Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Dec 2009

Vol. 697 No. 2

Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2009: Second Stage.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to share time with Deputies James Reilly and Fergus O'Dowd.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording an opportunity in Private Members' time to move the Second Reading of this Bill, the purpose of which is to give the Comptroller and Auditor General the power to audit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA. The legislation is necessary in light of the exposure of bad practice, lack of corporate governance and financial impropriety which has taken place in the authority for much too long. The important task of regeneration cannot be endangered by reckless financial management of a planning and development authority of the State.

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority was established as a State body with a commercial remit. It is interesting that the commercial aspect of its remit appears to have become secondary to the intrigue and bad practice that have taken place in recent years.

Seven o'clock on the night before the most brutal budget in the history of the State is not a great time to register the full scandal of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. I am sure those who managed the authority into disgrace and insolvency are relying on that fact, hoping that it will be forgotten about as the nation tries to cope with the more personal pain tomorrow's budget will inflict. I assure the House that, as Fine Gael Party spokesman on the environment, the people responsible for the activities and bad management that have taken in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority will be brought to book. I will not allow them to hide behind circumstances, conceal their malfeasance behind complexity or take refuge behind the good work the authority has done in the area of social regeneration, education and community development.

What my colleague, Deputy Leo Varadkar, revealed in respect of FÁS was monumental irresponsibility and spending without objective. The indications are that a similar approach was taken in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. Management in FÁS was so focused on its supposed entitlement to first class global travel that it failed to pay attention to the failure of the agency to deliver on its mandate. What we see in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is arguably worse. A dream was destroyed as the property development arm of the authority went out of control. This dream was to take a chunk of derelict Dublin, revive and reinterpret it and turn it into a world class riverside amenity and business district which would attract people back into the city and create employment, educational possibilities and a new skyline for the city. The dream turned into a nightmare as it was sacrificed to the irrational greed of a few developers and financiers who regarded the Dublin Docklands Development Authority as the ultimate soft touch, which it proved to be.

Depending on one's point of view, the best or worst example of how the Dublin Docklands Development Authority went completely off the rails was its involvement in the Irish Glass Bottle site in the Poolbeg Peninsula. The authority entered a partnership with two private property developers, Mr. Bernard McNamara and Mr. Derek Quinlan, to form a joint venture company to purchase the Irish Glass Bottle site. We have learned from documents I sourced using the Freedom of Information Act that in October 2006 the chief executive of the DDDA informed his board that Mr. Bernard McNamara was about to make a bid for the Irish Glass Bottle site in Poolbeg. Mr. McNamara said he would be happy to accept the DDDA as joint venture partner. Why would he not be happy given that it was the local planning authority of the area? This version of events is disputed in the courts by Mr. McNamara who alleges that Mr. Paul Moloney, the then chief executive of the authority, approached him. Why would Mr. Moloney make such an approach? The only conclusion I can reach is that he did so at the suggestion of members of the board who had a vested interest in the matter or because he wanted to play with the big boys and did not want to be left out during a period when many people were making gains from the Celtic tiger.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

While I do not wish to interrupt, Deputies should, as far as possible, avoid referring to people outside the House by name unless the issues they raise are in the public domain or on the public record.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I am stating the facts as they occurred. I will, however, take account of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's remark.

The difference between the purchase of the glass bottle site and previous cases in which the Dublin Docklands Development Authority bought property is that other private developers planned to purchase the site. As the local planning authority, why would the DDDA want to enter a joint venture with a property development company at the height of the Celtic tiger? This key question has not been properly answered. When she appeared before the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government last week, the new chairperson of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, Professor Niamh Brennan, could not give a satisfactory explanation as to the objectives or reasons that would propel the authority to become involved in this project at a time when property values were high and many people were interested in getting involved in property. I hope the Minister will indicate that he plans to provide an answer to this key question.

The Irish Glass Bottle site was sold by tender in October 2006. The site was bought for €412 million or €17.2 million per acre, a phenomenal price which broke previous records. An additional sum of between €50 million and €90 million was set aside for remedial work, including demolition and decontamination. Board meeting minutes acquired by the Fine Gael Party show the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Dick Roche, signed off on increasing the authority's borrowing limit to facilitate the deal and sanctioned the acquisition of shares in the joint venture company. It is interesting that last week Professor Brennan was a little unsure about the role of the Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Finance in signing off on these matters.

Many questions remain to be answered about the Government's role in this disastrous deal. I ask the Minister to assure the House that he is anxious to resolve these matters and that he will be up front on what has occurred and what he proposes to do about it. I expect him to support this legislation as, rather than providing an opportunity to delay decisions, it will enable the House to ensure another quango is subject to legitimate accountability in response to recent revelations that a State body with a commercial remit has suffered massive losses and a massive shortfall in the moneys accruing to it.

The value of the Irish Glass Bottle site has declined from €412 million to €50 million. Even using the questionable valuation of longer economic value applied by the National Asset Management Agency, the site is still only valued at €62.5 million. The use of NAMA valuations for properties held by the State is a practice with which I disagree. Will this methodology be used to value local authority lands, IDA Ireland property and other State properties for the annual reports which will come before the House? The Government must provide clarity on whether State agencies can value property based on its long-term economic value rather than current market value. The Minister has strong views on this matter and must assert himself.

It is obvious that the decision to get involved with private property developers using Anglo Irish Bank finance to purchase a greatly overpriced site has backfired spectacularly. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority has posted an operating loss of €27.1 million for 2008 with a final deficit of €213 million as a result of massive write-downs on its property. How did the DDDA get into such a position? Was it a soft touch for developers? It was certainly a soft touch for the boys in Anglo Irish Bank, the most prestigious financial club in town. The bank populated the board of the authority and ran it as if it was the riverside branch of its operations and a part of its personal fiefdom. The authority became the playground of Anglo Irish Bank personnel. Those appointed to the DDDA board had to be the right people for the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and Anglo Irish Bank.

Fianna Fáil populated the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority with Anglo Irish Bank officials for years. It was chaired by Mr. Lar Bradshaw, who served for a ten-year term until May 2007. He was replaced by Mr. Donal O'Connor, formally managing partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Mr. O'Connor resigned when he was appointed to the chair of Anglo Irish Bank in December 2008. Mr. O'Connor's predecessor as chairman, Mr. Seánie FitzPatrick, was also a board member of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority from 2002. The board did not follow best practice rules for conflict of interest and we have established as much. Far from it. The Anglo Irish Bank board members took part in the special board meeting at which final approval of the purchase of the Irish Glass Bottle site was debated. They gave full blessing to a deal that used their bank's finance to purchase land that broke all price records. However, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority insisted there was no conflict of interest. The chief executive must have known this would become an issue because other board members were still concerned about a perception of conflict of interest and we have the minutes to show this.

The role of Anglo Irish Bank in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority corrupted its original goal. Anything the Anglo Irish Bank boys wanted was theirs and it was as simple as that. They sought the Dublin Docklands Development Authority as a partner in a vast development and this is no surprise because of its planning function. The discussions surrounding the purchase of the site were between the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, Anglo Irish Bank, Mr. McNamara and Mr. Quinlan on the basis of the density of housing and commercial development on the site. It was up to them to decide on that. A State body put most of its time, expertise and money at the disposal of Anglo Irish Bank. When the Anglo boys said "Jump", the only question put was "How high?". The end result was gross, outrageous overspending and bad and doubtful debts which have contributed to a deficit of almost €213 million in the overall accounts.

The new chairperson of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, Professor Niamh Brennan, was understating the situation somewhat when she remarked during the recent meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that Anglo Irish Bank carried out very extensive work with developers and, as a result, its relationship with developers led to the authority having a pro-developer position. She further remarked that the association between Anglo Irish Bank and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has not served the authority well. She was perfectly correct. It is obvious that having Anglo Irish Bank officials involved in approving questionable investment decisions by the authority using Anglo Irish Bank financing was a completely unacceptable situation. The end result is a sense of community betrayal and baffling questions for the public as it watched the cranes cease to move over the half-built headquarters and as it absorbed the news that the U2 tower was never going to materialise.

As early last December, the authority examined all its programmes to establish how much could be cut because of the activities of the executive and the board of the authority. All community programmes on education, social housing and integration were considered for a budget cut. No one called for responsibility to be taken by those already on the board who made these decisions. No one in the organisation was approached for the purposes of retrieving some of the money for the irresponsible actions and decisions made. The only people to suffer will be the little people, those who required the benefits for which the organisation was established such as employment, education, community development and social housing facilitates. Funding for all such programmes was cut. The chairperson has now informed us that all discretionary expenditure is being cut and that it will have to move back to the old premises. I can only image how shell-shocked the local residents of the docklands are as a result. The question to which we must get an answer is simple: what the hell has been going on in Dublin Docklands Development Authority?

I understand the Minister and Professor Brennan have commissioned two reports, which is welcome. I trust they will produce some clarity about the financial dealings and the corporate governance issues. The Anglo Irish Bank personnel who were intricately involved with the authority have been playing charades throughout the years. It was a case of Lanigan's Ball and "I step in, you step out again". Any time a decision was to be made by the board that involved favouring one of the Anglo Irish Bank boys' pet customers, they received preferential treatment.

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority boys played dumb. They were as dumb as trees and as thick as planks. A perfect example is the case of Becbay, a consortium the Dublin Docklands Development Authority management was central in forming and it now owns somewhat greater than one quarter of the stake. One might question why such people as Mr. Bernard McNamara and Mr. Derek Quinlan would need the Dublin Docklands Development Authority as a partner. It was not simply for planning issues. The authority had no track record in such partnerships. It was easy fodder for the developers who gained a partner which provided an inside track on planning matters and the State.

Recently, it has been brought to our attention that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority provided a €43 million soft loan to Becbay to develop the Irish Glass Bottle site. It was an interest free, long-term and unsecured loan. We would all be delighted to have access to such facilities whether for personal or corporate uses. However, this is an example of a situation in which there was no regulation. There was no transparency or accountability and everything was out of control. That is why we seek the introduction of this legislation as soon as possible. This Fine Gael Bill should be agreed as soon as possible to get to grips with matters of accountability and such that probing by the Comptroller and Auditor General will get to the root of why certain decisions were made, how they were made and what was behind those decisions in respect of a small number of individuals and which has, ultimately, led to the taxpayer being ripped off.

Even before the stripes fell off the Celtic tiger, it was not easy to secure such a loan from anyone to do anything. The DDDA loan was subordinated to the loans of the secured lenders to Becbay, with the result that the authority was assuming a greater risk in lending to the firm than the bankers to the project. What great people those on the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority were. They took an even greater risk than the banks which, as we are aware, took many risks at the time.

It is no wonder people are outraged at the decisions taken by the management on the issues sanctioned by the board. However, from the picture I have painted this evening, it is possible to see there is good reason that key individuals and players at board and senior executive level were in cahoots to ensure that they were part of the action. The €43 million has now been written off, according to notes to the accounts of the authority published recently. The authority also guaranteed €29 million of Becbay's bank borrowings, plus a 26% share of any interest on its loans, for the full term of those loans, representing another albatross around the neck of the taxpayer who will, ultimately, have to pick up the tab through the Minister.

As the stripes were peeling off the Celtic tiger, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority was so eager to get involved with Quinlan and McNamara and it willingly subordinated its money to the loans made by the banks to the same project.

At a time when anybody with two brain cells could see that the so-called soft landing, to which the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen, often referred, would come sooner rather than later, the chief executive officer of the DDDA effectively informed Mr. Quinlan and Mr. McNamara that they could count on the authority for €43 million, not to worry about paying it back, to take their time in doing so, that there was no hurry and not to even consider paying interest.

It remains for the Minister to make several decisions tomorrow. A good deal of money has been wasted by irresponsible behaviour despite the purpose of the authority to work for the people that the Minister, everyone else in the House and I try to represent and help. The last thing we seek is for the people who made these decisions to get away scot free, as has happened on many occasions in the past. The board members throughout the years, some of whom I have referred to tonight, should be brought before the relevant organisations and accountable structures, even if it involves the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, to account for their stewardship and for the irresponsible decision making carried out in our name.

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority approach was like a mad version of the housekeeper in "Father Ted", who used to say "Ah, go on, go on, go on". However, they will not pay it back.

Deputy James Reilly

The sandwiches are gone.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Their mantra is, "We will not, we will not, we will not pay it back or be accountable". There will be a situation in which the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and its debts will be written off and will go down the tubes. It will be a very sad day for anyone in the Houses of the Oireachtas to have to report this for an organisation established with the noble objectives of reviving and regenerating an area of the city that needed it. All we have witnessed is the big boys with their vested interests getting away scot free with taxpayers' money. I call on the Minister to change this and to give a solemn commitment to the House that this will not take place. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority was so attractive to developers because, apart from the soft loans available, it had access to planning permission.

There is, of course, the small matter of €5.5 million of expenditure on lawyers by the DDDA. I note a significant increase in legal expenses in recent years in the accounts, especially from 2005 onwards. The reasons for that have never been explained. Perhaps the Minister can explain the legal and other expenses that have accrued into massive amounts that shot up exponentially in recent years to a far greater extent than should have been the case. There must be a reason for that. In addition, litigation must be taking place behind the scenes that has not been held to account by this House. That expenditure resulted from people going to court who did not get planning permission or promises of securement fulfilled.

I understand Mr. McNamara is going to court tomorrow to resume his case against the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. The Davy nominees are going to court with Mr. McNamara. I have come to the conclusion that it is a case either of thieves falling out with each other over the manner in which the docklands area was ravaged, with the taxpayer picking up the tab, or there are genuine reasons for people going to court in order to get their legitimate agreements enforced. This issue smells. As I described it last week, it is a financial septic tank at this stage. Unfortunately, the players are bringing the entire area of financial probity into disrepute. I do not wish the Minister to be part of that.

Davy's is suing Mr. McNamara because of the guarantees that were given by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. Anglo Irish Bank and AIB provided the bulk of the funding for the Irish Glass Bottle site. Anglo Irish Bank, whose board members included Mr. FitzPatrick and Mr. Bradshaw, was on the board of the authority until April 2007. The former CEO was always pointing out that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority was no charge on the taxpayer. That was what we thought until we received the 2008 annual report, which was presented last week, and we learned of a €27 million black hole in the accounts. Let us be in no doubt, every cent of that money will be a cost to the State and to the taxpayer. I want people to be held to account.

It is also interesting that the majority of debt from the State body is owed to another State body, Anglo Irish Bank, which will soon transfer the bad debts onto another State body, the National Asset Management Agency. That has been the legacy of poor governance, especially under Fianna Fáil, a circle of bad debt all owned by the Government and paid off by the taxpayer.

Let us park all that bad news for a moment and move on to other news. One of the best bits of news was the appointment of Professor Brennan as chairman of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. I support her appointment fully. As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I had the opportunity, along with other committee members, to question her for more than two hours on her stewardship of the authority to date. She should be given every support by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department, whose officials were asleep at the wheel, as the Department was represented on the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. The Minister should be inquiring whether the officials were doing something to bring those matters to the attention of the Minister of the day, and if they were being overruled. I do not believe any official of the Department or of this House would sit on a board where those questionable decisions were being made without bringing the reports to the attention of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government of the day. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether they were being overruled.

Professor Brennan has given us an opportunity to look behind the scenes on some of the issues that are questionable. I wish to refer to the U2 tower. An architectural competition was held and it was won by a company called BCDH, composed of talented young architects. When Mr. Maloney took over as CEO of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, he also took over the U2 tower project as his own. He hired his old friends from Dublin City Council within a matter of weeks. He visited London on a number of occasions to view comparable towers. He went to the market for a firm of contractors to build the U2 tower. Significantly, the procurement document he crafted stated that when they were putting in their bid, the contractors could, if they wanted, come up with a new design, their own design, for the tower. How much of an inside track did Mr. Seán Mulryan have with the former CEO when his company, Geranger Limited, won the contract?

I also wish to know the sequence of actions the CEO took to redress the situation for the young architects who had legitimately won the contest, and why it ended up in arbitration, costing the Dublin Docklands Development Authority money as well. Who were the Davy stockbrokers that were nominated shareholders on the Irish Glass Bottle site? Professor Brennan could not answer the question the other day, but I would like the Minister to give an assurance that none of the board members of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority was involved as shareholders, stakeholders or property owners of the Irish Glass Bottle site or any other site without declaring an interest.

Those are the issues that confront the Oireachtas tonight and tomorrow when we will vote on the Bill. It is for that reason that Fine Gael is proposing an amendment to the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act to provide improved auditing and greater accountability in terms of the manner in which that site has been hammered into the ground. I hope the Minister has been listening carefully and that he will be able to reassure me on how those issues were dealt with and that he is prepared to do something about it.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

I support my colleague, Deputy Hogan, and agree with what he said. He was correct to say that the aspirations behind the setting up of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority were noble. The same is true in terms of fast-tracking the planning process and attempting to ensure that land which hitherto was undeveloped would be developed in a proper manner and that people who won contracts to build fabulous buildings on those sites or adjoining them would provide jobs, interest and lots of good things. The only thing missing in the formula was accountability, which goes to the heart of the Bill.

What Deputy Hogan outlined is that the heart of that organisation and other organisations set up by the State on a semi-State basis must be accountable to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That means they must come before the Committee of Public Accounts and be questioned. It is certain that this process will take place and once it does not happen, as it did not in this case — it never will unless our Bill is passed — we will never get true accountability no matter what Professor Brennan does. If the strong arm of the law of the State in examining and considering the affairs of companies such as the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, namely, the Comptroller and Auditor General, is not part of the State or semi-State process, it is doomed to failure and to create waste.

I am appalled at the waste of money and the litany of abuse and possibly corruption that seems to be at the heart of what Deputy Hogan has outlined. I accept and acknowledge that the Minister will take the matter seriously, but he has to take it seriously enough. It is not good enough to say "Yes", he has to say what he will do about it, when he will act to tackle the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and other bodies such as CIE, a large quango that gets a subsidy of €323 million per annum to run its organisation. When CIE refused to give members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport a copy of an audited report that identified serious abuses in a section of its organisation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister does not have responsibility for CIE.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

I accept he does not have but I make the analogy that problems arise when one sets up bodies that are not accountable to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Minister is a member of the Government and I refer to holding him accountable in that context. CIE will not reveal the full facts about the report. It has refused to give the report to me and others. To date, it has not provided the Minister with the report either. We are trying to make CIE accountable. The intention of the Bill is to make the Dublin Docklands Development Authority accountable, but we need to make other quangos, such as CIE, accountable as well. That is not to say there are not fabulous, good people working in such bodies; of course there are, but there are significant abuses which have been uncovered by CIE's own auditors which it will not allow us to see.

In terms of port authorities, the Minister could do worse than ask his colleague, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, to consider the second largest port in the country, the Shannon Foynes Port Company and the issues that arose in that regard. The best site in Foynes, 16.6 acres of land, was sold in 2002 to a company for a little more than €2 million. What was wrong with that? There was a hell of a lot wrong with it because there was no public auction for the land, no tendering process and no administrative powers were given to the chief executive at that time to carry out those inquiries, investigations or procedures with that company. The company which bought the site, which was sold by the taxpayer for €2 million, paid more than €12 million for it three years later. There are records of its interest in that site in 2004 and yet the port company did not hold a public tendering process. A report by Deloitte points out that serious and significant issues arise from that. Some people in Foynes believe there was corruption at the heart of what happened there and it is unacceptable to them.

Also in Foynes, an arrangement was made——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2009.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

I am talking about accountability. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2009 provides for accountability in the docklands area and for what is going on in a company which is run by the State and paid for by the taxpayer but which is not accountable to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

An employee of the port company in Foynes accepted a tender from himself and his good wife for more than €100,000 for a boat which nobody wanted. It was amazing what went on there. We want an inquiry into that. The people are fed up with all this abuse. We want the Garda to carry out an inquiry and if it needs to go into the DDDA as well, that is where it should be.

At the heart of the political system are quangos which are not accountable to the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the absence of accountability in cases like those about which we are talking, one has significant and unacceptable abuses. I hope the principle of this Bill will apply to other companies such as Foynes and other harbour authorities which are not accountable to the Comptroller and Auditor General. We need to take a much more investigative and proactive approach to what is going on and to how taxpayers' money is being wasted in a disgraceful, shameful and unaccountable manner.

Deputy James Reilly

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has always shown great interest in the management of waste. This is about waste. Deputies O'Dowd and Hogan spoke about the aspirations of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to develop the docklands area and to have the dual objective of promoting balanced community development through the use of sponsorships, social support, etc. What is the DDDA now? It is an extraordinary quango for the golden circle. Names have been mentioned and they will be mentioned again because they keep turning up.

For a long time in this country, there has been a sense of the elite, the untouchables and the inside track and this problem with which we are faced confirms that. A site bought for €412 million may now be worth €50 million which is a loss of more than €300 million. That is extraordinary, in particular on the night before one of the most hard-hitting budgets the country will ever have had, or may ever have, to endure. This afternoon the Taoiseach said there was not 10%, or €2 billion, fraud in our social welfare system. He said everyone one this side of the House would accuse everyone on social welfare of being fraudulent. Nothing could be further from the truth but we all know there is abuse. A programme on television last night showed that quite clearly. The level of that abuse will be very difficult to assess unless there is clarity surrounding PPS numbers. Until we have clarity, there will be difficulties in that area. That has been due for 11 years but nothing has happened. However, I do not want to digress down that road.

I wish to talk about the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and the cosy relationships between people on the board of that authority, the board of Anglo Irish Bank and well known developers. As has been pointed out, any developer would give his or her right arm to be in the same room as the people who give out planning permissions. It was a nonsensical arrangement and there were so many conflicts of interest that it beggared belief. It is worth mentioning again that Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. FitzPatrick resigned from Anglo Irish Bank in December 2008 as they both had joint loans which had been transferred to Irish Nationwide Building Society at year end so as not to appear on the bank's published accounts.

This country is in a state of stasis and crisis. People have lost faith. This Government has managed, through its inept leadership, to turn the public sector against the private sector and to create situations on television where public and private workers are fighting with each other. That is not the way this country was before and it is not the sort of leadership we need. We need a leadership which unites us in our difficulties and helps us face them together.

The ordinary worker on €15,000 per year was hit with a pension levy of 1% and yet a man who destroyed his own bank and the banking system of the country walks off somewhere to play golf on €500,000 per year. These are the sorts of issues that cause social unrest. If they are not addressed and if we do not put in place proper regulation and proper legislation, which is what this Bill attempts to do, then I fear for the future of this country. The ordinary man or woman on the street is no longer prepared to put up with this. They will take the pain if they know we will all share in the gain at the other end and if we all share the pain together. However, this episode shows us this is not the case. It is one rule for the ordinary citizen and it is another one for the elite, the golden circle and the well connected cronies of mainly Fianna Fáil.

CIE was mentioned and I refer to the HSE and all the waste which occurs there. Five years ago, were premises in Lusk purchased by the HSE for €1.7 million but it lies boarded up because somebody did not do his or her homework and realise it would not get fire safety certificates. How much has that cost? What could we have had for that money? Let us make it real for people.

When people hear about hundreds of millions of euro, they think it is Monopoly money and that it is a disgrace. However, it is money which could have paid for the cervical cancer vaccine for children and could have started the colorectal cancer screening service. That alone could have saved 400 lives per year. It could have built the cystic fibrosis unit in St. Vincent's Hospital for which we have fought so hard and so long. It could have put in place the psychiatric unit in Beaumont Hospital for which planning was received in 2004 and which has been put on the back burner again because of private co-location, which the Minister, Deputy Gormley, opposed when on this side of the House and which he is now allowing to happen. Some 23 women in one ward and 23 men in another with 2 ft. between their beds share a bank of three toilets and two showers.

One year ago I raised the issue of an unemployment exchange for people who were facing their first Christmas unemployed and who are now facing their second Christmas unemployed. There is still no exchange in Balbriggan and Swords which are proper and fit premises. Balbriggan is the eighth worst area for unemployment in the country with an increase of 282% on last year. We could have had a secondary schools in Lusk and various other places.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is being afforded an opportunity by Deputy Hogan and Fine Gael to put in place legislation which will tackle all quangos, not only this one. The Comptroller and Auditor General is the regulator which stands head and shoulders above all others in this country in its ability to do the right thing by the public and seek out waste. It does so without fear or favour. I commend the Bill to the House.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley)

The Bill that Deputy Hogan now proposes, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2009, has a number of objectives. They are to bring the authority within the audit remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General; to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General undertake special reports into the authority's operations; and to require its CEO to come before the Committee of Public Accounts to report on the authority's accounts or on any special report undertaken by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority, like all State bodies, must apply the highest standards of corporate governance and financial management and must be accountable to the appropriate oversight authority on these matters. There is no disagreement between me and Deputy Hogan on that basic principle. However, we may disagree on whether the Comptroller and Auditor General is the most appropriate oversight authority and, if so, the timing of any decision to bring the authority within the audit remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

I have stated as recently as 24 November in response to questions raised by the Deputy in the House that I will keep the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General in auditing the authority under review. I am not yet ready, for reasons which I will outline, to take a final decision on this matter. I cannot accept the provisions of the Bill at this stage.

The 1997 Act establishing the Dublin Docklands Development Authority sets out the basis on which the authority is to be funded, including arrangements for it to raise borrowings and the mechanisms by which it is to manage its financial affairs, including how its accounts are to be audited. The authority's accounts are subject to a full and detailed audit by its independent external auditors, KPMG. In accordance with the requirements of the Act, the annual report and accounts of the authority are laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

The State's code of corporate governance, which was most recently updated this year, sets out the governance arrangements that should be applied by the authority in the conduct of its business. It deals with matters such as the avoidance of conflict of interest, adherence to proper procurement practices, participation in joint ventures and acquisition of shares by a State body, the preparation of corporate and strategic plans, and the appropriate reporting arrangement for annual reports and accounts.

A somewhat unique approach in the docklands and a key element of its success has been the collaborative and partnership arrangement that exists through its advisory council. The authority is structured in such a way that ensures that public consultation is ingrained in its operation through the 25-member representative council and various consultative fora. The members of the council come from a range of different backgrounds and political parties. The council adopts the master plan for the authority, which is the blueprint for how the authority determines priorities and plans its business. This working model is now regarded as best practice in both a national and international context.

The final piece of the existing oversight arrangements is the facility for the Oireachtas, through the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to question the authority on its financial position and other relevant issues. I was somewhat surprised to find that one week after the Deputy led the questioning of the dockland authority's chair and acting CEO before the Oireachtas joint committee for over three hours, we now have a Bill before the House proposing to transfer responsibility for Oireachtas oversight of the authority from the Deputy's committee to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I have a point of information.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may make a point of order.

Deputy Phil Hogan

On a point of order.

Deputy John Gormley

Do I have to accept a point of order?

Deputy Phil Hogan

We are not seeking to transfer the oversight of any organisation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Deputy Phil Hogan

The organisation will still be able to send representatives before the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have an opportunity to contribute again.

Deputy John Gormley

I was going to commend the Deputy on his scrutiny of this issue.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I do not see that in the script.

Deputy John Gormley

The Deputy should always check against delivery. The committee should be commended on its questioning, which is extremely important. I will elaborate on that later.

Any useful discussion of the performance of the authority has to benchmark what it has achieved when compared to the role assigned to it by its founding legislation. The authority was established in 1997 to secure the social and economic regeneration of the docklands area. In general terms, the authority is a commercial semi-State body, financed entirely from its own resources, which are generated through the acquisition, development and sale of property in the docklands area.

Since 1997, the authority has delivered substantially on its statutory duty to regenerate the Dublin docklands area. Over the past ten years, it has completed a wide range of projects and initiatives addressing education, employment, community development and housing. The area has been transformed into a vibrant, sustainable and integrated community at the heart of our capital city. The docklands project is valued not just nationally but is recognised as one of only a small number of best practice models for inner-city regeneration across Europe and beyond.

Nobody can dispute the physical transformation that has taken place in docklands. Projects such as the IFSC, the O2, Grand Canal Square, the Liebskind Theatre, the National Conference Centre and the Sean O’Casey and Samuel Beckett bridges all demonstrate the scale and quality of the transformation in the docklands. Today we see the opening of the Luas extension through the docklands from Connolly Station to the O2. That is a remarkable achievement in a short space of time.

Since its inception in 1997, the authority has generally been self-financing and has maintained a healthy financial position while undertaking new property acquisitions and investing in and facilitating key infrastructure in the docklands. Over the past year or two, however, the collapse in international financial and property markets has created serious financial challenges for the authority. The resulting impairment in the value of its property interests and the slowdown in commercial activity have had very serious consequences for the authority's financial standing. The year 2008 saw accumulated losses of €213 million for the year, including a loss on operations of €27 million, and very significant write-downs on its property assets, including its investment in the Irish Glass Bottle site in Ringsend.

These impairment losses are based on valuations of the authority's property portfolio. The authority acknowledges that these valuations are extremely prudent and are based on the extreme market realities that prevail at present, accepted as being the most difficult trading environment for many years. The net result of these devaluations has been a reduction in the authority's own net assets from €177 million in 2007 to €26 million in 2008.

I understand that the chair of the authority outlined to the Oireachtas committee last Tuesday how the authority has responded aggressively and urgently to its financial position. Measures include all overheads being carefully monitored and reduced where possible; discretionary spending being cut significantly; and staff numbers being reduced significantly as fixed-term contracts expire. The authority's operating deficit has already narrowed significantly during the current year and the chair expects the deficit will be reduced from its 2008 level of €27 million to less than €10 million by the end of 2009. This process of recovery is expected to continue next year and the authority is aiming to return to a break-even position in 2011 on its operating costs.

The political and public concern regarding the financial position of the authority, as well as concerns about its property investments and standards of corporate governance, are understandable. I am very concerned about the decisions it took in recent years which left it exposed financially and cast a cloud over its reputation. The authority took its eye off its fundamental objective, the social regeneration of the docklands area.

Much excellent work has been done in this area over the past ten years. More than 3,000 new residential units have been approved, including over 800 social and affordable housing units. Almost €16 million has been spent on social regeneration. The authority's education programmes in the docklands have been an outstanding success. The percentage of docklanders leaving school before the age of 12 has fallen from 35% to 13%; those leaving before age 15 have fallen from 65% to 30%; the numbers of locals sitting the leaving certificate have risen from 10% to 60%; and those participating in third-level education has risen from 1% to 10%. The future focus of the authority, while not losing sight of its economic role, must be on its key regeneration functions.

The work of the DDDA can only continue if it adopts an open and transparent approach to how it conducts its business. It must restore the confidence of its key stakeholders — the local communities in the docklands, those who work there and the public. My appointment of Professor Niamh Brennan as chairman of the authority in March this year was aimed at bringing her reputation and expertise in corporate governance to bear in setting the authority on the right path again. I am grateful to her for her leadership of the organisation in the most difficult period in its short history.

Deputy Hogan raised concerns about corporate governance in the authority and he pursued this matter vigorously at a meeting of the Oireachtas joint committee last week. The Deputy is correct to pose these questions. Professor Brennan dealt openly last week with what she termed the "systematic conflict of interest which occurred at the docklands authority in the middle years of this decade". I requested her some time back to undertake a comprehensive review of corporate governance within the authority and two reports examining its finance operations and its planning functions were subsequently commissioned by the authority. Professor Brennan indicated to the committee last week that the reports will be to the same exacting standards as any similar report undertaken by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The reports will leave no stone unturned. I am anxious to get to the truth and I hope we can do that. I agree with the chairman's statement to the committee last week. I expect both reports to be finalised shortly. Once I have received and considered them, I will quickly consult the Government on the necessary set of responses.

Even at this stage, the authority has implemented several procedural changes aimed at improving corporate governance. These include reducing the expenditure limit requiring board approval; preparation of a central procedures manual for the authority; the introduction of more formal strategic and corporate planning processes on an annual basis by the end of 2009, as required by the revised code of practice for State bodies — this will supplement the authority's master plan, which is required under its parent Act and which was updated in 2008; a review by the internal auditors of the authority's risk management framework, with areas of weakness remedied; and revised procedures for the section 25 fast-track planning powers, including in regard to public consultation. The authority is also considering other measures to improve reporting arrangements with my Department.

Under the 1997 Act, the Oireachtas has entrusted my office and the office of the Minister for Finance with the task of ensuring that the DDDA operates in accordance with its statutory mandate. The principal legislation governing the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General is the 1993 Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act. This Act details the accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The main such accounts are the Appropriation Accounts of Departments and Government offices; the finance accounts; the accounts of revenue collections; and the accounts of the non-commercial semi-State bodies listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. As a general rule, the legislation establishing non-commercial State bodies specifies that the Comptroller and Auditor General should audit the accounts of these bodies. Commercial State bodies, on the other hand, are generally audited by private commercial auditors rather than by the Comptroller and Auditor General. This reflects the independent commercial role of these bodies and also the fact that, in general, these bodies are funded by their own resources and borrowings rather than by grants from the Exchequer.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 specifically prohibits the Comptroller and Auditor General from exercising his role in regard to the commercial State bodies listed in Schedule 2 of the Act, which includes the Custom House Docks Development Authority, the DDDA's predecessor. The Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Bernard Allen, wrote to my Department as well as to the Minister of Finance in June this year, requesting that the authority be brought within the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This request followed a previous request from the Oireachtas joint committee to the Comptroller and Auditor General in May, asking him to examine and prepare a report on the authority's annual report and accounts for the past five years. The Comptroller and Auditor General's response stated the authority did not fall within its remit, as the DDDA Act specifically provided that the authority can appoint its own auditors, subject to the approval of the Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Finance, and his power of inspection only applies to bodies that receive at least 50% of their funds from the Exchequer.

Having considered the matter, I replied to the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts in September, pointing out the current arrangements whereby I am required, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, under section 43 of the DDDA Act to approve the appointment of independent auditors to sign off on the authority's annual accounts and that I did not intend to change the existing arrangements. Under these arrangements, it is open to the joint committee to have staff of the authority appear before it, thereby affording the Oireachtas an opportunity to question them on the authority's accounts and activities. This facility has been availed of twice in the past year, with representatives of the DDDA appearing before the committee in February and again last week. I am not opposed to the idea of a more formal role for the Comptroller and Auditor General, in principle, and I will keep the need for future involvement on the part of the Comptroller and Auditor General under review. However, a role for the Comptroller and Auditor General needs to be considered as part of an overall strategic response to the corporate governance reviews, which are nearing finalisation.

The authority has been instrumental in transforming the docklands and improving the lives and aspirations of docklanders. Despite its financial difficulties during 2008, the authority continued to progress most of its social development, leisure, tourism and culture initiatives. The imminent completion of the convention centre, the Grand Canal theatre, the Samuel Beckett bridge and the Luas to the Point village will bring more positive news to the docklands area in the near future. The recent completion and opening of the O2 arena has given the area a welcome lift. Apart from being a top class entertainment venue, the O2 will provide more than 600 jobs during its 150 to 200 annual events. Considerable progress has been made on Dublin’s convention centre at Spencer Dock. This world class centre, which is due to open in next September includes a 2,000 seat auditorium and will extend to more than 440,000 sq m. Following the completion of the centre, Dublin will be in a position to compete in the international convention market. The unique and distinctive Samuel Beckett bridge, which will link Macken Street on the south side with Guild Street on the north side, will open this week. Work on the Luas red line extension from Connolly Station to the O2 is complete and trams began operations today.

While restructuring is necessary for the authority to refocus on delivery of short-term key goals in a difficult operating environment, it also aims to maintain a core skills base within the organisation to ensure that the authority is well positioned to take advantage of future opportunities. The DDDA has brought significant benefits to the Dublin docklands. It has ground to make up in repairing its finances and its reputation. I look forward to receiving the corporate governance reports from the chairman and I will act decisively in response to them.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

The Labour Party supports the Bill, which is intended to amend the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 to permit the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out inspections of the DDDA under that Act. It is proposed to amend sections 8 and 9 of the 1993 Act and this is feasible. If the Fine Gael proposal is not acceptable, I am sure a similar Bill can be agreed by the Oireachtas or introduced by the Government. One could fit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority into the various provisions of section 8 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993. It certainly seems to be a runner. Section 8 refers to inspection for the purpose of determining whether and to what extent moneys are received by certain bodies from the Government. One of the matters mentioned by the chairwoman of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, Professor Niamh Brennan, when she came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was that if the banks were to call in the guarantee for the Irish Glass Bottle site of approximately €35 million, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority would need Government assistance and that is relevant. The Schedule of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 lists the various bodies audited and it would seem appropriate that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority would be included.

I appreciate what the Minister stated about the investigations he commissioned. I understand they are being carried out by the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. I was not at the meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government attended by the chairwoman of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority but I have read the report. She stated that the reviews which are about to be published would be of the standard of the Comptroller and Auditor General but the issue is that they are not independent and do not have the openness and transparency that an inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General would have.

The issues that arose since the publication of the annual report and the presentation made by Professor Niamh Brennan last week are about the transparency with which the Dublin Docklands Development Authority did its business. Incidents occurred where it seems apparent that members of the board had conflicts of interest when decisions were made. At the committee meeting, the chairwoman stated: "People have asked questions about the objectivity of the authority and about its integrity. Some of these questions have been raised arising from systematic conflicts of interest within the authority and in particular with regard to its association with Anglo Irish Bank."

In that light, the issue is to do with the independence of the authority and whether its procedures were transparent. Conflicts of interest were involved and great problems have arisen out of that. The Minister needs an independent investigation into this and the Bill provides a way of doing so. It will help clear the air and be helpful to the board if the Comptroller and Auditor General carries out an inspection. There is much regard for the reports carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General; we all have much faith in them and they are accountable to the Dáil and the Seanad. It would benefit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority in terms of restoring public confidence to have that inspection take place in a legal, open and transparent way that is accountable to the Dáil and Seanad, in a way that the investigations that have been carried out and are yet to be published are not.

If we did what the Fine Gael Bill proposes and have the Comptroller and Auditor General carry out an inspection of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, the investigation and its report could inform not only how we deal with the Dublin Docklands Development Authority but how we deal with similar authorities that will be established in the future and how local authorities carry out or promote development in particular areas. Many of the issues raised with the Dublin Docklands Development Authority have much wider application.

Based on the information given to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, it seems that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority got into development as an exercise in gambling and speculation. Development should be about developing communities, including retail, residential and all aspects of development. It should not be about financial speculation. It seems that in recent years the Dublin Docklands Development Authority gambled and lost. The chairwoman stated that in 2008 the Dublin Docklands Development Authority made operating losses of €27 million in comparison with a surplus of €3.7 million the previous year. When the losses came they were major. Assets were written down by €186 million, and including a 26% investment in the Irish Glass Bottle site through a private company consolidates the deficit at €213 million. This year, there are net assets of €26 million compared with net assets of €177 million the previous year. The chairwoman told the committee that in the consolidated balance sheet the net liabilities were €48.5 million compared to net assets the previous year of €177 million.

This is similar to the rest of the economy and the Government's decision to guarantee the banks and establish NAMA is related. It is all part of the picture. Even some of the people involved in the collapse of the banks are involved. Seán FitzPatrick was on the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and on the board of Anglo Irish Bank. I understand that people so lost sight of the fact that conflicts of interest should not be allowed to arise in these matters that when he was on the board he invited two different chairmen of the board onto the board of Anglo Irish Bank. That seems totally inappropriate and obviously gives rise to conflicts of interest.

The Minister stated there were good projects and he spoke about some of them. Social regeneration and education projects were part of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority development but why did social regeneration and education have to be based on developer-led planning? Why did they have to be tied up with the making of money by developers and speculative planning? This is the case not only with Dublin Docklands Development Authority. In recent years, the outlook that the way to create a park was to allow a developer build hundreds of apartments, the way to create affordable housing was to allow a developer make a huge profit and the way to create a school building was to allow a developer build thousands of houses became the philosophy of how we do things. Schools, social regeneration and the provision of parks should not be a matter of development; they should be the responsibility of the State. Most of these should not be part of the free-marketeerism that operates in the private sector.

The issues raised with regard to the development by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority are ones we need to examine in terms of our overall outlook on planning. From that point of view, what Fine Gael proposes in the Bill will be helpful. A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General would have much more credibility than the reports due to be published and I do not in any way question the credibility of those reports. I am stating that the Comptroller and Auditor General is provided for under legislation and is accountable to the Dáil and the Seanad. People trust the Comptroller and Auditor General's inspections and reports, many of which have been very good and have brought to light important matters. If a similar inspection regime were put in place in respect of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, it would be a worthwhile exercise.

If we proceed along our current course, with the reports relating to the two reviews that have been carried out being published and decisions subsequently being taken, there is a major possibility that matters will return to the way they were previously. When she came before the relevant committee, the chairman of the authority referred to the problem of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority being pro-developer, which is welcome. However, she also stated that the desire is to return the authority to a break-even situation. What will happen then? Is it envisaged that there will be a return to the speculator or developer-driven model the authority was operating until now? Government policy in respect of establishing NAMA appears to indicate that the latter could happen. That approach is both unrealistic and a mistake.

We must take stock with regard to how we plan development in the future. When I contributed to the debate on the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 last week, the Minister unfortunately was obliged to leave. I requested that there be a moratorium on rezonings until we take stock in respect of the situation relating to flooding. I do not believe the fact that development has taken place on flood plains is the sole reason for the flooding that has occurred. The position is much more complex. There are many different factors involved in flooding.

I am of the view that too much development has taken place too quickly. It is the accumulation of development which gives rise to flooding. It is difficult to build anywhere without there being some possibility that a flood risk will be created. The possibility that climate change might exacerbate the risk of flooding in the future is relevant to Dublin, which is near the coast, and the docklands area.

Flooding is not the only reason that we should take stock of our planning and rezoning systems, which have failed us. Instead of planning communities and asking what would be the best way to proceed — even in instances where people had the best intentions — we have been picking out areas, rezoning them and making certain individuals very rich. That is how it has worked. Many other issues arise out of such a system. I refer here to financial speculation, the hoarding of land by developers, the concentration of large tracts of land in the possession of a few developers and corruption.

I am of the view that the Minister is introducing reforms in respect of planning. However, perhaps the planning system should be completely overhauled. Other countries do not appear to have the problems that obtain in Ireland. Perhaps the Minister should introduce a Green Paper in respect of planning. If he did so, we could play catch-up in respect of our infrastructure and take stock of the situation.

One of the issues relating to the Dublin docklands area relates to the viability of a shopping centre. That is not the only location where difficulties exist in this regard. Issues have arisen with regard to the viability of many retail outlets. One tends to see the same shops and shopping centres in every town. These are usually massive developments which, despite the fact that they are privately owned, have become our public spaces. One can be thrown out of such places and I recently had experience of that during the second referendum campaign in respect of the Lisbon treaty. On the occasion in question, I was ejected from a shopping centre for handing out leaflets——

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Proper order. We were allowed in because we were advocating a "No" vote.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

——and the Garda was called. We have allowed the private sector to operate areas which should really be about public or community space.

A root and branch review must be carried out in respect of the planning system. The type of inspection mechanism under discussion could constitute the start of such a review and then the Minister could consider more wide-ranging reforms than those he has introduced to date.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The debate is running ahead of time and, therefore, the 30-minute slot for the Labour Party is available tonight. There are just under 15 minutes remaining in that slot. I do not know if Deputy Ó Snodaigh proposes to use up all that time. If not, Deputy Durkan is present and can commence his contribution.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

We will see how I get on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Very good.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I welcome this Bill, which was introduced by Deputy Hogan. It is a particularly welcome measure in light of the debacle relating to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. When it was first came into being, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority was creative, positive, forward-thinking and had the support of many in the community. Those people thought that when the authority was first established it would encourage sustainable development, attract investment to their area and substantially change that area for the better.

Anyone who remembers the state of the docklands prior to the recent developments will understand why an impoverished community would reach out and believe that there was hope for it. Much has happened in the area that is to be welcomed. However, most of this was tied to the speculative development which has not only destroyed our banking system, but brought the economy to its knees. That was not the intention and it was not why people engaged with the authority and gave it their support. The shenanigans and corruption which have been alleged and proven in respect of some of the scheming and manoeuvring of this authority are scandalous. What occurred was downright dishonest.

One need only consider the scandal relating to the site previously occupied by the Irish Glass Bottle Company in Ringsend. A ridiculous amount of money was spent on purchasing that site. It is scandalous that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority was involved in this transaction and exposed the taxpayer to the speculative property market when everyone was saying that the latter was about to slow down or collapse. I am of the view that the dishonesty relating to this matter, which has led to the virtual bankruptcy of the authority, will emerge in time. What occurred in respect of the Ringsend site has led to funding for social and local programmes being discontinued. In addition, the docklands area is now littered with empty buildings, half-constructed buildings and derelict sites on which a sod has never been turned. The fiasco is a prime example of how business is conducted in this State. When discussing this Bill it is uncanny that we have the backdrop of NAMA, which is aimed at rescuing banks and protecting developers. The demise of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is quite apt in this context. I wish I could say we have learned our lessons but I am not sure.

The Bill before us goes some way to rescue the authority. It might put it on the path originally intended. We have had other authorities in the city which, by the way they were established, managed to bypass the normal planning laws. It was believed that this was the way forward for the greater good of a local area. I refer to the Digital Hub in my constituency, which is a victim of the property crash. Many of its plans and many of the plans through which the Government and its backers sold the idea to the local area are now in tatters. They were put on hold for the long term. We do not see cranes building up the Digital Hub as promised despite the fact that many factories seek to locate there. Even in these recessionary times they seek office space in the hub. The companies contracted to build received land in return and are legally obliged to have these plans delivered by a set date. That will not happen.

What is the situation with the Dublin Docklands Development Authority? It was given special planning powers that were used irresponsibly, allowed many developers to slip through planning and allowed them to waive the requirement for 20% social and affordable housing that was an obligation elsewhere. Developers were granted planning permission by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, with the obligation to provide 20% of social affordable housing, but applied for an extension to the planning permission to make them exempt. This scandal must be examined. If this Bill is accepted, the Comptroller and Auditor General can investigate this to ensure the taxpayer is getting value for money and that nothing untoward will happen again. I believe it has happened.

Some of those appointed to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority had to resign very quickly because of involvement in tax schemes and tax shelters, even though they were later said to have broken no law and to have acted in good faith. The fact that these people were chosen to sit on an authority speaks volumes. That so many on the authority seemed to be under the influence of Anglo Irish Bank, with many on the bank's board, shows the backhanders and scandal that have yet to emerge in respect of all that was wrong and evil in Anglo Irish Bank. We have not seen half of it yet. If this Government is not willing to fully expose it, I hope a future Government will have the documentation to prove the extent of corruption at that level in our banking system.

Work remains to be done in the docklands area and other areas of the city. Major rejuvenation and regeneration is desperately needed in the docklands area. I hope that when we come out the other end of this economic crisis, we will see those areas targeted primarily for social and economic rejuvenation. Economic rejuvenation of these areas should be focused on the local people, those who were left behind by the Celtic tiger. Whatever happens should be planned properly, sustainable and not dependent on developers and the false money they were spending on the likes of the Irish Glass Bottle site, Jurys Hotel and other so-called prime development sites on which ridiculous figures were spent.

Hopefully, although I doubt it, we will hear the Minister of Finance explain tomorrow how he plans to regenerate areas of Dublin's inner city and inner city areas in other parts of the State. Perhaps he will tell us how he plans to rejuvenate the economy and provide a stimulus package that has been provided in other countries. It is working in other countries, or at least helping to get them out of the recession. I have seen a lack of understanding by the Government of the need to get this economy working. In order to do so, one must employ people. Time and time again in the past year and a half, we have seen a concentration on cutting pay and cutting social welfare rather than planning to invest and planning to rebuild the economy.

I welcome this Bill and I hope the Minister can accept its intent. Perhaps he can go beyond it, by ensuring that whatever authority we have in the future is properly reflective of the society in that area. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority never fully reflected the north inner city or the south inner city area. It never reflected the normal people, their wishes or their demands for the future. It did not reflect their dreams but it should have. If it had, we might have had something more sustainable and something that could remain intact so that we could see building and other work happening in the docklands area. Given its location and its access to the city and the sea, there is major potential for tourism. However, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority concentrated on ensuring that more and more apartments were built and that more office space was built even though the demand did not exist. It was clear to anyone involved in city planning that there was an oversupply of apartments and an oversupply of office space yet no one called a halt, not even the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.

We need sustainable planning and we must ensure that whatever happens in the future is properly planned, sustainable and that social housing is provided equivalent to the level of need in the area. There should be enterprise units available at low cost to local residents. There should be a proper transport plan and the Irish language should be recognised. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority never seemed to recognise the Irish language. Any of the signs erected in the area, including one that referred to An Droichead Seán Ó Cathasaigh, were in English only. I urge the Minister to adopt this Bill.

Debate adjourned.