Dáil debates

Wednesday, 1 June 2005

Grangegorman Development Agency Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed).

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Mary HanafinMary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

My amendment No. 58 seeks to ensure that the board of the agency will have balanced representation and direct input from all interested parties. It is important to reiterate that this is primarily a site which will be used by the Dublin Institute of Technology and the health authority. Therefore, it stands to reason that their representation on the agency should be greater than that of any other group. While the residents will be users of the campus, my amendment amplifies the co-operation between the agency and the residents and it enhances the consultative process outlined in other parts of the Bill.

Deputy Gregory referred to the Fourth Schedule, which provides an open and transparent manner in which to select the residents' representative. As he correctly pointed out, it is quite narrow in regard to the person who can sit on the board of the agency but quite broad in the manner in which it can be done. I would have no problem at a later stage narrowing the way in which it can be done and just making it the residents' associations, if the Deputy so wishes. However, the type of clubs I have in mind, and which would not be covered by a general term such as residents' association or sports club, would be a youth club for example. It would be an obvious user of such a campus, but it would not come under the category of a sports club or a residents' association for the purposes of legislation. It could be a chess club or any of these other groups we were trying to include in the process. I am sure the Deputy would like if they were included, but the important thing is that the representative is on the electoral register, a resident and is well supported by that group because, in the first instance, they would have to be nominated by two of the different groups or agencies. We are trying to reflect and include the wide body of groups, societies and organisations that exist in a neighbourhood. If we were to go down the road of including two residents, we would have to include four representatives of the Dublin Institute of Technology and four from the health service and we would end up doubling the membership, which would lead to an unwieldy agency. Proportionately, the balance is correct in this instance.

Obviously the views of local representatives are important. I hope that when it comes to selecting the local councillor — I know that councils tend to deal with issues on a rotation basis — they will appoint someone who equally represents and reflects the views of the local area, not someone who happens to represent the ward three miles down the road but still within the catchment area.

Amendment No. 72 incorporates the selection process for the residents' nominee. I need to make an oral amendment to amendment No. 92. In the second line of subsection (2) of section 3 to the schedule the amendment should read, "21 days prior to the election meeting" rather than 14 days prior to the election meeting. The section should now read, "Not earlier than 14 days after the expiry of the registration period and not later than 21 days prior to the election meeting, the chairperson of the agency shall call for nominations for appointment to the agency and to the consultative group." This is required to ensure the election procedure can be achieved in practice. The final date for receipt of nominations will coincide with the final date when the chairperson must notify registered groups of all the nominations received. The oral amendment provides additional time so that the required notification will be achieved.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.