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.