Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we have a quorum of three Teachtaí Dála, we will commence the meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed. Apologies have been received from the Chairman of the select sub-committee, Deputy Michael McCarthy. I remind members to turn off their mobile phones as they can interfere with the sound system, make it difficult for the parliamentary reporters to report the meeting and adversely affect television coverage and web streaming. I remind members that this meeting will be conducted in public session. The meeting has been convened for the purpose of the consideration by the select sub-committee of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill 2015. Is that agreed? Agreed.

This Bill was referred by Dáil Éireann to the Select Sub-Committee on the Environment, Community and Local Government on 8 October 2015. The aim of the Bill is to dissolve the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, to provide for the transfer of certain rights and functions to Dublin City Council as a consequence of the dissolution, to establish the docklands consultative forum, to provide for planning and development matters in the Dublin docklands area and to provide for related matters. The Bill contains five Parts and 44 sections. There are 22 amendments proposed.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government with special responsibility for housing, planning and co-ordination of the Construction 2020 strategy, Deputy Paudie Coffey, and his officials to this evening's meeting. I thank the officials for their attendance and remind them that they should not speak at this meeting, as only the Minister of State should speak. It is proposed to group the following amendments for the purposes of debate: Nos. 1a, 2 to 4, inclusive, and 4a; Nos. 6 to 12, inclusive; and Nos. 13 to 19, inclusive. Amendments Nos. 5 and 20 have been ruled out of order. All other amendments that are not grouped will be discussed individually.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, to delete lines 14 and 15 and substitute the following:"(3) Every regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House sits after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.".

This technical amendment, which proposes to replace section 3(3) of the Bill, expands on the original wording, which required the Minister to lay every regulation before the Houses of the Oireachtas "as soon as may be after it is made". This amendment seeks to elaborate on this requirement by allowing for the annulment of any such regulations if they are voted down in either House by special resolution during the following 21 sitting days of the House after they are laid. While this is an unlikely scenario in most circumstances, nonetheless it is prudent to make provision for such an eventuality. I am proposing the amendment on that basis.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As amendments Nos. 1a, 2 to 4, inclusive, and 4a are related, they may be discussed together.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1a:

In page 8, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:"(3) An agreed statutory instrument, following consultation and negotiation with the existing boards be enacted in order to clarify the future structures and roles of the Docklands Housing Trust and the Docklands Community Trust.".

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is amendment No. 2, in my name, being taken now?

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are discussing all the amendments together.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have moved on to amendments Nos. 1a, 2 to 4, inclusive, and 4a.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When are we going to discuss those amendments?

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 has been agreed.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are discussing the next group of amendments, including Deputy Stanley's amendment No. 2.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have done amendment No. 1. I suppose amendment No. 2, in my name, is self-explanatory because it proposes that "following the dissolution of the Authority and after all its liabilities have been met and subject to there being a surplus remaining the Council shall establish a central fund to be used for social gain for the benefit of the local community to be administered in conjunction with the Docklands Community Trust". I want to amend the Bill in this way to ensure any benefit arising from a surplus goes to the local community and to local businesses. This will ensure they benefit to the maximum degree and the area benefits to the maximum degree. We need to ensure the money is targeted specifically into those communities where there are many issues to be addressed.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to speak in support of amendment No. 3, which proposes that "future master plans shall be developed for the area in its entirety". The initial master plan recognised the need for the hinterland to be included. This bloc was also recognised by Dublin City Council in the city development plan. However, it now appears that anything outside the strategic development zone will be excluded. That will rule out certain traditional dockland communities, many of which are on the north side but some of which are on the south side of the river. This is having an effect on statistics. One statistic showed that 80% of the residents in the built dockland area, if I can call it that, have third level education. I do not believe that is indicative of the wider docklands community. A similar point can be made with regard to property ownership. Many people in the new areas own several apartments for renting. It is a transient population as well. The Government makes decisions on the basis of statistics. The point I am making is that unless the hinterland of the docklands is included, the statistics will overwhelm the reality of the case to be made on behalf of the people who live in that hinterland. There are different types of communities in the wider docklands area. I am from one of the communities in question and I have family members in one of the other communities. People in gated communities are not engaging for various reasons, perhaps because they are single people or couples that have not started families. I suggest that these gated areas are very much out of sync with the overall dockland community. I wonder whether the hinterland is being excluded because it would be an obstacle to foreign direct investment if it were included. I do not see the rationale for excluding some of the communities that comprise the docklands.

Some of these amendments seek to deal with a point that has been made with regard to local employment. I do not think it is too much to ask. We are talking about areas of very high unemployment. Deputy Costello and I are members of the Grangegorman Development Agency, which imposes a local employment clause.

When we come to the meeting each of the contractors gives us a percentage for how many are employed from the local population. This is done through the local employment service, LES, centres. This is very important in getting people into employment in areas where employment is not readily available. There is a lot of work being done by youth projects which support young lads in doing things such as taking the manual handling course. We would like to see an employment clause inserted to encourage employers to do this. We are not asking anyone to take on somebody who is not qualified to do a job, but where there are local people who are qualified, there should be positive discrimination.

There is no mention anywhere of a community gain. Under the old master plan of the DDDA, there was mention of a community gain which included a social regeneration programme involving intervention in the school, with classes in music and drama. Training was involved and there were opportunities for educational advancement. There was a senior citizens forum and other specific services were provided from the community fund. Dockland conferences were held every year. Communities would very much like to see such things as part of the new plan.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo some of the points made by both Deputies on amendments Nos. 1 to 4awhich include our own. I presume all of the liabilities will be taken on by the local authority when the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is wound up. Let us hope there will not be much in the way of liabilities and that the authority will have a surplus in order that, when it is dissolved and the functions are transferred to Dublin City Council, a sizeable fund will also be transferred and that this will be a community gain. This money should go to the docklands community trust to continue the good work being done. There was always a community dividend which generated some good activities in local communities, particularly for the elderly. It is to be hoped this will continue as an integral part of the new entity that will operate under Dublin City Council.

We are looking for 10% growth in both social and affordable housing. In the master plan of the old dispensation, under the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, there was provision for a figure of 20%, but this commitment was never delivered on. Only 52 units of accommodation were provided from 1997, despite the fact that 300 units were supposed to have been provided on the North Wall. Even with a figure of 10%, we will not reach the amount which was supposed to have been provided by now. We should up the ratio, but I hope we have cast iron guarantees in the new legislation that a figure of 10% will be achieved and that this will be overseen strictly to ensure it is.

A 20% local labour clause would be very desirable. As Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan said, this was part of the Grangegorman dispensation and, while it is not included in the legislation, it is included in the strategic development zone, SDZ. There is goodwill from all quarters for this to happen in the development in the docklands. Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure the provision is replicated in the docklands development? That was the principle articulated in the master plan, but it was not delivered on. Workers from outside were parachuted into the area under the pretence that they actually dwelt in the area and local people did not get the jobs inherent in the master plan for the old SDZ. We cannot allow that to happen again because it will mean that, while we will have economic regeneration, we will not have social regeneration.

These are very important areas and there is not much sense in continuing the current situation where the least affluent part of the country lies, cheek by jowl, with the most affluent part. There is a lot of anti-social behaviour and there are drugs problems and difficulties with employment, apprenticeships and so on. We need strong guarantees that, this time around, the massive development and investment that is to take place in the SDZ will deliver the goods. We are representatives of that area and have seen what has and has not happened over an extended period of many decades when local communities lost out. That cannot happen this time around, which is why these motions are extremely important.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendments Nos. 1aand 4ain my name. I support what the previous speaker said and thank the Minister of State, Deputy Paudie Coffey, for the significant conversation he has had with me and Deputy Joe Costello. It is very important that the docklands be a vibrant area. We need to get back to what the Victorians, of all people, believed, that it was important for people to live close to where they worked. That is an important element of the provision of social housing. We would like to see affordable housing, but I understand there is a problem in that regard. We would also like to see a 20% local employment rate, or even higher, because the more people can live close to their places of work the better. As members know, it is very difficult to move around the greater Dublin area; it took several hours for some Deputies to get to this building this morning. I hope the spirit of the amendments will be taken on board. I will be interested to hear the Minister of State's response.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments cover many wide-ranging issues relating to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill. I have a detailed and substantial answer which I need to read to address the concerns the Deputies have raised. I ask them to bear with me as it is long and detailed, but it is important to read it to provide the necessary clarification.

I do not propose to accept the amendments which I will discuss together as they touch on similar themes. Proposed amendment No. 1asuggests clarification of the future structures and roles of the docklands housing trust and the docklands community trust. The docklands community housing trust owns 72 social housing units which it manages for the use of the residents within the docklands area. The trust will continue to operate as before with the assistance and collaboration of the housing and docklands units within Dublin City Council. The trust has contributed greatly, in its current guise, to meeting the social housing needs of residents of the docklands since its inception. During the years the docklands community trust has managed funds allocated to it by the authority to the betterment of residents of the docklands. The trust benefits the docklands community in a number of ways such as by providing assistance for residents in pursuing educational opportunities. Both trusts have fulfilled their functions and roles admirably during the years.

The trusts mentioned were not established under the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 and are legal entities in their own right. As such, they are outside the scope of the Bill. Article 10 of the memorandum and articles of association of the trust provides that they can be altered with the written approval of the authority.

In circumstances where the authority ceases to exist, it is replaced by its successor, which in this case is Dublin City Council. The authority is currently engaging with the boards of the trusts on the governance requirements post-dissolution. Therefore, it is not deemed possible to accept this amendment.

On amendment No. 2, the DDDA has over the years contributed to a community fund, administered by the Docklands Community Trust, to the benefit of the local community in conjunction with the Docklands Community Council. That fund has now accumulated assets of €1.3 million which uses the interest earned to assist and enhance the lives of local docklands residents, primarily through providing grants for local school leavers to pursue third level educational courses.

In seeking to dissolve the authority and transfer responsibilities to Dublin City Council, the Government was anxious that no additional financial burden would be placed on the taxpayer. By means of a prudent transition plan, devised by the authority and the city council’s docklands unit, an orderly wind-down of the authority has been ongoing. This wind-down has sought to generate sufficient funds from the sale of the authority’s residual assets to discharge all its liabilities at dissolution. Given the ongoing nature of some aspects of the authority’s business, the final financial picture will not become fully apparent until all liabilities are finalised and discharged, when the dissolution comes into effect.

During the Second Stage debate, a commitment was given to the House that the authority would make a substantial contribution to the community on its dissolution. This commitment remains in place and the level of contribution will be decided in light of the financial circumstance of the authority on dissolution. However, I can assure Deputies that it will be substantial and will enable the Docklands Community Trust and Dublin City Council's docklands unit to continue to support local community and educational initiatives. That is to be welcomed. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 2.

I am also opposing amendment No. 4 for the following reasons, and I propose to respond to each element (a) to (c) of amendment No. 4 in turn. In respect of part (a), concerning the social housing element, it is already required, as part of the granting of planning permission for residential development within the SDZ area, that the social housing requirement of each development shall be provided in line with current national housing policy. In this regard, current national housing policy requires the provision of 10% social housing, as introduced by the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 earlier this year.

An independent review of Part V of the 2000 Planning and Development Act regarding social and affordable housing was carried out prior to the initiation of the Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill. This review, which included a public consultation process, identified that the provision of social housing through Part V should be retained. The review also recommended that the overall requirement should be up to 10% of units in residential developments. This requirement copperfastens the original objective of Part V in legislation, namely, the delivery of social housing, combined with integrated and sustainable mixed-tenure communities across the country.

The reduction in the requirement from 20% to 10%, as introduced by the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015, should be considered together with other amendments introduced by the same Act which have reduced the alternatives to the delivery of units within a Part V agreement. For example, the options of payment of cash in lieu of units or the transfer of sites or parts of sites have been removed and, instead, the remaining options are focused on the delivery of completed units. In addition, under these new Part V provisions, it is the intention that all local authorities, including Dublin City Council, in their Part V negotiations, will seek for developers to fulfil their Part V obligations entirely by social housing.

Affordable housing provision shall not be agreed to by planning authorities until further notice. That is something which both the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and I will keep under review. We note that it is a very important tier of housing which should be made available to citizens. We will be making further announcements on it in the future. The effect will be that Part V agreements will in future deliver more social housing units than were realised before when the 20% social and affordable requirement was in place. For the reasons set out above, I am opposing the first element, part (a) of amendment No. 4.

With regard to part (b) of amendment No. 4, concerning local employment, there are many objectives within the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock SDZ that already address this issue. For example, objective ER11 of the SDZ planning scheme 2014 requires Dublin City Council to liaise with agencies and organisations to maximise employment and training opportunities for docklands residents. This process has already commenced, with Dublin City Council’s docklands unit working with developers and the local employment services in the area to maximise new employment opportunities, both in construction and also with new employers in the area. The rate of employment through the local employment services will be monitored and reported to the Docklands Community Council and its successor within the city council, the docklands consultative forum.

In addition, objective ER10 requires Dublin City Council to facilitate and harness the employment-generating opportunities of the support services sector as well as enterprise activity with a range of key skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled and volunteer workers of all ages, as part of the overall economic regeneration for the wider docklands area. Further to that, objective ER12 requires the city council to facilitate agencies and organisations, in particular those engaged in employment and training initiatives in the docklands, to work together in a co-ordinated manner in order to maximise employment, volunteer and training opportunities for residents of all ages in the docklands area.

Objective CD10 requires Dublin City Council to promote a docklands local employment steering group with relevant stakeholders to facilitate an employment strategy promoting enhanced local employment access with a specific regard for younger and older people. Objective CD12 requires the city council to provide commercial facilities, such as local supermarkets, restaurants, cafés and leisure facilities, that provide opportunities for local employment and locations for the community to interact, meet and socialise, so as to assist community development. Having regard to the comprehensive supports already provided for in the SDZ planning scheme for local training and employment, the implementation of which will be monitored and reported to the docklands consultative forum, I am opposing element (b) of amendment No. 4.

Finally, in response to the third element, part (c) of amendment No. 4, concerning a contribution scheme for community gain, Deputies should be aware that chapter 4.3 of the SDZ planning scheme addresses community development and community gain, wherein it is acknowledged, at section 4.3.1, that the regeneration of the docklands is a project about people, not just physical and economic regeneration. With specific reference to community infrastructure and gain, the SDZ planning scheme confirms at section 4.3.4.2 that, as infrastructure is developed and regeneration advances to tackle the remaining brownfield sites, it will be a core requirement that opportunities for community infrastructure and gain are maximised through the design of buildings, the public realm that is provided and land uses that are proposed.

Dublin City Council has confirmed to my Department that its current development levies scheme requires all new developments to pay €34.50 per square metre for residential development and around €28 per square metre of commercial development to the city council. Of these amounts, €4.60 and €3.75 respectively are dedicated and earmarked to funding community facilities and amenities. Dublin City Council’s development levies scheme is currently being revised with the final version to be adopted by the council next month and, according to the council, the percentage dedicated to community uses is proposed to increase from 14.6% to 17.16% next year.

The docklands SDZ area is subject to the same levies as the rest of the city. What is perhaps more relevant here is that the benefits of the city council’s development levies will apply to all areas of the docklands, not just inside the SDZ area of the North Lotts and Grand Canal quarter but across the more established community facilities in the wider docklands area. Investment in upgrading community facilities from levies across the docklands will benefit new and upgraded community facilities and will serve both existing communities within docklands and new developments in the SDZ. For the reasons set out above, I am opposing the third and final element (c) of amendment No. 4.

I am also opposing amendment No. 4a as, upon dissolution, there will no longer be a need for a master plan for the docklands area, with the key policies and objectives captured in the city development plan.

The role and function of a master plan under the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act are inextricably linked with the operational functions of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, including, for example, the designation of areas where section 25 schemes would be appropriate. When the DDDA is dissolved, there will be no statutory basis or need for a master plan.

As a like for like replacement, the Dublin city development plan, as adopted by Dublin City Council, will be the planning policy document for the wider docklands area, in addition to the SDZ planning scheme 2014 which applies to the specified North Lotts and Grand Canal docks area. In this regard, Deputies might note that the Dublin city development plan, 2016 to 2022, is being prepared by the city council and the draft version of the plan is on public display. The draft development plan contains numerous policies and objectives relating to the social and economic regeneration of the Dublin docklands areas. For example, policy SC8 proposes to recognise the distinctive character of the docklands regeneration area and work with the relevant authorities to increase connectivity with the city centre. Similarly, section 15.1.1.6 of the draft plan states the docklands will be a strategic development and regeneration area and provide for the continued physical and social regeneration of this part of the city, consolidating the area as a vibrant economic, cultural and amenity quarter of the city, while also nurturing sustainable neighbourhoods and communities. Section 15.1.1.7 of the draft plan, relating to the docklands areas' social and community development, provides numerous guiding principles relating to housing and employment, education and social engagement, economic performance and business promotion, the development of a maritime strategy, marketing, environment, movement and transport, land use, urban design and flood risk and the implementation of the various objectives and policies that are associated and which will apply to the future development of the docklands.

On the basis that the key objectives and measures previously covered by the master plan are now planned to be incorporated into the city development plan or are covered already by the SDZ planning scheme, there is no need for, or value in, having a separate master plan. I, therefore, oppose amendment No. 3.

I have given a long and detailed response, but it addresses the concerns associated with the amendments. There is a clear commitment that many of these concerns will be addressed in the new arrangements.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that amendment No. 2 is not being accepted. The Deputies from Dublin have outlined how the communities in question lost out owing to the fact that what was promised in earlier developments in the area was not delivered. I will press amendment No. 2.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive response. Regarding the reference to social housing, the changes that have taken place under the 2015 Act appear to tie down the 10% requirement in a manner it was not previously when it was lost under various guises. That the Minister of State has indicated his openness to an affordable measure is promising.

Regarding the reference to 20% local employment clause, this must be strengthened to some degree. It is operational in the Grangegorman development plan and there are regular reports. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and I receive a monthly report on how the 20% local employment requirement is being met in order that we know where and in which company the employment is being provided. While it might not be included in the existing legislation under which the Grangegorman Development Agency was established, it is included in the SDZ and likewise in the current plan. We must ensure there is a structure in place to report in a manner whereby we can monitor it. Obviously, the consultative forum is dealt with later in the Bill, but we must have something similar to what is in place for the Grangegorman development in order that we can be assured that what happened previously, when the companies that were employed and the developers simply bypassed the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and went on about their business, will not happen again and that there will be constant checks. What can the Minister of State do to reassure us that there will be an adequate structure in place to deliver on the figure of 20% which all of the players agree should be in place? If it is not a figure of 20% for direct labour, training places and apprenticeships should be built into it.

I take the point about there being a community gain, which I welcome. With regard to the master plan, the docklands area was the first to have a master plan. The idea was that owing to their nature the area would be developed with a master plan in order that there would be coherent development. This should not be ruled out for the future, even though most of the elements appear to have been retained within the city council draft development plan, but we have yet to see whether that will be delivered in total.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive clarification. Perhaps he might reassure me on the 20% local employment requirement.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was a comprehensive answer which provided much food for thought for community groups. They can look at it and consider how to move forward.

At a time when there is such a dire housing need, it is disappointing that there is a figure of just 10% for social housing rather than 20%. Is it possible to ensure more family-friendly units will be built? It is more lucrative for developers to build two-bedroom units, but we encounter families who need accommodation with three and four bedroom.

The Minister of State says there will be a substantial community gain, yet he does not wish to use the words "community gain" as suggested in the amendment. That is surprising. Is it playing with words? I do not know, but it was good to hear what he had to say about what would be available to communities.

Regarding the SDZ, the Minister of State said he would be looking at all of the dockland communities in this area, yet he will not recognise that they should be part of what we are discussing.

Deputy Joe Costello spoke about local employment. We know that people living in the area felt very let down on the employment of young people from the area when the massive development was taking place in the past. The few local people who were given the opportunity to move into employment, be it in financial services or otherwise, are still working there and doing very well. There is a group of 18 to 21 year olds who cannot avail of the community employment scheme, but they would be ideal candidates for employment in this area, as well as training and apprenticeships. The Minister of State does not wish to include it in the Bill, but is there some way of bringing it about in order that the community can be assured that this time it will not be left behind and that it will not be a case of "them and us"?

We have had meetings about the plan with Dublin City Council. There are many positive items in the plan, but we would like all of it to be positive for local communities.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for the positive interaction we are having. They are right to engage strongly because there is an opportunity to get this right. I agree that we must learn from what happened in the past when there was potential but it was not delivered on for various reasons.

As for the Part V provisions on social housing, commitments might have been given, but they were either not delivered on or were delivered on almost like an afterthought, which is unacceptable. There is now an opportunity to get this right. The Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 passed by the Oireachtas last July, on which there was good engagement at this committee, contains provisions to ensure housing units and homes will be delivered as part of the planning process. A number of provisions are included in that legislation that protect the interests Deputy Joe Costello is quite rightly outlining. First, through this Act, the Government has removed the cash-in-lieu provision which essentially gave developers the power to buy their way out of their social housing obligations. I am told that if that cash-in-lieu provision had never been included from the outset, we would have approximately 10,000 more social housing units than is the case today, which is an interesting statistic. While it is sad to a degree that a huge opportunity was lost, I am glad to state that in the aforementioned recently enacted legislation I have acted to remove the cash-in- lieu provision and indicated that units must be delivered.

On top of this, rather than having social housing being delivered as an afterthought or a lesser priority, as part of the planning process builders and developers or the proposers of projects will now be required to engage with the local authority and its housing section to agree on the type of housing to be provided. This addresses the concerns of Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan who is correct, in that if there is a need for family units, that need must be addressed or if there is a need for single units, that need must be addressed. The local authority is best placed to understand this because it is the housing authority. There is an opportunity for the local authority for the first time in that in combining the housing and planning sections supply will be matched with demand. Powers have been given to local authorities in the planning process before commencement to strengthen their negotiating hand. This is a highly positive step forward which the Government will monitor closely to see how effectively it is working. While it expects it to work, if it needs to be tweaked or strengthened in any way, I would be prepared to consider this. However, the new system should be allowed to bed in and there is no doubt but that it will deliver more social housing units than has been the case heretofore.

In response to the good points made about employment opportunities for local workforces, I am not someone who believes in reinventing the wheel. We must learn from past experiences and two Deputies present, namely, Deputies Joe Costello and Maureen O'Sullivan, have spoken about their experience of the Grangegorman strategic development zone, SDZ. The Government should consider emulating the model operating in Grangegorman which, from what I hear, appears to be relatively successful. It should ascertain how that experience can be emulated with the docklands authority and how some of its successful elements pertaining to local employment opportunities can be transferred into the new arrangements within Dublin City Council. This is a possibility that should be considered and I certainly would be open to doing so. That said, I do not believe there is a place in primary legislation for setting a 20% local employment requirement because, constitutionally or legally, it would be extremely hard to comply with it. Nevertheless, my officials will take up the suggestion and ascertain how the positive experience in Grangegorman can be emulated in the Dublin docklands.

As for the consultative forum, I again take on board the Deputies' concerns. It is important to have a level of transparency and oversight to ensure delivery. I believe Deputy Joe Costello is concerned to ensure there will be adequate delivery on the social dividend and social provision side. I am prepared to consider an amendment on Report Stage to ascertain how that transparency can be strengthened. Perhaps there might be an obligation to submit the forum's annual report to the Minister who, in turn, would lay it before both Houses of the Oireachtas. That could ensure a level of transparency and scrutiny by Oireachtas Members. As the Vice Chairman is aware, when such a report was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, it would quite open to this committee, if its members wished to do so, to have it brought before it. Moreover, it could invite to appear before it the officials and those responsible for report, as well as the Dublin docklands unit within Dublin City Council, as I can see no reason these officials could not be invited before the committee to scrutinise their work and progress in delivery. That is an improvement I am willing to consider to take on board the concerns the Deputies have raised. I believe I have addressed most of the concerns raised, but to be fair, the official response I gave from the scripted version was detailed, comprehensive and addressed the main concerns.

With regard to amendment No. 2, I believe Deputy Brian Stanley indicated his intention to press the amendment. I wish to try to address the issue to some degree for him, if possible. He proposes that, following the dissolution of the authority and after all its liabilities have been met and subject to there being a surplus remaining, the council establish a central fund to be used for social gain for the benefit of the local community. I believe I have already answered this suggestion to a degree. While the wind-down is taking place - as all members are aware, there are ongoing liabilities - I cannot put a prescriptive figure on it. However, I reiterate the point already made on Second Stage that it is expected there will be a substantial dividend. The Government has stated quite clearly that it will go to the trust for the benefit of many of the projects and engagements from which people have benefited in the Dublin docklands area. I cannot give a stronger commitment than that, except to state it has been given and that by using the mechanisms about which members of spoken, through the forum and the Dublin docklands unit, this dividend can be delivered successfully in order that it will reach those who require to benefit from it most and assist them in the most efficient way possible.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:“(4) Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, following the dissolution of the Authority and after all its liabilities have been met and subject to there being a surplus remaining the Council shall establish a central fund to be used for social gain for the benefit of the local community to be administered in conjunction with the Docklands Community Trust.”.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 11, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:“(5) Future master plans shall be developed for the area in its entirety and approved by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in recognition of the importance of the Docklands area.”.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 11, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:“(5) Future applications under Docklands Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) shall—

(a) include a condition to provide for 20 per cent social housing,

(b) include a condition to provide for local employment, and

(c) include a condition to provide for a contribution scheme for community gain within the Docklands area.”.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 5 has been ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 6 to 12, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 14, line 9, after “time;” to insert the following:“and(iv) the developer can demonstrate previous compliance with fire safety regulations and can satisfy the Council that any outstanding issues in respect of fire safety or other planning regulations will be rectified;”.

The amendment is self explanatory. It states that the developer must demonstrate previous compliance with fire safety regulations and can satisfy the council, in this case, Dublin City Council, that any outstanding issues in respect of fire safety or other planning regulations will be rectified. We tabled the amendment because we believe it is important. We saw what happened in the case of Longboat Quay, Priory Hall and other developments around the State. It is important, in particular in the context of inner city multi-unit development complexes, that the previous record of developers is taken into consideration and that we cross all the t's and dot all the i's and ensure developers are compliant because we have had many difficulties dating back to the Celtic tiger years and we all agree that moving forward we do not wish to see a repeat of that.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, as his amendment No. 7 is related.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, in regard to amendment No. 6, we oppose the amendment. I understand the concerns the Deputy has raised but they are not appropriate in legislation that is specifically about winding down an authority because clear and enforceable fire safety requirements are already set out appropriately in primary legislation, including in the Building Control Acts, the Fire Services Acts, the Planning and Development Acts and the Multi-Unit Developments Act. Restatement of statutory obligations that already apply generally under existing law in new legislation prepared for a specific and limited purpose, such as this Bill, is unnecessary and serves no additional purpose. In fact, depending on drafting and interpretation issues, a restatement may also inadvertently weaken the application and enforceability of existing requirements.

Furthermore, there are perhaps unforeseen and possibly unintended but potentially critical consequences arising from the proposed amendment. For example, the inclusion of the wording "or other planning regulations" in the amendment would appear to have the effect of limiting the provision to planning-related fire safety requirements, such as road access for fire brigades and proximity to water mains hydrants, and, therefore, as a consequence, non-planning related issues, but more likely fire safety breaches, such as the construction not being in accordance with the fire safety certificates, defective fire compartmentalisation in buildings, fire stopping around building services, inadequate fire detection systems in building units and inadequate emergency access and evacuation provisions in buildings units, which we all agree are very important, would unfortunately be excluded if we were to accept the amendment. For those reasons, I do not accept amendment No. 6.

Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 are Government amendments. These six amendments are technical in nature and their collective purpose is to amend planning enforcement provisions in Part 8 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, so that they unambiguously apply to developments in respect of which a section 25 certificate has been issued by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, or a section 12 certificate by the Custom House Docks Development Authority. The amendments have been put forward following extensive engagement between officials in my Department and the Attorney General’s office.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is of the view that the amendment we tabled could weaken existing legislation but I do not believe that is the case. The intention of the amendment is very clear. I will press the amendment.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 17, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 154 of Act of 2000

31. Section 154(5)(a) of the Act of 2000 is amended with effect from the dissolution day—(a) in subparagraph (i) by the deletion of “or” after “as appropriate,”,

(b) in subparagraph (ii) by the insertion of “or” after “is subject”, and

(c) by the insertion of the following subparagraph after subparagraph (ii)—

“(iii) in respect of a development in respect of which a certificate has been issued by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority under section 25(7)(a)(ii) of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 or by the Custom House Docks Development Authority under section 12(6)(b) of the Urban Renewal Act 1986, require that the development will proceed in conformity with the planning scheme made under those Acts in respect of which the development was certified to be consistent and any conditions to which the certificate is subject,”.”.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 17, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 157 of Act of 2000

32. Section 157(4)(a) of the Act of 2000 is amended with effect from the dissolution day—(a) in subparagraph (i), by the substitution of “development,” for “development;”,

(b) in subparagraph (ii), by the substitution of “section 42,” for “section 42.”, and

(c) by the insertion of the following subparagraph after subparagraph (ii)—

“(iii) in respect of a development in respect of which a certificate has been issued by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority under section 25(7)(a)(ii) of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 or by the Custom House Docks Development Authority under section 12(6)(b) of the Urban Renewal Act 1986, after seven years beginning on the date the certificate ceases to have effect in accordance with Part 4 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Act 2015.”.”.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 17, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 160 of Act of 2000

33. Section 160 of the Act of 2000 is amended with effect from the dissolution day—(a) by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (c) of subsection (1):

“(c) that any development is carried out in conformity with—

(i) in the case of a permission granted under this Act, the permission pertaining to that development or any condition to which the permission is subject, or

(ii) in the case of a certificate issued by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority under section 25(7)(a)(ii) of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 or by the Custom House Docks Development Authority under section 12(6)(b) of the Urban Renewal Act 1986, the planning scheme made under those Acts to which the certificate relates and any conditions to which the certificate is subject.”,

and

(b) in paragraph (a) of subsection (6)—

(i) in subparagraph (i), by the deletion of “or” after “commencement of the development,”,

(ii) in subparagraph (ii), by the substitution of “section 42, or” for “section 42.”,

and

(iii) by the insertion of the following subparagraph after subparagraph (ii):

“(iii) in respect of a development in respect of which a certificate has been issued by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority under section 25(7)(a)(ii) of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 or by the Custom House Docks Development Authority under section 12(6)(b) of the Urban Renewal Act 1986, after the expiration of a period of 7 years beginning on the date the certificate ceases to have effect in accordance with Part 4 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Act 2015.”.”.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 17, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 162 of Act of 2000

34. Section 162 of the Act of 2000 is amended with effect from the dissolution day by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):“(1) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act, the onus of proving the existence of—

(a) any permission granted under Part III,

(b) any certificate issued by the Custom House Docks Development Authority under section 12(6)(b) of the Urban Renewal Act 1986,

or

(c) any certificate issued by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority under section 25(7)(a)(ii) of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997, shall be on the defendant.”.”.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 17, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 163 of Act of 2000

35. Section 163 of the Act of 2000 is amended with effect from the dissolution day by the substitution of “(disregarding development for which there is in fact permission under Part III or in respect of which a certificate has been issued by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority under section 25(7)(a)(ii) of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 or by the Custom House Docks Development Authority under section 12(6)(b) of the Urban Renewal Act 1986)” for “(disregarding development for which there is in fact permission under Part III)”.”.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 17, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

“Amendment of Act of 2000 – planning authority

36. The Act of 2000 is amended with effect from the dissolution day by the insertion of the following section after section 164:

“Development in Dublin Docklands Area

164A.For the avoidance of doubt, Dublin City Council is the planning authority in respect of a development in respect of which a certificate has been issued by—(a) the Dublin Docklands Development Authority under section 25(7)(a)(ii) of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997,

or

(b) the Custom House Docks Development Authority under section 12(6)(b) of the Urban Renewal Act 1986.”.”.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 13 to 19, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 17, line 35, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

The proposed amendment is a small one but it is very important. The intention is that the forum shall consider and advise the council and the strategic policy committees of the council on the formulation, development, monitoring and review of the council's policy regarding the performance of its functions. The word "may" is vague and from past experience, we know that anything that is vague tends to be ignored.

The same is true of amendment No. 14 on page 18. The intention is to insert after the word "employment", "including community and social employment". That is important because local community employment and social employment are very important to this area and I ask that the suggested wording would be inserted.

In amendment No. 15, we suggest replacing the word "may" with "shall" on line 10, page 18. Again, we propose that the forum shall consider and advise the council and the strategic policy committees on a range of matters.

With amendment No. 16, we propose to delete lines 19 to 21 and replace them with the following: "(3) The Council and the strategic policy committees of the Council shall consider the advice provided by the Forum in relation to the matters set out in subsections (1) and (2)." I move the amendments in the spirit of trying to ensure the Bill is as straightforward and definitive as possible.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Docklands Consultative Forum is dealt with in Part 5. The same structure is being replicated here as existed in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.

I was a member of that authority for a number of years along with many other councillors. A similar structure for the appointment of local authority, community, business members and so on is being provided for in this legislation. The first problem with it is that it is a forum. It is a place where people come together and talk, it is not a place where people make decisions. Deputy Stanley's amendment suggests replacing the word "may" with the word "shall" because section 33(1) simply states the forum "may consider and advise" the council. Surely the forum "should" consider and advise the council. It is not much of a consultative forum if it does not do that and if it has a tentative rather than a specific mandate to do so. I am not sure the wording is adequate. I would like the provision to be strengthened and perhaps the Minister of State might deal with that in his response.

The legislation refers to five organisations which, in the opinion of the Minister, are representative of the community, five organisations which are representative of economic activity in the area, five public authorities and so on. One of the amendments names various geographical areas in the community. They are set out in the amendment and include City Quay, East Wall, Irishtown, North Wall, Pearse Street, Ringsend and Sheriff Street-Seville Place. The communities want to have these areas represented on a geographical basis so that we do not end up with non-geographical representation. They want even geographical representation. The legislation provides for "not less than 5 organisations" but they are all organisations and how are these organisations going to put forward members? Will there be a plebiscite? How will nominations take place prior to the Minister making the formal appointment? Will the Minister of State clarify that issue?

I am glad the Minister of State said he was interested in strengthening the forum in terms of reporting powers and giving it a level of oversight. There is a danger that it will just be a talking shop. It may well end up like the previous one. Many people in a representative capacity came together but were not able to effect anything. Everything happened outside their remit. I would like the body's powers to be strengthened. In addition, it should have an oversight role to allow it to ensure that objectives and targets are met. The regeneration of the docklands was a fantastic idea in theory. Principles were laid down and there was a master plan. We had everything except the delivery. It did not deliver social and economic regeneration in equal measure as it was supposed to do.

We need to ensure that not just economic regeneration is delivered on this particular occasion. We are talking about thousands of jobs. Some 23,000 jobs are meant to be created as a result of this. There will be enormous development in terms of office blocks and residential developments and huge opportunities for training and employment. There will be enormous opportunity to get this right for the docklands. That is the nub of the matter. We need to get it right on this occasion. The docklands consultative forum could be the key to doing it, if we can get it right, but it needs to be more than a consultative forum. It must have an oversight role so that it can ensure targets are met, social regeneration is not forgotten about, social housing is provided, employment targets are met and all the rest of it. It would report to the Minister and this committee. It would also be possible to bring in the Dublin City council development unit. That sort of bite is needed. I would welcome an amendment by the Minister which would tighten up this section.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment in Deputy Catherine Murphy's name refers to section 34 and mentions specific areas. However, I think a number of amendments are being discussed together. First, I acknowledge the docklands communities and the members thereof who served in the area, including the previous chief executives, Mr. Peter Coyne and Mr. Paul Maloney, who did amazing work representing their communities. Many of them were here when this committee launched its report. There was a strong and positive air around the committee's report that day but it seems that many of the recommendations of the committee are not being taken on board in this legislation.

I mentioned specific areas earlier. They are the historical docklands communities. I have read the section on the forum in the legislation which is a long section. It concerns representatives of people engaged in activities the area rather than people who are and have been living there all of their lives and have a particular contribution to make. There could be people on the forum from organisations which are engaged in the docklands but these individuals might only have been with the organisations in question for a year or two. They may have no real sense of what it is to live in the docklands community. As stated by Deputy Costello, social regeneration is important. This is a lot of anxiety within the docklands communities. Having put so much into the master plan, people fear their voices will now be lost. Will the Minister of State examine the issue to ensure those voices are not lost?

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I know they are well meaning and the contributions are made in the interests of trying to ensure we get this right.

Before getting into the detail of the proposed amendments, it is important to note, and I agree, that unique consultative arrangements were put in place in 1997 when the DDDA was set up. These have been referred to by the Deputies. The input from interested parties in the docklands was previously channelled by the docklands council to the authority. The advice and feedback from that council, which included representatives from community groups and business interests, as well as Government Departments and semi-State bodies, was invaluable in formulating policy and strategies in the past. However, in dissolving the authority and transferring its functions to Dublin City Council, I was equally anxious to ensure that the voices of residents, businesses and other parties with an interest in the area are heard. Accordingly, the legislation provides for a docklands consultative forum to provide an appropriate assembly for this specific and valuable purpose. In devising the composition, role and functions of the new forum, the consensus of the outgoing docklands council, the board of the authority and the city council was sought. The definition, composition, role and functions of the forum are detailed in Part 5 of the Bill and the related Schedule. It should be noted - I note concerns of Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan in this regard - that four elected councillors who are accountable democratically to the communities living in the docklands are on the forum.

I do not intend to accept amendments 13 and 15. It is adequate for the forum to have the option to advise the council and its strategic policy committees rather than compelling it to do so. The section as currently drafted does not preclude the forum from considering and advising the council on relevant issues but it does provide the flexibility for the forum to consider and advise on all or some of the issues as priorities arise, depending on their importance at any given time. If the forum was required to address all issues, as the amendment suggests, it could place an undue burden on the work of the forum. We must recognise that the members of the forum will be volunteers.

In the case of the proposed amendment No. 14, I do not consider the amendment necessary as the term “employment” listed in the current draft of the Bill encompasses all types of employment. Therefore, I do not intend to accept it. Indeed, being too explicit as to the forms of employment may in fact diminish other non-listed types of employment, which could cause problems down the road.

Similar to the reasons I have given in regard to amendments Nos. 13 and 15, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 16. The consultative forum already has the power to consider and advise the council on matters set out in subsections (1) and (2) of section 33. The intent of subsection (3) of section 33 is to allow the democratically elected council to request the forum to consider any issue under subsections (1) and (20) and, if so, the forum shall so consider the issue. The provision of an instruction to the elected council is outside the scope of this Bill.

I do not intend to accept amendment No. 17. I believe that it is important that the forum represent the full spectrum of stakeholders in the docklands, as did its predecessor, the docklands council, and this is adequately addressed in the Bill. The composition of the forum is detailed in section 34 of the Bill, which provides a mechanism that allows nominations from a number of interested stakeholders in the docklands area, including community, educational, business, and political stakeholders and from public authorities who have an interest in the area.

I do not intend to accept amendment No. 18 as the method of identifying and appointing an independent chair to the forum, as the provision set out in subsection (2) of section 34 of the Bill is sufficient and appropriate. The position of chairperson is important for the effective operation and administration of the forum and it is crucial that an independent chair, who is not aligned to any of the nominating groups, is appointed.

Finally, I do not intend to accept the proposal contained in amendment No. 19. As previously stated, the composition of the forum, as well as its role and functions, were devised in consultation with the outgoing docklands council, the authority and Dublin City Council. The composition of the forum is set out in some detail in section 34 of the Bill, which provides a mechanism that allows nominations from a number of interested stakeholders in the docklands area. This composition ensures that all interests are adequately represented on the forum. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the composition of the docklands forum as detailed is well balanced, reasonable and reflects the complementary interests of the docklands community.

Some Deputies mentioned reporting and oversight. I have already mentioned that the reports will be sent to the Minister and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This in turn provides an opportunity for the relevant Oireachtas committee to scrutinise the report or to call the relevant officials before it if the committee wishes to debate some of the issues in the report. This provides for transparency, oversight and scrutiny. I am prepared to reconsider the title of the consultative forum and its terms of reference to consider whether we can strengthen oversight. However, I must make clear that decision-making will remain with the elected council of Dublin City Council which, as members will agree, is the democratically accountable body. However, I am prepared to consider the oversight role of the consultative forum as its focus is to progress the interests and objectives of the docklands area.

I have outlined my reasons for opposing the amendments, but I am prepared to work with Deputies to ensure we have a system that will work and that will improve on those we have already seen.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to respond in regard to amendment No. 17. The insertion of the phrase "nominated by the local community, educational and business groups" does not weaken or dilute the Bill in any way, rather strengthens that section. In regard to amendment No. 18, the issue of chairperson is important. It is important for any group or organisation that they can select their chairperson. In this case, we need to trust the local development groups. I understand the Minister of State has said these have an advisory role, but that he is considering strengthening that role although it must be balanced with the statutory functions of the council and the fact it is a democratic forum. It is positive that the Minister of State is willing to look at the issue. It is important that an organisation or forum can select one of its members as chairperson.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did I understand the Minister of State correctly that the outgoing council did not make its views known on the community aspect? He said the outgoing council did not make any particular recommendation. Is that correct?

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will clarify that. In regard to amendment No. 19, I said that as previously stated, the composition of the forum, as well as its role and functions, were devised in consultation with the outgoing docklands council, the authority and Dublin City Council. Therefore, there was consultation in regard to it. Also, in devising the composition, role and functions of the new forum, the consensus of the outgoing docklands council, the board of the authority and of Dublin City Council was sought. The definition, composition, role and functions of the forum are detailed in Part V of the Bill. Therefore, there was engagement with the outgoing council, authority and city council. I hope this clarifies the situation for the Deputy.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. It is disappointing that the outgoing council did not come across as being more cognisant of the role of the community members and did not stress that in the consultation.

Section 34 is very vague and we could end up with a forum that is not particularly representative of dockland communities, including the educational and community groups proposed in Deputy Stanley's amendment. The vagueness of the section leaves me feeling that communities may get lost in the process unless this section is strengthened.

Four members of the forum will be selected from elected members to Dublin City Council. The docklands involve two different electoral areas, the north inner city and the south inner city, but there is nothing specific in the legislation to ensure that all four of these members will not come from one side of the Liffey.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for the clarification on the strengthening of the role of the docklands consultative forum and to reviewing its title. Hopefully it will not just be given an advisory and consultative role, but will also have oversight of it. This is important to ensure targets are reached.

I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan that there is a lack of clarity in regard to the representatives of the local community organisations on the forum and whether they will necessarily be people who are living in the community. Many people represent the community in different guises, but do not live in the community. It would be good to see the areas represented by people living in them, because they are defined areas, such as North Wall, Ringsend, East Wall and so on. The provisions should ensure there is a proper distribution of representation. There is nothing in the legislation regarding a balanced distribution of representation for the people in the docklands area or regarding how the organisations may choose who will be on the forum or whether it will be an outsider or someone from within the community.

Another element missing from the Bill is a reference to any organisations representing heritage or culture in the area. The docklands area has enormous heritage. The Minister of State is from Waterford and is aware of its heritage. We regard Dublin as a Viking city, perhaps even before Waterford was a Viking city.

We could argue about that one. There is much industrial heritage, as well as maritime heritage and everything else with the confluence of the water at the canal, river and sea. It would be useful to add a set of people to represent the heritage and culture of the area, considering the work being done at present by the docklands preservation society on the maritime history of the docklands. Dublin Port has many artefacts as well. We should look at developing that heritage in a proactive fashion so it would be desirable to have people as representatives on the particular forum.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have outlined in detail my opinion on the amendments. As the Bill is currently constructed, it provides for 21 members on the consultative forum and we must be careful not to dilute that. I am not saying that would happen but by expanding it, the committee could become more unwieldy, as any committee might. We need to be conscious of that. In the 21 members, it is important to reflect the views of residents in the community. I have already stated that four elected members of Dublin City Council will be nominated to the consultative forum by the council. The elected members of any local authority have a democratic mandate to represent communities in those areas and we should not lose sight of that. They are always accountable to the citizens of that area in the best way possible. I am happy that the councillors nominated to the forum, whoever they may be, will do their job in advocating and representing those communities.

On top of this, five members are engaged in community development in the docklands. I do not know any of these people but they are nominated by organisations because they work at the coal face, understand the needs of the area and work in a proactive way to improve the docklands. In their own right, they bring valuable experience from those communities, daily life and working experience. There are also five members engaged in the promotion of carrying out economic activity in the docklands, as it is also important to get a good balance in terms of commercial and economic activity. The semi-State bodies or public authorities provide infrastructure and it is important they are represented, and there is also an educational representative.

The consultative forum is already well constructed and represented. I have already agreed to have another look at how we might strengthen the oversight element - we are considering how it could report to Oireachtas in the interests of scrutiny and transparency - but I am happy that the forum is sufficient as it is currently constructed.

Deputy Costello raises a very important point related to heritage and culture and I have much interest in that. The area has a rich social and industrial history. The Deputy is correct in that much of the history is attached to Waterford, in my constituency, which is Ireland's oldest city and a Viking settlement. It has much history shared with the Dublin docklands. Dublin is the capital and economic driver of the country, which means there was much activity in the past involving dockers and the various associated social and industrial history. That should not be lost in the regeneration of the area. I am very conscious that there is a rich culture and tradition and although it is there now, how long more will it survive in living memory, with people capturing and retelling stories of the great industries located there and the lives sustained by that?

I am aware that a heritage audit is under way and there is much local engagement, as Deputies know. I hope it can be finalised sooner rather than later and I expect it will make recommendations on how that heritage, culture and rich identity can be preserved as much as possible. We should also be able to retell this rich history through the likes of design or interpretive and heritage initiatives. I am very supportive of that idea and officials in Dublin City Council should be as well; I am sure they will be very supportive. I look forward to seeing that heritage audit finalised and the consultative forum will take heritage as a very important aspect of its work. It is open for the members to do so and the with the representatives on the forum, there will be adequate opportunity for all of those concerns to be engaged with on behalf of citizens and interested parties.

I will not accept the amendments as currently proposed for those reasons.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I make a final plea as communities are made up of the people who live in those communities and not just the people who work for the community or have a business there etc. The forum is weakened by the way in which there is no emphasis on the people who live in the community being on the forum to speak for their communities, as they have always done.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have made my statements on the issue.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 18, to delete lines 19 to 21 and substitute the following:"(3) The Council and the strategic policy committees of the Council shall consider the advice provided by the Forum in relation to the matters set out in subsections (1) and (2).".

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 18, line 23, after "members" to insert "nominated by local community, educational and business groups".

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 18, lines 24 and 25, to delete "The Minister, following consultation with the Council, shall appoint a person nominated by the Chief Executive" and substitute "The Forum shall select one of its members".

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 20, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:"(13) The Minister shall ensure following consultation that at least 7 community members be nominated from the geographic area of the Docklands i.e. City Quay, East Wall, Irishtown, North Wall, Pearse Street, Ringsend and Sheriff Street/Seville Place and the above areas' associated hinterlands.".

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 20 has been ruled out of order because of a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State have any final comments?

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to be associated with the expression of condolences to Deputy McCarthy and his family.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive way in which he responded to all the amendments. He is agreeable to coming back to see how we can tighten up on some aspects of the legislation on Report Stage.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, and his officials, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Dunne and Mr. Logan, for attending this evening's session.