Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. The text of the Bill is simple and straightforward and it provides for the dissolution of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and the transfer of its functions to Dublin City Council. Despite its simplicity, it is very far reaching in its implications. Passage of the Bill will mark the end of a bold experiment to fast-track planning in the docklands by making the DDDA the planning authority for the area. Substantial development took place along the docks in the early years of the authority's existence but with the arrival of the Celtic tiger, its mission statement of social and economic regeneration in equal measure was forgotten. The contradictions in its dual role of development and planning became all too obvious. The joint enterprise purchase of the Irish Glass Bottle site by the DDDA and the developers Bernard McNamara and Derek Quinlan, with money from Anglo Irish Bank, was a financial disaster that beggared the authority to the tune of €52 million.

The fire safety problems currently being experienced by the residents of Longboat Quay do not reflect well on the effectiveness of the DDDA in fulfilling its joint role as a planning and development authority. If further apartment blocks are found to be sub-standard in the quality of their construction and not in compliance with building standards, the DDDA may have serious questions to answer into the future. Perhaps, before this Bill is passed, the Department should reflect on the timing of the dissolution of the authority and consider whether the transfer of its functions and liabilities to Dublin City Council is desirable before a full survey is carried out of properties constructed since 1997 when the DDDA was established. Section 10(1) of the Bill states that "A claim in respect of any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by any person arising out of the performance before the dissolution day of the functions of the Authority shall, on and after that day, lie against the Council and not against the Authority". All of the liabilities are taken on by Dublin City Council. It might be wise to wait a little while.

Last night the Minister of State went through the history of the docklands and provided quite a good description. However, I disagree with some elements of it and will give the Minister of State my own version, as someone who has been a public representative for the area for almost 30 years. The Dublin docklands is an area in the heart of the city with a close relationship to Dublin Port. Traditionally, most working men in the docklands were employed as labourers and carters on the docks and railways. A lot of this work was highly irregular and casual. Many other jobs in the docklands were also dependent on the port. Working conditions were tough and there were often two or three men available for every job. There were few jobs for women, though some earned a living from street trading and from cleaning or domestic service in more prosperous parts of the city. The docks were a focal point of the 1913 Lockout as the casual labourers in the docks had joined the new Irish Transport and General Workers Union. The area was also a focal point during the 1916 Rising.

From the 1950s, containerisation and roll-on-roll-off shipping reduced the need for manual labour, storage facilities and large dockside space where cargo could be loaded and unloaded. Thus, more sites became derelict and jobs disappeared. The docks were no longer able to provide employment for a large number of people and the area has never recovered from the devastating impact of this development.

Many of the houses built in the docklands during the nineteenth century were of poor quality. Local authority flat complexes were constructed in the North Wall between 1930 and 1952 but were demolished in the 1980s as the Government of the day sought to regenerate the docklands. The population fell by 50% between 1900 and the 1980s. The Urban Renewal Act was passed in 1986 and the Customs House Docks Development Authority, CHDDA, was established to redevelop the docklands. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, replaced the CHDDA in 1997. The DDDA had within its remit an obligation to regenerate the docklands. It was obliged to give effect to social and economic regeneration in equal measure. The mission statement of the DDDA reads as follows: "We will develop the Dublin Docklands into a world-class city quarter - a paragon of sustainable inner city regeneration - one in which the whole community enjoys the highest standards of access to education, employment, housing and social amenity and which delivers a major contribution to the social and economic prosperity of Dublin and the whole of Ireland."

Little of the promised social regeneration took place, however. The north docklands area has an indigenous community that continues to be among the most deprived in the country. This community is located cheek by jowl with a new, affluent community and there is very little interaction between the two communities. Education levels in much of the docklands are extremely low and multi-generational unemployment is a problem. The increase in the population in recent years and the decline in derelict sites in the docklands do not reflect a lifting of all boats but, rather, a widening gulf between the indigenous community and the new residents who inhabit the new developments. The Pobal Haase-Pratschke or HP deprivation index for 2006 and 2011 reveals the stark dichotomy between the new affluent communities and the neglected indigenous community. The index for primary education levels shows similar stark contrasts.

While thousands of construction workers were employed on the docklands projects and a 20% local labour clause was provided for in the master plan, the developers avoided local labour by parachuting their external workforce into temporary rented accommodation in the North Wall and East Wall areas and claimed that this constituted local employment. The commitment to provide social housing on the north side of the River Liffey was reneged on, as was the commitment to provide €7 million to build a new primary school for the children of the North Wall. While the Dublin Docklands Development Authority provided a community gain fund, it failed utterly to fulfil its social obligation to the community in a systematic way. At the same time, expensive residential complexes and much sought after office blocks created a new skyline along the River Liffey, north and south. Effectively, the DDDA created a disparate two-tier docklands society, despite 30 years of urban renewal in the area in the sense that it followed on from the work of the Custom House Docks Development Authority which was established in 1987. The best part of three decades has been spent on urban renewal that was supposed to be, in equal measure, social and economic in nature but which has been entirely one-sided with the focus on economic development. Nobody speaks well of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority in the old working class docklands area.

In 2011, when the new coalition Government assumed office, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority was in terminal decline and operating in transition mode. In 2013, when plans were set in motion to establish a new phase of development on the docklands, it became clear that the DDDA did not have the credibility to carry out the work and a decision was taken to transfer its functions to Dublin City Council through this dissolution Bill. The new development plans encompassed an area of 66 ha. on either side of the River Liffey, that is, the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock. A strategic development zone was identified and approved by the local authority for fast-track development, which it is estimated will create 23,000 jobs, a not insignificant number. NAMA controls 75% of the assets in the SDZ area and is the facilitator of the development. With a projected investment of €2 billion, NAMA has a critical role in the SDZ. I suggest this may well provide the template for future disposals by NAMA of its debts and the development of its assets. Rather than selling off its assets, it should engage in development in the areas where they are located.

On social regeneration, a large number of stakeholders in the docklands came together in January 2015. They were determined that the failure of the DDDA to deliver on the social regeneration of the docklands should not be repeated under the new dispensation. In consultation with NAMA and Dublin City Council, they met to explore the possibilities for the docklands communities that would be created by the new SDZ developments. A plan was drawn up that would provide employment and apprenticeships locally, develop local businesses, invest in local education and training at every level, and make provision for social housing, local arts, crafts and sports. It was considered essential that the essence of the docklands, namely, the history of the docks and its dockers and the confluence of the canal, river and sea, be preserved and presented to the world by the creation of a docklands heritage and historical trail to rival in importance the Wild Atlantic Way. This time, social regeneration must continue alongside economic regeneration to create an integrated, vibrant docklands community as opposed to a two-tier community, which has been the case thus far.

The SDZ is the last opportunity for proper docklands regeneration to take place. It is necessary, therefore, that the new dissolution Bill states clearly that the central purpose of the SDZ is to effect the social and economic regeneration of the docklands and that Dublin City Council and NAMA should work together to achieve that outcome. The legislation does not include a statement presenting a vision or purpose for the strategic development zone. A DDDA master plan statement expressed a vision of equal social and economic regeneration. However, this was disregarded by the developers and DDDA board. Such a statement of intent should be provided in the legislation to create a backdrop against which the development of the SDZ can commence.

Dublin City Council, as the planning authority for the SDZ, is the responsible party and must play the key role in the regeneration process. The city council can place conditions on planning applications that would make provision for ensuring that the SDZ and surrounding areas are developed as a living, vibrant heartland of the city. It is not doing so and planning applications are being granted without any attempt being made to provide an overall strategic vision or with planning conditions attached that could ensure integrated development in the strategic development zone. A potential alignment with future planning applications will be required so as to provide space for education, training, housing, sports, arts, heritage and culture for the docklands and its community, as detailed in the current plan. This will require the planning authority to present an overall vision of the SDZ project to ensure individual development projects are woven into a coherent regeneration framework and linked to the wider docklands area.

NAMA, with its control of 75% of the assets in the area that constitutes the strategic development zone, should work in partnership with Dublin City Council to facilitate the regeneration process. It should also work with Departments and other State authorities on specific projects and the provision or acquisition of sites or floor space. The National College of Ireland needs space to expand its burgeoning educational activity, which is beneficial to the entire docklands community, from the child care level to the postgraduate level. This should be recognised, identified and built into the SDZ plans before all the space is gobbled up by individual development projects.

Second, the community stakeholders have identified the present headquarters of the DDDA, which was the old Isle of Man ferry ticket and berthing office and departure area, as a suitable location for community facilities. An additional floor would make it a building of considerable capacity. It is ideally located at the entrance to the docklands across from the iconic CHQ building and could include a one-stop shop for the docklands. It could provide an interpretative centre for the abundant history and heritage of the docklands, housing some of the amazing artefacts, equipment, memorabilia and photographs that are still extant. It could also serve as the starting point for the Dublin docklands heritage trail and provide facilities for arts and crafts, reflecting the rich musical, theatrical and writing traditions in the docklands. The building could also provide a centre for local employment, placement as well as training services and catering and restaurant facilities for the local and business community. None of this has been taken on board by any of the players in the docklands.

On the consultative forum, Part 5 of the dissolution Bill provides for the establishment of a docklands consultative forum to advise the city council "in relation to the formulation, development, monitoring and review of the Council's policy relating to the performance of the functions of the Council in so far as they relate to the docklands area." The forum will consist of 21 members plus a chairperson drawn from community, educational and business organisations and local councillors. It reflects the representative structure that was in place under the old DDDA, which was totally ineffective in holding the authority to account. While the forum is a fine democratic structure, it will never be more than a talking shop because it has a consultative role, which means it will be allowed to speak but no one will be required to listen. A totally different body is required to effect delivery of the social and economic regeneration of the docklands. A specific new statutory oversight and implementation structure is needed to monitor and drive the social regeneration of the docklands. The new structure must have teeth and targets. It should liaise with Dublin City Council and NAMA while remaining independent of both, and should be answerable only to the Minister and the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht.

See this speech in context