Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

The Labour Party supports the Bill, which is intended to amend the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 to permit the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out inspections of the DDDA under that Act. It is proposed to amend sections 8 and 9 of the 1993 Act and this is feasible. If the Fine Gael proposal is not acceptable, I am sure a similar Bill can be agreed by the Oireachtas or introduced by the Government. One could fit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority into the various provisions of section 8 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993. It certainly seems to be a runner. Section 8 refers to inspection for the purpose of determining whether and to what extent moneys are received by certain bodies from the Government. One of the matters mentioned by the chairwoman of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, Professor Niamh Brennan, when she came before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was that if the banks were to call in the guarantee for the Irish Glass Bottle site of approximately €35 million, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority would need Government assistance and that is relevant. The Schedule of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 lists the various bodies audited and it would seem appropriate that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority would be included.

I appreciate what the Minister stated about the investigations he commissioned. I understand they are being carried out by the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. I was not at the meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government attended by the chairwoman of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority but I have read the report. She stated that the reviews which are about to be published would be of the standard of the Comptroller and Auditor General but the issue is that they are not independent and do not have the openness and transparency that an inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General would have.

The issues that arose since the publication of the annual report and the presentation made by Professor Niamh Brennan last week are about the transparency with which the Dublin Docklands Development Authority did its business. Incidents occurred where it seems apparent that members of the board had conflicts of interest when decisions were made. At the committee meeting, the chairwoman stated: "People have asked questions about the objectivity of the authority and about its integrity. Some of these questions have been raised arising from systematic conflicts of interest within the authority and in particular with regard to its association with Anglo Irish Bank."

In that light, the issue is to do with the independence of the authority and whether its procedures were transparent. Conflicts of interest were involved and great problems have arisen out of that. The Minister needs an independent investigation into this and the Bill provides a way of doing so. It will help clear the air and be helpful to the board if the Comptroller and Auditor General carries out an inspection. There is much regard for the reports carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General; we all have much faith in them and they are accountable to the Dáil and the Seanad. It would benefit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority in terms of restoring public confidence to have that inspection take place in a legal, open and transparent way that is accountable to the Dáil and Seanad, in a way that the investigations that have been carried out and are yet to be published are not.

If we did what the Fine Gael Bill proposes and have the Comptroller and Auditor General carry out an inspection of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, the investigation and its report could inform not only how we deal with the Dublin Docklands Development Authority but how we deal with similar authorities that will be established in the future and how local authorities carry out or promote development in particular areas. Many of the issues raised with the Dublin Docklands Development Authority have much wider application.

Based on the information given to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, it seems that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority got into development as an exercise in gambling and speculation. Development should be about developing communities, including retail, residential and all aspects of development. It should not be about financial speculation. It seems that in recent years the Dublin Docklands Development Authority gambled and lost. The chairwoman stated that in 2008 the Dublin Docklands Development Authority made operating losses of €27 million in comparison with a surplus of €3.7 million the previous year. When the losses came they were major. Assets were written down by €186 million, and including a 26% investment in the Irish Glass Bottle site through a private company consolidates the deficit at €213 million. This year, there are net assets of €26 million compared with net assets of €177 million the previous year. The chairwoman told the committee that in the consolidated balance sheet the net liabilities were €48.5 million compared to net assets the previous year of €177 million.

This is similar to the rest of the economy and the Government's decision to guarantee the banks and establish NAMA is related. It is all part of the picture. Even some of the people involved in the collapse of the banks are involved. Seán FitzPatrick was on the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and on the board of Anglo Irish Bank. I understand that people so lost sight of the fact that conflicts of interest should not be allowed to arise in these matters that when he was on the board he invited two different chairmen of the board onto the board of Anglo Irish Bank. That seems totally inappropriate and obviously gives rise to conflicts of interest.

The Minister stated there were good projects and he spoke about some of them. Social regeneration and education projects were part of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority development but why did social regeneration and education have to be based on developer-led planning? Why did they have to be tied up with the making of money by developers and speculative planning? This is the case not only with Dublin Docklands Development Authority. In recent years, the outlook that the way to create a park was to allow a developer build hundreds of apartments, the way to create affordable housing was to allow a developer make a huge profit and the way to create a school building was to allow a developer build thousands of houses became the philosophy of how we do things. Schools, social regeneration and the provision of parks should not be a matter of development; they should be the responsibility of the State. Most of these should not be part of the free-marketeerism that operates in the private sector.

The issues raised with regard to the development by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority are ones we need to examine in terms of our overall outlook on planning. From that point of view, what Fine Gael proposes in the Bill will be helpful. A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General would have much more credibility than the reports due to be published and I do not in any way question the credibility of those reports. I am stating that the Comptroller and Auditor General is provided for under legislation and is accountable to the Dáil and the Seanad. People trust the Comptroller and Auditor General's inspections and reports, many of which have been very good and have brought to light important matters. If a similar inspection regime were put in place in respect of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, it would be a worthwhile exercise.

If we proceed along our current course, with the reports relating to the two reviews that have been carried out being published and decisions subsequently being taken, there is a major possibility that matters will return to the way they were previously. When she came before the relevant committee, the chairman of the authority referred to the problem of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority being pro-developer, which is welcome. However, she also stated that the desire is to return the authority to a break-even situation. What will happen then? Is it envisaged that there will be a return to the speculator or developer-driven model the authority was operating until now? Government policy in respect of establishing NAMA appears to indicate that the latter could happen. That approach is both unrealistic and a mistake.

We must take stock with regard to how we plan development in the future. When I contributed to the debate on the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 last week, the Minister unfortunately was obliged to leave. I requested that there be a moratorium on rezonings until we take stock in respect of the situation relating to flooding. I do not believe the fact that development has taken place on flood plains is the sole reason for the flooding that has occurred. The position is much more complex. There are many different factors involved in flooding.

I am of the view that too much development has taken place too quickly. It is the accumulation of development which gives rise to flooding. It is difficult to build anywhere without there being some possibility that a flood risk will be created. The possibility that climate change might exacerbate the risk of flooding in the future is relevant to Dublin, which is near the coast, and the docklands area.

Flooding is not the only reason that we should take stock of our planning and rezoning systems, which have failed us. Instead of planning communities and asking what would be the best way to proceed - even in instances where people had the best intentions - we have been picking out areas, rezoning them and making certain individuals very rich. That is how it has worked. Many other issues arise out of such a system. I refer here to financial speculation, the hoarding of land by developers, the concentration of large tracts of land in the possession of a few developers and corruption.

I am of the view that the Minister is introducing reforms in respect of planning. However, perhaps the planning system should be completely overhauled. Other countries do not appear to have the problems that obtain in Ireland. Perhaps the Minister should introduce a Green Paper in respect of planning. If he did so, we could play catch-up in respect of our infrastructure and take stock of the situation.

One of the issues relating to the Dublin docklands area relates to the viability of a shopping centre. That is not the only location where difficulties exist in this regard. Issues have arisen with regard to the viability of many retail outlets. One tends to see the same shops and shopping centres in every town. These are usually massive developments which, despite the fact that they are privately owned, have become our public spaces. One can be thrown out of such places and I recently had experience of that during the second referendum campaign in respect of the Lisbon treaty. On the occasion in question, I was ejected from a shopping centre for handing out leaflets-----

See this speech in context