Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

As I listened yesterday evening to the speech given by the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, I was struck by some of the points he made. He suggested that since the inception in 1997 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, "what was once a derelict part of the city has been transformed into a vibrant neighbourhood and progressive economic area, housing some of the most prestigious international and domestic companies". The use of the word "prestigious" is rather ironic, given that on Private Members' business last night and tonight we are debating the aggressive tax planning and profit-shifting of multinationals, some of which may be the prestigious companies mentioned by the Minister of State last night. Regardless of the accuracy of the reference to prestigious international companies, I take issue with the suggestion that until 1997 the docklands were a derelict part of the city.

I was born in a docklands community and I continue to live in such a community. Many members of my family were born in the docklands and continue to live in a neighbouring docklands community. Those communities - I refer to the north side of the docklands - were always vibrant. It is certainly not true that they were not vibrant until the DDDA came into existence. As some of the new communities that have been created on foot of the DDDA housing developments are gated communities, it is very difficult for them to engage with the local communities on issues. I accept that the docks themselves were derelict. The Minister of State recognised last night that it was once an active working port. However, containerisation had a devastating effect, with the loss of many jobs, including jobs in the allied industries. Successive Governments made little or no attempt to provide alternative employment. That dereliction and destruction was allowed to continue year after year.

I recently had a look back at the aspect of the 1982 Tony Gregory deal that related to the port and the docks. It was very far-sighted and innovative. I know it seems strange to be talking about acres, but the plan suggested that six acres be provided for office accommodation, ten acres for local authority housing, eight acres for industrial development and three acres for leisure and recreational purposes, although that did not happen. If only they had got it right then, we might have been spared so many of the difficulties that arose afterwards. It is another one of those cases of "if only". When the DDDA was established in 1997, housing and leisure and recreation were certainly not priorities. That is another point that was acknowledged by the Minister of State last night. However, he suggested that "substantial community gain" was associated with the redevelopment of the docklands. While there was some community gain, I am doubtful about his use of the word "substantial". It certainly was not substantial when it came to housing the long-established communities in the local area.

There is absolutely no doubt that the DDDA was tainted. Tony Gregory was aware of this. He was well ahead of others in spotting the crucial conflicts of interest in the membership of the board of the DDDA. Some of the board members were associated with Anglo Irish Bank, which was funding the largest development in all of the north docklands. The members of the board granted planning permission for this development in the first place. How could local community interests be protected in such an environment? The reality was that the developers had absolutely no regard for the communities. In the cases of some small communities, all the developers thought they had to do was come along with some kind of sweetener or brown envelope to entice the people of those communities to ride off into the sunset. The issues with the developers that the communities had to deal with at the time of the DDDA included shadowing due to the height of developments and the blocking out of natural light. Areas that were once quiet enclaves for families were subjected to endless and excessive noise and dust and over-the-top working hours which breached the rules on working hours. Those involved worked through the night at times. Work took place at 6 o'clock on Sunday mornings. There was subsidence of houses and cracks appeared on gable walls. Communities had to engage in constant battles as they tried to deal with endless building sites. The cherry on the cake was the derelict monstrosity that was supposed to become the headquarters of Anglo Irish Bank.

While the redevelopment of the docklands was successful in certain respects, such as with regard to business and finance, we can see that there are major issues today. Social and economic regeneration did not apply to everyone. Communities have felt excluded and isolated in the face of the towering grey and glass structures that surround them. When one walks down through the docklands today, one can see a 20 ft. fence separating the development at Custom House Quay from Mariners Port in North Wall. That is just one small example.

I acknowledge that there have been physical improvements to the quays as well as to the cultural, recreational and educational life of the area through the Convention Centre, the Jeanie Johnston, the Famine Memorial, the restaurants, the National College of Ireland and so forth. I also want to acknowledge the work of Dublin Port Authority and the way in which it supports and engages with the docklands communities. It is very proactive in opening up the port to water-based activities and community groups.

I have a number of questions for the Minister of State. There are DDDA legacy issues relating to planning. Community gain lost out in the current structures and there was a loss of land in the form of plot 8. This has weakened the community aspect of the plan. What will happen to the section 25 planning certificates, two of which have been activated in the last month? Are there others outstanding and what is their life span? I also have a question about the common areas and green spaces in apartment dwellings. These will come under the control of Dublin City Council but does the council have adequate funding to look after them? We have three planning systems operating in the docklands - Dublin City Council, strategic development zone or SDZ, and section 25 planning certificates. That makes it very difficult for people to engage. It is not just a dual planning system but one with a third string. How are communities' rights protected when two of the systems have no appeals mechanism while the third system has? There have been benefits but what communities really want to see is a real and meaningful engagement with the new body in charge, Dublin City Council. I believe that it probably will be better for local communities and I hope I am not proven wrong on that.

I have two items on my wish list. The first relates to boats. I would like to see easier access for boats that travel along the two canals, the Royal and the Grand, to the basin. Something must be done with the Scherzer bridge. Why is it so difficult to get it open? My second wish list item relates to the very dynamic and vibrant Dublin Dockers group that has come together in recent years and gathered artefacts, memorabilia and photographs of the life of the docker. That group needs a space and I know that negotiations are going on with regard to developing a docklands museum. There is great potential there to develop a model similar to the Arigna Mining Experience under which former dockers can give guided tours.

Money was collected per square meter for cultural projects. Has all of that money been spent and is it accounted for? What is the social capital benefit for local communities as the huge capital programmes are planned? Local communities were let down when it came to employment by the DDDA. The Grangegorman Development Agency is much more proactive in this regard. At meetings that I attend, that agency presents the local employment figures from each of the companies working in Grangegorman.

We talked about corporate tax last night and will discuss it again tonight. In that context, how much of the 12.5% tax that the businesses in the docklands are paying will go to the local communities? That said, I acknowledge the involvement of some of those businesses with local schools and youth clubs in the area. The Government says that Dublin City Council is best placed to take on the project. I, along with my colleagues, have been to meetings with Dublin City Council about the plans and there are a lot of positives there. However, I am a little dubious when I read phrases like "fast-track planning procedures", especially in the context of the three applications that are in for consideration at the moment. Local communities can only make submissions, for which they have to pay, and they cannot make objections. That is an issue of concern for communities.

I hope that Dublin City Council has more of a social conscience than the DDDA and that when it comes to housing, it will keep families in mind and not just the type of apartments that suit those working in the business and financial services sector in the area. In the past, under the DDDA, it was the developers, businesses and property owners who benefitted from the planning schemes and the tax schemes. We must be assured that it will be the communities who will benefit most going forward. Prevention of opportunities for recidivism takes the incentives away from the speculators and the developers. The centenary of the 1916 Rising is approaching and there are great stories from the docklands on its association with the Rising. I look forward to seeing that developed. I bow to the superior knowledge of Deputy Mick Wallace when it comes to building, but even I know that anything built must be rigorously regulated, monitored and inspected. Towards the end of his speech the Minister of State used phrases like "bright future", "handsome rewards", "increased prosperity" and "improving economic position for the capital". I would love to see the words "well-being of the communities" included as well.

See this speech in context