Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As we finished yesterday, I commended the Minister of State on commending the local community in the docklands area. I brought to his attention the demise of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, and I commented on how the Minister of State had given a very benign account of why all of that happened. It happened nonetheless and we are where we are now.

It is extremely important that we get this legislation right. When we commend the community and talk about building and developing a vibrant community, we should mean it and our words should amount to more than rhetoric, so that the communities in question benefit. I am conscious that there are essentially two strands in the docklands communities: those who would be considered to be there for generations and people who have moved to the area to raise families, live and make their lives. The Minister of State noted the anticipated swelling of numbers in the area and it is very important that we get that integration right. The communities and families for whom the docklands have always been home should still feel at home in a place that has changed very radically over the past number of years, and which will undoubtedly change again. The objective, in other words, must be to achieve positive change all around.

I am very disappointed there is no statutory basis for social gain. The experience set out in the Minister of State's initial statement, although I do not deny the positive aspects, is a little misty-eyed and not exactly a full telling of what happened in the docklands area. It is important, while recognising what has happened, that we should not have an inflated sense of the social dividend for those communities and families.

For example, we can consider social housing. As the Minister of State knows, I represent the north side of the docklands area. I can tell him that we have lists the length of his and my two arms and beyond for local families seeking to be accommodated. The phenomenon of overcrowding is huge in these communities and some of the accommodation is of poor quality. The local authority, despite a Dublin docklands area plan, has not been in a position to provide even basic maintenance in many cases. The Minister of State cited the Docklands Housing Trust and I acknowledge that initiative. Nevertheless, trying to pretend that it or the totality of the social and affordable units afforded in the docklands over the years is anything close to what was required or that which would represent a real social dividend is to live in cloud cuckoo land. That simply did not happen.

In regard to the educational dividend, the Minister of State was quite right to point out bursaries, scholarships and opportunities, many of which were pursued through the National College of Ireland. I acknowledge them here today. It is also important to record that a new primary school was promised to St. Laurence O'Toole school on Sheriff Street but that never materialised. That was a cause of considerable local anger and although various plans were put forward, the long and short of it is that it did not happen. Other primary school facilities in the docklands area and up to East Wall have gained in some small measure from the largesse, generosity and creativity of the DDDA but it is nothing like what could be possible. We need to be ambitious when we speak about social dividend, and it must amount to more than just flouncing or initiatives to take the bad look from what might seem to be very aggressive commercial development; in essence, giving the crumbs from the table to the local communities. We need a far more integrated sense and approach than that, which is why the social dividend and gain must have a basis in law. It should be written in the legislation, and I have no doubt we will return to this on Committee Stage.

The Minister of State instanced the issue of employment and - not unfairly - pointed to the potential that will unquestionably arise for new jobs that would be well paid, good quality, high tech and high spec. That is what we want to see. The Minister of State indicated that local people will have an advantage in respect of employment opportunities and that must become the reality. He referenced specifically local employment clauses and I am glad he did so but they were in place, as the Minister of State is probably aware, in the last dispensation. If the Minister of State went to the docklands to ask people what they made of that element of the plan and what it delivered for the community, they would say they are hard-pressed to find somebody who accessed employment regardless of a local employment clause. They would probably go on to say that where employment was secured, it was only in very specific types of functions. All work is noble, dignified and good but if we are to speak about a meaningful local employment clause, it must mean that local kids, students, women and men have a real opportunity to get diverse opportunities for good quality work.

The bottom line is that the local employment clause should be based in law. Both the Minister of State and I are aware of the legal issues with respect to domestic and European law in how that clause is couched; that is to keep ourselves on the right side, legally speaking. However, it can be done. If the Government is serious about local employment opportunities and a local employment clause, it will appear in the legislation. If that does not happen, many people will view any commitment to local employment in a very jaundiced way, and I could not blame them for doing so.

The consultative forum to be established is detailed in the legislation. It is envisaged very much in an advisory capacity but it could and should be more than that. Of course, consultation with local stakeholders, whether they are from business and the local community or residents, is always a good and healthy exercise. We can consider the scale of development envisaged, which the Minister of State described as profound and transformational. That is the right kind of language to use in this respect. In these circumstances, however, and given that there is a fast-tracked planning application under the strategic development zone, the consultative committee must be in a position to give more than advice. It must be in a place where it can take decisions that can be delivered.

Although it would be fair to say that many of the experiences for docklanders in participating in DDDA forums was positive and pleasant at times, there has been an ongoing and residual criticism that much of that process was tokenistic and at times bore the hallmarks of a talking shop. That is not good enough. For the consultative forum to have teeth, mean something and make a difference, it must be more than advisory in nature.

This is something we will return to and which I hope the Government will remedy in the legislation.

On the issue of planning, the 22 hectares subject to the strategic development zone and the involvement of NAMA in that has been set out. Provision is made, for instance, for section 25 certificates to allow completion of developments that are substantially commenced but not completed. That is a sensible thing to do. It is possibly in the area of planning that the biggest hole exists in this legislation. I will set it out for the Minister of State as clearly as I can. Longboat Quay is not unique in respect of the fire hazards the residents face. Full culpability for that rests with the developer in question. I acknowledge that there are questions to be asked of the other agencies in terms of oversight and certification, but in the final analysis, the developer in question is the person with whom responsibility lies. Longboat Quay is not unique. The Taoiseach acknowledged that in the House this morning. It is not unique in the context of the docklands area either. There are many other developments which were thrown up, which remain shoddy and where residents face considerable difficulties in terms of their quality of living. Some of those hazards relate to fire safety while others do not, but all are a consequence of shoddy workmanship, greed, haste and indifference.

I have cited Bernard McNamara several times. As the Minister of State is probably aware, I am looking to speak to him and if the Minister of State has any influence there, he might help me. It should also be said that McNamara is not the only developer who has left residents in the lurch. There are others and many of them went through the NAMA process. In many cases their businesses have been dissolved and they are no longer trading. We might see those same individuals back in business and we may very well - I believe we will - see them making applications to build again in the docklands area. They will have the facility of the fast-track planning process and so on. We cannot countenance a situation in which any developer who has short-changed residents, people who bought homes in good faith, would simply be allowed to apply for planning permission, secure permission and go right ahead and build all over again without making good the shoddy work they carried out previously.

The issue of compliance has to be at the heart of this. The question is how we sort that out legislatively. That is as much a question for the Minister of State as an observation. I cannot imagine how the State or this legislation could allow Bernard McNamara or anybody else to go back into the docklands in a new guise and build again. I accept that developers have to build and things have to be built. That is not my issue. It is unacceptable that they would be allowed to motor on and that the State would not demand that they would make good the shoddy work they left behind them. That is a matter of basic common sense. If we could achieve that within this legislation, that would be a very good day's work. If we do not, we are at least partially responsible for letting these developers off the hook. That would not be good enough. We have bailed out the banks and had to suffer the phenomenon of NAMA. These developers have been bailed out not once but twice. They are not going to be bailed out a third time for not bothering to comply with building regulations with which they were fully conversant and the standards of which they were fully aware. In their haste and under the nose of the previous authority, they disregarded all of the above and now residents or taxpayers may face the prospect of paying that bill. That, to my way of thinking, is not going to happen. I ask-----

See this speech in context