merrion street

A Cheann Comhairle, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate in the House this evening on the analysis, findings and recommendations of the Fifth and Final Report of the Mahon Tribunal. That said, it gives me no pleasure at all to have before us a report with findings of the kind we have all been digesting over the last few days.

It is important that the Dáil, as the primary democratically elected forum in the State, provides the necessary time to consider a report of such profound significance for the fundamentals of politics and public life in Ireland. It is for that very reason that the Government was determined to ensure that this week’s normal Dáil business time would be devoted to a debate on the report, ensuring that Members from all sides have the opportunity to have their initial reactions to the report placed on the record of the House.

The publication of the report last week has brought to finality a process that began back in November 1997, when the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments was established in response to serious public concern in respect of allegations of corruption relating to the planning process and, in particular, insofar as it related to the Dublin area. In the intervening years, the Tribunal –

has held over 900 public sitting days, has called over 400 witnesses to appear before it, and

has gathered more than 60,000 pages of evidence and 76,000 pages of correspondence.

The Final Report has been a long time coming – perhaps far longer and at greater cost than anyone would have imagined or expected at the outset. Nevertheless, if there were any doubters as to the value and importance of the Tribunal’s work, those doubts were comprehensively countered last Thursday. Therefore, a Cheann Comhairle, before continuing, I wish to pay tribute to Judges Fergus Flood, Alan Mahon, Mary Faherty and Gerald Keys for presiding over many years of hearings and investigations and for presenting the comprehensive Final Report that we now have before us.

A Cheann Comhairle, I want to refer to some of the main findings of the Tribunal. The Final Report is voluminous, running to more than 3,250 pages, and it will take some time to fully digest its findings and recommendations. But the summary findings and recommendations – in Chapters 17 and 18, in particular – tell us that last Thursday was a dark day – a dark day not just for those individuals on whom its findings reflect so poorly, but a dark day also for a system that failed to prevent, detect or respond adequately to what the Report describes as “corruption in Irish political life [which] was both endemic and systemic”, and which “affected every level of Government from some holders of top ministerial offices to some local councillors and its existence was widely known and widely tolerated”.

The Tribunal meticulously and methodically carried out its work over the course of the last 15 years. As the Report states: “Tribunals must possess both political and financial independence and enjoy public trust and confidence. Attempts to illegitimately undermine that independence or erode that trust and confidence are nothing less than attempts to undermine the inquiry being undertaken by the relevant Tribunal, and in so doing frustrate the will of the Oireachtas.”

A Cheann Comhairle, perhaps one of the most serious aspects of the inquiry is the fact that the judges have stated in their report that they came “under sustained and virulent attacks from senior ministers” of the last Government at a critical stage of their investigations, and that this overt interference questioned, inter alia the legality of its inquiries, as well as the integrity of its members.

The Report’s findings merit full consideration by all the relevant organs of the State. In that context, following initial consideration of the Report over the course of the day of its publication last Thursday, I considered it essential that I should have it brought to the immediate attention of the relevant authorities. Therefore, on Thursday evening last, I wrote to the Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chair of the Revenue Commissioners, and the Chairman of the Standards in Public Office Commission. In doing so, my purpose was to refer the Report to them for their consideration and for such investigation or further steps which they may consider appropriate, given the content of the Report and the issues of public importance it raises.

It will, of course, be a matter solely and exclusively for these various organs of State to decide on what action, if any, to take on foot of the report. I have full confidence that they will arrange for the report to be considered carefully and I understand that the Garda Commissioner has already referred the report to the Criminal Assets Bureau for urgent attention and a co-ordinated response across the Garda organisation.

In addition to the grave findings of fact, the Report also sets out a series of policy recommendations for consideration to help ensure that similar situations do not arise again in the future. These 64 recommendations relate to a range of policy areas, including:

planning,

conflicts of interest,

political finance and lobbying,

bribery, corruption in office, money laundering, and the misuse of confidential information, and

asset recovery and confiscation.

While it’s not possible for me, or indeed my Government colleagues, to respond in a comprehensive or definitive fashion to the 64 recommendations at this early stage, I can, however, assure the House that the Report is already being given full and urgent consideration, without delay. Already this morning, the Report was the subject of an initial consideration by the Cabinet, on foot of which all relevant Ministers have been asked to consider, as a matter of urgency, the Report’s recommendations that fall within their respective remits. This initial consideration is to be completed by the end of April so that the Government can collectively come back to the issue again in May, with a view to considering how best to respond to the Tribunal’s recommendations.

Without pre-empting the analysis that my Government colleagues and I will be undertaking, a preliminary examination of the 64 recommendations suggests that at least some are already being addressed, through, for example, reforms of the Tribunals of Inquiry legislation and new legislative proposals in relation to political funding, corruption, whistleblowers and the registration of lobbyists. The progress which this Government has made in these areas in its first year in office, in advance of last week’s publication of the Tribunal’s Final Report, demonstrates our seriousness about reform and our determination to minimise a repetition of some of the occurrences on which the Tribunal has made findings.

I will leave it to my Ministerial colleagues to elaborate on their specific areas of responsibility that are referred to in the Tribunal recommendations, as part of their own contributions to this debate. For my part, I’d like to outline some of the major reforms that I am already progressing which should help to minimise the scope for a recurrence of the behaviour and practices that are brought to light in the Tribunal Report.

On the matter of political donations, as Deputies will be aware, I am currently leading the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Donations) Bill 2011 through the House, and am pleased to note that a number of specific recommendations of the Tribunal are already being addressed in that legislation. Under the Bill, the books of political parties will be opened up to public scrutiny. I am proposing that the maximum amount that can be accepted as a political donation will be more than halved, and I also want to see greater openness, with significant reductions in the thresholds for the public declaration of political donations. Other measures in the Bill provide for greater transparency by both donors and those in receipt of political donations.

Building on the relevant commitments in the Programme for Government, this Bill goes further than any previous legislation in asserting the right of the people of Ireland to know how their political system and political parties are funded. The Bill is informed by an understanding that excessive and secretive corporate funding of politics is corrosive to democracy and to public trust in politics. Therefore, this Bill aims to see the development of a system of political funding based on a large number of small donations from citizens, rather than a small number of large donations from corporate bodies.

As part of the analysis now underway, my Department is reviewing the report’s recommendations in relation to electoral matters with a view to facilitating early Government consideration of the need to bring forward amendments to the Bill at Committee Stage, where appropriate.

Another issue which has come under close scrutiny in the Tribunal report is the ethics framework. My colleague, Minister Howlin, who has previously highlighted the importance of ensuring that the legislative framework in relation to ethics is robust, modernised and relevant in today’s world, will now be examining both this Tribunal’s Report and the Moriarty Tribunal Report within the Government’s overall political reform agenda.

Within my own area of responsibility, the ethical performance of both elected members and officials in local authorities is a key consideration. The Local Government Act 2001 introduced a comprehensive ethics framework for all those involved in the local government service, and this framework imposed a duty on all to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest. A national Code of Conduct for elected members issued in 2004. A similar code applies also to staff. The aim of these codes is to set out the standards and principles of conduct and integrity for local authority employees and councillors, to inform the public of the conduct it is entitled to expect, and to uphold public confidence.

I will examine the Tribunal Report’s recommendations closely in the context of the existing ethics framework, to ensure that we take whatever further steps are necessary to restore and underpin confidence and transparency in the local government system, to ensure that the highest standards are adhered to, and to provide protection to the vast majority of members and staff that behave with probity and integrity.

Planning is clearly an issue that pervades the Tribunal’s work and analysis, and I welcome the systemic transformation of the planning system in recent years that has, albeit belatedly, shifted from being developer-led to a more evidence-based and vertically integrated system. This reforming work is continuing and I will leave it to my colleague, Minister of State O’Sullivan, to outline the changes already made and those that are planned.

However, I will say this. One can never eliminate the possibility of corruption in any system, as ultimately a degree of trust must be placed in persons who operate those systems. This applies to the planning system as much as to any other system. What you can control is the checks and balances, including public transparency in decision-making, to ensure that any inappropriate actions or influences brought to bear on decisions can be identified and addressed.

I am determined, with my colleague Minister of State O’Sullivan, to make it a priority policy objective of my Department that the planning system continues to evolve into a more evidence-based regime so that the scope for egregious zoning decisions is eliminated as far as possible.

It is sad to say that the last Government did not attach the same priority to addressing issues in the planning system. Indeed, my predecessor, having announced independent inquiries into six local authorities in June 2010, left office more than seven months later, having not commenced any. Under this Government, the cases involved are being considered by my Department. A report will be finalised in early May and Minister of State O’Sullivan will be issuing a public statement on the matter at that time, including details of any further actions considered necessary.

The costs of the Tribunal over its 15 years to date – some €110 million - and the future costs in dealing with claims for third-party costs, has been the subject of considerable and understandable concern. A number of measures have been taken to reduce the cost of the Tribunal, including reducing fees paid in respect of professional services, including legal services, by the Tribunal, and scaling back of the Tribunal’s own legal and administrative staff, following the completion of public hearings. Now that the Tribunal has produced its Final Report, I expect that its operating costs, as well as its requirements for legal representation, should be further significantly reduced.

That said, there are still substantial third-party costs, covering the period 2003 to 2008, to be ruled upon by the Tribunal’s presiding judge in the coming months. Estimates of the potential additional costs involved range from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s 2008 estimate of between €84 million and €104 million or the Tribunal’s own estimate of between €117 million and €147 million

Without intruding into matters which are correctly the preserve of the Tribunal itself, the Government will be taking all steps it can to ensure that the future costs to the taxpayer are minimised to the greatest extent possible. In this context, I will shortly be writing to the Tribunal’s presiding judge, Mr. Justice Mahon, seeking an indication of the likely timing for processing any remaining third-party cost applications and, taking account of the pressures on the public finances generally, to contribute to the process of considering how the Tribunal’s administrative costs can be reduced during this final phase of its work.

In addition, I also welcome the decision by this Government to establish a dedicated Unit to deal with third-party costs arising from both the Mahon and Moriarty Tribunals. The Unit which will be located in the State Claims Agency, which under the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2000 already manages personal injury and property damage claims against the State, should, through its legal costs accounting expertise, help to minimise the levels of third-party costs remunerated.

However, it should be remembered that the Tribunal’s work has not entirely been without monetary benefit to the State. For example, the Revenue Commissioners have recovered almost €33 million attributable to the work of the Tribunal, for example, in tax settlements with certain developers. In addition, there are ongoing, previously initiated investigations involving the Criminal Assets Bureau about which I will not comment further at this stage.

I am hopeful that the further examination of this Final Report by those bodies may yield further revenue to the State, to at least partially offset the administrative and legal costs associated with the Tribunal.

In conclusion, a Cheann Comhairle, for everyone in this House and all others who have an interest in the openness and transparency of our democratic process, the Final Report of the Mahon Tribunal makes findings and recommendations of the most profound kind. I hope that members will take the opportunity of the debate here in the House over the next few days to record their appreciation of the work that the Tribunal has done.

With all that has been invested in the Tribunal to date, it is crucial that the Report is considered carefully and acted on speedily and comprehensively. Having already referred the Report to other organs of the State last week, they must now be left to independently do their work on following up on what has happened in the past.

We cannot change history, but we can try to ensure that history does not repeat itself. It is to that end that the Government has now embarked on an urgent and active consideration of the Tribunal’s recommendations so that we take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that what has been set out in the Tribunal report can never happen again and to work towards restoring public confidence in our political system which is essential to the health of our democracy.

Thank you.