Amendments Nos. 1, 7, 14 and 15 are related and may be discussed together.
Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill 2015: Report and Final Stages
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 8, after “Docklands” to insert “Oversight and”.
On Committee Stage, various Deputies expressed concern that the successor to the Docklands Council, which is the Docklands Consultative Forum, did not have an oversight role in the future regeneration of the docklands. I recognise that its predecessor, the Docklands Council, was an invaluable conduit for inputs to the authority's policy and work on matters pertaining to this area. It was made up of members from the business community, publicly elected representatives for the area, nominees of bodies and agencies with a remit in docklands and, most crucially, members of representative bodies of residents. The continuation of this level of input will be a vital resource for Dublin City Council in its future stewardship of this part of the city. I was happy to accept the concerns expressed by the Deputies on Committee Stage and, accordingly, I propose via this amendment to recognise the oversight role of the forum by changing the name of the Docklands Consultative Forum to the Docklands Oversight and Consultative Forum by amending the Long Title of the Bill. Amendment No. 7 follows the same rationale as that outlined for amendment No. 1. I propose to amend section 37 to reflect the change of the name to the Docklands Oversight and Consultative Forum.
With regard to amendments Nos. 14 and 15, when outlining my reasoning for amendments Nos. 1 and 7, I touched on the concerns of local Deputies who wished that the proposed forum for docklands have a broader remit than first envisaged, which I was happy to accommodate. The amendments to section 49 will further strengthen that commitment. Amendment No. 14 clarifies that the title of the annual report of the Docklands Oversight and Consultative Forum may be referenced as the "DOCF annual report". Amendment No. 15 proposes to amend the previous provision under the Bill to now require that the annual report is submitted to the Minister and, thereafter, laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, instead of the report just being submitted to Dublin City Council. This ensures a further level of oversight while also opening up the work of the forum to the scrutiny of both Houses. I am happy to facilitate the future work of the forum in this manner. I propose that amendments Nos. 1, 7, 14 and 15 be accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, and 6 cannot be moved as the Members proposing them are not present. Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 19, line 32, after “Docklands” to insert “Oversight and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, cannot be moved as the Members proposing the amendments are not present.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 26, line 17, after “submitted” to insert “(in this section referred to as a “DOCF annual report”)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 26, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(2) The Council shall not later than 30 September in each year in which a DOCF annual report has been submitted to it under subsection (1), submit that DOCF annual report to the Minister.
(3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after a DOCF annual report has been submitted to him or her under subsection (2) cause a copy of it to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank all Members for their contributions and comments on the various Stages of this important legislation and for taking the time to speak on the Bill, which will lead to the dissolution of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and the transfer of its functions to Dublin City Council. It is difficult to overstate the importance of docklands in the economic recovery of our capital and the nation as a whole. Already, applications for major developments have been received under the SDZ for the docklands and the future development of the remaining docklands area will see an integrative approach which is aligned with the Dublin city development plan 2016-22.
It is pivotal that the future strategic development of all aspects of the docklands is led by Dublin City Council and that the development is executed in a manner that is sympathetic to the overall planning parameters of the city. The commitment of Dublin City Council to the area can be gauged from the establishment of a dedicated docklands unit within Dublin City Council which is fully resourced, with access to personnel across a diverse range of skills and disciplines. In order to ensure a smooth transition during this time, those personnel have already been engaged in managing the wind-down of the authority leading up to the dissolution and will continue to be so for many years to come.
Under the DDDA, the voices and concerns of residents, business interests and agencies with an involvement in docklands were channelled via the Docklands Council to the authority. It was essential that, post-dissolution, those voices would continue to contribute to the future shaping of their environment. Provision was made in the Bill for a Docklands Consultative Forum as a successor to the Docklands Council. On Committee Stage, I was made aware by Deputies of concerns that this forum might not have had adequate scope to allow for the desired level of input by the community. I am pleased to say I have amended the Bill accordingly. The forum will now be known as the Docklands Oversight and Consultative Forum and, furthermore, its annual report will be laid before the houses of the Oireachtas for the scrutiny of Members.
One of the other concerns raised during this process related to a perceived failure to nurture and preserve the rich heritage of docklands. This heritage, reflecting its industrial, maritime and trading past, can be seen through a variety of organisations and societies dedicated to these aspects of the area. Prompted by those concerns, the docklands unit of Dublin City Council is currently concluding a heritage audit, with the valued input of such diverse bodies as Dublin Port, Waterways Ireland, St. Andrew's Family Resource Centre, East Wall Historical Society and the Dublin Dock Workers Preservation Society, among others.
When complete, this audit will inform best practice on the preservation of the rich heritage of the docklands and its presentation to a wider public. As we close one chapter in the history of the docklands, I am confident the next one will reflect a period of further development of an integrated and prosperous community as part of the wider city plan for future years.
I thank Members for their contributions on the various Stages of this important legislation. I acknowledge, in particular, the valuable contribution of Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on Committee Stage. This legislation will ensure the continuity of the economic development of a vital part of Dublin and the country. As responsibility for the management of the area moves into the hands of Dublin City Council, it is important that it engage deeply with the various organisations and community representatives, in particular. They reside in the area and have most interest in its beneficial development. It is vital that Dublin City Council continue this engagement in a positive fashion.
I thank my officials for the preparation and work put into the Bill. In the next few years it will lead to the positive regeneration of an area of the capital city which will benefit society, the economy and, most importantly, the community living in and around it.
I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the Bill. The exchanges in the debate on Committee Stage were good because the Minister of State was prepared to listen to and engage with us. I have a particular interest in this issue as I am from a docklands community and have relatives living in another docklands community nearby. I was brought up in this community; I still live in it and it is very important to me.
I will revisit some of the points I made on Committee Stage. The strategic development zone includes a particular area. We must, however, include the whole docklands area because it is not just about one part, the port. We must consider the connection with the communities living around it, both north and south of the River Liffey. I have read the Bill and wish the Minister of State well with it. It is good to see the dissolution of the DDDA, an organisation that was so tainted and which brought docklands communities into so many battles with it, but that is not to take from some of the good things that came from the organisation such as its support for some of the communities in terms of education and social activities. However, there is no doubt that it was a tainted organisation and that there were significant conflicts of interest. I hope the position will be more positive for the area in the future.
One of the issues I raised on Committee Stage concerned representation at the forum. It is important that the members of the forum include people who live in the area, including long-time residents and, in particular, those involved in community organisations such as youth groups which have been involved in the area during the years. There must be positive discrimination. I am not against new people coming in and being represented, but the voice of experience should be included as we have many such people living in the area.
I am not a member of the committee that dealt with the Bill and must thank Deputy Catherine Murphy for letting me take her place for the debate. The committee engaged in a long consultation process and held public hearings which were attended by community groups, residents and organisations and then produced a report which was launched in October 2014. The launch was held in the AV room in Leinster House and there was significant positivity shown towards the report by those who had participated in the process. We can imagine their disappointment, therefore, when the 15 recommendations made did not appear in the Bill. There are slight variations in some of the recommendations made in the Bill, but the groups concerned left the Oireachtas that day thinking all of their views had been taken on board and would form part of the Bill.
One of the recommendations was related to housing. A figure of 20% for social housing was recommended. As the Minister of State is aware, Part V agreements have not delivered in the past, yet he is putting a lot of faith in the hope they will deliver now. Only a minuscule amount of social housing was built in the area in the past and we now have a very different community living in the financial services area. This community is separate from the others living around it. We need more social housing. The Minister of State said that if the cash-in-lieu provision had not gone ahead, there would have been 10,000 more social housing units. We must learn from this and ensure there will be strict monitoring of the provisions included in the Bill.
We also discussed the issue of employment and brought forward the plan which had been proposed by the Grangegorman Development Association. I am a member of one of the Grangegorman bodies and at each meeting a report on the number of local jobs created by each of the companies is given. It would be good if this became an established principle for companies in the area. Nobody is asking a company to take on unqualified people, but there are qualified people living in the docklands area where there are higher unemployment rates than the national average. One of the youth projects of which I am aware does great work in supporting young boys to take manual handling courses and is building relationships with companies in the area. It would be good to build on this practice and include it as part of the oversight process. We should examine this practice to see if it is working and whether qualified local people are finding employment. This is particularly relevant for those in the 18 to 21 year old age group who cannot avail of community employment. If they are not involved in further education or training, they are very much at a loss. While this practice is accepted as a principle, we should consider how we can act on it and take on board the good practice applied in Grangegorman.
We also discussed the issue of community gain. I acknowledge that one aspect of the DDDA that worked was its support for education initiatives. It supported people from difficult backgrounds and low income families to continue in education. I acknowledge the role of the National College of Ireland in promoting early childhood education. There are many examples of good practice in that regard.
Oversight is important in that it is vital to report back on progress made. We need a framework for this initiative to work. I suggest it cover housing, unemployment, community gain and community representation.
Question put and agreed to.