David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:"(4) Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, following the dissolution of the Authority and after all its liabilities have been met and subject to there being a surplus remaining the Council shall establish a central fund to be used for social gain for the benefit of the local community to be administered in conjunction with the Docklands Community Trust.".".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the communities in which the docklands authority was based will benefit exclusively from any surplus that comes to Dublin City Council from the dissolution of the authority. As we know, when money comes to local authorities following these types of sales, it goes back into general funding. We are proposing in this amendment that the moneys be ring-fenced for the benefit of residents in the docklands area. I accept that the communities benefited to some degree from the docklands development and that the various projects contributed to the success of business located under the authority. It is right that any surplus arising from the dissolution of the authority be targeted at those communities rather than going into the council's fund. This will ensure the money is used to fund community projects, including community-based initiatives that are creating employment.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept the amendment. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority has contributed over the years to a community fund administered by the docklands community trust in conjunction with the docklands community council. That fund has accumulated assets of some €1.3 million and uses the interest earned to enhance the lives of docklands residents primarily through the provision of grants for local school leavers to pursue third level educational courses.

In seeking to dissolve the authority and transfer responsibilities to Dublin City Council, the Government was anxious that no additional financial burden should be placed on the taxpayer. By means of a prudent transition plan devised by the authority and the city council's docklands unit, an orderly wind-down of the authority is ongoing. This wind-down has sought to generate sufficient funds from the sale of the authority's residual assets to discharge all its liabilities at dissolution. Given the ongoing nature of some aspects of the authority's business, the final financial picture will not become apparent until all liabilities are finalised and discharged when the dissolution comes into effect.

A commitment was given that the authority would make a substantial contribution to the community on its dissolution. This commitment remains in place and the level of contribution will be decided in the light of the financial circumstances of the authority on dissolution. I assure Senators it will be substantial and will enable the docklands community trust and Dublin City Council's docklands unit to continue to support local community and educational initiatives.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 in the name of Senator Cullinane and others has been ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When large-scale development was taking place in the docklands area, undertakings were given that 20% of related jobs would go to local people. The area in question straddles a part of the city where there are very high levels of unemployment. It was a very good clause but I am not sure how successful it was and whether it reached the 20% target. I am sure it had some positive impact on the area.

My amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order but perhaps the Government will, at some point in the future, consider putting in place local labour partnerships, as we have proposed, which would involve trade unions, people involved in community development and local community representatives setting and monitoring targets in regard to the creation of jobs in the area. The amendment proposes that the target remain at 20% but it could be a matter for the partnerships to set a specific quota.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment has been ruled out of order but I support the sentiments expressed by Senator Cullinane. One of the challenges we face in Dublin's inner city is the considerable extent of gentrification and the fact that original populations have not shared in the benefits of the wealth that is created through regeneration. It is important to ensure that when regeneration takes place, local people are very much partners in it and not the victims of gentrification.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the area of employment provision for docklands residents, either during the construction phase of developments or thereafter, it is not possible under current national or EU legislation to discriminate positively in favour of local residents. There are many objectives within the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock strategic development zone planning scheme that address this issue. For example, objective ER11 of the SDZ scheme for 2014 requires Dublin City Council to liaise with agencies and organisations to maximise employment and training opportunities for docklands residents. That process has already commenced, with the council's docklands unit working with developers and local employment services to maximise new employment opportunities both at construction and in liaison with new employers in the area. The rate of employment through local employment services will be monitored and reported to the docklands community council and its successor within Dublin City Council, the docklands oversight and consultative forum.

In addition, objective ER10 requires Dublin City Council to facilitate and harness the employment-generating opportunities of the support services sector and local enterprise services, working with a range of key skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled and volunteer workers of all ages as part of the overall economic regeneration for the wider docklands area.Furthermore, objective ER12 requires the city council to facilitate agencies and organisations, in particular those engaged in employment and training initiatives in the docklands, to work together in a co-ordinated manner in order to maximise employment, volunteer and training opportunities for residents of all ages in the docklands area. Objective CD10 requires Dublin City Council to promote a docklands local employment steering group with relevant stakeholders to facilitate an employment strategy to promote enhanced local employment access with a specific regard for younger and older people. Objective CD12 requires the city council to provide commercial facilities, such as local supermarkets, restaurants, cafés and leisure facilities, that provide opportunities for local employment and locations for the community to interact, meet and socialise so as to assist community development.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State, but my understanding is, and please correct me if I am wrong, that she is speaking to an amendment that is out of order when, in fact, the contribution was on the section.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for her understanding.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 14, in line 9 after "time;", to insert the following:"and

(iv) the developer can demonstrate previous compliance with fire safety regulations and can satisfy the Council that any outstanding issues in respect of fire safety or other planning regulations will be rectified;".

This amendment is important as it seeks to ensure fire safety considerations are taken into account in any development.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 3. Clear and enforceable fire safety requirements are already set out appropriately in primary legislation, including in the Building Control Acts, the Fire Services Acts, the Planning and Development Acts and the Multi-Unit Developments Act. Restatement of statutory obligations that apply generally under existing law in new legislation prepared for a specific and limited purpose, such as the dissolution of the DDDA, is unnecessary and serves no additional purpose. In fact, depending on drafting and interpretation issues, restatement may also inadvertently weaken the application and enforceability of existing requirements.

Furthermore, there are perhaps unforeseen and unintended, but potentially critical, consequences arising from the provision of planning related fire safety requirements, such as road access for fire brigades and proximity to water mains and hydrants. As a consequence, non-planning related, but more likely fire safety breaches, such as construction not being in accordance with the fire safety certificate, defective fire compartmentalisation in buildings, fire stopping around building services, inadequate fire detection systems in building units and inadequate emergency access and evacuation provision in building units, would, unfortunately, be excluded. For these reasons I am opposing amendment No. 3.