I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, and her officials. It is proposed that the select committee consider the Bill until 3.30 p.m. If it is not concluded by that time a further meeting will be arranged. Is that agreed? Agreed. With the agreement of members the select committee will take a sos at 1.30 p.m. and resume consideration of the Bill at 2 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Grangegorman Development Agency Bill 2004: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendments No. 1, 46 and 47 are related and may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"‘Grangegorman neighbourhood' means the area within a local authority electoral area in which the Grangegorman site is located or a local authority area contiguous to the Grangegorman site;".
I move amendment No.1 to amendment No. 1:
In the second last line to insert the word "electoral" after the words "local authority".
I wish you well as Chairman of the select committee and I look forward to working with you.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 47 is to provide a working definition of the neighbourhood of Grangegorman for the purposes of section 8(1)(k) and section 20(2) and the proposed amendments at section 11(2)(j) and section 16(6)(d). The development of the site will greatly affect a very substantial area surrounding the site and not simply those areas immediately adjoining it. I am satisfied that these amendments afford the widest possible scope for consultation with the local community while at the same time not being so unwieldy as to invalidate the consultation process. For these reasons amendment No. 46, tabled by Deputy O’Sullivan, is not necessary because we are both trying to achieve the same objective.
It is a momentous occasion that we have got to Committee Stage and we should welcome that. Everybody concerned is anxious to proceed with the development of the Grangegorman site as quickly as possible. I do not have any great problem with the Minister's two amendments. In regard to amendment No. 1, will the area include different local authority electoral areas because it is not just one local authority area that is affected by the legislation? I want to clarify that it will include representation for people in the contiguous local authority electoral areas.
My amendment No. 46 relates to the consultative group. I am trying to ensure in listing specific areas — the list may not be conclusive — that the consultative group would consult with representatives of the different neighbourhoods around the site. Obviously it is a large site and there is a large population in the area. What I am trying to achieve is that each of the residents' groups in the area would have representation on the consultative group and be able to participate in the consultative forum. Given that it is a large area, they may have different concerns.
I welcome the Minister and congratulate you, Chairman. The new definition of "Grangegorman neighbourhood" is useful. It is important to spell out what we mean by the area. It is:
. . . the area within a local authority electoral area in which the Grangegorman site is located or a local electoral authority area contiguous to the Grangegorman site.
I presume what the Minister means is the two local authority areas, the north inner city where the Grangegorman site is located and the Cabra-Glasnevin local authority area which is contiguous to the north inner city. The North Circular Road is the boundary. Will the Minister clarify if those are the two areas in question.
How extensive is the Grangegorman neighbourhood of each of those two local electoral areas? How far does neighbourhood extend? Does it extend geographically to the Phoenix Park, including all of the area around Infirmary Road, O'Deveney Gardens, Stoneybatter, Oxmantown Road, Prussia Street, Aughrim Street and up to and including part the Annamoe part of Cabra which is contiguous to it and Blackhorse Avenue which is at the other side where the health board buildings are located? Does it extend to the Liffey and the Smithfield area, which is well represented by community groups? How far does it extend to the eastern side? Rathdown Road runs through the overall lands of Grangegorman because Grangegorman is on both sides of Rathdown Road and Grangegorman Road. Broadstone lies in the eastern part of the Grangegorman lands. Are we talking about the Phibsboro end? Constitution Hill lies at the far eastern boundary. Phibsboro Road marks the boundary of the site coming down Constitution Hill into Church Street. Would those living along the Royal Canal bank on the other side of the road be in the neighbourhood? Can we seek clarification or is it intended to draw a map in order to reach agreement on the precise neighbourhood involved? While the description of the site included in the Bill covers two local authority areas, it is not specific on what parts of the two local authority areas concerned are encompassed by it. Such clarification would prove well worthwhile.
Planning permission has been sought by the Christian Brothers for a development in the northern part of their lands. It is appropriate that it would be encompassed by the overall development in terms of the strategic plan that will be developed. Is it intended that a stop will be put to planning applications that may well be out of kilter with what the agency will propose when the Bill is implemented? Objections have been lodged by local residents about the extent and density of a major structure belonging to the Christian Brothers, in respect of which it is proposed to demolish a fine architectural and historical building on the demesne lands which immediately border the Grangegorman lands on the North Circular Road. The application covers a number of acres as well as a proposal to demolish a fine building.
It is important to be specific on what is meant by the Grangegorman neighbourhood. It is important for residents to know who is included. That would have an impact on their representation which I am glad to say is envisaged in the membership of the agency.
While I am not a member of the committee, I am a local representative for the area in question. I cannot comment on the Minister's amendment because I do not know what it means. I do not know to what the word "area" refers. The amendment refers to two local electoral areas. The Grangegorman site is located in the north inner city local electoral area. The Cabra-Glasnevin local electoral area is to be found across from the site on the North Circular Road side. The amendment takes account of this. However, I do not know what is intended by the term "the area within a local authority electoral area in which the Grangegorman site is located." In other words, what areas are included? Do they include all the areas referred to in amendment No. 46 which specifies the areas around Grangegorman? I seek clarification from the Minister as to what precisely her amendment means and how the area referred to will be defined.
As stated, the two local authority areas are covered by the amendment. The site is located entirely within the Dublin north inner city local authority area. As Deputy Costello said, it is contiguous to the Cabra-Glasnevin electoral area. What is covered by my amendment is the totality of these two electoral areas, namely, everything located within their boundaries. We want to be as broadly based as possible and include in the consultation process as many as possible who can benefit from the site. That is what the amendment refers to. The site will include all the areas mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan in her amendment. However, the groupings outlined by the Deputy do not have any legal or electoral standing and in that respect count for nothing, whereas the two local authority electoral areas are specific in their determination and are also broad, as the Deputies will recognise.
I am glad to hear that clarification. However, if that is the case, surely the amendment should read, "‘the Grangegorman neighbourhood' means the local authority electoral area in which the Grangegorman site is located or the local authority area contiguous to the Grangegorman site". I do not know to what the term "the area within" refers.
It refers to everything inside the boundary.
It is very ambiguous. The amendment includes the words "within a local authority electoral area".
It is a specific local authority area but could be renamed or changed in a future redrawing of electoral areas.
I accept that. The Minister said what was covered was the totality of the two electoral areas. If that is the case, I do not understand the need for the ambiguous wording. I cannot understand why the amendment does not state the Grangegorman neighbourhood covers these two electoral areas.
That is what the drafters defined as being necessary.
If the neighbourhood is defined as such, is the Minister running into a second problem? I am glad she is seeking to encompass the two local authority areas concerned. She has defined the Grangegorman neighbourhood to which she refers in amendment No. 38 in terms of which residents will be eligible to be a member of the agency. The amendment reads, "one person being a resident of the Grangegorman neighbourhood, nominated by the City Manager of Dublin ... after consultation with associations representing the residents of the Grangegorman neighbourhood ... from among persons nominated ... ". If the Grangegorman neighbourhood is now defined as including the entire constituency, does this mean a local resident could be a person who represents East Wall, Drumcondra or the Navan Road Community Council, all of which are to be found miles from the site? In her amendment the Minister is extending the number of local residents who might be chosen by the city manager. We have a problem with the city manager having a role in the matter. If local residents are to be represented on the agency, where is the line to be drawn as to who is a local resident if the Grangegorman neighbourhood includes the two local authority areas concerned?
I do not have a brief for the areas listed in my amendment, amendment No. 46, and do not mind if specific areas listed are not represented. We will not have an opportunity to discuss this amendment when we come to deal with the section to which it refers which deals with the consultative group. If the definition is as wide as the neighbourhood of the Grangegorman site, there is a danger that people living in certain areas bordering the site will not be represented on the consultative group. When the group is set up, I would like the Minister to bear in mind that it should provide for the representation of people living in different areas bordering the site. That was my concern in listing the various clusters.
It is intended that the consultation process will be wide. People can make submissions and their views known. With regard to Deputy Costello's point about residents, I presume common sense will prevail to ensure a person directly affected will come through.
The city manager will make the nomination.
We can discuss the amendment when we come to it. I am not sure it will be helpful to what we are all trying to achieve if we are prescriptive in some amendments and more general in others when what we are seeking to do is to be inclusive. That is important for the purpose of providing a definition. While we are offering a wide definition, Deputy Costello seems to be trying to confine it in another amendment.
No, I am pointing to the anomaly within the definition. If there is a wide definition of "Grangegorman neighbourhood", which I welcome, it appears a resident could be selected who is not representative of the more immediate residents in the area. The city manager has the power to make the selection.
I believe we can trust the residents' groups to suggest persons who are directly interested.
Yes but can we trust the city manager to make the proper choice?
I am sure we can but we can discuss the amendment when we come to it.
Many of the local groups and councillors would not be happy to leave it to the city manager to make that choice considering the experience they have had in recent times.
We will be discussing the relevant amendment later.
I hope the role and responsibilities of the city manager will be debated later. Before the Bill returns to the Dáil and the Seanad, will the Minister consider specifying some of the local neighbourhoods? When I was a councillor in south Dublin, my experience was that, no matter what way one wanted to do something, everything ended up being centred on Tallaght. In this case, it could be Cabra or Glasnevin. While it is an amenity that will, I hope, be enjoyed by many residents outside the two electoral areas, somebody from the outskirts of the Cabra electoral area should not have the same rights, privileges and access as residents in the immediate vicinity. The latter should have something specifically written down for the benefit of future generations.
It is not affected by this amendment.
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 62 is related to amendment No. 2. Is it agreed that they may be discussed together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 34, after "as" to insert the following:
"Ghníomhaireacht Forbartha Ghráinseach Ghormáin, or, in the English language,".
This amendment was tabled by Deputy O'Sullivan and I. It provides for the Irish version of the name of the Grangegorman Development Agency. We both arrived at the same translation. Deputy O'Sullivan will move amendment No. 62. She wants to have it inserted into the Title and I am happy to accept it.
The Minister and I are of one mind. I am delighted my Irish translation is in accordance with hers.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 19 are related to amendment No. 3. It is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 19 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, subsection (1)(a), line 3, after “facilities,” to insert the following:
"including facilities for the local community,".
Later we will come to the involvement of the DIT in the project and the hospital site. However, when outlining the functions at the initial stage, it is crucial, if local residents are to have a sense of ownership of the project, that a function of the agency is seen as promoting facilities for the local community. Such facilities could be specifically provided for the local community, although students could enjoy them also. It should not be a case of just sharing in the scraps of this great amenity. There should be facilities specifically for the community within the Grangegorman campus. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
We are discussing the functions of the agency. Members of this committee visited the site and spoke to representatives of the DIT. We were assured they were cognisant of the local neighbourhood and anxious to work with people within it to provide the facilities referred to in the amendments. My amendment refers to enhanced education and training opportunities for people living in the area. While I do not doubt the intentions of the DIT, the amendment seeks to ensure this would be provided for in the legislation in the context of the functions of the agency. It is important that it should be clearly provided for in the Bill that the needs of the local residents are to be directly addressed through the agency.
Amendment No. 19 in the name of the Minister addresses many of our concerns. I will await her comments.
The Minister's amendment probably does that. This brings us back to the ambiguity about the Grangegorman neighbourhood which is now a huge area. I am not sure how facilities will be provided within the site for such a wide area. Deputy Gogarty's amendment is more specific by stating, "including facilities for the local community". I would have defined "local community" in the way it is defined in amendment No. 46. Is the local community now Drumcondra and various areas quite distant from the site? I am not sure how this can be achieved. I am a local representative and the Grangegorman site is close to disadvantaged areas. My emphasis would be on trying to ensure the communities around the site benefited from the facilities and amenities on it.
Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment refers to the provision of enhanced education and training opportunities for people living in the area. If it encompasses the two local authority areas, it seems to be in line with the Minister's amendment, amendment No. 19, which refers to facilitating access to and use of facilities forming part of the Grangegorman site by residents in the Grangegorman neighbourhood.
The Minister is clearly extending the net to the two local authority areas which have two other third level institutions. The National College of Ireland is located in the docklands where it provides a service for local communities. Dublin City University is located at the top end of Drumcondra where it provides a third level service. However, the Minister is suggesting that access to and use of the facilities in Grangegorman will be extended to the full extent of the two local authority areas. There is a question mark over this.
The term "local community" is obviously what is envisaged by what Deputy O'Sullivan described in the earlier amendment as "clusters [of people] living in the neighbourhood of Grangegorman, namely Constitution Hill area, Rathdown-Grangegorman area, North Circular Road-Cabra area, Stonybatter area, Smithfield-Markets area". The Minister's amendment casts the net much wider without distinction to an immediate local community and a broader tier of communities which are part of the entire constituency. As there is a question mark over this, the Minister needs to take a fresh look at the matter. The Bill should deal with access for the local community to educational or training facilities because, as a college of technology, the DIT has a training remit. Such facilities would be valuable to the broader neighbourhood, including areas of high unemployment such as O'Deveney Gardens to Sherrard Street, that could benefit from them.
As regards access to playing fields for community and sports activities, this was promised by the DIT and is encompassed by the Minister's amendment but it would be difficult to have them equally available to people living in East Wall and near DCU. There is a problem in that regard.
Referring to paragraph (k), amendment No. 19 reads, “the development of the Grangegorman site in the context of land usage in the vicinity and in a manner that is sympathetic with its urban setting”. This relates directly to what I said about the Christian Brothers’ planning application for a seven storey development. We are talking about the site in the context of the neighbourhood, land usage and the type of development provided for. What will happen if there is a spate of applications along these lines and people decide to jump the gun before they must become part of the agency’s strategic plan? As the Minister’s amendment states, “the development of the Grangegorman site [will take place] in the context of land usage in the vicinity and in a manner that is sympathetic with its urban setting”. What will be the architectural character? What will be the density and height? These matters will only be determined after the legislation is in place but some already seem to be jumping the gun.
One gets the impression that we are at cross purposes which we are not. My initial amendment sought to be inclusive by broadening the base of persons who could benefit from this wonderful facility. We are talking about a site of 73 acres which will primarily be an educational facility under the Dublin Institute of Technology, as well as a health care facility. There is room for everybody. The debate on Second Stage recognised that we should be inclusive in ensuring everybody benefited. Deputy Costello wants as many as possible to benefit from education and training opportunities but, although he is not saying this, as few as possible to benefit from the facilities. The allocation of time and space will probably fall to the DIT in the end. I am sure the institute will give priority to people from disadvantaged communities in the immediate neighbourhood. At least, by leaving the definition broad, as I am doing, we can ensure the maximum number can benefit from the facilities which will be substantial.
The development within the site will be carried out in the context of this legislation. Any development undertaken outside the site has nothing to do with my Department, the legislation or the site.
It depends on the role.
My amendment states the development of the Grangegorman site shall be undertaken in the context of the neighbourhood. If there is no 20 storey building there, they are not going to put up such buildings. Equally, the amendment seeks to ensure the development "is sympathetic with its urban setting". We cannot dictate what will occur outside the walls surrounding the 73 acres. We want to ensure, however, that any proposed development which will be part of the planning process, including negotiation and consultation, will be in keeping with its location. For that reason, amendment No. 19 responds to the surrounding communities and the city, as well as being as inclusive as possible for local residents, while at the same time ensuring we will have a development that will benefit everybody.
What the Minister has stated is fine. We all want to ensure the maximum benefit is gained from the DIT. However, she is proposing to allow the city manager the choose the resident who will be represented on the agency from all the residents' associations in the area. There is no distinction as regards who will have access. The Minister's amendment refers to "facilitating access to" but the DIT cannot provide access to all its facilities, particularly sports and recreational facilities which have been sought by local residents for years. There is no acknowledgement of this. The Minister has left it all very general. In other words, the local residents — not those living in Drumcondra or East Wall — who will have to live with a massive building site for the next ten years are not identified in any way in the Bill. That is a problem because the city manager could choose a resident from somewhere else. I do not expect that will be the case but there is nothing in the Bill to protect residents in the immediate catchment area and provide them with some succour in terms of the long-term benefits to them of this legislation.
If the Deputy would like to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage that would deliberately exclude residents of the area, it could be considered then. That is what he seems to be saying.
No, that is not what I am saying. I have said there are specific facilities on the Grangegorman site about which meetings have taken place. Promises were made by the DIT concerning local residents who did not include people from all parts of the constituency.
I understand that but if the Deputy would like to determine the persons who should be left out of these facilities, we can discuss it on Report Stage.
What I want is a reference to the local community and local residents in the area in order that they will be seen to be recognised. They will have to suffer the difficulties arising from development of a site to accommodate the largest college in the country. Trucks, bulldozers and JCBs will be all over the place for the next five to ten years, yet local residents are not as such included in the legislation. The facilities to which they are seeking access are not specified in the legislation.
As regards the institute's educational and training facilities, the farther we can throw the net the better. However, the local community wants access to sports and recreational facilities. Therefore, they should be specifically referred to in the Bill.
As the Deputy knows the area better than I do, if he would like to table an amendment that would narrow the focus of the community referred to in the Bill — if he would like to be specific about those who should benefit, rather than the whole area, as I am recommending — I could look at it on Report Stage.
The DIT will do its best to provide facilities for the local community. I ask the Minister to consider amendment No. 3, whatever about the wider definition of what constitutes a local community, if it is a function of the agency to include facilities for the local community, as opposed to facilities the local community can also use. There is an opportunity to provide crèches and playgrounds on the site, for example, with other facilities that would benefit the local community. Given that Ireland has more golf courses than playgrounds, it would not be too dangerous an amendment to accept.
The Minister seemed to interpret what I and Deputy Costello said as an attempt to exclude. It is an attempt to give recognition to people who live adjacent to the site and who have used its facilities because it is located across or down the road from where they live. There are playing pitches on the site which have been used by local residents but I do not believe there will be playing pitches for the entire city.
The difficulty could be overcome by a simple addition to what is proposed, for example, by inserting the words "with particular reference to local residents". That would exclude no one, nor would anybody suggest such an exclusion. However, it would recognise the fact the site is located at the centre of a residential area. Most of its communities have been specifically identified in amendment No. 46.
The word "local" does not have a legal basis or definition. If the Deputies want to define places they wish to be included, which would mean they would be listing the places which should be excluded, they can do so on Report Stage. Amendment No. 19 which I propose refers specifically to the development and its facilities.
I will table an amendment on Report Stage.
As long as it lists the places the Deputy wishes to see excluded. That is what the Deputy appears to be saying.
That is not the way it is.
Could we not have an inclusive list as per my amendment, amendment No. 46?
The amendment we have brought forward is as inclusive as it gets. It includes everybody living within two local electoral areas. I cannot understand why two local Deputies want to exclude people.
We do not want to exclude anyone. There is no advantage to be gained in trying to pin us into a corner by saying we want to exclude people. We want to give due recognition to local communities and residents in the immediate area. We should be able to do this. All of us are happy that there is a broad definition of "the Grangegorman neighbourhood" in terms of the services which may be provided by the DIT and the health board. However, in terms of access to the facilities which will be made available, it is important we give due and proper recognition to local communities. This does not mean we should deliberately exclude others. We would be recognising the fact that there were local communities and residents in the immediate area. The Minister said it should be logical and that the city manager would not choose someday from the other end of the neighbourhood. Let us try to be as specific as possible.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, section (1), between lines 3 and 4, 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.
Amendment No. 6 is an alternative to amendment No. 5. They may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, subsection (1)(g), lines 29 to 31, to delete all words from and including “planning” in line 29 down to and including “approval,” in line 31 and substitute the following:
"strategic plan in accordance with section 11,”.
The current paragraph (g) refers to the preparation of a planning scheme. This is now being superseded by the strategic plan. The purpose of the amendment reflects this.
I do not propose to accept Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment. The Bill makes substantial provision for consultation with local residents. In particular, I direct Deputies attention to section 8(1)(k) which deals with the communications strategy involving the local community. Section 11 deals with consultation during drafting and before adoption of the strategic plan while section 20 provides for the establishment of a consultative group which will include local residents. In addition, having carefully considered the contributions made by various Deputies on Second Stage, I am bringing forward amendment No. 38 which will make provision for the appointment of a local resident.
As my argument concerns the strategic plan, I will make my points at a later stage. Assuming the Minister's amendment is accepted, it will be in accordance with the strategic plan. In effect, my amendment is redundant in that respect but the point will need to be argued at a later stage when we discuss the strategic plan.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, 12, 14, 15, 23 and 56 are related to amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 10 is an alternative to amendment No. 9. Therefore, amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, 12, 14, 15, 23 and 56 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, subsection (1)(j), line 45, to delete “address” and substitute the following:
"ensure that the above is achieved and to have regard to".
I have tabled a number of the amendments listed and it will be difficult to address them all because they are not exactly the same. The intention behind them is to ensure proper consultation with local residents in regard to development of the plans and the consultative group. The Minister has tabled amendment No. 9 which reads, "each of the following, namely, residents of the Grangegorman neighbourhood". I will not reopen the debate on what is meant by the Grangegorman neighbourhood but acknowledge the Minister has come some of the way in meeting our concerns.
I have a concern about the nature of the consultation which relates specifically to amendments Nos. 8 and 56. Amendment No. 8 seeks to delete the word "communications" and substitute the words "community consultation" while amendment No. 56 seeks to substitute the following:
community consultation strategy concerning the development of the Grangegorman site. This community consultation strategy should have regard to standard community consultation best practice, especially with reference to successful consultations which have previously taken place locally.
The purpose is to ensure consultation is genuine and real, not just to tell people what is being done. That is why I am concerned about the term "communication strategy" in section 8(1)(k). I would like to hear the Minister’s views in that regard. I hope she accepts the thrust of what I am trying to achieve in the amendments.
People in Dublin have had experience of so-called consultation, particularly in the financial services area. While I would not be as familiar with this as my colleagues from the constituency, I am familiar with cases where consultation was provided for in a document but which did not turn out to be genuine. Local residents later found out that while they had been listened to, their viewpoint had not necessarily been incorporated in the final planning of a particular development. That is why I am seeking to ensure the consultation would be interactive and the views of local residents would be taken on board.
I assumed paragraph (k) already referred to residents but the Minister’s amendment clarifies the matter by making it more specific. I also support what Deputy O’Sullivan said.
I tabled an amendment on behalf of Deputy Gregory with regard to community development organisations to ensure people on the ground who knew what was happening had an input. This would include residents and a number of community development organisations and would strengthen the Bill rather than create more bureaucracy. Proper communication with all stakeholders in the community is desirable, especially with community development organisations.
Earlier the Minister sought to be inclusive. I hope she will be inclusive on this occasion also by including community development organisations.
I agree with previous speakers. At local and council level we have had experience of consultation with State organisations. Community groups are invited to come and listen and then told they have been consulted. That cannot happen in this instance. People are concerned; they want consultation and to be involved in the development of the site. The wording suggests consultation is the way forward.
I am tabling amendment No. 14 for the same reasons mentioned by previous speakers. A definite plan should be put in place to ensure frequent consultation. With regard to who should be included in such consultation, I have referred to "persons resident in the vicinity of the Grangegorman site". I am trying to ensure those not necessarily involved in specific named community groups would also be part of the consultation process, told what was happening and have the opportunity to participate.
The Minister uses the wrong wording in section 8(1) (k). She refers to a communications strategy but surely she is referring to a consultation strategy. Deputy O’Sullivan’s amendment, amendment No. 8, refers to community consultation. We are speaking not merely about communication but consultation. That is key to the section. One can communicate decisions which have been made without any input. The wording must be changed in that respect. The meaning should be as broad as possible in order that everybody in the vicinity of the site would be incorporated into the consultation strategy.
Many local organisations and networks such as residents' associations are concerned with economic, social and community development aspects. Their input is extremely valuable. The Markets Area Combined Residents Organisation is involved in social, economic and employment development in the locality. The network which comprises 70 organisations is also involved. It is important to bring them on board but they are not included in paragraph (k).
Welcome reference is made to residents, patients, providers of health care, academic staff, students of the DIT, trade unions, employers and public representatives for the constituency. It is important, however, that the wording is broadened to include other community based organisations specifically concerned with employment and training facilities but such a measure is not encompassed by the section.
Deputy O'Sullivan's proposal is too prescriptive and narrow with regard to community consultation. It would exclude all other major stakeholders listed such as patients, providers of health care, academic staff, students, trade unions and employers' representatives. These stakeholders would not necessarily constitute the entire local community. The consultation process is dealt with in section 20 which refers to communication in that information will be regularly given to all interested bodies. My amendment is more specific in that the agency must communicate with these groups as required by section 20. It would not be helpful to narrow it to include only the community. This is a general communications strategy involving all the various bodies, not just the local community.
Deputy Gogarty spoke of community development groups. The debate seeks to include as many as possible but also give priority to those who live in the vicinity. Community groups are covered by the words "any other person the Agency considers relevant". The agency will be able to determine whether it is a genuine community development group. As we are all aware, there are community development groups for Galway based in south Dublin, as well as groups for County Wicklow based in County Donegal. In this way, there will be scope to determine which groups are genuinely interested in the area.
The Deputies' questions with regard to consultation are dealt with in section 20.
Section 8(1) (k) is weak in terms of the level of consultation or communication required. It includes the words “arrange for a communications strategy concerning the development of the Grangegorman site that is to say a strategy that will allow consultation with the residents”. Surely it should allow for full blooded consultation with residents in decision-making? The wording suggests this is an after-thought. What is meant by a “communications strategy”?
The consultation strategy is specifically outlined on page 17.
The section refers to a communications strategy. What is its value?
There may be others with whom one would communicate information but not necessarily consult.
That is covered by the words, "any other person the Agency considers relevant."
No, that refers to consultation. The agency could communicate with the Minister involved, another Minister or the Garda who are not listed for consultation. The Bill specifically states the agency must consult these groups.
The Bill refers to "a strategy that will allow consultation". It does not state the groups must be consulted.
It is stated in section 20.
Why is it not stated in this section?
Section 20 reads, "The Agency shall establish a group for the purposes of this section (in this section referred to as the "Consultative Group")". The wording is quite specific.
We are not talking about section 20 but section 8. We are asking that consultation take place with the groups mentioned.
This is just a strategy. The plan will be to consult and communicate with interested parties and listen to the voices of little children.
Why does the Bill not read, "a strategy that will involve consultation"? The words "will allow for" are condescending.
It is covered prescriptively in another section. Therefore, I do not understand why it should be included here.
The Bill should use the same language throughout. This is meaningless. The section provides for consultation on a communications strategy which may not occur.
The strategy will set out the plan for consultation.
The section includes the words "will allow consultation".
The agency must draw up a plan which will set out how it will communicate and with whom.
Is the Minister saying "will allow consultation" is the same as "will provide for consultation"?
The plan will under section 20.
I am aware of that but the Minister is not strong in providing for consultation in drawing up the functions of the agency. The section is weak.
The plan is only a piece of paper. There will be consultation.
But it does not provide for consultation. It is not absolutely prescribed as a function of the agency. I acknowledge it is covered by section 20——
It is specified in the legislation that the agency must consult.
I have a problem with the wording.
Amendment No. 56 relates to the nature of the consultation and is important in regard to all our concerns. I am trying to achieve "standard community consultation best practice". Will the Minister address the issue? I am concerned that the consultation should be meaningful and interactive and that a system should not be in place whereby residents raise issues, leave the room and have no idea whether their comments will be taken on board. I refer, in particular, to how the consultative group will do its work. I will not be able to address that issue when we reach the relevant section and would, therefore, like the Minister to respond now. If we can get this right under the section, we can pre-empt difficulties that might arise in the consultation process whereby local residents might feel it does not properly involve them.
The Minister did not address amendment No. 14. Section 20 does not provide for a commencement date for the consultation process. The amendment provides that it should begin within at least three months of the commencement of the Bill. The initial stages will be particularly important for residents. From that point on they will need to an input rather than later in the process. Will the Minister consider the amendment?
I seek further clarification on section 8(1)(k). The Minister referred to a communications strategy. Does she mean a framework for the type of public relations company which will be set up?
No.
Does she mean the communications that will take place and who will undertake them?
I do not refer to a public relations company.
It might be helpful to substitute the word "allow" with "facilitate" which would make it a given that consultation would take place. I am a little confused that a communications strategy must be drafted before consultation takes place. Steps must be taken to ensure proper consultation but a communications strategy implies all the gloss is being put together first before consulting within a limited framework.
I support Deputies Gogarty and Costello. Will the Minister reconsider the use of the word "allow" which might cause offence to local residents and the strong community organisations in the area? A variety of changes have been suggested but I suggest using the phrase, "will ensure consultation". There is a difficulty with the word "allow". The Minister should use a more decisive word.
To respond to Deputy Enright's questions, the residents will be represented on the agency and, therefore, could force the commencement of the consultations immediately. Section 20 states the agency must hold meetings at least quarterly.
Deputy O'Sullivan proposes the use of the term "standard community consultation best practice". This is a vague term.
The Minister is aware of what I am trying to encompass.
While it is difficult to include vague terms in legislation, I acknowledge what the Deputy is trying to do. She seeks genuine consultation but, given that many diverse and interested bodies are represented on the agency, it can ensure that will happen. During the years consultation has developed and people realise what is expected of them.
I will re-examine the use of the word "allow" but "facilitate" has a similar meaning.
"Ensure" would be better.
I agree. The words "provide for" or "ensure" should be used because "allow" is a wishy washy, condescending word. Consultation may not take place. The other words should be used.
The agency is given the authority to consult. I will examine the issue again before Report Stage to ascertain whether a stronger word can be used.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, subsection (1)(k), lines 50 to 52, to delete all words from and including “the” in line 50 down to and including “namely,” in line 52 and substitute the following:
"each of the following, namely, residents in the Grangegorman neighbourhood,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Amendment No. 48 is related to amendment No. 11 and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 9, subsection (1)(k), line 1, to delete “academic”.
The term "academic staff" is too prescriptive. The DIT employs staff other than academic staff and I would like to ensure the widest consultation among its staff.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following subsection:
"(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 reason I bring forward the amendment, notwithstanding section 34, is that while everyone publishes annual reports which are laid before the Houses, they can often be meaningless. The initial stages of will be key to ensuring the Grangegorman site is developed properly. We will need to be aware of what is happening on an ongoing basis rather than having to rely on an annual report. What happened in the first six months will not be known until the report is concluded. We will need to be aware of the progress made by the agency in discharging its functions. We will also need to be aware of the targets set for the following six months to ensure matters are progressing and that the agency is accountable and doing what it is supposed to do. It will be too late when the annual report is published. The amendment would make the system clearer and more accountable.
The Bill contains a wide range of provisions in respect of bilateral communications with the agency and chief stakeholders. As quarterly meetings must take place, everyone will know what is happening. Annual reports are the norm. We must think in terms of people taking time out to draw up reports and the cost involved.
I am not asking for a big glossy report to be drawn up. The report can by published on the Internet. People should know how the agency is progressing on a six month basis. We have dealt with the various stakeholders but everyone is entitled to know what is happening within the agency, not just those with a particular interest who happen to represent other agencies or associations on the board. There is the wider issue of public accountability, not just accountability within the various stakeholders.
The DIT has marvellous technological expertise and provides services for the local community in the form of computers and educational facilities. The agency should have a website while there should be a regular input of information on the development. I am sure this could be facilitated through the good offices of the DIT and that personnel would be readily available within the institution to assist. Perhaps this could be achieved as part of the overall development programme.
I agree that a website and the provision of information on a regular basis would be useful. I am sure the agency can include this as part of its communication strategy. It may decide to post regular bulletins but I am not sure it is necessary to be so prescriptive in the legislation when all we are demanding of other bodies is the annual report.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 46, after "with" to insert "local residents,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, and 21 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 10, subsection (2), between lines 3 and 4, 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,”.
Section 11 deals with the content of the plan. When I said I would discuss the amendment within the context of the plan, this is where I would like to include a reference to the needs of the local community. While we have been discussing its needs, this is a core issue, the reason I tabled the amendment. While section 11(1) which relates to the preparation of the plan lists the DIT, the Northern Area Health Board, the Eastern Regional Health Authority, the Minister and the Minister for Health and Children, it does not refer to local residents. I am seeking to include a reference to the objectives in terms of the site and the local residents.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to insert the words "consult with the strategic plans of local organisations that are concerned with the economic, social and other development (including employment, education and training) and the strategic plans of local community development organisations". There are well developed community organisations in the area which have studied the legislation and made submissions to members of the committee. It is important that the plan for the Grangegorman site is in accordance with the strategic plans of local community organisations and includes anything of concern to local residents. That is why I tabled amendment No. 21.
In supporting what Deputy O'Sullivan said, I would like to refer to paragraph (e) where the reference to the provision of recreational facilities is much too narrow. Given the Minister’s efforts to stress the importance of serving the neighbourhood, it is not always interested purely in recreational facilities. For example, there is the question of whether playgrounds are a recreational or child care facility. Child care facilities such as crèches would not be considered recreational.
Senior citizens have not been mentioned in the debate. A meeting room for a community group or senior citizens to hold a game of bingo each Friday should be included in the plan to ensure that while the DIT will be the main beneficiary, there will be specific community buildings that will not be interfered with in the day-to-day running of a college campus. Inserting the words "and community" after "recreational" would help to ensure this happened.
I agree with what Deputies Gogarty and O'Sullivan said about providing educational programmes to enhance social and community development, including recreational and community facilities.
I refer to the Minister's amendment which seeks to delete the reference to the local community and the city from subsection (2) (a). Why would she want to draw up a strategic plan consisting of a written statement and plan indicating the objectives for the development of the Grangegorman site which will provide for the needs of the Minister, the Minister for Health and Children, the DIT, the Eastern Regional Health Authority, the Northern Area Health Board and omit the local community and the city? Is that what she proposes? Surely the strategic plan must provide for the needs of the local community and the city, as well as those of the Minister and the others represented.
Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment refers to consulting the strategic plans of local organisations. That will form part of the consultation process outlined on page 20.
In his amendment Deputy Gogarty proposes to insert the words "and community". Again, we are falling into the trap about which I was concerned. Where does the community start and finish?
In her amendment the Minister will eliminate it totally.
Amendment No. 17 is consequential on two others.
Let us deal with the one before us. The Minister is taking care of the needs of everybody except the local community.
I am talking about my amendment, No. 17. I want to arrange for as much access as possible and felt the words "community" and "city" were too vague. This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 19 which will provide for "facilitating access to, and use of, facilities forming part of the Grangegorman site by residents in the Grangegorman neighbourhood" and "the development of the Grangegorman site in the context of land usage in the vicinity and in a manner that is sympathetic with its urban setting".
As a consequence of amendment No. 19 being accepted, amendment No. 17 has been tabled. The term "local community" is too vague. The same applies to Deputy Gogarty's amendment.
It is proposed to bring forward a plan, the facilities of which can be used by local residents who will then be involved. This proposal was considered too vague as the Bill was specific elsewhere. Following representations, amendment No. 38 will provide for local representation in the agency. I do not think it is necessary to discuss that amendment at this point.
There is a problem with the definition of the word "community".
The Minister wants to have it both ways. By defining the geographical area she is trying not to be specific but to be wide and vague so as to include as many as possible. However, in other parts of the legislation she is trying not to make matters woolly. While the term "local community" may have a broad geographical definition, the term "community facilities" has a solid definition, even if one is not sure what community facilities are being provided for. The Minister is being pedantic at the risk of not providing for such facilities in the strategic plan.
Instead of deleting the term "local community and the city" which the Minister feels is too vague, could the phrase "the community in the neighbourhood of Grangegorman" be substituted? That is what is meant by the term "community" elsewhere in the Bill.
I will return to this matter on Report Stage. Deputy Gregory's suggestion probably captures what I am trying to do.
It would have serious implications if the local community were removed and faceless institutions were not.
That was not the intention. My amendment is necessary because the Bill has been prescriptive with regard to local areas. I will clarify this question on Report Stage.
The Minister has identified the Grangegorman neighbourhood as the whole constituency.
What Deputy Gregory has said is helpful. If Deputy Costello does not want his whole constituency to be included, he should let me know.
The Minister proposes to delete the phrase "the local community and the city".
I have agreed to come back to that question on Report Stage.
The Minister's amendment would have removed the entire community and the city.
That was not the intention. I accept what the Deputies are saying and will come back to the question on Report Stage.
I welcome the Minister's assurance. We all want to ensure local people are involved.
Amendment No. 21 relates to section 11(3) which provides that in preparing a draft of the strategic plan the agency shall have regard to the development plan of Dublin City Council and consult a variety of organisations. It is appropriate to have regard to local plans drawn up by community organisations in that context rather than during the consultative process which happens at a much later stage. If we are to have regard to the Dublin City Council development plan and consult a wide variety of organisations at this stage, it is appropriate that the strategic plans of organisations should also be consulted at this stage. Will the Minister also look at this question before Report Stage?
I am concerned that we are losing track of the purpose of the Bill. The Grangegorman site is, in the first instance, for the use of the Dublin Institute of Technology. It will be a major educational campus and will include some health facilities which will be used by, and an asset to, the local community. We are not developing a 73 acre community site.
I am not saying that.
I am afraid that we are losing track of the fact that this will be a campus of the Dublin Institute of Technology which will be of benefit to the local area.
The strategic plan consists of the written statement etc. The provisions to meet the needs of the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister for Health and Children will be included in the plan. If it is prescribed that it must provide for the needs of the local community and/or the neighbourhood of Grangegorman, will there be a requirement to provide crèches, playgrounds and other facilities which the local community may require? What it is intended to provide is an educational facility which the local community will be able to use.
I accept what the Minister says. Nevertheless, if strategic plans have been drawn up by local community organisations, they should, at least, be consulted.
I return to the earlier point regarding the local community and the city. The city may like to have more playgrounds but they cannot all be situated on the Grangegorman site on which there will be a third level institution.
I am not saying that. However, the local community has drawn up plans which might be of relevance to those of the DIT and both could work together. The DIT has stated it wants to facilitate the local community in so far as it can. It makes sense that the plans drawn up following extensive discussions should be consulted.
That can form part of the consultative process because all these groups will be involved. However, the plan cannot provide for the needs of the Grangegorman neighbourhood. That is not its intention. The Grangegorman neighbourhood will have the benefit of the facilities but the plan is not designed to try to meet all its needs.
It does not try to meet all of their needs. It tries to meet some of them. Particular aspects of the plan and development of the site will be specific to the local community, to which reference must be made in the overall development of the site; otherwise it will make a nonsense of consultation.
We are all in agreement on the broad thrust of the plan. Few Bills receive such cross-party support. We are trying to fine tune the legislation to ensure it will be as inclusive as possible. Unless local communities have a sense of ownership of the project which in many ways is akin to the Adamstown project in Lucan, there may be potential social problems down the road with people living in disadvantaged areas not having access to community facilities, although they may have access to on the site, and feeling there is a have and have-not divide. In providing for recreational and community facilities in paragraph (e), the legislation does not specify the project should be turned into one big playground but that the strategic plan must take into consideration the provision of community facilities. A community building, crèche, playground or national school would not take up an enormous part of the development but, psychologically and materially, would provide much needed community facilities which residents would appreciate and use. Their absence will contribute towards a social divide.
We are not at odds on this point. The strategic plan will be inclusive of a whole range of bodies and organisations in the development of commercial activities. The Minister is proposing an amendment which will provide for access to recreational facilities. However, she does not appear to take cognisance, as envisaged in Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment, of the organisations and groups involved in economic and social development in the area and their plans. Groups up and running could benefit from having their needs recognised and encompassed in the strategic plan. If the Minister could find a mechanism to introduce such a provision, it would be of enormous benefit.
The amendment will eliminate the reference to the local community and the city but the Minister should try to find a way to include again the local community which should be included in terms of the economic, social and training activities in which it is involved. That would also be of enormous benefit.
The point is covered in section 11(3)(b), line 30, which reads “and other persons with a relevant interest in the matter.”
That is not good enough.
With all due respect to the Minister, the local community should not be consigned to "other persons with a relevant interest". It deserves a specific reference. I, therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider. Between now and Report Stage some of us will consider the definition of "the neighbourhood of Grangegorman". It is absolutely essential that the strategic plan makes specific reference to local residents or communities.
I support Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment, amendment No. 21. I do not see a difficulty in consulting the strategic plans of local organisations which have done a great deal of work, much of it funded by the Government. It seems relevant that their plans should at least be consulted. That is all that is suggested by the amendment.
In looking again at section 11(2)(a) I will also look at section 11(3)(b).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 10, subsection (2)(a), line 7, to delete “the local community and the city,”.
I will come back to this amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 10, subsection (2)(e), line 13, after “recreational” to insert “and community”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 10, subsection (2)(i), line 22, to delete “activities” and substitute the following:
"activities,
(j) facilitates access to, and use of, facilities forming part of the Grangegorman site by residents in the Grangegorman neighbourhood;
(k) the development of the Grangegorman site in the context of the land usage in the vicinity and in a manner that is sympathetic with its urban setting.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 10, subsection (2), between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"(j) the provision of a site for the Dublin 7 Educate Together National School.”.
Although the specific wording was submitted on behalf of Deputy Gregory, I did suggest when the committee visited the Grangegorman site and met various representatives, that it would be a good idea to provide for a primary school on the site. If Deputy Gregory had not drafted this amendment, I would have submitted a more general one in this regard. As I am not the Green Party representative for the area, I do not have the required local knowledge but presume the Dublin 7 Educate Together national school to which I presume Deputy Gregory will refer also needs a site. The synergy in having a campus integrated with the community can only be enhanced by having a primary school. The provision of a crèche, primary school, secondary school and a third level facility would be of enormous benefit in the context of life-long learning.
I support the amendment. There is a specific need in the area for an Educate Together national school. It would add to the campus if children at the national school were able to intermingle on the same site. I am aware the DIT provides for younger children in the form of the School of Music. Students at the DIT range in age from seven years to 70. An Educate Together national school for which a site has been sought for some time could be provided as part of this development.
I, too, support the amendment. This has been an outstanding issue for a long time. The Educate Together national school is a multi-denominational school which was first located in Henrietta Street but is now located in temporary facilities at the School for the Deaf on Cabra Road. It has applied for a site to successive Ministers from whom it has generally received a sympathetic ear, although I am not sure if anything was ever agreed. It was always intended that it would be given a site when the development at Grangegorman proceeded. It would be valuable if it could be incorporated within the strategic plan at this point. It is not a matter that should remain in the air or in limbo.
I thank Deputy Gogarty for allowing me to table a number of amendments in his name. The Dublin 7 Educate Together national school has a long history. It was built from nothing by local people who have established a formidable school that only requires a permanent site. The issue has been raised on a number of occasions in the past couple of years in the Dáil. In a reply to a parliamentary question on 15 June 2004 the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said:
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 [I note he puts the residents first], the Dublin Institute of Technology, health authorities, transport providers and Dublin City Council. 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 national school.
I know Deputy Dempsey is no longer the Minister responsible but that has been the consistent response those organising the Dublin 7 Educate Together national school have received from the Taoiseach and other local representatives. We strongly support their efforts, the work they have done and their achievements to date and hope the Department will adhere to its commitment to provide them with a site.
That is the background to the commitment made. As so much else is specifically referred to in the legislation, given the background, the commitment made in this instance should also be referred to specifically. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment in that context.
It was always envisaged that this site would accommodate primary and post-primary schools. However, it would not be appropriate to specifically name a particular school. Officials from the Department have been talking to and are in consultation with the school in question. However, we do not want to inadvertently exclude others by specifically including one. The whole site must be examined to see what can be accommodated on it.
The needs of education are covered in the first line which refers to provision for the needs of the Minister for Education and Science, that is, the provision of primary and post-primary schools on the site. The matter is being considered in that context. However, I am not prepared to specify a particular school.
I am reasonably certain that no other school has sought a site. Will the Minister clarify that is the case?
That is not to say by the time the site is developed another will not have applied.
No, it certainly does not. I would not oppose any other school, particularly a local school. There are several disadvantaged schools in the immediate area. If they seek facilities or a site, I will support them. However, there is a long-standing commitment to provide a site for this specific school. There is an obligation to write it into the legislation.
The school received recognition and was only established in September 2000. Its needs must be looked at. As we have seen in Dublin, second level schools are closing down with the result that sites and empty school buildings are becoming available. Other schools are also looking for recognition. We are talking about development of the Grangegorman site which will probably take about ten years to complete. I am not prepared, therefore, to be prescriptive by including a particular school. However, I am conscious that the site has huge potential for meeting the needs of primary and post-primary pupils.
While it may have only been in September 2000 that the school was recognised, it was in place before then. The Minister knows it is not that easy for a multi-denominational school to receive recognition. It takes time, no more than it does for a scoil lán Gaelach——
No.
——to secure the required numbers and so on. This school has been sent from Billy to Jack for some time. I, too, submitted parliamentary questions on the issue and could quote the replies received from successive Ministers of Education and Science. Is the Minister saying she envisages the site will meet the needs of the Dublin 7 Educate Together national school and other educational facilities or is she saying there may not be an educational facility other than the Dublin Institute of Technology on it?
I am saying the site has the potential to meet some primary or post-primary school needs, including those of the Dublin 7 Educate Together national school which may well end up being situated on the site but I am not prepared to write this into the legislation.
Is the Minister prepared to include it in her policy?
What policy?
The Minister referred to provision for the needs of the Minister for Education and Science. Is this one of the needs envisaged by her? It was one of the needs envisaged by previous Ministers for Education and Science.
Primary and post primary school needs are central.
We are trying to get the Minister to be a little more specific.
I am not prepared to write into the legislation that a specific school should be located on the site.
I am trying to be helpful. Will the Minister agree to write in as part of the objectives of the development of the Grangegorman site that a site be provided for a national school?
No, because I have not considered in the overall context how schools would develop in the next few years. There are vacant buildings becoming available all the time, on both the north and south side of the city. While I will not be prescriptive, I recognise that the site has the potential to meet some needs which can be met under subsection (2)(a) which deals with provision for the needs of the Minister for Education and Science.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Gogarty, Paul.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
Níl
- Andrews, Barry.
- Curran, John.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moynihan, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 2.10 p.m.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 11, subsection (4)(a), between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"(iv) stating that a copy of the draft strategic plan is available to download on the Internet and provide details of its exact location,".
This amendment seeks to ensure that as many people as possible have access to the draft strategic plan when it is published. Publishing it on the Internet will make it easier for people to view it. Amendment No. 25 seeks to also publish on the Internet any submissions made on the strategic plan. While the Bill does not prescribe whether all such submissions should be made public, if they are to be made public, they should be also published on the website.
The Deputy and I would share the view that the Internet should be used as much as possible. I understood that one of the problems public representatives had was the use of the website by the Department of Education and Science and that some people did not like us using the website for information. Apparently possible technical copyright problems arise with publishing information on the Internet. However, I would hope the DIT would do so. If the Deputy wishes, having investigated the issues, I can come back to the matter on Report Stage.
That is fine. My only problem with replies to parliamentary questions directing us to the website is that the website does not really give any information. If the Minister comes back to me on Report Stage I would be happy with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 11, subsection (5), line 15, after "plan" to insert the following:
"as well as any submissions or observations made to them".
In addition to considering "anything relevant contained in the strategic plan", this amendment seeks to require Dublin City Council and An Bord Pleanála to consider any submissions or observations made to them. This should ensure Dublin City Council and An Bord Pleanála would be aware of the various submissions made while the plan was being drawn up.
This matter is covered under the Planning Acts. It would be a matter more appropriate to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, it is covered under other legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Section 11(2)(c) refers to public transport requirements. While this might not be strictly relevant to Committee Stage, I want to stress the importance of Broadstone railway station. We need to provide for the reopening of this railway station and the Cabra line and to link it to Heuston Station and Connolly Station. The need for rail access to the site came up in discussions with the DIT and local residents as well as in written submissions I received.
Section 11(4)(a)(iv) states: “... stating that submissions or observations may be made in writing to the Authority”. To which authority does this refer?
I have made a technical amendment to change "Authority" to "Agency".
Could the Minister clarify this point? She has tabled an amendment to section 14 to delete the word "Authority" on page 12 and replace it with the word "Agency". I am referring to page 11. Has another amendment been tabled to section 11?
The Deputy is correct. We have not amended page 11.
Would the Minister not consider changing the agency to an authority and give it more clout?
It is not an authority. Do I take it I must wait until Report Stage to make this amendment?
That is correct.
I thank the Deputy for pointing out this error.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 12, subsection (6), line 9, after "section," to insert the following:
"‘appropriate Minister' means the Minister of the Government performing functions in relation to the statutory body concerned, and".
This is a drafting amendment. The Bill does not seem to contain a definition of the term "appropriate Minister". I have proposed inserting this definition on page 12. However, the reference to "appropriate Minister" appears at the start of the section. Section 12(1)(a) states, “the Minister may, after consultation with the statutory body concerned and with the consent of the appropriate Minister and the Minister for Finance,”. I believe “appropriate Minister” should be defined.
This kind of wording is generally used. In this case the "appropriate Minister" is the Minister for Education and Science. On page 2 it is stated that ''Minister'' means the Minister for Education and Science.
This means the Minister for Education and Science has the power to transfer the land.
Page 6 of the Bill also defines "appropriate Minister" as "... any Minister of the Government (other than the Minister) who, having regard to the Ministerial functions vested in that Minister, in the opinion of the Minister might be concerned with or interested in the matter in question."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 42, to delete "Authority" and substitute "Agency".
This is the technical amendment to which I just referred.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
As amendments Nos. 30 to 39, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 29, amendment No. 30 is an alternative to amendment No. 29 and amendment No. 36 is an alternative to amendment No. 35, amendments Nos. 29 to 39, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 24, to delete "11" and substitute "15".
My amendments Nos. 29, 34, 35 and 38 are designed to ensure the membership of the agency will be balanced, will represent all interests adequately and will facilitate direct input from all interested parties, including local residents. Amendment No. 35 increases the number of representatives of the DIT from one to two. Amendment No. 38 extends and amplifies the level of co-operation between the agency and the residents of the neighbourhood by guaranteeing that their voices will be heard at meetings of the agency and ensuring the views of local public representatives will be heard. The amendment takes into account opinions expressed by Deputies during the Second Stage debate. As a result of the changes, amendment No. 29 is needed to increase from 11 to 15 the membership of the agency. Amendment No. 34 is a drafting amendment.
The amendments that have been tabled in this regard by Deputies Gogarty, O'Sullivan and Enright involve similar proposals. My amendments go a long way to meeting their suggestions. Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment No. 31 proposes to delete the subsection that provides that the CEO should be a member of the agency. The provisions of section 16(2) are quite usual. They are similar to those in other education legislation, such as the Bills which established the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, the Further Education and Training Awards Council and the National Educational Welfare Board.
I welcome the Minister's amendments, which constitute a mainly successful attempt to make the agency representative. I will withdraw my amendment No. 30. Amendment No. 35, in my name and that of the Minister, proposes that the DIT should have two representatives on the agency, whereas Deputy Enright's amendment No. 36 proposes that it should have three representatives on the agency. We can argue the toss in that regard when the time comes, but I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the principle. I am sure officials from the DIT will be happy the institute is to have at least one extra representative, although there may be a need for a third representative. I tabled amendment No. 39 on behalf of Deputy Gregory to ensure local residents have an equal stake. I am trying to give greater representation to the DIT and Deputy Gregory is trying to give greater representation to the local residents. It may be appropriate to provide that each of those sectors should have two representatives on the agency. I am interested in hearing the Minister's thoughts on amendment No. 39. I thank her for taking on board in her amendments the submissions which were made by various groups.
I welcome amendment No. 29, which proposes to increase the membership of the agency from 11 to 15. Many of the proposals contained in the other amendments in this grouping are facilitated by amendment No. 29. It is obvious we are keen to ensure certain groups of people are represented. A misreading of my handwriting may have led to an error in my amendment No. 33, which should refer to "within the DIT" rather than "within the district". I was seeking trade union representation within the staff of the DIT. I will correct the amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 32 proposes that a person nominated by the Dublin Inner City Partnership and the North West Inner City Area Network and two persons representing local residents be appointed to the agency. If the membership of the agency is to be increased to 15, there is scope to provide for specific local representation. The two organisations I have mentioned are funded by the Government to engage in community development work. The Dublin Inner City Partnership is funded under the social inclusion programme and the North West Inner City Area Network is funded under the community development programme. Given that they were established to work with people living in disadvantaged communities, the organisations can represent the voices of such people with a level of authority, particularly in respect of educational issues such as educational disadvantage. The organisations, which have a certain standing in the community, have done a considerable amount of work, such as drawing up plans, to address the needs that exist in this regard. The amendment is similar to other amendments in so far as it proposes that two persons representing local residents be appointed to the agency. I am sure other Deputies will speak in favour of such a proposal. I am keen to emphasise the work being done by the two bodies.
I take the Minister's point about my amendment No. 31, which proposes to remove the provision that the CEO should be a member of the agency. It is normally not standard practice for a CEO to be a member of such a body. If the Minister can demonstrate that it is common among educational agencies, I will review my position in that regard.
I will concede the Minister has taken steps to meet the requests made by Opposition Deputies on Second Stage. While she is proposing to increase from 11 to 15 the membership of the agency, there is a need for the DIT to have significant representation on the agency. Deputy O'Sullivan has addressed this matter in a different way in amendment No. 33. I have proposed in amendment No. 36 that the DIT, as one of the major stakeholders in this project if not the major stakeholder, should have three representatives on the agency. As the interests of the DIT will be a major driving force in this regard, in many ways, it is important that the institute should be adequately represented.
Like other speakers, I have difficulty with the proposal in amendment No. 38 that the city manager of Dublin City Council will have the right to appoint the community representative. A future city manager may appoint a person who is quieter or less vocal than the person preferred by the people of the local area. If local representatives are to have a real role in the agency, they should be allowed to decide who will represent them on it. Another person should not have the job of deciding who he or she thinks best represents the people who live in the vicinity of Grangegorman. The amendment should be reconsidered so that the local representative on the agency is genuinely a representative of the people of the area, rather than a person who is assumed by a third party to be a genuine representative.
I am delighted the Minister has taken a step in the right direction by deciding to increase from 11 to 15 the membership of the agency. I welcome the proposal to include a second representative of the DIT, but there should be also two people representing the residents. It is very easy to become isolated on a committee of this nature. A single residents' representative is expected to represent the entire community, which is even broader than we thought because it comprises two electoral areas. If there is to be a meaningful level of representation of residents, it is important they should have two representatives. Given that the residents will be expected to live with this development during its construction and when it has been completed, it would be appropriate for them to have a second representative.
I disagree with the manner in which provision is being made for selecting the sole representative of the residents. Amendment No. 38 states that the representative will be a "person being a resident of the Grangegorman neighbourhood, nominated by the City Manager of Dublin City Council". There is no reason the city manager might not nominate a person from Dublin City Council, which will have a significant role in the planning of the Grangegorman project and in the overall framework of the development. Why not leave the legislation as it is, thereby giving the city manager no role — good, bad or indifferent — in the selection of the two residents' representatives?
I welcome the Minister's proposal in amendment No. 38 that a public representative will be a member of the agency. It is right that a member of Dublin City Council, who has knowledge of the area and a democratic mandate, should be involved in the agency.
As Deputy O'Sullivan indicated, the broader interests of Dublin Inner City Partnership, which has a statutory role and is funded by Government, should be addressed. As it is concerned with the overall development of the general area, the partnership should also have a seat on the agency's board. The North West Inner City Area Network represents 70 community-based and developmental organisations in the area. These are not residents' associations but are involved rather in social and community development. It is extremely important that they should be taken on board.
While the Minister has gone in the right direction, I would like to see her budge a little more to provide for further democratic involvement in the agency.
I agree with previous speakers that the expansion of the group is a welcome development. It is important that the stakeholders are represented, as many as possible of whom the Minister has tried to involve.
I agree with Deputy Costello that the community element is key. While I acknowledge that we have kept returning to the matter, we must consider further greater representation from the community itself. The agency is a vehicle for the development of partnership. While there is clearly provision for partnership with various stakeholders, the key component is the local community. Given the positive and, possibly, negative impact the agency will have on people's lives, it must have a community-representation component if it is work. I agree with Deputy Costello that it should be increased.
While it is difficult to achieve on a board of 15, some provision should be made for gender balance. I would like to think the Minister is considering the matter in the context of the membership of the board.
I thank Deputy Gogarty for tabling amendment No. 39 on my behalf. The amendment seeks to provide that two persons nominated by the local residents and one elected public representative shall be included on the board of the agency. Fundamental principles are involved. The Minister has agreed to provide for the membership of one elected public representative, which is a welcome departure given that movement has been in the opposite direction for some time. It has seemed as if persons elected by the people of an area did not have any validity when it came to representing their constituents on agencies and boards. I thought it was fundamental to democracy that such persons should, as elected representatives, be appointed. I am glad to see an elected representative will sit on the board of the agency.
I support the amendment's proposal to include two persons nominated by the local residents. In the context of the definition of "neighbourhood", it is absolutely essential that there be two persons to represent local residents. I do not understand why the Bill proposes the nominations should be made by the city manager. It is no reflection on the city manager to suggest that is extremely unacceptable. It is, in fact, a clear reflection on the residents' organisations that it has been deemed that the city manager should decide who should represent them. There are very active and able residents' organisations in the Grangegorman area which have proved themselves over the years. I do not say that lightly, but as a local representative who knows them. They are well able to nominate people to represent them properly on the agency.
I hope the Minister will reconsider her position between now and Report Stage. While she has come a long way towards providing what we asked for on Second Stage, she should consider taking an extra step to expunge the provision whereby the city manager nominates a resident.
I support also Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment on Dublin Inner City Partnership and the North West Inner City Area Network. The bodies are very active in the area and are involved in all the work which will, presumably, form part of the role of the agency. They should be represented on the board.
I took account of a number of considerations in drawing up my amendments. There was a need to recognise that at issue was, in the first instance, the development of an educational institute. DIT representation should therefore be doubled. In providing for two members, I am hopeful the DIT will be conscious of its needs in choosing its nominees. Having made this provision, I had to ensure the balance was not skewed. Given the educational nature of the institute, I could see no circumstances in which there would be two members representing the DIT and four representing community or residents' interests. It would not facilitate the operation of the agency if we were to provide for six DIT members as we would get a very unwieldy body. No provision at all was made for local representation in the original plan as such interests were to be addressed in the extensive and inclusive consultation process. I moved, therefore, to provide for one member.
I appreciate people's comments on how that member will be nominated. According to Deputies here who know the area, there is a wide range of groups representing the areas and interests involved. As one could hardly provide for an election to select a single board appointee, we sought to devise a mechanism to channel the names of nominees from among the groups through an individual. Our idea was to provide for associations representing the residents of the Grangegorman neighbourhood to send their nominations to one person. It was not sought to take something from the residents, but to find a process by which to select a board member.
I appreciate members' comments about the definitions of "neighbourhood", "the locality" and "the community". I accept that within the legislation and the amendments which are coming forward references to the above are made more specific in references to Dublin Inner City Partnership and the North West Inner City Area Network. My intention is to provide for two DIT members and one local resident and to consider how to establish a process in the context of the definitions of "neighbourhood", "the locality" and "the community" which reflects the needs of the area and which does not affect the balance on the board of what will be an education institute.
Deputy Costello made the point earlier that one does not want to appoint to the authority someone who is comes from somewhere miles away from the area. I agree with the Deputy that in this context the definition of "neighbourhood" might be too broad, given that there will be only one local representative. A consultation process is different. I will reconsider these matters before Report Stage.
Is the Minister ruling out the possibility of appointing someone from the Dublin Inner City Partnership or North West Inner City Area Network or does she intend to reconsider the matter?
The Minister also appears to have ruled out the possibility of the city manager nominating someone other than one of the residents.
Amendment No. 38 states the city manager shall nominate a person, after consultation with associations representing the residents of the Grangegorman neighbourhood, from among persons nominated by such bodies. It was always the intention that the names would be channelled through the city manager.
The Bill is somewhat bare in that respect.
I am referring to the amendment.
I am talking about the Bill, not the amendment. Is the Minister removing from the city manager the entitlement to nominate a person?
No.
Dublin City Council does not necessarily mean a councillor; the person from the city council may be an official. Does the city manager still have authority to nominate? Amendment No. 38 appears to be a substitute for section 16(6)(c) in that it appears to remove from the city manager the possibility of nominating a member of the city council and replacing him or her with the nomination of a resident. The Minister has deleted one position and provided for additional ones. Will she clarify the position in this regard? Will she also indicate to where all the new members will go? The agency will have 15 members and the Minister has made provision for two of them to be nominated from the Dublin Institute of Technology, one to be a resident and two to be nominated by the Department of Health and Children. As there is no longer provision for one to be nominated by the city manager, ten positions remain to be filled. Who will nominate the appointees? Why can their nomination not be built into the structure in a more meaningful fashion?
The intention is still as outlined in section 16(6). One person will still be nominated by the city manager.
That nomination will be retained.
Yes. I presume the person will be a senior official such as an assistant city manager central to the planning of the area. In addition, a public representative and a resident will be nominated. The Deputy is asking me to re-examine how the resident will be appointed.
In that case, eight of the 15 members are accounted for.
No, that accounts for the total number of 15 members.
Seven or eight members of the agency are still outstanding.
Two persons will be nominated by the Minister for Health and Children and two members will be drawn from the DIT.
The city manager will appoint one member.
That amounts to five. We then have one resident and one from the city council.
When one adds one public representative, we have a figure of eight.
In addition, the agency will have a chief executive officer and chairman.
That amounts to nine, which leaves six members.
The remainder will be nominated by the Minister.
From where will the other six members be appointed?
I am sure the Deputy will give me some ideas.
My purpose is not to be a smart Alec. However, a significant number of nominations are not spoken for. We seek the appointment of another member from among the representatives of the residents, as well as one from the Dublin Inner City Partnership and one from the North West Inner City Network. The Minister would still be able to nominate three or four others.
The Deputy's proposal would skew the balance of what is an educational institute.
It would be good for democracy.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of the agency is the development of a campus for the Dublin Institute of Technology. While it is crucial that the facilities are developed and used in sympathy with the local area, the agency would be unbalanced if four or five of its members represented the residents of the community with only two drawn from the DIT. I am not prepared to enlarge the agency to an unworkable size.
Will the Minister, at least, examine the operation of the two organisations specified in the amendment, namely, the Dublin Inner City Partnership and the North West Inner City Network? Her response amounts to a blanket refusal. I am aware that representatives of the two organisations could emerge in the mix in terms of local representation. They were established with State support, have specific briefs and would contribute positively to the agency if given a role.
The composition of the agency in terms of its 15 members will be as follows: the chairman; the chief executive officer; two nominees of the Minister for Health and Children: two representatives of the DIT; a nominee of the Dublin city manager; six nominees of the Minister for Education and Science; one local resident; and one public representative. The nominees of the Minister for Education and Science include scope to ensure all interests will be reflected.
Will the Minister meet the organisations in question before Report Stage to determine their bona fides?
I emphasise that the legislation concerns the development of a site of an educational facility. Everything possible has been written into the Bill to ensure we can facilitate consultation, participation and involvement by the local community and residents. In an effort to ensure this will be the case, I have included community representatives as members of the agency, which was not originally intended when the Bill was drafted. In addition, I will examine the definitions to ensure we get the right people in the right place. As the Deputy indicated, we want to ensure local people will be properly represented on the agency. It is my intention to take Report Stage quickly because everybody is anxious to pass the legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 14, subsection (6), between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"(a) one person nominated from Dublin Inner City Partnership,
(b) one person nominated from the North West Inner City Network,
(c) two persons representing local residents,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 14, subsection (6)(a), line 37, to delete “two” and substitute “2”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 14, subsection (6)(b), line 41, to delete “one person” and substitute “2 persons”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 14, subsection (6)(c), line 43, to delete “the City Manager of”.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Crowe, Seán.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
Níl
- Andrews, Barry.
- Curran, John.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moynihan, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 14, subsection (6)(c), line 44, to delete “Council.” and substitute the following:
"Council,
(d) one person being a resident of the Grangegorman neighbourhood, nominated by the City Manager of Dublin City Council, after consultation with associations representing the residents of the Grangegorman neighbourhood, from among persons nominated by such bodies as, in the opinion of the City Manager are representative of the residents of the Grangegorman neighbourhood, and
(e) one elected public representative being a member of Dublin City Council, nominated by Dublin City Council and who was elected as a member of Dublin City Council from the Grangegorman neighbourhood.”.
I will withdraw this amendment and reintroduce it on Report Stage with a view to clarifying the issues raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 53 and 55 are related to amendment No. 40 and it is proposed to discuss them together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 15, subsection (10), line 13, to delete "appears" and substitute "can be demonstrated".
A member of the agency can have his or her membership revoked. The amendments related to amendment No. 40 have been tabled to address problems associated with people being removed from the consultative group. The intention of the grouped amendments is to ensure that, if somebody was to be removed, he or she would be removed for good reasons, not because somebody would like to be rid of him or her. That is why amendment No. 40 seeks to delete the word "appears" and substitute the words "can be demonstrated". Amendment No. 43 seeks to insert the words "for stated reasons justifying the removal" after the word "removal". It speaks for itself. The idea is that a person should not be removed from either the agency or the consultative group without good reason being shown.
I consider these provisions unnecessary because any Minister or statutory body in exercising legislative function must act reasonably and in accordance with the principles of natural and constitutional justice. A member of the agency or consultative groups cannot be removed, nor can a body be dissolved, where there is no basis for doing so. We are open to all sorts of standards——
I accept the Minister's point that one would not normally remove a person from a body unless one had good reason. However, it is not hard to provide such safeguards, particularly in regard to the consultative group, which does not have the same standing as the agency. A considerable number of organisations will be represented on that body. If someone on the consultative group became obstreperous and annoyed the agency, there is a fear that person could be removed without due cause. It is important to have it stated in the legislation that a person who has been properly put on these organisations should not be removed unless there is a genuine reason, particularly in regard to the consultative groups.
I agree people should not be removed unless there is a genuine reason. However, it undermines the role of the Minister or any statutory body or agency to provide in legislation that there has to be good reason. They are bound by such principles anyway.
The provision referred to in the first amendment ensures that the agency at least has the protection that no one can be removed unless they have committed stated misbehaviours. However, a member of a committee established under the section may be removed at any time from membership of the committee by the agency. Should the agency not have to have some reasonable cause which does not include their stated misbehaviour? Why should the agency simply remove a person from membership of one of the committees? What about that caveat in page 15, line 30?
The first provision is much more prescriptive in every way and refers to a member being incapable through ill health and so on. It may, for example, mean that someone no longer represents the area or the functions he or she was meant to. For example, if someone moved to London, it would not be stated misbehaviour but it would be a good enough reason for someone not to——
My point is that on page 16 no reasons are stated.
That is because I am stating one cannot remove someone without good reason. However, the good reason might be other than stated misbehaviour or ill health.
Could the provision not instead apply to "stated reasons", which is the normal terminology used in these situations? Something has to be grounded in some form of evidence and fact.
That almost implies that one would do this without having good reason, by forcing the agency to say that it has to mention the good reason.
I am pointing out the anomaly between the two. In one case, the Bill specifies all the good reasons but in the other there is none.
The agency is the statutory body. What is referred to here is just a committee.
That is right. If anyone is to be removed from the agency, it must be either through ill health, their being unable to perform their functions or for stated misbehaviour——
Or if it appears to be necessary for the effective performance——
However, one can be removed from a committee for no reason.
No. For good reasons that are not necessarily stated.
Section 19 (3) states, "a member of a committee established under this section may be removed at any time from membership of the committee by the agency". No reason is given. While the Minister, who is a much more responsible person in terms of her office, must give all sorts of reasons, the agency can do so willy-nilly.
It is a statutory agency. Therefore, it would be bound by good practice and natural justice.
The Minister should be bound by that too.
I am.
There is a discrepancy between the two. The Minister is bound by all sorts of considerations and the agency is bound by none.
Will the Minister examine this issue for Report Stage?
The only reason I did not accept the amendments is that I felt they were unnecessary.
Are they unnecessary in respect of the Minister's own considerations?
Would there be an implication in stating "for stated reasons" with the result that everyone would have to agree with disbanding the committee and one could have a committee continuing for a century, for example?
All it means is that some reason must be given because the authority provided to the agency under the Bill is to establish committees and to advise on matters and remove them at will. The Bill provides this in regard to a member of a committee. It does not state that the committee can be abolished at will. That is where due process does not apply.
As I stated, the only reason I was not accepting the amendment was that I felt it was not adding to it.
The next provision is section 19(4), which provides that the agency may at any time dissolve a committee established under this section. That is a different matter.
Does the Deputy mean that stated reasons must be provided to justify the dissolution?
One does not need that provision for a committee because the committee may have ceased to have a valuable function. One cannot get rid of a member from a committee unless one has a reason for doing so. Otherwise, it would be unfair since natural justice would not apply.
I will examine the issue for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 15, subsection (12), line 25, after "person" to insert the following:
"who has been nominated by the same organisation as the deceased person,".
This amendment may not be necessary. I have tabled it for clarification. Will the Minister clarify whether the wording in subsection (12) ensures that the person appointed in such a case will be nominated by the same organisation as his or her predecessor? If that is the case, I will withdraw the amendment.
The final line of that section states: "in the same manner as the member of the agency who occasioned a casual vacancy". The intention is that the appointment would be made in the same manner as the original appointment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 15, lines 36 to 39 to delete subsection (15) and substitute the following:
"(15) The Minister shall ensure that at least 40 per cent of the members of the Agency are men and that 40 per cent are women.".
This amendment is intended to strengthen the gender balance provision in the Bill which is quite weak, to which Deputy Crowe referred earlier. It is to ensure that at least 40% of the members are men and 40% are women. It is self-explanatory.
This is something we should be aiming towards. I have no problem with it and I accept it, subject to the views of the Parliamentary Counsel.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.
Section 19 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 17, before section 20, to insert the following new section:
"20.—(1) The Agency shall establish a group (to be known and referred to in this Act as a ‘Project Working Team') in respect of each building development project forming part of the Grangegorman site.
(2) Each Project Working Team established in accordance with subsection (1) shall be composed of 6 members of whom—
(a) 3 shall be appointed by the Agency, and
(b) 3 shall be appointed by the relevant statutory agency to which the building development project relates.
(3) The Agency shall inform each Project Working Team by notice in writing of development proposals, and of any change to such proposals, and invite submissions from each Project Working Team concerned.
(4) The Agency shall consider any observations made to it by a Project Working Team within one month of the date of the notice provided for in subsection (3) or such other period as the Agency deems necessary.
(5) The Agency shall hold a meeting with each Project Working Team at least once in each quarter of a year.".
This amendment will ensure the agency will develop the elements of the site in a manner that meets the needs of the DIT and the health authority. It provides for a system of dispute resolution through which concerns can be aired and a conclusion reached. It will also provide for a forum to ensure frequent, meaningful communication and consultation between the agency and the principal users.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 17, subsection (2), lines 7 and 8, to delete all words from and including "living" in line 7 down to and including "site," in line 8 and substitute the following:
"representing each of the following 5 clusters living in the neighbourhood of Grangegorman, namely Constitution Hill area, Rathdown/Grangegorman area, North Circular Road/Cabra area, Stonybatter area, Smithfield/Markets area,
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 17, subsection (2), line 8, to delete "neighbourhood of the Grangegorman site" and substitute the following:
"Grangegorman neighbourhood".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 17, subsection (2), line 11, to delete "academic".
Amendment agreed to.
: Amendments Nos 49 to 51, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
Amendment No. 49 not moved.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 17, subsection (2), line 16, after "Minister" to insert the following:
", Dublin Inner City Partnership, North West Inner City Network".
Deputy Gogarty was to include the Dublin Inner City Partnership while I want to include both the Dublin Inner City Partnership and North West Inner City Network in the list of stakeholders in the consultative group. This would recognise these two important bodies which work in the area and represent a wide variety of organisations with statutory support. They should be included in the list.
Amendment No. 51 seeks, in page 17, subsection (3), line 19, to delete "from" and substitute "nominated by". As it stands, the Bill allows for a consultative group consisting of no more than two members "from" each of the stakeholders appointed by the agency for such term as is determined by it. I wanted them to be nominated by the groups.
It would be too narrow to name two groups and exclude everyone else. Section 22 provides that the definition of "stakeholder" includes any person whom the Minister or the agency considers relevant. The groups mentioned by the Deputy are included. Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment would restrict the stakeholders' choice. Therefore, there would no be benefit.
I wish to include them, not to remove anyone else.
The Bill includes all the residents, public representatives, Dublin City Council, the DIT and so on but not the bodies mentioned in the amendment.
It includes "any other body the agency or the Minister considers relevant".
Why not include them?
I just want them named.
We could leave in the words "any other body".
I am not prepared to name two specific groups and exclude others.
I am not asking the Minister to exclude anyone but to include these two.
The others mentioned are all statutory bodies directly involved in the development.
Dublin Inner City Partnership and the North West Inner City Network, as is implied by their names, are broad-ranging and representative groups. That is why they have been put forward for inclusion. They are not specific individual local groups but representative bodies.
I do not doubt their value but the other bodies are statutory in nature. I am not going to go down the road of naming specific community groups when they are covered by the line "any other body or agency the Minister considers relevant".
The definition of "stakeholder" includes statutory bodies but the Minister has included many others such as residents and public representatives, none of whom is a statutory body.
They are directly affected by the development.
They are not statutory bodies. The organisations we are discussing represent people directly affected by the development. I do not see the difficulty. Some of those included are statutory bodies and some are not; they are stakeholders.
The groups the Deputy mentioned would be covered by the terms "residents living" or "any other bodies". Those specifically mentioned are all statutory bodies.
Residents, public representatives, patients, the providers of health care and the DIT have all been named. If we insert these two bodies, can anyone think of another organisation which has not been included? No one else will try to be included; they have all been covered except these two organisations.
They will be on site.
They are the stakeholders. The Minister should look at this again; these are consultative groups.
I appreciate that, which is why I want to leave the term as "any other body". There may be other education groups and childrens' groups which would like to be included.
The Minister has said she will not include them in the agency. They are important representative bodies in the area and should be part of the consultative group, if not in the agency.
The local person coming through will most likely come through those channels.
Not necessarily. Residents groups have a completely different function from that of a network of developmental groups or the inner city partnership.
We would then have to mention all the residents associations if we were to name some of the community groups. I am not prepared to do this.
The Minister is not reflecting the status of these organisations. I am not familiar with this particular partnership but know from the partnership in my city that it will have a wide remit and representation. I cannot see why it should not be listed.
I am not in any way taking from them, their work, who they represent or what they do. However, it is not appropriate to name two specific groups because we could then start naming all the residents groups and everyone else. They are already included.
The Dublin Inner City Partnership covers most of the electoral area the Minister is discussing. It is not an individual group which represents a small interest but 70 groups which are collectives. I had assumed the partnerships had been established on a statutory basis. I may be wrong but I thought they had statutory underpinning.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 17, subsection (3), line 19, to delete "from" and substitute "nominated by".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 54 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 17, lines 21 to 25, to delete subsections (4) and (5).
These subsections propose that the agency can remove a member of the consultative group at any time and that it may at any time dissolve the consultative group. I do not see why the agency should be able to get rid of the consultative group or remove its members. The point of the consultative group is that the organisations it comprises should be consulted. Without saying anything about what the people in the agency might do, a body like that should not have the power simply to get rid of the consultative groups, either as a group or constituent members thereof.
Is this part of the Taoiseach's new socialist agenda whereby anyone who does not consult as he would like can be removed by diktat? It is a very dangerous part of the Bill. It would be better to remove it. There could be major problems in terms of a group being anti-social or involved in some other damage, but to give the agency the right to remove a consultative group would be dangerous.
The agency would be bound by due process, fairness and natural justice and so on. It must also, however, have the power to remove a member of a consultative group or dissolve the group to remove a member who is not functioning or whatever. It must have that scope but it must be done fairly. It would damage the work of the agency to remove those two sections.
In what type of circumstances does the Minister think it would be necessary for the agency to dissolve the consultative group?
When the work was finished.
Are there any other circumstances?
They may well arise but we cannot anticipate them at this stage, given that the development will take several years. I do not envisage that it will happen willy-nilly.
If it is felt necessary to include it as part of the legislation there must be some indication of the type of circumstances that might arise other than when it is finished. The Minister is rather flippant to say when the work is done. We all assume that whenever the agency goes the consultative group will go. In the meantime, will the Minister indicate the type of circumstances in which the agency would remain but get rid of the consultative group?
There may well be circumstances that we cannot envisage.
Somebody must have envisaged them if it was felt necessary to include this in the Bill.
It is unnecessary. It is rather like the provision we discussed on page 16: "A member of a committee established under this section may be removed at any time from membership of the committee by the Agency." The Minister agreed to consider that again. Why should a member of the consultative group be removed at any time? It does not suggest termination of the work and the agency can be dissolved at any time. Surely there should be stated reasons. It should be required to present some evidence. It would benefit the legislation if some reference of that nature were included.
Obviously there would have to be a good reason.
Why is that not included?
No agency or group or individual can just willy-nilly throw someone out. They are all subject to the rules of natural justice.
I am less concerned about an individual being removed as long as due process is followed. I do not understand why we would dissolve the consultative group at all. For the lifetime of the agency the same consultation process will be needed. It is not a matter of consultation being needed while the buildings are being put up, or whatever way one looks at it. They will be needed until such time as the agency is dissolved and maybe even to assist in the dissolution of the agency eventually, or to be consulted in how the agency is going to dissolve. From that point of view ending the consultative group makes no sense.
Circumstances could arise in which functions were not being performed, for example. If the consultative group suddenly decided to go in an altogether different direction and set it all up in one big playground it would not be performing its functions. This just gives the agency scope. It is all done in the interests of justice. The consultative group is an essential part of the legislation.
It still reads very baldly. I have a couple of possible amendments such as "if proved justified", which we have discussed already. In its present form it sounds very high handed that the agency can get rid of the consultative group completely, or throw someone out of it without having to give any reason. I do not like standing over that in the legislation. It needs to be modified by some wording. If the Minister does not like our amendment perhaps she can suggest an alternative. It seems quite high-handed, particularly as one probably would not have recourse to any protection if one were thrown out of the group for no good reason. I am not suggesting these kinds of things are likely to happen but it looks very high-handed.
There are two different approaches to this. The agency and many of the 15 members nominated to the agency can be removed only by the Minister, who must have the very best of reasons to do this. She must be satisfied that the person is incapable, suffering ill health, unable to perform his or her functions, is involved in stated misbehaviour or affecting the performance of the agency. The Minister said she will look again at the provision in section 19 that no explanation need be given to remove members from committees of the agency.
The consultative group, which is very important to all the stakeholders, can be dismissed without any stated reasons or explanation. In other words, the legislation states that the agency members can be taken off only by a due process to which the Minister is bound. Now she says the agency can dissolve any group, committee or consultative group, without reference to anything in the legislation, or any member thereof can be removed. The Minister needs to include some protective measure there along the lines Deputy O'Sullivan proposes.
I am not prepared to remove that power from the agency. It is important that it retain it. For example, people who might not turn up for months on end should be removed and the agency needs to have that power. I can consider defining for good reason or for stated reason. I do not want to remove its flexibility and I do not wish to remove its power but I will consider some way of writing in a reason, in light of what we have discussed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 53 not moved.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 17, subsection (4), line 23, to delete "Agency" and substitute "stakeholder concerned".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 55 not moved.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 17, subsection (6), lines 27 to 29, to delete all words from and including "communications" in line 27 down to and including "year" in line 29 and substitute the following:
community consultation strategy concerning the development of the Grangegorman site. This community consultation strategy should have regard to standard community consultation best practice, especially with references to successful consultations that have previously taken place locally".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 December 2004.