Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Oct 2015

Vol. 891 No. 3

Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill 2015: Second Stage

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

It is my pleasure to introduce the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill 2012 on Second Stage. The Bill will provide for the dissolution of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and the transfer of its function to Dublin City Council, which will guide the future development of the area in partnership and collaboration with local stakeholders. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a consultative forum to ensure that the views of interested parties in the docklands areas, including local communities, businesses and key local actors, will be recognised and considered in any future development of the area. If you will indulge me for a few moments, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will spend a little time reflecting on the growth, demise and restoration of the docklands area to what it is at present.

From the preceding two centuries up to the 1960s, the docklands area was a vibrant port area for Dublin, servicing the import and export functions of the capital and, more widely, the country. As a thriving port, it engendered the usual port-related industries such as boat-building, chandlery, rope-making and other ancillary trades. It also contributed to the establishment of other industries, such as grain milling and storage, coal and fuel distribution, metal foundries and warehousing. This gave rise to inner city employment and the establishment of an indigenous community servicing the needs of the enterprises located there. Regrettably, in those times the standard of housing and accommodation for the residents of the docklands reflected the generally poor conditions that prevailed among the working classes in the city. Notwithstanding this, the area had a rich cultural tradition which contributed to the unique character of Dublin, as reflected in the music, literature and other art forms from those times.

The decline in docklands generally in the 1960s can be attributed mainly to two factors. Freight containerisation led to a reduction in the need for manpower at the quayside, as well as the need for greater deep-water facilities to service the increasing tonnage of the vessels designed for this purpose. Moreover, the demand for improved living standards for all our citizens in a modern economy led to the provision of better housing and a migration from the inner city to the new suburbs on the outskirts of the city. Through this population shift, the inner city population in the 20th century shrank by over 50%, and most of the indigenous industries also relocated, mainly for reasons of access to the outskirts as well. The Dublin docklands area went into decline, and by the 1980s many parts had become run down and abandoned.

The first agency established to start redressing this situation was the Custom House Docks Development Authority, set up in 1986 to stimulate development on the north side of the docklands area. It utilised a range of financial incentives to lure investment to the area. Over the course of its ten-year existence it facilitated considerable office and residential development in the Custom House Quay area, most notably the establishment of the International Financial Services Centre, better known as the IFSC, which now comprises 111,500 sq. m and employs close to 5,000 people.

In order to widen the scope of the development of the entire docklands area, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, was established under the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997. Covering a much larger area extending to both sides of the River Liffey, the DDDA was responsible for the sustainable social, economic and physical regeneration of the docklands, in addition to the continued development of the financial sector of the economy, and was required to prepare a master plan for achieving these objectives. Central to this strategy was the use of fast-track planning under section 25 of the Act, which allowed for a shortening of the timeframes for approval of developments as long as proposals were aligned with the master plan and local planning schemes. The master plan for the docklands allowed for the integrated and sustainable development of a once-neglected area of the city, with appropriate levels of community input and, as a consequence, substantial community gain.

The input of various elements of the residential and business communities, as well as State entities with an interest in the docklands, was facilitated through their membership of the Docklands Council, which considered matters pertaining to the development of the docklands and the relationships that existed between them. Through the nomination of community representatives and local elected officials, together with representatives from business, education, and other bodies, the voices of all were heard and heeded. Further evidence of the commitment to local communities can be seen in the establishment of the Docklands Housing Trust, which was set up to administer social housing provision for the indigenous docklands population and has 72 housing units which it allocates within its remit. I am pleased to confirm that the housing trust will continue this worthwhile endeavour under the new arrangements, with support from the housing division of Dublin City Council.

Additionally, the Docklands Community Trust was established and was allocated funds on an incremental basis to invest in initiatives, supports and schemes to the benefit of the community. Currently, that fund stands at €1.3 million, and over the years the trust has used interest and earnings from its investments to finance community initiatives, most notably in the area of higher education grants for local students. Again, I am pleased to say that the trust will continue to play this vital support role, albeit redirecting its benefits through the new docklands consultative forum, which will come into being under this dissolution Bill.

The DDDA has contributed greatly to the redevelopment of the docklands environment over the years, and it is appropriate to reflect on its achievements. Since its inception in 1997, what was once a derelict part of the city has been transformed into a vibrant neighbourhood and progressive economic area, housing some of the most prestigious international and domestic companies. Of the original 89 ha encompassed by the IFSC, North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock areas, 67 ha have been redeveloped, with the 22 ha remaining now subject to the successor to the fast-track planning mechanism of the DDDA Act, the recently approved strategic development zone, SDZ, administered by Dublin City Council, which came in force in May 2014. Most of the indigenous port-related industries have been replaced and the area is now a hive of activity, mainly involving international finance, thanks to the establishment and evolution of the IFSC and major international IT companies. There has been significant social regeneration of the area and the vibrant local community is central to its continuing development. Under the projections for its development, the population is expected to swell by almost 6,000 in the coming years. The interests of the residents are central to the integrated and sustainable growth of that community. Through the involvement of representatives on the docklands community forum, as well as of local public representatives on Dublin City Council, those interests will continue to be recognised and nurtured. The area has also become a hub for the entertainment sector, with a number of spectacular venues playing host to domestic and international talent. In general, it can be said that what was once a run-down area of Dublin has been transformed into a modern and remodelled living environment.

The economic crash that hit our economy in 2008 was chiefly generated by an overheated building and property sector. This Administration, since coming into office, has strived to redress the inadequacies in financial, planning and building regulation while simultaneously pursuing policies to kick-start a moribund building industry. Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, so too does an ebbing tide see them all lower again, and the DDDA was no exception to this rule. The misfortune that befell the sector also saw it suffer significant losses on projects that had seemed like blue ribbon investments back in the heady days of the development boom.

Following consideration of a special report on the DDDA prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the authority’s own 2011 annual report and financial statements, the Government made the difficult but correct decision that the authority should be wound up and that the future responsibility and co-ordination of activity in the area should revert to Dublin City Council, ensuring that we keep the best of what has worked and plan a new approach and strategy for the further development and enhancement of the docklands.

Elements of the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report made for grim reading, particularly those relating to the authority’s assessment and decision-making processes surrounding its decision in 2006 to become involved in the purchase of the former Irish Glass Bottle site, an episode which has cost the authority €52 million, not to mention the associated reputational damage. In regard to the 2011 annual report and financial statements, while it was of course welcome to see the authority having recorded a small surplus, its first for several years, the future financial outlook for the authority presented a very different picture. Indeed, the reality emerging from the 2011 financial statements and the special report was that the authority’s financial position was inevitably going to remain very challenging in the short to medium term, given the economic downturn and the stressed state of the property market, from which the DDDA has historically derived its main revenues.

Taking all of these factors into account, the inescapable conclusion was that a standalone DDDA was no longer viable, financially or otherwise. It is for these reasons that the Government decided on 29 May 2012 that the authority should be wound up. In taking this decision, the Government was acutely aware of the need to maintain and build on the good work of the authority. The Government remains fully committed to the continued regeneration of the Dublin docklands as an ambitious and visionary project.

A number of key objectives were central to the process of finalising appropriate arrangements for ensuring a continued, concerted focus on the docklands regeneration initiatives. They were: maintaining and enhancing the docklands brand and international marketability as an attractive and prime location for investment and high-value development; providing for an appropriate set of fast-track planning procedures; continuing to involve the local community and the business sector in the regeneration project; and facilitating job creation. The Government decided that Dublin City Council is best placed to continue the visionary docklands project. The development of docklands in the future will, therefore, be part of the integrated forward planning section of Dublin city as a whole within the remit of the city council.

Let me now turn to the Bill before this House and its key provisions. As the wind-up process of the DDDA took effect, it became clear that significant primary legislation would be needed to resolve many of the outstanding issues and ensure the continued development of the docklands area. This is, in effect, what this Bill is providing for.

The Bill is divided into five Parts. Part 1 deals standard legislative provisions, including citation, commencement, definitions, regulations and expenses of the Minister. Part 2 deals with the dissolution of the authority. Part 3 deals with the matters that will apply following the dissolution of the DDDA and the transfer of its functions to Dublin City Council. Part 4 deals with planning and development matters. Part 5 deals with the establishment of the docklands consultative forum. The Bill went through a very thorough pre-legislative scrutiny process by the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht. This was a very useful process and I have endeavoured to incorporate many of their recommendations into the Bill.

In Part 1 of the Bill, section 1 contains the usual provisions of a general nature dealing with such matters as the Short Title, collective citation and commencement. Section 2 provides the definitions used throughout the Act and deals with matters such as defining the Dublin docklands area, the master plan, the docklands planning schemes and public authority, among others. Sections 3 and 4 contain standard legislative provisions regarding such matters as regulations and expenses of the Minister.

Part 2 of the Bill provides, in sections 5 and 6, for the dissolution of the authority on a day to be appointed by the Minister and provides that the authority shall stand dissolved on the appointed dissolution day.

Part 3 of the Bill - sections 7 to 15, inclusive - provides for the seamless transition of functions and transfer of certain liabilities and assets to Dublin City Council. It is important that the development and oversight of the docklands area continues uninterrupted and that the momentum that has come back into the economy in recent years is harnessed to deliver impetus to the area.

In recent times, with a recovering economic outlook and strong commercial demand for city centre premises, interest in the docklands area has reignited and there are tangible signs and prospects of recovery, which we need to manage in a sustainable and integrated way.

When the decision was made to dissolve the authority in 2012, it was important to do so in a structured manner. The DDDA executive board devised a transition plan which would see an orderly wind-up of the company, allowing it to reduce its staffing level from 55 at its peak to zero in recent years. Apart from the contract staff, whose contracts expired in due course, all of the permanent staff either retired or were redeployed to other public bodies and entities, and their contingent pension liabilities have been calculated and are proposed to be transferred to Dublin City Council under section 14 of the Bill. This effectively places the liability for pension payments to former staff now and in the future with the council. Latest estimates from the authority put the pension liability at approximately €7 million to €8 million. To manage this reduction and redistribution of its staff, the running of the authority was overseen initially by consultant administrators and latterly by the newly formed docklands unit of Dublin City Council, which will be responsible for the future servicing of the planning and development needs of the docklands. This transfer of functions to the city council is provided for under section 7 of the Bill.

As with all entities, there are always some outstanding issues of a legal and financial nature that need to be addressed, resolved or provided for as they may arise in the future, and while stringent efforts have been made to resolve these prior to dissolution, provision has been made in the Bill for any matters that need to be dealt with to be transferred to Dublin City Council under sections 9 and 10. Specifically, section 8 transfers all property and land from the authority to the council on dissolution day.

Of primary concern for the Government was that this process should not require any Exchequer intervention and that an orderly asset disposal strategy would ensure optimum value was realised on the authority’s assets on hand. Over the course of recent years, this policy has ensured there are adequate funds to discharge all its liabilities and also make a generous contribution to Docklands Community Trust, which benefits the residents of the area, of which I will say more later. The latest estimates available show there will be assets to the value of €7 million to €8 million, not including the commitment to community gain, comprising funds in the bank and properties such as the offices of the authority on the quay front, and the ducting and Wi-Fi networks.

The fourth Part of the legislation, sections 16 to 31, deals with outstanding and future planning matters. The planning schemes that had been prepared following the docklands master plan are being discontinued, as is the master plan itself, as set out under section 16. Section 17 further provides that the authority will no longer accept applications under the planning schemes.

One of the main priorities for the Government, having decided to wind up the authority, was to ensure continued access to an appropriate and an effective fast-track planning system. To fulfil this objective, the Government decided in 2012 that a strategic development zone, SDZ, would be established for the docklands area. The docklands SDZ planning scheme was approved by An Bord Pleanála in May of last year and is now fully operational. This replacement fast-track planning system, which already operates in a number of urban locations around the country, allows for the rapid processing of applications which conform to the overall planning scheme now in place in the area.

Sections 18 to 27 propose the putting in place of a robust system to deal with residual planning issues. For example, under section 20, planning certificates which had been granted under section 25 of the 1997 DDDA Act will now cease to be valid if the developments covered by them have not been substantially commenced at dissolution day, as determined by Dublin City Council. Section 25 certificates for developments that are deemed to be substantially commenced but are incomplete when the provisions of the enacted Bill are commenced will be granted an appropriate period of two years in which to finish out the development. In what would be deemed exceptional circumstances, provision is also made under section 23 to extend the appropriate period of two years by a further period not exceeding three years to allow for completion of the development covered by the section 25 certificate. This extension would be granted on the basis that there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant which prevent completion within the appropriate period. The officials have established that the outstanding uncompleted section 25 certificates are few in number and minor in scale, and I do not envisage a great demand for extensions to the appropriate period of up to three years for developments to reach completion.

It is encouraging to note that new applications for development projects in the docklands are being made under the new strategic development zone provisions that I outlined earlier. I am glad to see the developers in question are adopting a pragmatic approach and ensuring their applications are in compliance with the new planning schemes unveiled under the SDZ. To further ease the transition to the new planning schemes, I have made provision in the Bill, under section 28, to allow applications under section 34 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 covering the elements of developments not completed under section 25 certificates, while retaining those parts that are validly completed, subject to their satisfying the application criteria.

One of the key drivers of the regeneration of this part of the city was to arrest the decline in economic activity and reverse the depopulation of the docklands that had resulted from the factors I outlined earlier. A vibrant community is the beating heart of any neighbourhood, and the remaining population in these environs are proud and supportive of their area. The 1997 Act established on a statutory basis a Docklands Council, which included representatives of local communities, public representatives for the vicinity and members from the economic and business community, as well as delegates from public bodies with a remit relevant to the docklands area. These included personnel from the educational, transportation and arts sectors, to name but a few. A collaborative approach to identifying and addressing problems and issues affecting the community allowed the Docklands Council to give valuable feedback to the DDDA regarding the ongoing development of the area, as well as having a key role in shaping the five-yearly master plans.

Besides the influx of investment which resulted in economic renewal, much-needed employment was created for the area. The educational and cultural needs of the community were similarly addressed and funds were provided via the Docklands Community Trust for investment to the benefit of the people in the areas covered. Many local students availed of funding for higher education from this source and they might not have been able to pursue their studies and careers without this resource.

It is equally important that the entities that exist in the docklands area continue to assist in shaping the future direction of the development of this part of the city. To this end, Part 5 of the Bill, sections 32 to 44, provides for a docklands consultative forum, which will continue the valuable collaborative input that its predecessor, the Docklands Council, has made since its inception. Section 34 of the Bill provides for the membership of the forum, which will be similarly structured to the council and will have 21 members and an independently appointed chair. It is proposed that community representatives will have five members and four members will be locally elected representatives. The remaining membership will consist of five members from the business community in the docklands area, five members from public authorities with a remit in the area, one member representing the educational sector and an officer of the council to oversee this group, having an important role in advising Dublin City Council and others on the best strategies to preserve the rich heritage of the area, the most appropriate policies to pursue in economic regeneration and the most valuable input in shaping the docklands as a vibrant and sustainable living space for its current and future residents. This vision will be brought into being by legislatively underpinning the functions of the docklands consultative forum. Section 33 of the Bill provides for the function of the forum, which is to consider and advise the council and its strategic policy committees on the formulation, development, monitoring and review of the council’s policies as they apply to the docklands area, and specifically on enterprise and employment, education, housing, planning, the environment and community. The consultative forum has a wide-ranging but important brief, and I expect the city council to work closely and co-operatively with the forum to enhance the conditions and environment of the residents in the docklands area.

The proposed future regeneration of the area could see its resident population swell by more than 5,800, which will present challenges and opportunities for all its inhabitants in time. Of course, one of the main drivers of the welfare of a community is employment and fair incomes. The SDZ envisages that the development of the remaining docklands areas will give a much-needed boost to job creation in the area. In the construction phase and the provision of ancillary services, it is anticipated that local people will gain from the opportunities that will inevitably arise. The use of local employment clauses, though not part of the Bill, will be encouraged and advanced by Dublin City Council in consultation with the consultative forum, the National Asset Management Agency and other developers where appropriate.

The projections for long-term employment suggest that, when completed, the docklands area will sustain an increase of 23,000 jobs above its current level. The recent influx of international businesses to the area and the continuing interest in locating in this part of the capital suggests that the growth in these areas will continue. Furthermore, I will request Dublin City Council to engage actively with officials of the Department of Social Protection to facilitate greater use of the available labour activation measures in the docklands area.

One of the aspects of the docklands that has not been adequately harnessed in the past is its immense historical, cultural and artistic heritage. As with any community, the docklands has over the centuries contributed to the rich tapestry of the history and life of Dublin. The upcoming centenary of the 1916 Rising highlights the part played by this area in that momentous event, and Boland’s mills and associated buildings will no doubt be centre stage in the upcoming commemorations. The maritime tradition, as well as the industrial tradition of docklands, affords us an opportunity to preserve this heritage and share it with visitors who would like to explore the past in an informative and sympathetic environment. In recent months, my Department has facilitated an initiative to bring together the main interests in this area with a view to developing an integrated approach that will both preserve this legacy and harness its tourism and commercial potential. What was once a derelict and forgotten part of the city may in time become one of the premier attractions for foreign and domestic tourists alike.

I and my colleagues in the Government foresee a bright future for the docklands area and I hope that in time the process we have put in train with this Bill will bear handsome rewards for us all. The regeneration of the area will lead to a more appealing cityscape, a more pleasant living space and increased prosperity for all. Within the context of the Dublin city development plan, it will play a pivotal role in the improving economic position for the capital and the country as a whole. Therefore, I commend this Bill to the House.

We support this Bill and the dissolution of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA. It was established in 1997 to be the lead driver of regeneration in the Dublin docklands area but we acknowledge that major mistakes were made by the body, most significantly in the Irish Glass Bottle site fiasco. Nevertheless, the decision to designate the 66 ha in the docklands area as a special planning zone has, overall, been a success. This area has become part of the central business district in Dublin city and an engine of growth for the greater Dublin area. The docklands area has much development potential for commercial and residential development but this remains the case, many would say, due to the failures of the Government; the residential units are not being built at the rate required to meet the massive demand for housing in core city centre areas. The special planning powers for the docklands must be backed up by real action by the Government to revitalise construction levels.

As I stated, we welcome the dissolution of the DDDA but its role in resolving fire safety issues at the Longboat Quay complex has to be subsumed by Dublin City Council. We believe that until an agreement can be reached between residents and the DDDA, and until such time as costs can be recouped from the receivership process, Dublin City Council should meet the up-front expenses required to keep the residents in their homes. That would include the cost of remedial works. We welcome that, as under the DDDA, fast-track planning powers are being retained for the docklands, which will allow the council to grant development permission that cannot be appealed to An Bord Pleanála. Much potential remains in this strategic zone and up to 2,600 new homes and 350,000 sq m of commercial space could be built. It is essential that the area can be developed further as an engine of growth for the city as a whole.

There is much scope for residential development within the docklands zone but in many ways the area is symptomatic of wider issues in the private construction and rental markets in Dublin city. Despite the massive supply problem and out of control rental market, figures indicate that house and apartment completions continue to stall this year. There is development potential for over 2,600 housing units in the area but despite the attractiveness of the docklands area, residential development appears to be stalled. Completions for each of the four Dublin local authorities from January to March this year are very low and nowhere near what is required. Only 652 houses were completed in Dublin for the first three months of 2015, and based on these levels, the greater Dublin area may only have 2,600 new houses completed this year, compared with 2,591 in 2014. There has been no increase and it is likely there will be none.

This issue exists while there is an overall requirement for 20,000 residential units per year, with an immediate need - this year alone - for 6,000 units in Dublin. We must ask why there is an absence of new housing construction across the city despite the massive unmet housing demand. The actual level of house building is much lower than the Government's completion figures suggest. The figures used by many Government sources in recent weeks and months, for example, relate to ESB connections but these do not automatically correlate with new house completions. The difference must be realised and publicised in order to let people know that real need is not being met.

In 2014 there were only 8,700 new homes built but the Housing Agency estimates that at least 16,000 new homes are required for each year for the next four years specifically. The lack of supply in Dublin means that despite rent increases of more than 11% in Dublin this year, next year may well be much worse. With less than 30% of current demand for new homes being achieved in 2015, it is most likely the rent increases will be even greater next year. It is unfortunate that there appears to be no policy to deal with this growing housing crisis and what I have outlined has exacerbated the housing supply issue.

We acknowledge that a strong regulatory structure is vital to ensuring high quality home building across the country. The examples of Priory Hall, Longboat Quay and Milford Manor are a sharp reminder of this. However, the new framework approved by the Government and passed earlier this year is convoluted, difficult to manage, costly and it may not be fit for purpose. The Minister introduced new fire safety regulations in March 2014 but this is just another system of self-regulation that will not provide enough protection against negligent developers. There may be a greater recourse to liability under the assigned certifier as contained in that system, but it is still a self-regulated regime, whereby the professional issuing the fire safety certificate is employed directly by the developer. This is a clear conflict of interest but the bar for sanction and disqualification has deliberately been set very high, with removal from a professional register being a very remote possibility for members only in the event of gross misconduct. We have learned through bitter experience, unfortunately, that self-regulation of fire regulations does not work. We firmly believe that State authorities must check every new development to ensure they are fire-safe.

Many would argue that there is a process within existing legislation and local authority powers for enforcement offices in the planning departments. It is my contention that these are resourced with neither the manpower nor funds to be the regulatory force they can be. Failure to have adequately funded or resourced these offices has left us in a position where that avenue cannot be used to nip much of this in the bud before it becomes a real issue.

The new inspection regime has done nothing to increase public safety. It has massively increased the cost of building new homes for those who employ these certifiers, whose qualification levels are such that they can charge the sort of amounts that are being bandied about. I know that process is under review. Perhaps this offers an opportunity to address the wider issue regarding the regulatory process that needs to be put in place, whether it is an independent authority, with the requisite jurisdiction, or local authorities, with sufficient funds, resources and manpower in the enforcement offices to allow them to carry out that duty.

It is completely unacceptable that residents of the Longboat Quay apartments would be expected to foot the bill for making their homes safe. These problems are through no fault of those homeowners who trusted that the building had passed inspection and, therefore, was safe and habitable. However, as has been stated both inside and outside the House in recent weeks - particularly as many Members have come into direct contact with those affected - the residents are terrified that they will be thrown out on the street on the orders of Dublin Fire Brigade. We believe, as I said earlier, that Dublin City Council, while not assuming ultimate liability - although it must be noted that the developer is now in liquidation - cannot allow a situation to develop where these homeowners will be forced to pick up the tab. I know questions must be answered with regard to who bears responsibility but, as I said earlier, until an agreement can be made between the residents and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, and the cost can be recouped from the receivership process. Dublin City Council, as the lead authority which is subsuming the powers of the DDDA, should meet upfront expenses required to keep the residents in their homes, including the cost of remedial works, which, we are informed, will be in the region of €4 million.

While the refurbishment of Priory Hall was expensive at €10 million, close to €2 million of that was spent on emergency accommodation for residents while the work was being carried out. The sooner Dublin City Council decides to fund those remedial works in Longboat Quay, the less, if anything, will be spent on emergency accommodation for residents. We propose the establishment of a national building inspectorate, as opposed to the continuation of the assigned certifier system, which would examine at least 40% of the buildings under construction, and a system of licensing or registration for builders. Information on builders should be shared among the relevant authorities, with full prosecution of any designers or contractors who are negligent in their duties. A building inspectorate, much like the NCT system, with dedicated specialist staff and standardised systems, monitored by local authorities, would be more cost-effective, easier to quality control, and, ultimately, safer, than the assigned certifier system we have retained under the new regime as initiated in March 2014.

We debated the supply issue in this House previously. We hope to do so again in the very near future in order that we might address the deficiencies we perceive in the Government's policy on this. I call on the Minister of State to use his influence to facilitate such a debate, so that I and other Members can be afforded the opportunity to put forward meaningful presentations and costed, constructive suggestions, which might meet the immediacy of the crisis in Dublin and beyond.

For the purpose of the Second Stage debate on the Bill before the House, we support the Government's intention to dissolve the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and for its functions to be transferred to Dublin City Council. There are pressing issues for which there is great responsibility and we would use this forum to ensure that the immediate issues regarding Longboat Quay are addressed properly and effectively. I heard the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Taoiseach, when discussing the housing crisis in recent months, saying that there is no issue in respect of funding to meet the demands of reinstating homes and local authority dwellings. While I have contradicted that at times, I acknowledge the good intentions and the good faith of the Government in this regard and I hope the same good faith and intention can be impressed upon Dublin City Council to make the funds available immediately to address this issue. Agreement can be reached thereafter in respect of the residents, the DDDA - the powers of which are being subsumed by Dublin City Council - and the funds recouped from the receiver, who has a responsibility to the taxpayer on foot of the failure in the regulation of the system in such a way as to cause this unfortunate problem. For the purpose of progressing the Bill, we support it in its current form and will discuss on later Stages the various impacts it will have. We will scrutinise its contents to ensure that the dissolution is fair and appropriate, that the responsibilities of Dublin City Council are properly met and that the intentions in respect of the docklands area are retained in the planning provision it contains in order to ensure that the development will continue in a way that will drive development elsewhere in the city.

The Minister of State was very polite - I use that word advisedly - in his description of the whys and wherefores of the demise of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. In 2010, Sinn Féin welcomed the investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General into the DDDA on the grounds that it had presided over dodgy deals and developments. Indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report in February 2012 found evidence of serious mismanagement, very poor governance and what I would regard as malpractice within that authority, and recommended that the assets of the DDDA be disposed of. On 31 May 2012, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government announced the Government's intention to dissolve the authority, giving its reasons for dissolution, as the Minister has this evening, as the precarious financial outlook and the latest Comptroller and Auditor General's report.

It is important to record the scale of the calamity that befell the DDDA. The Minister attributes it in the main to external factors - and there is no question that these played a part - but there is much more to the story than that. The gross mismanagement and bad practice that occurred within that authority should not be glossed over in this Chamber. In February 2014, the public accounts committee concluded that €185 million of public money had been lost from seven property deals. CHQ, a shopping centre in the IFSC, had been bought by the DDDA for €45 million and sold for just €10 million. Other sites on the North Lotts Road were bought for €50 million and ended up with a value of just €7.8 million. Sites in the docklands bought using compulsory purchase orders were later transferred to NAMA at a fraction of their initial valuations. That is the legacy and that was the driving rationale, in the final analysis, for the wind-down of the authority. We support that approach. In fact, when the detail and the scale of the debacle, particularly around the Irish Glass Bottle site, came into public view, the Government was left with little option but to wind down the DDDA.

I note that the Government made heavy play not just on the transfer of assets and liabilities, including superannuation, all of which might be regarded as technical necessities in the process of moving to Dublin City Council but it also made a number of remarks about the planning process. I would like to come back to that, perhaps not this evening, but tomorrow, when I have my time. For this evening, I am glad that in his opening comments, the Minister paid hearty tribute to the local community of the docklands, both northside and southside. He has set out quite correctly the very rich heritage of the docklands, their deep contribution to the life of this city, but also beyond this city, and the cultural legacy that they carry.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share