Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their attendance and presentations today and the Chairman for agreeing to my request that the schools be included in this very important session. This is a very worthwhile session but the fact the schools were not included initially speaks volumes about the approach of some agencies to this whole issue, and I will talk about that a bit more in a moment.

As a local public representative in the Glasnevin-Whitehall-Drumcondra area for some time, I have been very closely involved with the previous two iterations of metro and I was somewhat taken aback when on 22 March, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, announced this new route upon which there had been no consultation, no engagement whatsoever with public representatives in the local area and no engagement directly with public representatives since 22 March.

I, like others, went along to the public consultation sessions but the least the witnesses could have been done would have been to brief the public representatives in the areas directly affected. That was a mistake on their part and I am concerned that it indicates a generally flippant attitude to local interests in terms of the need for good engagement and consultation.

It is noteworthy that all the groups that presented today made it very clear that they are fully supportive of the metro project. They believe that it is a very positive thing for Dublin and for the northside, in particular, and that they are not objecting to it. That is an important statement to make. What they are obviously concerned about are the implications of different aspects of this major project. Everybody accepts that in a major infrastructural project, there is always collateral damage. There are downsides to any big positive. Sometimes the collateral damage or the price paid is simply too high, and that is certainly the case in this instance. I am increasingly concerned that there was a complete lack of awareness and appreciation of the area that would be affected by the proposal, the general campus of Na Fianna, as well as the associated activities that go on around it.

To a large extent, it is hard to think of a more sensitive area on the north side of Dublin than this particular campus. Several of the contributors referred to this as the heart of the community, and there is no question about that. It is a sporting, educational, cultural and social campus. I do not believe there was an appreciation of that on the part of TII because I cannot imagine that anybody who would be aware of the extent and diversity of the activities and the sensitivity of that site would come up with the proposal that would have such a hugely negative impact on the site for six or seven years.

I was quite taken aback by the opening comments of Mr. Nolan in regard to this whole issue. He spoke of TII being in negotiations and engaging with both clubs. This is not a case of simply both clubs. The impact obviously on both clubs is enormous and could sound the death knell for at least one of those clubs. This is not simply about finding alternative pitches for a couple of clubs. It is a much wider issue than that. I do not sense any appreciation from TII of the scale of this being so big in respect of four educational institutions associated with that site. I include in that Whitehall College of Further Education as well as the naíonra, Scoil Mobhí and Scoil Chaitríona.

It is all very well to look at this from a theoretical point of view and to talk about a period of six or seven years. The reality is that six or seven years represents practically the entire primary school career of a child. That could be wiped out. It also represents the entire secondary school career of a child but there does not seem to be any recognition of that whatsoever. It is impossible to think how one could proceed with the scale of the construction works at this site, including the launch pad for the tunnel boring machines plus the construction of a station that would take six to seven years to complete, without having an appreciation of the massively detrimental impact that will have on the 1,000 children attending those educational facilities.

One has a situation that is extremely sensitive. There is a movement of 1,000 young people twice daily from that entire site. When one adds in parents, teachers and staff, one is talking about the movement of 2,000 people twice every day beside a major construction site.