Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

It is important when discussing such amendments that we remind ourselves of the principal purpose of the Bill, which is to provide a campus for the Dublin Institute of Technology and health care facilities for the Eastern Regional Health Authority on the Grangegorman site. The facilities are very extensive but they will be available to the local community and section 11, on which I have proposed an amendment, will grant access and use of the site and its facilities to the local residents. I am satisfied that the provisions provided in that section are adequate and I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 9 or 15.

On the consultation process, a number of Deputies suggested on Committee Stage that the provision for consultation with stakeholders should be strengthened. I agreed to examine the wording of paragraph (k) which refers to the preparation of a communications strategy. A communications strategy is wider than a consultation strategy. Consultation is part of it but there are many people with whom communications will be needed as opposed to consultation. The word "communications" is more inclusive than "consultation" on its own. Equally, having consulted with the Parliamentary Counsel, the new wording "provided for" in my amendment No. 21 will strengthen the provision for consultation with the stakeholders.

The Bill contains a wide range of provisions for bilateral communication between the agency and the stakeholders in the project as well as providing for consultation with the local community. One of the key features is that we are talking about residents. As well as a communications strategy, the consultancy group will include local residents. Regarding the amendments on the community development groups, I would have thought there is no greater development than for the communities to voice their opinions, which is what is happening, by having the residents directly involved rather than somebody speaking on their behalf. The local residents are being appointed to the agency because they are more than capable of expressing their wishes without any group doing it on their behalf. Therefore, I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 22, 23 or 26.

Amendment No. 20 would limit the consultation process because it extends beyond the local community. I do not propose to accept that amendment. The proposed wording of amendment No. 83 is quite vague and does not add to the Bill in any way. I do not intend to accept that amendment either.

See this speech in context