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.