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.