Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I also wonder where the Bill is coming from. I initially wondered if it was about promoting Mary Fitzpatrick or was it another version of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, or had Fianna Fáil experience a conversion on their road from Damascus.

The authority's main function is the regeneration of the local area and the implementation the recommendations of the Mulvey report. Another function referred to in the Bill is the management of land that is in the ownership of the State which happens to be located in the area. It smacks of the Land Development Agency. Sadly the horse has bolted on this as a State authority, NAMA, owned the majority of development land in the area. NAMA held an interest in 75% of the 22 ha. located in the docklands, which amounted to 15 sites, the majority of which has been developed for commercial purposes or unaffordable apartments. It now appears that the residential building on these sites will not even benefit the local community as Dublin City Council has decided not to seek the 10% social housing allocation it is entitled to in such developments. NAMA officials boast that the agency's social dividend will come from the €3.5 billion that they will receive from the loans that they bought from the State, but they fail to mention that they have lost approximately €20 billion as a result of their management and behaviour.

This looks so like the DDDA that it is rather scary. I will give an example of what was going on there. There was a development on Castleforbes Road where the council did not want apartments on the ground level. The DDDA overruled the council, because it was allowed and did not have to abide by the city rules. However, it turned out that Castleforbes Road was in a flood area and they were not allowed to put the apartments there. To this day, the ground floor remains vacant. It is scary what can happen. If the city council is not fit for purpose, namely to manage the area properly, we should ask why that is. If it not fit for purpose, why do we not fix it?

I refer to the DDDA's involvement in the Glass Bottle site. There was a partnership between the State and private sector, but only one side lost when it went belly up, and that was the State. It is absolute madness.

It would be great if this area was properly designed but this can be done through the public authority, if we fix its problems and make it fit for purpose so things can be done properly.

I have heard no mention of creating indigenous industry or work in the area or anything about creating apprenticeships or getting the local kids involved in projects. I heard nothing about the provision of affordable housing there or a fair share of social housing that would meet the needs of the community, nor do I see it on the agenda.

See this speech in context