Deputy Mary Lou McDonald is in possession and I understand she is sharing time with her colleague, Deputy Dessie Ellis.
Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill 2015: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I presume the Minister of State, Deputy Paudie Coffey, is on his way.
Would I be right in assuming that?
No more than the Deputy, I assume so.
If the Deputy wishes, we will wait for the Minister of State to arrive.
I would prefer to give it a moment because I feel like I am speaking in a vacuum more so than usual. It is a common experience I have, but it is particularly acute just this minute.
The Acting Chairman will be aware that empty vessels make the most noise.
And empty chambers echo the most.
Are we still live?
Tá an tAire Stáit ag teacht.
As we finished yesterday, I commended the Minister of State on commending the local community in the docklands area. I brought to his attention the demise of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, and I commented on how the Minister of State had given a very benign account of why all of that happened. It happened nonetheless and we are where we are now.
It is extremely important that we get this legislation right. When we commend the community and talk about building and developing a vibrant community, we should mean it and our words should amount to more than rhetoric, so that the communities in question benefit. I am conscious that there are essentially two strands in the docklands communities: those who would be considered to be there for generations and people who have moved to the area to raise families, live and make their lives. The Minister of State noted the anticipated swelling of numbers in the area and it is very important that we get that integration right. The communities and families for whom the docklands have always been home should still feel at home in a place that has changed very radically over the past number of years, and which will undoubtedly change again. The objective, in other words, must be to achieve positive change all around.
I am very disappointed there is no statutory basis for social gain. The experience set out in the Minister of State's initial statement, although I do not deny the positive aspects, is a little misty-eyed and not exactly a full telling of what happened in the docklands area. It is important, while recognising what has happened, that we should not have an inflated sense of the social dividend for those communities and families.
For example, we can consider social housing. As the Minister of State knows, I represent the north side of the docklands area. I can tell him that we have lists the length of his and my two arms and beyond for local families seeking to be accommodated. The phenomenon of overcrowding is huge in these communities and some of the accommodation is of poor quality. The local authority, despite a Dublin docklands area plan, has not been in a position to provide even basic maintenance in many cases. The Minister of State cited the Docklands Housing Trust and I acknowledge that initiative. Nevertheless, trying to pretend that it or the totality of the social and affordable units afforded in the docklands over the years is anything close to what was required or that which would represent a real social dividend is to live in cloud cuckoo land. That simply did not happen.
In regard to the educational dividend, the Minister of State was quite right to point out bursaries, scholarships and opportunities, many of which were pursued through the National College of Ireland. I acknowledge them here today. It is also important to record that a new primary school was promised to St. Laurence O'Toole school on Sheriff Street but that never materialised. That was a cause of considerable local anger and although various plans were put forward, the long and short of it is that it did not happen. Other primary school facilities in the docklands area and up to East Wall have gained in some small measure from the largesse, generosity and creativity of the DDDA but it is nothing like what could be possible. We need to be ambitious when we speak about social dividend, and it must amount to more than just flouncing or initiatives to take the bad look from what might seem to be very aggressive commercial development; in essence, giving the crumbs from the table to the local communities. We need a far more integrated sense and approach than that, which is why the social dividend and gain must have a basis in law. It should be written in the legislation, and I have no doubt we will return to this on Committee Stage.
The Minister of State instanced the issue of employment and - not unfairly - pointed to the potential that will unquestionably arise for new jobs that would be well paid, good quality, high tech and high spec. That is what we want to see. The Minister of State indicated that local people will have an advantage in respect of employment opportunities and that must become the reality. He referenced specifically local employment clauses and I am glad he did so but they were in place, as the Minister of State is probably aware, in the last dispensation. If the Minister of State went to the docklands to ask people what they made of that element of the plan and what it delivered for the community, they would say they are hard-pressed to find somebody who accessed employment regardless of a local employment clause. They would probably go on to say that where employment was secured, it was only in very specific types of functions. All work is noble, dignified and good but if we are to speak about a meaningful local employment clause, it must mean that local kids, students, women and men have a real opportunity to get diverse opportunities for good quality work.
The bottom line is that the local employment clause should be based in law. Both the Minister of State and I are aware of the legal issues with respect to domestic and European law in how that clause is couched; that is to keep ourselves on the right side, legally speaking. However, it can be done. If the Government is serious about local employment opportunities and a local employment clause, it will appear in the legislation. If that does not happen, many people will view any commitment to local employment in a very jaundiced way, and I could not blame them for doing so.
The consultative forum to be established is detailed in the legislation. It is envisaged very much in an advisory capacity but it could and should be more than that. Of course, consultation with local stakeholders, whether they are from business and the local community or residents, is always a good and healthy exercise. We can consider the scale of development envisaged, which the Minister of State described as profound and transformational. That is the right kind of language to use in this respect. In these circumstances, however, and given that there is a fast-tracked planning application under the strategic development zone, the consultative committee must be in a position to give more than advice. It must be in a place where it can take decisions that can be delivered.
Although it would be fair to say that many of the experiences for docklanders in participating in DDDA forums was positive and pleasant at times, there has been an ongoing and residual criticism that much of that process was tokenistic and at times bore the hallmarks of a talking shop. That is not good enough. For the consultative forum to have teeth, mean something and make a difference, it must be more than advisory in nature.
This is something we will return to and which I hope the Government will remedy in the legislation.
On the issue of planning, the 22 hectares subject to the strategic development zone and the involvement of NAMA in that has been set out. Provision is made, for instance, for section 25 certificates to allow completion of developments that are substantially commenced but not completed. That is a sensible thing to do. It is possibly in the area of planning that the biggest hole exists in this legislation. I will set it out for the Minister of State as clearly as I can. Longboat Quay is not unique in respect of the fire hazards the residents face. Full culpability for that rests with the developer in question. I acknowledge that there are questions to be asked of the other agencies in terms of oversight and certification, but in the final analysis, the developer in question is the person with whom responsibility lies. Longboat Quay is not unique. The Taoiseach acknowledged that in the House this morning. It is not unique in the context of the docklands area either. There are many other developments which were thrown up, which remain shoddy and where residents face considerable difficulties in terms of their quality of living. Some of those hazards relate to fire safety while others do not, but all are a consequence of shoddy workmanship, greed, haste and indifference.
I have cited Bernard McNamara several times. As the Minister of State is probably aware, I am looking to speak to him and if the Minister of State has any influence there, he might help me. It should also be said that McNamara is not the only developer who has left residents in the lurch. There are others and many of them went through the NAMA process. In many cases their businesses have been dissolved and they are no longer trading. We might see those same individuals back in business and we may very well - I believe we will - see them making applications to build again in the docklands area. They will have the facility of the fast-track planning process and so on. We cannot countenance a situation in which any developer who has short-changed residents, people who bought homes in good faith, would simply be allowed to apply for planning permission, secure permission and go right ahead and build all over again without making good the shoddy work they carried out previously.
The issue of compliance has to be at the heart of this. The question is how we sort that out legislatively. That is as much a question for the Minister of State as an observation. I cannot imagine how the State or this legislation could allow Bernard McNamara or anybody else to go back into the docklands in a new guise and build again. I accept that developers have to build and things have to be built. That is not my issue. It is unacceptable that they would be allowed to motor on and that the State would not demand that they would make good the shoddy work they left behind them. That is a matter of basic common sense. If we could achieve that within this legislation, that would be a very good day's work. If we do not, we are at least partially responsible for letting these developers off the hook. That would not be good enough. We have bailed out the banks and had to suffer the phenomenon of NAMA. These developers have been bailed out not once but twice. They are not going to be bailed out a third time for not bothering to comply with building regulations with which they were fully conversant and the standards of which they were fully aware. In their haste and under the nose of the previous authority, they disregarded all of the above and now residents or taxpayers may face the prospect of paying that bill. That, to my way of thinking, is not going to happen. I ask-----
Sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but she is sharing time with Deputy Ellis.
I am.
There are only nine minutes left.
I am aware of that. Thank you.
I have made my point on that and I look forward to an exchange on that issue on Committee Stage. I was very taken with the last piece of the Minister of State's speech last night:
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.
That is a very ambitious set of objectives. I share those and support the Minister of State in pursuing them. However, if he is serious about them, he will not just listen to but take on board the points I have raised and he will revisit this legislation and work with us on these benches to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose and fit to deliver those worthy ambitions.
Tá an Bille seo teicniúil. Cuireann sé deireadh leis an Dublin Docklands Development Authority agus aistríonn sé gach rud go Comhairle Cathrach Bhaile Átha Cliath. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill on Second Stage and will take this opportunity to raise a number of issues with the Minister of State. This Bill proposes the dissolution of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, and the transfer of rights and functions to Dublin City Council. Section 7 deals with the transfer of functions from the authority to Dublin City Council.
Has the Minister of State considered the legal implications in moving all functions from the DDDA to the council, specifically in respect of the current desperate situation in Longboat Quay? Tonight, more than 600 residents in just short of 298 apartments face evacuation from their homes if they cannot collectively find the €4 million required to resolve fire safety defects. Each resident is currently facing a personal cost of €18,000 to conduct the necessary work to ensure the safety of their home. The work needed includes the installation of "an adequate smoke ventilation system" for the lobbies and communal stairs, fire separation between apartments, upgrading of fire doors and the installation of fire-stopping materials in utility services.
The developer, Bernard McNamara, built the complex in 2006 at the peak of the Celtic tiger. His company, Gendsong, went into receivership not long after that. As a result, the properties remain with the DDDA, which also owns a number of apartments in the complex. To date, the DDDA has invested €1 million in contracting fire wardens and upgrading the fire alarms system. In its supposed attempt to address this situation, the DDDA offered to put €2.75 million towards the necessary works, which the residents rightly refused. Why should they have to foot a single penny of this colossal bill?
Today, Dublin City Council's chief executive said the council has nowhere to put residents as the homeless crisis deepens. Does this honestly come as a surprise to the Government when there are 130,000 applications on the housing list and almost 180 people sleeping on the streets every night in addition to 1,500 children in hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation? The situation facing the docklands residents is further proof, as if any were needed, that the homeless crisis has gained unprecedented momentum due to failures of this Government and is now worsening by the day.
Direct and decisive action is needed in addressing this issue before more citizens find themselves in the same situation as many thousands have done, with little light at the end of the tunnel.
It is clear from the experience of Priory Hall in 2011 that poor building regulations and little oversight resulted in developers, insurance companies and builders doing their utmost to shirk all responsibility and accountability. No consideration was given to residents who bought or rent these properties and all this is evidence of the worst kind of capitalism. To date, Priory Hall has cost the city council €27 million. Will the Minister of State confirm or give a commitment that the Department or the local authority which has assumed new responsibilities will absorb the cost of these necessary works at Longboat Quay?
The nightmare situation facing the docklands residents threatens to replicate itself throughout the country as I have no doubt news of other substandard properties will emerge in the near future. While the Minister of State has acknowledged the likelihood of more affected properties, such as a development in County Kildare, or Prospect Hill in Finglas, which we are hearing about, he has attempted to dodge the core issue of regulation by blaming the policy of previous Governments for current deficiencies in building standards. Such deflections are becoming all too habitual as the Minister of State continues to pass blame for the housing emergency while ignoring the devastating realities of the homelessness crisis.
This week a Minister claimed the Government had introduced legislation demanding better building regulation. Not surprisingly, this claim was directly countered by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, which warned that the regulations do not provide adequate oversight of development and will not ensure this does not happen in the future. It seems I have to make the point that the Government must hold developers to account because the Government is operating in a permanent blind spot when it comes to holding the appropriate persons to account. We call for the implementation of regulations as per the recommendations of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland in conjunction with introduction of legislation to ensure developers are held responsible for any failing on their part to correspond to standards and regulations set out by the authorities.
Local community groups, residents' associations and businesses play a vital role in shaping the places in which they live and work. Part 5 provides for the establishment of a consultative forum on a statutory basis to allow for the input of relevant parties into any future planning by the local authority in the docklands. I welcome this and reiterate the importance of community participation in the planning process as it is essential to the establishment of a suitable and harmonious residential environment. It is essential, therefore, that the structures that comprised the consultative form previously be maintained. We welcome the deepening of the consultation process between the city council and the aforementioned community stakeholders.
Will the Minister of State outline whether employees of the DDDA have received any guarantees about redundancies, whether compulsory or voluntary? Will employees be transferred to Dublin City Council and, if so, on what terms? Will pensions be honoured? Are there any outstanding debts that the taxpayer and the city council will have to take up? Will the Minister of State confirm that the Castleforbes apartments, which have been left lying idle for six or seven years and do not comply with building standard regulations, were bought by Dublin City Council from the DDDA for a very large sum? The docklands is a modern residential, office and business hub and area that has been transformed into one of the most vibrant parts of the city. It is an example of what can be done to what was once a run-down area. Will the Minister of State confirm whether there is a cost to this transfer and, if so, what is it? I believe that future regeneration plans for the area are probably being transferred into the best hands, and where they should be, with Dublin City Council, but it is important that we all keep an eye on this and that Dublin City Council is held to account in the future as well.
I wish to share time with Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan.
Even though we are talking specifically about the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, the responsibility for which is moving back to the city council, this Bill is about development, which includes housing, and there are probably more plans to put more of the high-end business element in the area than housing. It is interesting that NAMA is going to get involved in the area. Normally, it bundles the assets together and sells them to foreign funds at a cheap price, but now it is going to start investing in developments. It seems to be driven towards partnerships with the private sector to provide office space for some of these large American companies that are moving in of late to the residential and office markets in particular.
There is no doubt housing is a serious problem. Obviously, no one is separating this from what has happened in Longboat Quay. We have been here before with Priory Hall and other developments and I reckon we will be here again. It is not going to go away all of a sudden. A lot of stuff was put together over a number of years that left a lot to be desired.
There are a few main problems with housing at present and I have been disappointed that some serious problems have not been addressed in the housing area. Deputy McDonald referred to the fact a builder could build badly and seem to have no problem in getting planning permission to do the same again, and that is something that is worth looking at. The builder in question has obviously gone bankrupt, he has come out of the system and he is a new individual now. I understand how bankruptcy works and I understand that it is not possible for the Taoiseach to ring Bernard McNamara because Mr. McNamara is not the entity he was before he got bankruptcy and the system allowed him back into the fold with a clean slate. However, the Government needs to look at the idea that if a builder does not carry out his work in a manner that meets the building regulations and the planning rules, there has to be a mechanism - legislation needs to be brought in - to stop that from happening again. If a builder or developer fails to fulfil his or her obligations in this area, while I am not saying one should lock him or her up and throw away the key, he or she should never get a project of that nature and size again. That is a flaw in the system.
Right now, there is no obligation on a developer to retain competent design professionals to design a building or a competent contractor to build it. This is something that could be looked at as well. Having a system so loose is not a good idea and it should be tightened up. There should be an onus on a developer to retain persons of a certain proven professional standard who have not blotted their copybook.
One of our biggest problems, to which I heard the Taoiseach refer a couple of times in the past fortnight, is the idea that developments should have been inspected.
Sadly, the Government has refrained from reintroducing proper inspection. We all know that if we want everybody to do good work, we need to inspect it, and we need independent inspection, not self-certification. In the past, this was performed by the clerk of works, who insisted on inspecting work at all levels. The clerk of works was on site, was deemed competent enough to inspect the work and could monitor everything that was done. The system was worth its weight in gold. While it was a cost to the State, it was very valuable and worth the money. If the State argues that it does not have the money to do it, the money for the clerk of works should be incorporated into the levy. The clerk of works should be on site from the start of the job to the finish and should reach a certain level of competence. This could all be done. If it must be done, the Government should implement the levy in order to cover the cost. It is not rocket science.
The new regulations the Government has implemented place all the responsibility on the architect. It does not make sense on a building site. I have made the point several times that the architect cannot possibly be there all the time and will not be paid to have somebody there all the time on his or her behalf. An architect does not know everything about building and is not trained to. There are many different aspects to it. The clerk of works had a good general background in different aspects of construction. Independent, local authority inspection is a must if the Government wants good building work to be done.
I disagree with the idea of relying on the architect and his or her insurance to cover everything. It makes no sense. The engineer designs the structure of pillars, beams and columns that holds the building together. The architect makes decisions about space, environmental impact, image and the final look while the engineer ensures the building keeps together. The engineer takes the architect's drawings, determines how to make the building stand up and stay up and ensures it does not cause problems. One cannot expect the architect to know everything about engineering, no more than one could expect an engineer to know everything about architecture. It is unfair.
Subcontractors come in. Many of the buildings built during the past 20 years have a structural steel frame, and how it is put together is vital. The person who puts it there must sign off and certify that he or she has done it properly and must have the insurance to cover the work in case anything goes wrong. If he or she does not have the insurance before starting, he or she should not get the job. He or she must be able to stand over the work and have the insurance to pay for problems in case the work is not right. This applies to other areas. If I go to a site and put a roof on a building, I should have to sign a certificate to state I have done it right and in accordance with regulation, I have not broken any rules and my workmanship is up to standard. I must also have insurance. If I were to go bankrupt or out of business the following week, my insurance must remain in place for approximately ten years after I leave the site and get the completion notice. If this means a bond process, I should have to pay for a bond before putting the roof on. If a roof leaks because I did not do it right, it causes major problems throughout the building for other subcontractors involved. If there is no insurance or bond to ensure the roofer pays for his or her responsibility for not doing the work properly, where is the logic? It does not make sense. The architect does not know whether a roof was put on properly. The architect has a roof in the drawings and can examine it at the end to ensure it is the roof he or she designed. While the architect can certify that it is the roof he or she designed, there are other questions. Was it done right? Will it keep the water out? Could the wind lift it? Is it held down properly? Wind is a major factor; roofs have blown off. The roofer must have insurance in place to cover any possible problems.
There is a major debate over Longboat Quay and who should pay for remediation of the problems there. Had the local authority done its job properly, it would have found out that things were not done right. In defence of the local authority, it is not getting paid and does not have the personnel or capability to inspect everything. The local authority admits it inspects approximately 15% of built work. However, all built work should be inspected. The new regulation has improved the manner in which drawings and designs are inspected in the early stages and at the start, and this is good. However, it ignores the built work to a great degree, and the Government should address this. It is a major problem and it is possible to address it. It is not rocket science. The Government must listen to the people in the industry. While all the problems are soluble, we have been ignoring them for too long because certain people have had vested interests in neglecting to address them. I am not saying the Government had a vested interest in not addressing them. I am not sure where the advice on the new building regulations came from. However, they are not good and they must be revisited.
We are talking about housing quality. I will move on to the lack of housing and the difficulty so many people on low incomes have accessing housing. They are not disconnected. Until some Government allows the local authorities to start building State housing again, the problems will prevail. We allowed much of our social housing to be sold to the occupants. After living in them for a certain time, many of these people sold the houses to private bodies which rented them out to people who could not afford a house but received rent supplement. We have paid €15 billion in rent supplement over ten or 15 years. It is a frightening figure. It does not make sense. The lack of social housing is driving up the demand for other houses and in the past, the fact that we built social housing helped in this area. We must build social housing again, and in far greater numbers than the Government is planning. The Government's plans are too reliant on the private sector. While not everybody likes the idea of returning to building State housing, it is a must. We will continue to have a housing crisis until we change our attitude towards it. We have to do it; it is imperative.
We have an added problem now with people who do not own their houses and cannot get on the property ladder. I am not saying everyone should be able to get on the property ladder, as I do not believe they should. I think it is just too expensive for some people. It is a stone around their necks. It is too burdensome.
Rent is now becoming a serious problem because we have seen so much rental property moving into investment funds. NAMA and the banks have sold huge tracts of apartments, houses and development lands to US investment funds that are actually forming a cartel in the rental market. I know rents. I have spoken about this issue a couple of times now. Rent keeps going up. I know apartments that were getting €900 a month. I built the apartments in question, which are in Dominick Street. The foreign investment funds that own them are now looking for €1,500 a month. I believe they will get such rents because there is such a scarcity of rental property. It is a massive problem. A small group of players now have significant control of the rental market.
There is an idea that the problems in the rental market and the need to provide homes to people can be dealt with through the rent supplement system, but that is not really workable because it is too expensive for the State in the absence of regulations to deal with rent. I have not seen much of an appetite in the Government for rent control. I am a bit puzzled by its failure to look at the European models. It keeps getting worse and it will be difficult to backtrack on it. There is an absolute need for some control or regulation to be brought into this whole area. Some people say that landlords will leave the business if rent controls are introduced. That did not happen in Europe, however. When rent control settles down, it actually leads to certainty for the landlord as well. Landlords are entitled to rights. We should probably look at cases in which landlords are not being fairly treated by troublesome tenants. Landlords have to be given reasonable powers to deal with such cases. I am not anti-landlord. I have been a landlord.
There is a serious lack of regulation in this whole area. The Minister of State does not need me to tell him that a lack of regulation has been problematic in many areas. The current housing crisis is strongly linked to the lack of regulation in many areas. The whole construction industry is highly problematic. I do not see those problems being addressed. The Government needs to sit down with stakeholders and the different people who work in this problematic industry, which has substantial problems. Those problems will continue until they are addressed. They need to be addressed in here by means of legislation. They are capable of being addressed. It is bordering on a kind of free-for-all.
We had arguments about land banking when we discussed a previous Bill. The legislation that has been introduced has not really dealt with land banking, which is absolutely at the root of all of this. The legislation in question is not going to deal with land banking. Who has bought up the big tracts of land that went into NAMA after the banks went into receivership? Most of them have been bought by big US investment funds. These guys are going to control most of what is built in this town over the next couple of years. If one looks at the applications that are being made for planning permission, and who is making those applications, one will learn that most of the entities that are applying are vulture funds. These guys are interested in rent in Dublin because it is so lucrative that it is hard to beat. It is amazing that a two-bedroom apartment could cost between €1,200 and €1,500 a month. I have made the point in this House previously that a two-bedroom apartment in Turin makes between €300 and €400 a month. There is not much point in the vulture funds going there. They will come here because we are unregulated and it is a free-for-all.
As I listened yesterday evening to the speech given by the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, I was struck by some of the points he made. He suggested that since the inception in 1997 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, "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". The use of the word "prestigious" is rather ironic, given that on Private Members' business last night and tonight we are debating the aggressive tax planning and profit-shifting of multinationals, some of which may be the prestigious companies mentioned by the Minister of State last night. Regardless of the accuracy of the reference to prestigious international companies, I take issue with the suggestion that until 1997 the docklands were a derelict part of the city.
I was born in a docklands community and I continue to live in such a community. Many members of my family were born in the docklands and continue to live in a neighbouring docklands community. Those communities - I refer to the north side of the docklands - were always vibrant. It is certainly not true that they were not vibrant until the DDDA came into existence. As some of the new communities that have been created on foot of the DDDA housing developments are gated communities, it is very difficult for them to engage with the local communities on issues. I accept that the docks themselves were derelict. The Minister of State recognised last night that it was once an active working port. However, containerisation had a devastating effect, with the loss of many jobs, including jobs in the allied industries. Successive Governments made little or no attempt to provide alternative employment. That dereliction and destruction was allowed to continue year after year.
I recently had a look back at the aspect of the 1982 Tony Gregory deal that related to the port and the docks. It was very far-sighted and innovative. I know it seems strange to be talking about acres, but the plan suggested that six acres be provided for office accommodation, ten acres for local authority housing, eight acres for industrial development and three acres for leisure and recreational purposes, although that did not happen. If only they had got it right then, we might have been spared so many of the difficulties that arose afterwards. It is another one of those cases of "if only". When the DDDA was established in 1997, housing and leisure and recreation were certainly not priorities. That is another point that was acknowledged by the Minister of State last night. However, he suggested that "substantial community gain" was associated with the redevelopment of the docklands. While there was some community gain, I am doubtful about his use of the word "substantial". It certainly was not substantial when it came to housing the long-established communities in the local area.
There is absolutely no doubt that the DDDA was tainted. Tony Gregory was aware of this. He was well ahead of others in spotting the crucial conflicts of interest in the membership of the board of the DDDA. Some of the board members were associated with Anglo Irish Bank, which was funding the largest development in all of the north docklands. The members of the board granted planning permission for this development in the first place. How could local community interests be protected in such an environment? The reality was that the developers had absolutely no regard for the communities. In the cases of some small communities, all the developers thought they had to do was come along with some kind of sweetener or brown envelope to entice the people of those communities to ride off into the sunset. The issues with the developers that the communities had to deal with at the time of the DDDA included shadowing due to the height of developments and the blocking out of natural light. Areas that were once quiet enclaves for families were subjected to endless and excessive noise and dust and over-the-top working hours which breached the rules on working hours. Those involved worked through the night at times. Work took place at 6 o'clock on Sunday mornings. There was subsidence of houses and cracks appeared on gable walls. Communities had to engage in constant battles as they tried to deal with endless building sites. The cherry on the cake was the derelict monstrosity that was supposed to become the headquarters of Anglo Irish Bank.
While the redevelopment of the docklands was successful in certain respects, such as with regard to business and finance, we can see that there are major issues today. Social and economic regeneration did not apply to everyone. Communities have felt excluded and isolated in the face of the towering grey and glass structures that surround them. When one walks down through the docklands today, one can see a 20 ft. fence separating the development at Custom House Quay from Mariners Port in North Wall. That is just one small example.
I acknowledge that there have been physical improvements to the quays as well as to the cultural, recreational and educational life of the area through the Convention Centre, the Jeanie Johnston, the Famine Memorial, the restaurants, the National College of Ireland and so forth. I also want to acknowledge the work of Dublin Port Authority and the way in which it supports and engages with the docklands communities. It is very proactive in opening up the port to water-based activities and community groups.
I have a number of questions for the Minister of State. There are DDDA legacy issues relating to planning. Community gain lost out in the current structures and there was a loss of land in the form of plot 8. This has weakened the community aspect of the plan. What will happen to the section 25 planning certificates, two of which have been activated in the last month? Are there others outstanding and what is their life span? I also have a question about the common areas and green spaces in apartment dwellings. These will come under the control of Dublin City Council but does the council have adequate funding to look after them? We have three planning systems operating in the docklands - Dublin City Council, strategic development zone or SDZ, and section 25 planning certificates. That makes it very difficult for people to engage. It is not just a dual planning system but one with a third string. How are communities' rights protected when two of the systems have no appeals mechanism while the third system has? There have been benefits but what communities really want to see is a real and meaningful engagement with the new body in charge, Dublin City Council. I believe that it probably will be better for local communities and I hope I am not proven wrong on that.
I have two items on my wish list. The first relates to boats. I would like to see easier access for boats that travel along the two canals, the Royal and the Grand, to the basin. Something must be done with the Scherzer bridge. Why is it so difficult to get it open? My second wish list item relates to the very dynamic and vibrant Dublin Dockers group that has come together in recent years and gathered artefacts, memorabilia and photographs of the life of the docker. That group needs a space and I know that negotiations are going on with regard to developing a docklands museum. There is great potential there to develop a model similar to the Arigna Mining Experience under which former dockers can give guided tours.
Money was collected per square meter for cultural projects. Has all of that money been spent and is it accounted for? What is the social capital benefit for local communities as the huge capital programmes are planned? Local communities were let down when it came to employment by the DDDA. The Grangegorman Development Agency is much more proactive in this regard. At meetings that I attend, that agency presents the local employment figures from each of the companies working in Grangegorman.
We talked about corporate tax last night and will discuss it again tonight. In that context, how much of the 12.5% tax that the businesses in the docklands are paying will go to the local communities? That said, I acknowledge the involvement of some of those businesses with local schools and youth clubs in the area. The Government says that Dublin City Council is best placed to take on the project. I, along with my colleagues, have been to meetings with Dublin City Council about the plans and there are a lot of positives there. However, I am a little dubious when I read phrases like "fast-track planning procedures", especially in the context of the three applications that are in for consideration at the moment. Local communities can only make submissions, for which they have to pay, and they cannot make objections. That is an issue of concern for communities.
I hope that Dublin City Council has more of a social conscience than the DDDA and that when it comes to housing, it will keep families in mind and not just the type of apartments that suit those working in the business and financial services sector in the area. In the past, under the DDDA, it was the developers, businesses and property owners who benefitted from the planning schemes and the tax schemes. We must be assured that it will be the communities who will benefit most going forward. Prevention of opportunities for recidivism takes the incentives away from the speculators and the developers. The centenary of the 1916 Rising is approaching and there are great stories from the docklands on its association with the Rising. I look forward to seeing that developed. I bow to the superior knowledge of Deputy Mick Wallace when it comes to building, but even I know that anything built must be rigorously regulated, monitored and inspected. Towards the end of his speech the Minister of State used phrases like "bright future", "handsome rewards", "increased prosperity" and "improving economic position for the capital". I would love to see the words "well-being of the communities" included as well.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. The text of the Bill is simple and straightforward and it provides for the dissolution of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and the transfer of its functions to Dublin City Council. Despite its simplicity, it is very far reaching in its implications. Passage of the Bill will mark the end of a bold experiment to fast-track planning in the docklands by making the DDDA the planning authority for the area. Substantial development took place along the docks in the early years of the authority's existence but with the arrival of the Celtic tiger, its mission statement of social and economic regeneration in equal measure was forgotten. The contradictions in its dual role of development and planning became all too obvious. The joint enterprise purchase of the Irish Glass Bottle site by the DDDA and the developers Bernard McNamara and Derek Quinlan, with money from Anglo Irish Bank, was a financial disaster that beggared the authority to the tune of €52 million.
The fire safety problems currently being experienced by the residents of Longboat Quay do not reflect well on the effectiveness of the DDDA in fulfilling its joint role as a planning and development authority. If further apartment blocks are found to be substandard in the quality of their construction and not in compliance with building standards, the DDDA may have serious questions to answer into the future. Perhaps, before this Bill is passed, the Department should reflect on the timing of the dissolution of the authority and consider whether the transfer of its functions and liabilities to Dublin City Council is desirable before a full survey is carried out of properties constructed since 1997 when the DDDA was established. Section 10(1) of the Bill states that "A claim in respect of any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by any person arising out of the performance before the dissolution day of the functions of the Authority shall, on and after that day, lie against the Council and not against the Authority". All of the liabilities are taken on by Dublin City Council. It might be wise to wait a little while.
Last night the Minister of State went through the history of the docklands and provided quite a good description. However, I disagree with some elements of it and will give the Minister of State my own version, as someone who has been a public representative for the area for almost 30 years. The Dublin docklands is an area in the heart of the city with a close relationship to Dublin Port. Traditionally, most working men in the docklands were employed as labourers and carters on the docks and railways. A lot of this work was highly irregular and casual. Many other jobs in the docklands were also dependent on the port. Working conditions were tough and there were often two or three men available for every job. There were few jobs for women, though some earned a living from street trading and from cleaning or domestic service in more prosperous parts of the city. The docks were a focal point of the 1913 Lockout as the casual labourers in the docks had joined the new Irish Transport and General Workers Union. The area was also a focal point during the 1916 Rising.
From the 1950s, containerisation and roll-on-roll-off shipping reduced the need for manual labour, storage facilities and large dockside space where cargo could be loaded and unloaded. Thus, more sites became derelict and jobs disappeared. The docks were no longer able to provide employment for a large number of people and the area has never recovered from the devastating impact of this development.
Many of the houses built in the docklands during the nineteenth century were of poor quality. Local authority flat complexes were constructed in the North Wall between 1930 and 1952 but were demolished in the 1980s as the Government of the day sought to regenerate the docklands. The population fell by 50% between 1900 and the 1980s. The Urban Renewal Act was passed in 1986 and the Customs House Docks Development Authority, CHDDA, was established to redevelop the docklands. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, replaced the CHDDA in 1997. The DDDA had within its remit an obligation to regenerate the docklands. It was obliged to give effect to social and economic regeneration in equal measure. The mission statement of the DDDA reads as follows: "We will develop the Dublin Docklands into a world-class city quarter - a paragon of sustainable inner city regeneration - one in which the whole community enjoys the highest standards of access to education, employment, housing and social amenity and which delivers a major contribution to the social and economic prosperity of Dublin and the whole of Ireland."
Little of the promised social regeneration took place, however. The north docklands area has an indigenous community that continues to be among the most deprived in the country. This community is located cheek by jowl with a new, affluent community and there is very little interaction between the two communities. Education levels in much of the docklands are extremely low and multi-generational unemployment is a problem. The increase in the population in recent years and the decline in derelict sites in the docklands do not reflect a lifting of all boats but, rather, a widening gulf between the indigenous community and the new residents who inhabit the new developments. The Pobal Haase-Pratschke or HP deprivation index for 2006 and 2011 reveals the stark dichotomy between the new affluent communities and the neglected indigenous community. The index for primary education levels shows similar stark contrasts.
While thousands of construction workers were employed on the docklands projects and a 20% local labour clause was provided for in the master plan, the developers avoided local labour by parachuting their external workforce into temporary rented accommodation in the North Wall and East Wall areas and claimed that this constituted local employment. The commitment to provide social housing on the north side of the River Liffey was reneged on, as was the commitment to provide €7 million to build a new primary school for the children of the North Wall. While the Dublin Docklands Development Authority provided a community gain fund, it failed utterly to fulfil its social obligation to the community in a systematic way. At the same time, expensive residential complexes and much sought after office blocks created a new skyline along the River Liffey, north and south. Effectively, the DDDA created a disparate two-tier docklands society, despite 30 years of urban renewal in the area in the sense that it followed on from the work of the Custom House Docks Development Authority which was established in 1987. The best part of three decades has been spent on urban renewal that was supposed to be, in equal measure, social and economic in nature but which has been entirely one-sided with the focus on economic development. Nobody speaks well of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority in the old working class docklands area.
In 2011, when the new coalition Government assumed office, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority was in terminal decline and operating in transition mode. In 2013, when plans were set in motion to establish a new phase of development on the docklands, it became clear that the DDDA did not have the credibility to carry out the work and a decision was taken to transfer its functions to Dublin City Council through this dissolution Bill. The new development plans encompassed an area of 66 ha on either side of the River Liffey, that is, the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock. A strategic development zone was identified and approved by the local authority for fast-track development, which it is estimated will create 23,000 jobs, a not insignificant number. NAMA controls 75% of the assets in the SDZ area and is the facilitator of the development. With a projected investment of €2 billion, NAMA has a critical role in the SDZ. I suggest this may well provide the template for future disposals by NAMA of its debts and the development of its assets. Rather than selling off its assets, it should engage in development in the areas where they are located.
On social regeneration, a large number of stakeholders in the docklands came together in January 2015. They were determined that the failure of the DDDA to deliver on the social regeneration of the docklands should not be repeated under the new dispensation. In consultation with NAMA and Dublin City Council, they met to explore the possibilities for the docklands communities that would be created by the new SDZ developments. A plan was drawn up that would provide employment and apprenticeships locally, develop local businesses, invest in local education and training at every level, and make provision for social housing, local arts, crafts and sports. It was considered essential that the essence of the docklands, namely, the history of the docks and its dockers and the confluence of the canal, river and sea, be preserved and presented to the world by the creation of a docklands heritage and historical trail to rival in importance the Wild Atlantic Way. This time, social regeneration must continue alongside economic regeneration to create an integrated, vibrant docklands community as opposed to a two-tier community, which has been the case thus far.
The SDZ is the last opportunity for proper docklands regeneration to take place. It is necessary, therefore, that the new dissolution Bill states clearly that the central purpose of the SDZ is to effect the social and economic regeneration of the docklands and that Dublin City Council and NAMA should work together to achieve that outcome. The legislation does not include a statement presenting a vision or purpose for the strategic development zone. A DDDA master plan statement expressed a vision of equal social and economic regeneration. However, this was disregarded by the developers and DDDA board. Such a statement of intent should be provided in the legislation to create a backdrop against which the development of the SDZ can commence.
Dublin City Council, as the planning authority for the SDZ, is the responsible party and must play the key role in the regeneration process. The city council can place conditions on planning applications that would make provision for ensuring that the SDZ and surrounding areas are developed as a living, vibrant heartland of the city. It is not doing so and planning applications are being granted without any attempt being made to provide an overall strategic vision or with planning conditions attached that could ensure integrated development in the strategic development zone. A potential alignment with future planning applications will be required so as to provide space for education, training, housing, sports, arts, heritage and culture for the docklands and its community, as detailed in the current plan. This will require the planning authority to present an overall vision of the SDZ project to ensure individual development projects are woven into a coherent regeneration framework and linked to the wider docklands area.
NAMA, with its control of 75% of the assets in the area that constitutes the strategic development zone, should work in partnership with Dublin City Council to facilitate the regeneration process. It should also work with Departments and other State authorities on specific projects and the provision or acquisition of sites or floor space. The National College of Ireland needs space to expand its burgeoning educational activity, which is beneficial to the entire docklands community, from the child care level to the postgraduate level. This should be recognised, identified and built into the SDZ plans before all the space is gobbled up by individual development projects.
Second, the community stakeholders have identified the present headquarters of the DDDA, which was the old Isle of Man ferry ticket and berthing office and departure area, as a suitable location for community facilities. An additional floor would make it a building of considerable capacity. It is ideally located at the entrance to the docklands across from the iconic CHQ building and could include a one-stop shop for the docklands. It could provide an interpretative centre for the abundant history and heritage of the docklands, housing some of the amazing artefacts, equipment, memorabilia and photographs that are still extant. It could also serve as the starting point for the Dublin docklands heritage trail and provide facilities for arts and crafts, reflecting the rich musical, theatrical and writing traditions in the docklands. The building could also provide a centre for local employment, placement as well as training services and catering and restaurant facilities for the local and business community. None of this has been taken on board by any of the players in the docklands.
On the consultative forum, Part 5 of the dissolution Bill provides for the establishment of a docklands consultative forum to advise the city council "in relation to the formulation, development, monitoring and review of the Council's policy relating to the performance of the functions of the Council in so far as they relate to the docklands area." The forum will consist of 21 members plus a chairperson drawn from community, educational and business organisations and local councillors. It reflects the representative structure that was in place under the old DDDA, which was totally ineffective in holding the authority to account. While the forum is a fine democratic structure, it will never be more than a talking shop because it has a consultative role, which means it will be allowed to speak but no one will be required to listen. A totally different body is required to effect delivery of the social and economic regeneration of the docklands. A specific new statutory oversight and implementation structure is needed to monitor and drive the social regeneration of the docklands. The new structure must have teeth and targets. It should liaise with Dublin City Council and NAMA while remaining independent of both, and should be answerable only to the Minister and the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht.
Debate adjourned.