes it clear that from its formation the focus of the agency shall be one that keeps the needs of the local community and other stakeholders as a central function of its activities. The Bill sets up a consultative group and it should be recognised in this section of the legislation as an important part of the efficient and equitable function of the agency.
Amendment No. 15 gives the consultative group a role in the planning process. Local community input will have its highest leverage in agreements on planning applications. The local community and other stakeholders must be given an active role in development plans for the site and the consultative group offers a streamlined but representative method of doing so.
My related amendments refer to consultation with the local community. This should be proper consultation and should involve talking with people and taking their views on board rather than talking at them and telling them what is happening. I have tried to strengthen the nature of community consultation.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to substitute the word "communications" with "community consultation". Amendment No. 83 refers to community consultation strategy concerning the development of the Grangegorman site. The community consultation strategy should have regard to standard community consultation best practice, especially with reference to successful consultations that have previously taken place locally. This is to ensure this consultation is in accordance with best practice and genuinely involves dialogue between local organisations and the agency.
Amendment No. 22 proposes to insert reference to local organisations concerned with economic, social or other development, including employment, education or training, and local community development organisations. I want to ensure the organisations are consulted and that the process is all-embracing. It should include areas such as employment, education and training to ensure consultation with the various voices at local level.
My amendment No. 23 refers to page 9, line 10. The Bill, as it stands, allows consultation with residents in the Grangegorman neighbourhood, patients, providers, students and so on. However, community development organisations are also very active in the area, such as Inner City Partnership as well as a range of other organisations. Many of these work in the area but would not necessarily be resident. Residents should get top priority in any consultation, but they would welcome the participation of community development organisations, such as the local partnership, in such consultation. The amendment would not in any way take from the section. It would enhance it. I ask the Minister to consider my point. Perhaps she would accept the reasonable inclusion of community development organisations for the reason I have outlined.
The purpose of amendment No. 26 is to ensure, notwithstanding what Deputy O'Sullivan said about proper consultation with the people nominated to the groups, that regular consultation takes place with all the members of the community. I ask that the first proper consultation would start within three months and take place every six months after that, with information provided to residents in the vicinity and direct consultation taking place to ensure their opinions are considered and acted upon.
I had wanted to speak on amendment No. 23 but I will pass.
You can speak on amendment No. 23 now. We are discussing amendments Nos. 9, 15, 20 to 23, inclusive, 26 and 83 together. You are free to speak on any of those amendments.
My apologies. I got confused when Deputy Enright was called after Deputy Gregory.
Deputy Enright had tabled the third amendment.
I had tabled amendment No. 23 with Deputy Gregory but it does not matter. I understand some of the reasons the Minister will not include community organisations but if this Bill is to enhance integration between the Grangegorman campus and the community at large, community development groups must be considered. The exact nature of that can be worked out later but it would send out a positive message if this wording were inserted in the Bill. It is not in any way contentious.
I support all the amendments, including the Minister's amendment which is very important. Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment No. 21 seeks to delete the word "allow" and insert the words "provide for". It is much more important to provide for than allow consultation and the positive restatement of that in this important section underlines that. Her amendment No. 20 seeks to delete the word "communications" and insert "community consultation". I do not see the need for a communications strategy. It should be a consultation strategy. Both those amendments would greatly strengthen the legislation in a proactive way. The range of representation would be extended to include not just the people who are resident in the area but also those working in the area.
A large network of people is active in the area, some of whom work nine to five and others who work longer hours. They have been resident in the area all their lives. The people who have been doing that work for many years, whether it is the inner city partnership, the Market Area Community Resource Organisation, MACRO, which also includes people working in various organisations, or the north-west network group all have much to offer. They are involved in creating employment and providing services in the area and work in an integral way with the residents in the area. It would be worthwhile if the Minister accepted Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment No. 22 on local organisations concerned with economic, social or other development, including employment, education or training and local community development organisations.
It is important when discussing such amendments that we remind ourselves of the principal purpose of the Bill, which is to provide a campus for the Dublin Institute of Technology and health care facilities for the Eastern Regional Health Authority on the Grangegorman site. The facilities are very extensive but they will be available to the local community and section 11, on which I have proposed an amendment, will grant access and use of the site and its facilities to the local residents. I am satisfied that the provisions provided in that section are adequate and I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 9 or 15.
On the consultation process, a number of Deputies suggested on Committee Stage that the provision for consultation with stakeholders should be strengthened. I agreed to examine the wording of paragraph (k) which refers to the preparation of a communications strategy. A communications strategy is wider than a consultation strategy. Consultation is part of it but there are many people with whom communications will be needed as opposed to consultation. The word “communications” is more inclusive than “consultation” on its own. Equally, having consulted with the Parliamentary Counsel, the new wording “provided for” in my amendment No. 21 will strengthen the provision for consultation with the stakeholders.
The Bill contains a wide range of provisions for bilateral communication between the agency and the stakeholders in the project as well as providing for consultation with the local community. One of the key features is that we are talking about residents. As well as a communications strategy, the consultancy group will include local residents. Regarding the amendments on the community development groups, I would have thought there is no greater development than for the communities to voice their opinions, which is what is happening, by having the residents directly involved rather than somebody speaking on their behalf. The local residents are being appointed to the agency because they are more than capable of expressing their wishes without any group doing it on their behalf. Therefore, I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 22, 23 or 26.
Amendment No. 20 would limit the consultation process because it extends beyond the local community. I do not propose to accept that amendment. The proposed wording of amendment No. 83 is quite vague and does not add to the Bill in any way. I do not intend to accept that amendment either.
The Minister is suggesting that "communications" is a wider wording but it is weaker. "Communications" is telling people something whereas "consultation" implies a much more interactive relationship. I suggest the Minister might consider including "communications" and "consultation" in the Bill. I realise we cannot do that today but perhaps it can be done when the Bill goes to the Seanad. There should not be a provision just for communications. These people need genuine consultation.
I wish to comment on the Minister's response. I would be the first to agree that the residents are well able to voice their own concerns and do not need any assistance in that regard. They would recognise, however, the value of groups such as the inner city partnership and as this is a communication or consultation process, to exclude groups such as the inner city partnership from consultation on a development that clearly has implications for their work takes from the Bill and the process the Minister is trying to achieve. I regret that the Minister will not accept what I believe was a reasonable amendment.
I want to put one other reason to the Minister. In many cases, opposition to good legislation, which this Bill is, can arise from a misunderstanding or a feeling of alienation. If the people who work in the Dublin Inner City Partnership and other bodies do not believe they are full stakeholders in the project through the wording of this Bill, there is a danger that opposition will arise purely out of a sense of alienation. That is something to keep in mind. As we know from various peace processes throughout the world, wording can be inclusive and have a positive effect, particularly non-contentious wording such as is the case here.
Deputy O'Sullivan's suggestion that the Minister might expand the strategy from a communications strategy to include communications and consultation would address what is contained in her amendment but it would also allow for a broader strategy to be put together that would cover the essential needs of the area.
On the issue of organisations, the Minister said the residents are able to speak for themselves. There is no doubt that they are represented in the legislation. Not only does the area have resident associations active in the area, the residents are involved in organisations comprising a mixture of people from inside and outside the area. The markets area residents organisation has a chairman who lives outside the constituency. The Dublin Inner City Partnership has a CEO who lives outside the constituency but the activities are within the neighbourhood. The northwest inner-city network has a list of a large number of organisations that are active in the fields of education, employment and service to deal with the elderly and various services. These organisations are interlinked with residents and with residents' associations so there is no contradiction in what the Minister has said. We would like to see the residents deeply involved and I am sure they will fight their own corner. That does not mean that one excludes other organisations active in the area, who may have been active for decades.
The term "communications strategy" is broad enough to include everything and should remain, particularly as the wording has been strengthened so that it says it will provide for consultations. It is a central part of what the strategy shall include. That is also set out in section 11 under the heading "Strategic Plan". There is no question of alienating anyone in this section. It is a win-win situation. This is an area to which local residents have had no access in the past and they will now have access. There is development of facilities that did not exist in the past and to which local residents will have access. There is provision of education facilities in an area that did not have such extensive facilities in the past. The local community will gain much by living next to the Grangegorman site, which was behind closed walls for a long time, with the facilities unavailable to the local communities.
One of the key features of the partnerships throughout the country is that they all aim for training in self-empowerment. This is true of the southside partnership, the inner-city partnerships or the community development groups. They aim for self-empowerment for local communities and for individuals in communities. We offer self-empowerment for the local residents.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, line 10, after "facilities," to insert the following:
"including sporting and leisure facilities to which the adjoining local communities will have access. Special provision will be made for educationally disadvantaged children from local communities to enable them to progress to third level education,".
This deals with the functions of the agency. As the Bill stands it reads: "The functions of the Agency shall be to promote the development of the Grangegorman site as a location for education, health and other facilities". The Minister has already pointed out that there will be facilities in the redevelopment available to the local community. I ask that this measure be included as a function of the agency.
I have clear reasons for the objectives in my amendment. There are large, open-air leisure facilities available on the open land on the Grangegorman site and the Minister is not correct in saying that these were never available to local residents. In the past they were available, to some degree. The commitment to access for local residents is there, so I fail to understand why this cannot be spelt out in the functions of the agency so that the agency is clear that one of its functions is to allow local residents and community groups access to the facilities.
This is a major educational development in the heart of the inner city, in an area where many children never get to third level education. Many of them struggle to complete second level education. A recent report by the HEA pointed out that the north inner city is one of the most disadvantaged areas in the State, based on the numbers that enter third level education. There should be some recognition of this extraordinary irony, that the headquarters of a third level institution will be in an area where so many of the children do not reach third level institutions. It is necessary to provide for educationally disadvantaged children from local communities to enable them to progress to third level education.
If that were included in the functions of the agency some worthwhile way would be found to achieve that end.
I support amendment No. 10, and agree with everything Deputy Gregory has said on it. Where there have been largescale rezonings opposed by the local community, including in my constituency, there has been a tendency to provide facilities for the community rather than facilities to which the community has access. In the context of the local community and neighbouring residents being stakeholders in this ambitious project it would make sense to include the wording "including facilities for the local community,".
We are not talking about facilities managed by DIT or any health body but a facility that is within the campus, to be handed over to the community. Use of this facility could be allowed by other stakeholders in the campus. When undertaking a project of this size and nature it is important that facilities be provided for the community, rather than allowing the community access. This can be interpreted as patronising even if this is not the intention. Facilities should be provided for the community to enhance the area rather than as a sop to the neighbouring communities. This amendment would allow this.
Amendment No. 12 is similar to amendment No. 10. This is a unique opportunity. We have a totally new campus in the heart of an area where there has not been a tradition of opportunity to enter third level education. We should take this opportunity to ensure that these measures are built into the legislation from the outset, and that they are included in the functions of the agency that will establish the activities taking place on the site. We have some old universities that were built in a time when there was not the same level of participation in third level education that we have now. In that sense this matter is unique. For that reason it would be beneficial from everybody's point of view if there was interactive consideration of the needs and opportunities of the local community in having such a facility on its doorstep. That is the reason for my amendment, as it is for the others in this group. I hope the Minister will take it on board.
I strongly support Deputy Gregory's amendment, amendment No. 10, which is both positive and progressive. It would add to the legislation by strengthening its depth and quality. This is an important section of the Bill that deals specifically with the issue of educational disadvantage. It also concerns the Minister's educational policy.
Amendment No. 10 is strongly connected to the Minister's announcement yesterday of an allocation of €40 million to tackle educational disadvantage. I commend her for that extra assistance for children in areas of educational disadvantage which is a positive and progressive step. However, it is all very well to have third level institutions on sites in various communities but we must open up such services for the use of children and local community groups.
Space is a major issue in this part of Dublin. It will be a positive development if the local community, including youth groups and others, will have the opportunity to use these facilities. Such space is urgently required.
I remind the Minister that the extra €40 million to tackle educational disadvantage is part of a strategy to deal with disadvantaged areas generally. Other strategies are also required to provide proper housing and employment. Deputy Gregory's amendment would add teeth to these concepts.
We must support the investment being made int areas of educational disadvantage. In this respect, I welcome the additional €40 million in expenditure, which is important. In particular, I welcome the improved system for identifying the levels of disadvantage in schools. Smaller classes are essential, comprising a pupil-teacher ratio of 20:1 in junior classes and 24:1 in senior classes. I am glad the Minister has targeted resources at those in most need.
The provision of early childhood education is a key strategy because most children in disadvantaged areas start such education at four years of age, two or three years behind the average middle income family. Social deprivation is the reason for this educational disadvantage.
Deputy Gregory's amendment seeks special provision for educationally disadvantaged children to enable them to progress to third level education. This will be the key to any long-term strategy. I wish to see a ten year programme to identify children moving from primary to second level and who, I hope, will get a crack at third level education. It is sad that many such children drop out of the education system too early. As a result, the State is losing this resource. Many children from disadvantaged areas leave the school system for economic and social reasons. When one meets them ten years later, they are not necessarily all unemployed. Some may be and get into difficulties but the majority end up running their own businesses, some with top quality jobs, due to sheer effort and determination in using their creativity. I often wonder if they had had the opportunity of finishing the leaving certificate and entering third level, what type of people they would be.
As Deputy Gregory's strong amendment would add to the Bill, I urge all Deputies to support it.
I support all three amendments but particularly amendments Nos. 10 and 12 which are more detailed.
In response to previous amendments the Minister said the main purpose of the Bill was to provide educational and health facilities. The legislation presents us with a unique opportunity. We spend much time talking about access to third level education and many improvements have been made in this regard. Third level institutions have become more willing to become involved with disadvantaged communities but the Bill could be used as a flagship project for other third level institutions to follow.
The insertion of amendments such as these would place the legislation on a stronger footing from which to start. People in disadvantaged communities should be encouraged to progress to third level education. We must ensure they do not remain on the outside looking in. They should feel the new institution will be available to them and that its courses will be attainable.
These three amendments are all worthwhile. It is important to amend this section in order that we can spell out clearly the Grangegorman Development Agency's functions which already include education, health and the provision of other facilities. Deputies have sought to insert a reference to additional facilities and if that is not done now, it will be left to others to interpret later. In that case, some elements may or may not be inserted.
The DIT has a good ethos which includes assisting disadvantaged students by providing, in particular, computers and computer networks for various flat complexes in the north inner city. As it has a good track record, I do not think it would be opposed to an amendment spelling out the fact that we expect the new campus to be community-based.
Apart from being concerned with education and health, there is also a community dimension which should be prescribed at this level as part of the agency's functions. Such a provision should be inserted in the Bill to ensure it will not be neglected as it could be in later consultations and communications.
Public representatives are well placed to know which areas are disadvantaged, as well as the causes and extent of such disadvantage. We are also aware of the opportunities that arise when a major educational and health facility is provided in the heart of the inner city — one of the largest areas of disadvantage in Dublin which includes Devaney Gardens, Drumalee, Constitution Hill, Kevin Barry House. Local schools include St. Gabriel's, Stanhope Street, Brunswick Street and George's Hill, all of which are located in confined areas and have educational difficulties, including special needs. The new facility could form part and parcel of their enhancement, as Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment puts it. We should use this opportunity to ensure the facility will be part of the overall development of the area. This opportunity must not be missed.
This area has not benefited from tax incentives — although, perhaps, it may be all the better for this — which have applied to other inner city areas such as Smithfield. The new facility will amount to a tax incentive as it will incorporate a development worth almost €1 billion. It could lift the whole area but will not do so unless we specify and prescribe the functions of the Grangegorman Development Agency. It would be a shame to miss this opportunity.
The development of the new facility is in line with the Minister's own thinking on the issue of educational disadvantage, including the addition of elements to enhance the development of the area, as well as improved opportunities for young people to receive a better education and thus progress to second and third level studies. That would boost the area, ease its problems and reduce its crime levels. This is probably the last opportunity to ensure a major facelift, in every sense of the word, in the area.
I support the amendments. For those who know anything about Dublin, the areas on the supplied map jump out as historically disadvantaged where people have been denied access not only to third level education but also to various facilities. I agree with Deputy Gregory that provisions for local access should be spelled out in the Bill. I spoke earlier of the negative impact it will have on local communities. All of us probably accept that, historically, many of them have been disadvantaged. Deputy Gregory is calling for the inclusion of sports and leisure facilities as it is important that local communities have access to such facilities.
In discussing the previous amendment the Minister spoke of the need to provide for consultation. "Consultation" is the buzz word in Dublin. Local authorities are famous for consultation with local communities but in many cases someone will arrive from the local authority, explain a plan to local residents and call this "consultation". I am not imagining this. I do not believe this is what the Minister means by consultation but a provision for consultation must be clear in the Bill, not only to the agency and the consultation group but also to local residents and those who pick up copies of the Bill. It must be clear that there are positive elements, that local people will have a say as well as seats on the appropriate board, and that the facilities will be provided.
Many universities in the State have been ivory towers. The DIT which has a long and positive record stretching back more than 100 years has a positive role. It has been an open and inclusive institute and should be mentioned in the Bill.
I support the amendments which are timely. We are back to what we discussed initially, the communities listed and the need for their involvement. It is not good enough to have the facilities located there if local kids can only look in, with the facilities not open to the public, as has happened in the past. It must be noted in the Bill that a new educational facility is being established, with a new way of looking at education. I hope the Minister will agree.
I support the amendment. As the reference in the legislation to "other facilities" is not clear, the amendment would help to strengthen the legislation. It is greatly needed and would give support to local people and educationally disadvantaged children from local communities in order that they could use the facilities. I support the proposed change.
I agree with what all the Deputies said about educational disadvantage. However, inserting it in legislation would not make anything happen.
It would not do any harm.
It would be a start.
One tackles educational disadvantage by such initiatives as we launched yesterday, to which Deputy McGrath kindly referred. One of the north Dublin city schools, Larkin College, a tremendous college, provides for the local community the sort of service which aims to tackle educational disadvantage. We can tackle it by means of more investment and teachers, by targeting the children most in need by supporting their families and teachers. In this way the disadvantaged get inside the doors of the college to pursue their educational experience and are not merely provided with access to the facility.
We are not talking about a Bill for the Dublin Institute of Technology. This is a Bill for a site, the Grangegorman site. Therefore, any wording inserted which referred to access to a building would mean nothing if one could not achieve access by coming through first or second level education. Merely saying in legislation this should happen will never make it happen. What will make it happen is the activity in which, as Deputy Costello noted, the DIT is involved in working with the community.
Of all the colleges in Ireland, the institutes are the ones offering a particularly wide range of courses, ranging from certificate level in practical skills right through to degree and post-degree level. They offer the whole range of educational opportunities which allows people to gain access at various stages of their educational careers. However, inserting this in legislation which ultimately relates to the development of a site would make no difference.
Deputy Gogarty spoke about setting aside space for the local community. As I said on Committee Stage, this is not legislation for a local sports field, local facilities or the local community. It is legislation for the development of a site, primarily for a third level institution, the Dublin Institute of Technology, and health facilities offering access to local people. Section 11 allows specifically for the inclusion of the entire local community. Therefore, there is no reason to be more specific by means of amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept them.
Looking at the other regional colleges, in particular the college in Tallaght, well situated in a disadvantaged area, it is important to note that the uptake of places from the local and wider area, as Deputy Crowe will attest, is very positive.
Will the Minister supply the €40 million that the college needs for development?
Access to the college from those areas has increased enormously by virtue of its location and good education access office. The best way for students to get into it, as full participants, as opposed to merely accessing the facility, is by promoting an end to educational disadvantage and, through the education access office, third level grants, top-up grants and all those provisions which need to be further improved. The proposed amendments would not add anything to the functions of the agency or the schedule as set out.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Noel.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Power, Peter.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Gregory and Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, line 10, after "facilities," to insert "including facilities for the local community,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(b) to ensure that such developments facilitate the provision of enhanced education and training opportunities for people living in the area,
(c) to ensure that such developments enhance the social and community development needs of the people living in the area,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, lines 18 and 19, to delete "Eastern Regional Health Authority" and substitute "Health Service Executive".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, lines 28 and 29, to delete "Northern Area Health Board, the Eastern Regional Health Authority" and substitute "Health Service Executive".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 8, line 35, after "site" to insert the following:
"in the context of a long-term plan agreed by local residents and community groups through the Consultative Group of stakeholders".
Amendment put and declared lost.
As amendments Nos. 16, 28, 29, 31 and 40 to 43, inclusive, are related, they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 8, line 36, after "section 11" to insert the following:
"in full consultation with local residents and community interests".
This amendment seeks to clarify the functions of the agency, one of which is to "prepare a strategic plan in accordance with section 11". I suggest that such a plan should be prepared "in full consultation with local residents and community interests".
Amendment No. 28 seeks to amend the list of bodies with which the agency will have to consult when drawing up a strategic plan. If the amendment is accepted, section 11(1) will state that "the Agency shall, as soon as may be after its establishment, prepare a plan ... for the strategic development of the Grangegorman site in consultation with local residents and community interests". The current list of bodies to be consulted markedly omits residents' organisations. Other groups such as the Dublin Institute of Technology, the Northern Area Health Board, the Eastern Regional Health Authority are mentioned, as are the Ministers for Education and Science and Health and Children.
Amendment No. 28 proposes that the agency be required to consult "local residents and community interests". I hope I do not have to convince the Minister of the obvious merits of such a proposal. As I said, the residents of the Grangegorman area have a keen interest in the development of the site in question. It is clear that the preparation of a strategic plan should involve consultation with local residents and community interests.
I have tabled amendments Nos. 29, 40 and 41. Amendment No. 29 is similar to Deputy Gregory's No. 28 in that it seeks to ensure local residents would be consulted about the strategic plan. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 also relate to the strategic plan. Amendment No. 40 seeks to amend section 11(3) in order that when the agency is preparing a draft of the strategic plan, it would have to "consult with the strategic plans of local organisations that are concerned with the economic, social or other development (including employment, education and training) and the strategic plans of local community development organisations". Amendment No. 41 would compel the agency to consult "local residents".
It is important that the strategic plans of local organisations are taken into account when the agency's strategic plan is being developed. If local plans which involve the locality in question are in place, they should be taken into account when the agency's strategic plan for the site is being drawn up. The amendments are self-explanatory. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on the need to consult agencies such as the inner city partnership when strategic plans are being developed.
This group of amendments has been tabled on the basis of the same principle that applied to the previous group which related to the agency. Section 11(3) states the agency "shall" do a certain number of things when the strategic plan is being prepared. However, the Bill does not oblige the agency to consult local residents, community groups and organisations. It specifies that it should consult certain bodies and institutions such as the Dublin Institute of Technology, the Eastern Regional Health Authority, the Northern Area Health Board, Dublin City Council, Enterprise Ireland, the Dublin Transportation Office, Córas Iompair Éireann and the Railway Procurement Agency when the strategic plan is being drafted under section 11(3). While such bodies are worthy, it seems the most important ones to consult are those representing local residents whose opinions should be catered for when strategic plans are being drawn up. Any draft plan should be developed on foot of consultation with local residents and organisations. It is difficult to understand how there can be a proper strategic plan that does not involve the local community in the consultative process. It is difficult to understand how there can be a proper strategic plan that does not involve the local community in the consultative process.
My amendment No. 43 will clarify where I stand on the other amendments. The amendment is designed to give due recognition in the strategic plan to local communities and residents in both the immediate areas of the Grangegorman site or neighbourhood and the wider community that surrounds it. The amendment recognises the impact this development will have over a wider area and ensures that consultation will take place with the broader reaches of the local community as well as the Grangegorman neighbourhood site.
The effect of the amendment would mean that in preparing a draft of the strategic plan, the agency shall consult with the Dublin City Council, Enterprise Ireland, IDA, the Dublin Transportation Office, Córas Iompair Éireann, the Railway Procurement Agency, other relevant bodies established by or under statute, the local community, including the Grangegorman neighbourhood, and other persons with a relevant interest in the matter. In light of this, the Bill makes adequate provision for consultation with local residents. That section is now strengthened and takes on board what the Deputies are talking about. The provision is included specifically for the residents in sections 8(1)(k), 11(3)(b) and (c), 11(4)(b) and section 20. There is the communications strategy, the consultancy group, which will include local residents, and the appointment of a local resident to the agency. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendments.
I recognise that the Minister has included the local community in amendment No. 43 in subsection (3)(b). In preparing a draft of the strategic plan, the agency shall consult a number of agencies. The Minister is now including the local community in the list that strangely included everything from the Railway Procurement Agency to the IDA and so on and omitted the local residents. Is this not in conflict with section 11(1) which reads:
The Agency shall, as soon as may be after its establishment, prepare a plan.... for the strategic development of the Grangegorman site in consultation with...?
That section excludes any reference to the local community. If the Minister proposes to amend subsection (3)(b) to include the local community, why not amend the opening statement to give the local residents the same standing as the DIT, the Northern Area Health Board, the Eastern Regional Health Authority and the Minister? I do not understand the omission in the opening statement and the inclusion further on in the section. I ask the Minister to examine this aspect.
The amended version appears to consign the residents to a lesser role in subsection (3)(b) when the opening statement refers to consultation but does not refer to the local residents and local community. As it makes no sense to me, I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on that point.
I also wanted to make that point. The Minister's amendment means the local residents must be consulted in preparing the draft of the strategic plan, whereas my amendments would mean there would be consultation with the local organisations on the strategic plan and their plans. My amendment would be included in subsection (2) rather than subsection (3). It would be stronger to include it in subsection (2). All one is doing in subsection (3) is consulting in the preparation of the plan, whereas in subsection (2) one is ensuring that the strategic plan will consist of a written statement and a plan indicating the objectives for the development of the Grangegorman site, including these things. One is including these things in the plan in subsection (2), whereas in subsection (3) one is just consulting. While I welcome the Minister's amendment, it does not go as far as my amendments.
The point Deputy O'Sullivan raised is covered by amendment No. 33, which inserts "Health Service Executive and the Grangegorman neighbourhood". The point Deputy Gregory raised is not covered by that because he wants it to be inserted in the opening statement. The section dealing with the development of the plan and preparing of the draft is much more specific about the particular groupings that must be included. The wording I propose allows for the local community in a broad sense to be included in the preparation of the plan. I understand where Deputy Gregory is coming from. I am not sure there is a conflict, but it is more specific in paragraph (b) than it would be in the opening statement. However, we aim to be as inclusive as possible in subsection (3)(b).
Deputy Gregory's amendment No. 28 seeks to include local residents, which I have included. We have achieved the same thing with amendments Nos. 33 and 43. I do not accept this is in conflict with the opening statement because it is included in the other two sections. If it is, I will deal with it in the Seanad. I do not believe there is a conflict but if necessary, it can come back to this House then.
I would be grateful if the Minister would consider the matter when the Bill goes to the Seanad. When the section is amended in the manner in which the Minister proposes, it will appear that the consultation allowed to local residents will be a lesser subsidiary consultation, together with the Railway Procurement Agency and so on, whereas the opening statement is clear. It states that the agency shall, as soon as may be after its establishment, prepare a plan which is in this Act referred to as a "strategic plan" for the strategic development of the Grangegorman site in consultation with DIT, the Health Service Executive and the Minister. The residents will view this as excluding them. I do not think that including the residents will complicate the Bill. It will strengthen the Bill on this occasion. It will give the residents a clear role in the consultation process. If they are excluded from that opening statement, they will feel they do not have a full role in the consultation process. While I do not want to belittle the Railway Procurement Agency or any of the other groupings, the residents may feel, and rightly so, that they are being consigned to a lesser area of consultation.
The Minister should consider the points I have made. If she cannot do so now, I hope she will include the residents when the Bill is debated in the Seanad. They deserve to be included in the opening statement in section 11(1).
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 8, lines 39 and 40, to delete "Eastern Regional Health Authority" and substitute "Health Service Executive".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 8, lines 48 and 49, to delete ", the Northern Area Health Board and the Eastern Regional Health Authority" and substitute "and the Health Service Executive".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 9, line 1, to delete "address" and substitute the following:
"ensure that the above is achieved and to have regard to".
The amendment seeks to strengthen consultation by ensuring the agency consults the relevant organisations to ensure the functions listed earlier in the section are carried out and has regard to issues such as the provision of public transport. The amendment intends that the consultation process should be stronger and involve various aspects of the functions of the agency.
This is an important amendment because it provides not only for consultation with the relevant organisation but it ensures public transport is addressed. Public transport is an issue in the area because Broadstone railway station has been lying idle for many years. The Broadstone line connects with the Maynooth line and it should be developed. However, decisions need to be taken and finance will be required. In addition, the Luas runs parallel to the River Liffey. Will it be connected to the Broadstone line and the proposed metro? It is important that it is emphasised that the public transport dimension should be taken seriously because tens of thousands of students and staff will access the college daily and various activities will bring in other people. We must get this provision right, otherwise the area will be congested with public transport users. The area is clogged up and congested by private transport currently.
Access to public transport is an important part of the full development of the Grangegorman site, which is why it is provided for in the legislation. I do not accept, however, that the amendment will strengthen the case for public transport. It seeks to ensure the functions listed earlier in the section are achieved and that the agency should only have regard to public transport. However, the functions of the agency and consultation are adequately addressed. Consultation is a strong part of every section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 9, line 4, to delete "communications" and substitute "community consultation".
Question, "That the word proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 9, line 6, to delete "allow" and substitute "provide for".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 9, line 7, after "namely," to insert the following:
"local organisations concerned with economic, social or other development (including employment, education or training), local community development organisations,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 9, line 10, after "representatives," to insert "community development organisations,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 24.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 9, line 16, to delete "Eastern Regional Health Authority" and substitute "Health Service Executive".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 9, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(2) In addition to subsection (1) and notwithstanding section 34, the Agency shall publish at six monthly intervals a report detailing—
(a) its activities in respect of the previous six months,
(b) the progress which it has made in discharging its functions,
(c) its target objectives for the next six months.”.
The amendment refers to accountability. The agency will publish an annual report but annual reports are not necessarily as meaningful as they should be. I seek progress reports because this is a development agency and its work will not be done overnight. It will be progressed over time and it is important that the people involved, the locals and the public can see the aims and objectives of the legislation are being met by the deadlines and that the agency is discharging its functions. It is arguable whether the reports should be produced every six months but I chose six months because a great deal will happen in the first year.
Section 34 adequately deals with the question of reporting by the agency. Annual reporting is the normal procedure for agencies. Biennial reports would not be beneficial, as the agency's staff would spend half the year preparing and writing reports. It would also be time consuming and costly. However, I do not see a benefit, particularly since the Bill contains a wide range of provisions for bilateral communication between the agency and the chief stakeholders in the project. Providing for consultation and a communications strategy in the legislation will ensure regular reporting and, therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 9, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"9.—Within three months of the commencement of this Act and at regular intervals thereafter (at least six monthly intervals) the Agency shall organise information and consultation events with persons resident in the vicinity of the Grangegorman site.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 10, line 4, after "with" to insert "local residents and community interests,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 10, line 4, after "with" to insert "local residents,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 30.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 10, lines 4 and 5, to delete "Northern Area Health Board, the Eastern Regional Health Authority" and substitute "Health Service Executive".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 32, 35, 37 and 39 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 10, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(a) such facilities and educational programmes that will enhance the social and community development needs of people living in the area,”.
This amendment concerns the content of the strategic plan, namely, a written statement and a plan indicating the objectives for the development of the Grangegorman site. This relates to many of the issues we have already discussed but I want to include the needs of the local area and community in the plan itself. The list of what should be in the plan is quite long, going from (a) to (k), but the local community’s interests are not part of that list. This amendment will ensure they become so.
I support Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment. The action will be found in the strategic plan, where decisions will be taken. The Minister has ruled out the possibility of having local residents consulting with the agency, the Dublin Institute of Technology and the HSE. Having the strategic plan's written statement indicate the objectives is, therefore, important. This objective should be included for it is another attempt to strengthen the community basis of the new college and its inherent and holistic links with the community. We must specify this point.
I know the Minister will say that amendment No. 33 refers to the Grangegorman neighbourhood in terms of provision for needs. If she examines amendment No. 43, she will see that the definition of the local community, including the Grangegorman neighbourhood, is wider. Does the Minister consider that the same type of wording should be included in this section to ensure the Grangegorman neighbourhood is part and parcel of the wider community referred to in amendments Nos. 32 and 43? Including this would be very beneficial as Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment would strengthen this section in everybody's interests.
I will speak about my amendment No. 35. These objectives for the development of the agency are crucial to its long-term success and include tackling education disadvantage and the provision of educational programmes for the local community. The Higher Education Authority report of December 2004 Achieving Equity of Access to Higher Education: Setting an Agenda for Action in Ireland was severely critical of the way in which resources are allocated to improve access to third level. The report called for extensive collaboration between higher education institutions and second level schools. This agency provides the Minister with an excellent opportunity to act on the HEA proposals and make tackling educational disadvantage one of the agency's core objectives. To use the cliché, my amendment would give another positive role to the agency. It outlines: "The provision of educational programmes and facilities for local communities and in particular programmes aimed at tackling educational disadvantage". We have spoken about the community in the area and this amendment strengthens the call made time and time again today in this House.
I support Deputy Crowe's amendment and would speak to my own amendment No. 39. This is the section dealing with the strategic plan. The section states: "The strategic plan shall consist of a written statement and plan indicating the objectives for the development of the Grangegorman site". It then lists the various objectives. My amendment seeks to add an objective to the list (a) to (k), namely, the provision of a site for the Dublin 7 Educate Together national school. With Deputies Gogarty and Crowe, I tabled this amendment because the Dublin 7 Educate Together national school has been built up from nothing. In recognition of the educational disadvantage and lack of educational opportunities in the area, parents got together and built up a school. The school is in temporary accommodation at present. The parents have sought for sites over the years and have met all the relevant agencies and public representatives, including the Taoiseach. As part of their campaign, they sought a commitment for the provision of the Grangegorman site for their school long before this Bill appeared.
Other members of the House and I have tabled a series of questions in recent years in support of and as part of that campaign. I submitted Parliamentary Question No. 322 to the then Minister for Education and Science on Tuesday, 15 June 2004, which asked:
The timeframe for the exchange of lands at Grangegorman, Dublin 7, from his Department to the DIT; when the necessary legislation will be ready; if provision is being made for a primary school on the site as previously agreed with Dublin 7 Educate Together; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, replied:
It is my intention to publish a Bill for the establishment of an agency to develop Grangegorman as a site for education, health and other facilities. It will be known as the Grangegorman development agency. The agency will be responsible for producing a comprehensive plan for the development of the site in consultation with interested parties, including local residents, Dublin Institute of Technology, health authorities, transport providers and Dublin City Council.
Most pointedly, the Minister then stated: "My Department has always envisaged that the development of the Grangegorman site has the scope to help facilitate the long-term primary and post primary needs of the area including those of Dublin 7 Educate Together." This was seen as a clear commitment to the House that this would be part of the strategic plan's objectives for the development of the Grangegorman site and that provision would be made for this worthy local school. Regardless of whether my amendment is accepted, I sincerely hope the commitment is honoured. I am sure it will be. In conflict with this, however, there is no reference to such an objective anywhere in the strategic plan. I asked a question of the current Minister on Committee Stage and remember her response but I will ask her again to honour this commitment by placing this issue in the list of objectives.
I refer to amendment No. 37. The Minister stated that we are only dealing with the site in this legislation and that the Bill refers only to the agency and the development of the site. However, in the wording of the strategic plan and the written statement, if one does not insert community facilities as well as recreational facilities, one is ignoring the deficit of community facilities in the neighbourhood and the opportunity that the development of this site presents for the community. If this was a development of apartments or an exclusive new marina development, rather than primarily a third level and health care site, one would hear a loud call for community facilities from politicians of all hues. Given the scope and size of this development, the case must be made for community facilities that are not specifically educational, sporting or recreational. The term "community" should be inserted into the strategic plan wording to recognise that. I spoke earlier in support of Deputy Gregory's amendment, No. 39. I reiterate my support for that, given the major infrastructural problems that the Educate Together school still suffers.
Amendment No. 39 deals with an issue that concerns all of us who are living in the area. It is a question that we have been dealing with for some time. It was always envisaged that Dublin 7 Educate Together would be part of the final solution of the Grangegorman site. I, like Deputy Gregory, posed parliamentary questions from time to time to various Ministers for Education and I received similar replies to those given to my colleague.
The Department of Education and Science envisaged that the Educate Together school would be incorporated into the development. However, that is not specified anywhere in the legislation. Dublin 7 Educate Together has been something of an itinerant educational facility for a considerable time. It has moved from various locations. Thanks to the good will of the Bar Council, it was located in Henrietta Street and then the School for the Deaf on the Navan Road provided it with accommodation. However, the facilities were always cramped and always of a temporary nature, as the school was in place because of the goodwill of the organisations that took it in. Now we have an opportunity to provide it with a permanent base.
I have organised a number of meetings on this issue, one of which took place immediately after the announcement of the development of the Grangegorman site. The DIT and Educate Together sent representatives to that meeting and everybody, including local residents, was in favour of the proposal that the school would be facilitated at Grangegorman. It is important that provision is made in the legislation and that Educate Together is mentioned explicitly because the other facilities for education and health are mentioned in the Bill. There is no reference to this primary educational facility and I urge the Minister to accept the amendment or to explicitly state elsewhere in the Bill that Educate Together, Dublin 7, will be facilitated.
Deputy Gregory's amendment concerns educational programmes and Deputy O'Sullivan referred to the importance of the provision of such courses. It is important to stress that this legislation relates to the site rather than the college. The onus is on the college to provide educational programmes and it is up to those responsible for the site to provide the buildings in which such programmes can be conducted. It is not necessary to be more specific in this section. The provisions are adequate and it is not necessary to enumerate all of the various facilities needed. I draw the attention of the Deputies to the opening line of the section, which refers to the provision for the "needs of the Minister", meaning the Minister for Education and Science. That covers a wide range of educational facilities needed on the site.
I ask Deputies to take cognisance of amendment No. 33, which refers to the needs of the local community. This covers the issues raised by Deputy Gogarty. The local community needs are now covered by the legislation, as a consequence of that amendment, under subsection 2(a). Needs are covered in a general sense and it is important that we should not be too specific.
Various commitments have been given regarding the Educate Together school and it is still the intention that the school will be located on the Grangegorman site. That is what was originally envisaged and that is still the case. The Grangegorman site was always the location being considered for the school. However, if we specify Educate Together in the legislation, we may inadvertently exclude others. At some point in the future a proposal could be made to locate a post-primary school on the site but that might be challenged on the basis that it was not, unlike Educate Together, specifically mentioned in the legislation and therefore could not be allowed.
My Department has been in contact with Dublin 7 Educate Together and explained the situation to it, namely, that it is still the intention to locate the school on the site but that it might be injurious to another group to specify one particular facility. That is why I do not propose to accept the amendment. It would be counter-productive to the aims of the agency and I hope the Deputies will accept that.
I do not see why specific reference cannot be made because the Bill contains a long list of items to be included in the strategic plan. In reference to amendment No. 32, I do not understand why a provision for facilities and educational programmes that will enhance the social and community and development needs of people living in the area cannot be inserted into the legislation. It is not incongruous to insert that provision because there is already a list of items to be included in the strategic plan in the Bill. Therefore, I am pressing the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 33 was discussed with amendment No. 6.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 33.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 10, lines 12 to 14, to delete all words from and including "Eastern" in line 12 down to and including "city" in line 14 and substitute the following:
"Health Service Executive and the Grangegorman neighbourhood".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Amendment No. 34 was discussed with amendment No. 6.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 10, line 14, after "city," to insert the following:
"with particular emphasis on educational programmes and facilities for local disadvantaged communities,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 35 was discussed with amendment No. 32. Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes, as I do not believe the Minister addressed it in her reply.
I did. The issue relates to programmes in relation to the college and not to the site.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 10, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
(b) the provision of educational programmes and facilities for local communities and in particular programmes aimed at tackling educational disadvantage,”.
The Minister did not address the issue raised by this amendment in her earlier reply.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Amendment No. 37 was discussed with amendment No. 32.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 10, line 20, after "recreational" to insert "and community".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 38 was discussed with amendment No. 6.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 38.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 10, line 25, to delete "Eastern Regional Health Authority" and substitute "Health Service Executive".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Amendment No. 39 was discussed with amendment with No. 32.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 10, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"(l)the provision of a site for the Dublin 7 Educate Together National School.”.
While I accept the Minister's good faith on this issue, I still wish to press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 40 was discussed with amendment No. 16.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 10, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(a) consult with the strategic plans of local organisations that are concerned with the economic, social or other development (including employment, education and training) and the strategic plans of local community development organisations,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 10, line 39, after "with" to insert "local residents,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 10, line 39, after "Council," to insert "local residents,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 10, line 42, after "statute" to insert the following:
", the local community (including the Grangegorman neighbourhood)".
Amendment agreed to.
Debate adjourned.