I move:
That Dáil Éireann resolves
A. That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, as adapted by or under subsequent enactments and the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act, 1979, to inquire urgently into and report to the Clerk of the Dáil and make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit, in relation to the following definite matters of urgent public importance:
1. The identification of the lands stated to be 726 acres in extent, referred to in the letter dated 8th June, 1989 from Mr. Michael Bailey to Mr. James Gogarty (reproduced in the Schedule herewith) and the establishment of the beneficial ownership of the lands at that date and changes in the beneficial ownership of the lands since the 8th June, 1989 prior to their development;
2. The planning history of the lands including:-
(a) their planning status in the Development Plan of the Dublin local authorities current at the 8th June, 1989; (b) the position with regard to the servicing of the lands for development as at the 8th June, 1989; (c) changes made or proposed to be made to the 8th June, 1989 planning status of the lands by way of: —
(i) proposals put forward by Dublin local authority officials pursuant to the review of Development Plans or otherwise;
(ii) motions by elected members of Dublin local authorities proposing rezoning;
(iii) applications for planning permission (including any involving a material contravention of the Development Plan);
3. Whether the lands referred to in the letter dated 8th June, 1989 were the subject of the following: —
(a) Re-zoning resolutions;
(b) Resolutions for material contravention of the relevant Development Plans;
(c) Applications for special tax designation status pursuant to the Finance Acts;
(d) Applications for planning permission;
(e) Changes made or requested to be made with regard to the servicing of the lands for development;
(f) Applications for the granting of building by-law approval in respect of buildings constructed on the lands;
(g) Applications for fire safety certificates;
on or after the 20th day of June 1985.
And
(i) to ascertain the identity of any persons or companies (and if companies, the identity of the beneficial owners of such companies) who had a material interest in the said lands or who had a material involvement in the matters aforesaid;
(ii) to ascertain the identity of any members of the Oireachtas and/or members of the relevant local authorities who were involved directly or indirectly in any of the foregoing matters whether by the making of representations to a planning authority or to any person in the authority in a position to make relevant decisions or by the proposing of or by voting in favour or against or by abstaining from any such resolutions or by absenting themselves when such votes were taken or by attempting to influence in any manner whatsoever the outcome of any such applications;
(iii) to ascertain the identity of all public officials who considered, made recommendations or decisions on any such matters and to report on such considerations, recommendations and/or decisions;
(iv) to ascertain and report on the outcome of all such applications, resolutions and votes in relation to such applications in the relevant local authority;
4. (a) The identify of all recipients of payments made to political parties or Members of either House of the Oireachtas or members or officials of a Dublin local authority or other public official by Mr. Gogarty or Mr. Bailey or a connected person or company within the meaning of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, from 20th June 1985 to date, and the circumstances, considerations and motives relative to any such payment;
(b) whether any of the persons referred to at sub-paragraphs 3(ii) and 3 (iii) above were influenced directly or indirectly by the offer or receipt of any such payments or benefits;
5. In the event that the Tribunal in the course of its inquiries is made aware of any acts associated with the planning process committed on or after the 20th June 1985 which may in its opinion amount to corruption, or which involve attempts to influence by threats or deception or otherwise to compromise the disinterested performance of public duties, it shall report on such acts and should in particular make recommendations as to the effectiveness and improvement of existing legislation governing corruption in the light of its inquiries.
6. And that the Tribunal be requested to make recommendations in relation to such amendments to Planning, Local Government and Ethics in Public Office legislation as the Tribunal considers appropriate having regard to its findings.
‘payment' includes money and any benefit in kind and the payment to any person includes a payment to a connected person within the meaning of the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995.
B. And that the Tribunal be requested to conduct its inquires in the following manner, to the extent that it may do so consistent with the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 and 1979: —
(i) To carry out such preliminary investigations in private as it thinks fit using all the powers conferred on it under the Acts, in order to determine whether sufficient evidence exists in relation to any of the matters referred to above to warrant proceeding to a full public inquiry in relation to such matters,
(ii) To inquire fully into all matters referred to above in relation to which such evidence may be found to exist, dealing in the first instance with the acknowledged monetary donation debated in Dáil Éireann on the 10th September 1997 Official Report, columns 616-638 and to report to the Clerk of the Dáil thereupon,
(iii) To seek discovery of all relevant documents, files and papers in the possession, power or procurement of said Mr. Michael Bailey, Mr. James Gogarty and Donnelly, Neary and Donnelly Solicitors,
(iv) In relation to any matters where the Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence to warrant proceeding to a fully public inquiry, to report that fact to the Clerk of the Dáil and to report in such a manner as the Tribunal thinks appropriate, on the steps taken by the Tribunal to determine what evidence, if any, existed,
(v) To report on an interim basis not later than one month from the date of establishment of the Tribunal or the tenth day of any oral hearing, whichever shall first occur, to the Clerk of the Dáil on the following matters:
the numbers of parties then represented before the Tribunal;
the progress which has been made in the hearing and the work of the Tribunal;
the likely duration (so far as that may be capable of being estimated at that time) of the Tribunal proceedings;
any other matters which the Tribunal believes should be drawn to the attention of the Clerk of the Dáil at that stage (including any matter relating to the terms of reference);
C. And that the person or persons selected to conduct the Inquiry should be informed that it is the desire of the House that —
(a) the Inquiry be completed in as economical a manner as possible and at the earliest date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it, and, in respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 above, if possible, not later than the 31st December 1997, and
(b) all costs incurred by reason of the failure of individuals to co-operate fully and expeditiously with the Inquiry should, so far as is consistent with the interests of justice, be borne by those individuals.
D. And that the Clerk of the Dáil shall on receipt of any Report from the Tribunal arrange to have it laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas immediately on its receipt.
AN SCEIDEAL
SCHEDULE
Killnamonan House,
The Ward,
Co. Dublin.
8th June 1989
Dear Mr. Gogarty,
PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION
Re: Your lands at Finglas, Ballymun, Donabate, Balgriffin and Portmarnock, Co. Dublin.
I refer to our many discussions regarding your following six parcels of land: —
Lot 1: 100 acres (approx) at North Road, Finglas, including "Barrett's Land".
Lot 2: 12 acres (approx) at Jamestown Road, Finglas. Lot 3: 100 acres (approx) at Poppintree, Ballymun.
Lot 4: 255 acres (approx) at Donabate (Turvey House and Beaverton House).
Lot 5: 250 acres (approx) at Balgriffin.
Lot 6: 9 acres (approx) at Portmarnock.
I submit the following proposals for your consideration:-
PROPOSAL No. 1 — Purchase Proposal
Lots 1, 2 and 3 Purchase Price £4,000 per acre 10% deposit payable on the signing of the contract
Completion 1 year from date of contract.
Lot 4: Purchase Price IR£1 Million
Deposit 10% on contract
Completion 2 years from date of contract.
Lot 5: Purchase Price IR£750,000.00
Deposit 10% on contract
Completion 3 years from date of contract
Lot 6: Option to be granted for nominal consideration (£100.00)
for a period of 2 years at a purchase price of £30,000.00 per acre.
PROPOSAL No. 2 —
Participation Proposal As an alternative to the outright purchase proposal above I am prepared to deal with Lots 1 — 5 (inclusive) above on the basis that I would be given a 50% share in the ownership of the said lands in exchange for procuring Planning Permission and Building Bye Law Approval. The time span which I would require to be allowed to obtain the Permissions and Approval and my anticipated financial expenditure (apart from my time input) in respect of the different lots would be as follows:-
Lots 1, 2 and 3
A period of 2 years within which to procure a buildable Planning Permission and Building Bye Laws Approval for mixed development including housing, industrial and commercial.
My financial expenditure up to a figure of £150,000.00 (to include Architect's fees, Consulting Engineer's fees, Planning and Bye Law charges etc.).
Lots 4 and 5
Time requirement — 3 years.
Financial Expenditure — up to £150,000.00
In considering the above proposals the following points of information should be borne in mind by all parties:-
1. From the point of view of obtaining Planning Permission the entire lands (lots 1 to 6 inclusive) have the following shortcoming:
NO zoning for development purposes
NO services.
NO proposal in current draft development plans (City and County) for the zoning of the lands or any part thereof for development purposes.
2. We face a very severe uphill battle to arrange for the availability of services and for the ultimate procurement of Planning Permission.
3. The steps to be taken on the way to procuring a buildable Planning Permission and Building Bye Laws Approval are notoriously difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Material Contravention Orders must be obtained and this involves the procurement of a majority vote at 2 full Council Meetings at which 78 Council Members must be present and it also involves satisfactory compliance with extensive requirements and pre-conditions of the Planning Authority and the inevitable dealing with protracted Appeals to an Bord Pleanala.
4. It is essential that the Planning Application should be brought in the name of an active housebuilding company which enjoys good standing and good working relationship with the Planners and the Council Members and in this regard I confirm that in the event of our reaching agreement regarding the within proposals that all Planning Applications would be made by one of my Companies which meets the said requirements.
5. In the case of all of the lands the applications will be highly sensitive and controversial and we can realistically expect strenuous opposition from private, political and planning sectors. One of my active companies will have to take the limelight in such applications and withstand the objections and protests which will inevitably confront it. Apart from the anticipated financial expenditure as outlined above it should be borne in mind that I will personally have to give extensively of my time and efforts over the entire period of the applications including the necessary preliminary negotiations in regard to services and zoning. It must be borne in mind that I will have to abandon other projects which would be open to myself and my companies in order to give proper attention to this project. If I am successful in changing your lands from their present status of agricultural lands with very limited potential even for agricultural use into highly valuable building lands I would have to be rewarded with a minimum 50% stake in the ownership of the lands. Our advisors would have to work out the details as to how this can be effected in the most tax-efficient manner.
I look forward to hearing from you in relation to the above proposals. In the case of the first proposal which relates to the outright purchase of the lands (excluding Lot 6) I would not be adverse to a proposal which would involve the vendors retaining a participation stake of up to 20% in the purchasing company if you felt that an ongoing interest in the future development of the lands would be more acceptable to the present owners.
MICHAEL BAILEY.
Mr. Jim Gogarty,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3."
An tAire Comhshaoil agus Rialtais Áitiúil
I join with the Taoiseach and other Members of the House in extending my sympathy to former Deputy Ray Burke and his family on their bereavement. I also express my regret that he felt it necessary to resign from his position as Minister for Foreign Affairs and from this House.
The Government decided at its meeting on Tuesday last to move a motion in both Houses of the Oireachtas establishing a tribunal of inquiry. The decision was taken to meet public concern created by the recent publication of a letter referring to planning permission and its procurement. That letter was the latest in a series of moves which have gone a long way towards destroying public faith in the planning process as a key aspect of our democratic system. The Government believes it is vital to deal finally and conclusively with the public concerns raised.
I am glad to put before the House today a motion incorporating comprehensive terms of reference which are the product of extensive consultation with the Opposition parties and on which a considerable degree of agreement has been achieved. Under these terms the tribunal will examine in detail the planning history of six parcels of land, adding up to 726 acres, dealt with in the letter. Not only will it examine the planning history, it will also examine the servicing and by-law approval involved. In addition, if the tribunal as it goes about its business, becomes aware of other issues suggesting corruption in the planning system even if they are not directly connected to the lands in question, it will have the power and the right to consider those issues. When the tribunal finishes its business, the Government, and I am sure the House, wishes that the doubts around this specific case and the planning system will have been dealt with and cleared up.
I do not propose to argue today the issues which are more properly addressed by the tribunal. However, I want to raise as a longer term issue with all Members of this House the balance between whistle blowing and public confidence in the democratic institutions, the tension between the fearless pursuit of wrongdoers and the destruction of an individual by the manipulation of public opinion. Democracy cannot function at local or national level if people have no confidence in the workings of democratic institutions.
Trust is the essence of all government, whether local or national. Such trust is based on free elections, open discussion and clear procedures followed by public servants and public representatives of strong ethical standards. This is not a naive or idealistic trust. Just as in the private sector where there is evidence of corruption, there are methods by which that corruption can be exposed and rooted out. Those methods must change with the times. What goes unquestioned in one decade may emerge, at a later date as a serious loophole allowing, even fostering, corruption. When that happens, the system must change utterly and quickly. Where systems fail to serve the public, it is frequently the whistle-blower who reveals the failure. This can be someone who has suffered or someone who has benefited but who is later unhappy at having benefited.
Members will agree that to cry "halt" to corruption, name names, produce evidence and admit to even a small involvement in past corruption requires courage. Let us never underestimate the courage required to blow the whistle on corruption particularly if in the process, a powerful and popular person, party or group is accused. That courage is essential to the maintenance of trust because, ultimately, the specific case can be speedily addressed and answered, wrongdoers subjected to the process of the law and the system strengthened by the removal of flawed individuals from within it. However, that is not what we have witnessed in the past number of weeks and months.
What we have seen in the past few weeks and months, regardless of the side of the House on which we sit, must be recognised by all Deputies as deeply threatening to ourselves, the system we serve and the civil rights of the people we serve. The threat lies not in the accusation but in the method of accusation. What we have seen is an infinitely clever erosion of a reputation based not on upfront accusation and production of evidence but on instalments of venom. We have not watched the relentless rooting out of corruption; we have watched a soap opera, with an unseen scriptwriter doling out the dramatic scenes to different producers. The timing of this has been chillingly exquisite.
What we have witnessed in the recent weeks is the feeding of prejudice against an individual. At no stage has enough evidence been offered to justify that steady feeding of prejudice. However, because of the timing of the instalments and their placement, the exercise has been remarkably effective. It has been so effective because the public mind is a busy and preoccupied one. Someone ensures that what reaches that public mind is a series of soundbites, beginning with a soundbite about a large financial donation. If members of the public are then asked if they trust the person about whom they heard this sequence of course they will say that they do not.
This proves the effectiveness of not coming straight out with an accusation but dribbling it out in hints and suggestions over a long period of time. I am not sure the nation benefits from learning that lesson. I am not sure we in this House, regardless of the side on which we sit, will benefit from it either. It may not cost us a thought when this planned poisoning is carried out against someone from another party. However, a weapon which proved so deadly in its effectiveness will be used repeatedly. It is a matter of time before any one of us finds himself or herself baffled with rage and frustration, unable to pin down the accuser or the accusations, unable to prove ourselves innocent and filled with terror at the thought that we must do so; that a cornerstone of our democratic system has been removed, leaving us without the protection in which we trusted and in which the citizens of this State trust.
When we hear people saying "sure didn't we always know" what we are hearing is the abandonment of a central principle on which the justice system of this country is predicated. When we hear allegations treated as evidence and insinuations treated as proof, we would do well to be worried because, regardless of whether the person at the centre of the storm is a friend or an opponent, we are hearing the death rattles of trust. When trust dies, no democratic institution has value. When trust dies, none of us has firm ground from which to work because that work is founded on the trust of individual voters who have chosen us to represent them.
The words used in recent days have the ring of an excited bloodsport rather than an examination of standards and ethics. Everyone has seen the words to which I refer in print and the phrase "bringing him down" has been used continually. In the event that my contribution is distorted outside this House, I wish to make it clear that I am in favour of exposing corruption and tightening whatever safeguards will prevent corruption; rejecting attitudes and behaviour which, in any way, damage the trust our people have in their systems and the people who work those systems; seeking out evidence, insisting that a case be answered; and convicting an individual if, in the process of an investigation, that person is proven to have acted unethically, improperly or illegally. In other words, if the process results in ‘bringing him down', so be it. However, ‘bringing him down' it is not and should not be the first objective for anyone inside or outside this House — it is the end result of a democratic process which strengthens rather than demeans democracy.
The recent accusations have found themselves a welcome which may emerge from a number of motivations. The context for some of them may have been set by disapproval on environmental grounds of some decisions taken by councils and the suspicion that they can only be explained by personal gain. In some cases, that suspicion has caused ghastly hurt not only to the families of people in this House, but to former colleagues. The aspersions cast on the late Deputy Seán Walsh, which proved to be completely groundless, provide a classic example. The story moves on, there is a shrug about the fact that it proved to be untrue, and neither the accusers nor those who carried the accusations care about the rights of a dead man or the agony of his family.
It is time to put an end to this corrosive cruelty dressed up as principled investigation. The tribunal of inquiry with the proposed terms of reference should be the instrument to do so and, in the process, will protect the integrity of those who serve our political institutions. In the long-term, the solution lies not in a tribunal but in the suggestion mooted by the Taoiseach when in Opposition that a commission be established on a permanent basis to which this kind of issue can be referred at any time. This would be the most effective method of dealing with such matters and the Government is bringing forward this legislation to effect it.
The tribunal will be an historic and pivotal procedure if it can remove the lingering doubts about the planning process. If doing so means that someone stands fully accused and is proven to have taken a bribe, distorted the integrity of the system or been involved in other illegal activities, that will be welcomed by the Government and acted upon immediately. We are all entitled to that. There is no one in this House who has not felt the referred contempt resulting from perceived failures of individuals. It is simply not fair on those of us, whether public representatives or public officials, trying to do a difficult job, if we find that job complicated by malicious, unjustified rumours. We must ensure that when councillors take decisions, they do so for the common good and the good of their constituents, not because they, personally, stand to gain financially. It is because of that imperative that the terms of reference will enable the tribunal to deal with all of the issues emerging from the planning history of the lands referred to in the Bailey letter.
The Government strongly believes that this flexibility, in addition to the capacity vested in the tribunal to deal with any acts which, in its opinion, are corrupt, is vital if the tribunal is to isolate wrongdoers, if any exist, make specific and actionable what has been vague and without consequence and restore vital trust in the systems established to serve the citizen. It is significant and regrettable that, at this point, the word "rezoning" has a pejorative ring to it. The minute one sees a headline with the word "rezoning" in it, the assumption is that the rezoning should not have happened and probably only did so as a result of someone lining their pockets with illgotten gains. It is a deeply satisfying theory, but it is quite simply wrong. The fact is that rezoning is part and parcel of the normal process of change. Things change, needs arise, the population grows and new industry is set up to serve the employment needs of that population.
The uses to which land and buildings were put ten or 15 years ago may now be out of date. It may be absolutely appropriate to review and rezone in order to reflect the reality of change in the economy and social circumstances. It is simple — people need houses. At the moment, the housing supply does not match the demand and the result is price increases which are prohibitive to many.
An adequate supply of suitably zoned and serviced land for development is, and will continue to be, necessary if we are to meet the rapidly expanding housing needs of the population. That is a fact. It is also a fact that there is nothing sinister about either the word ‘rezoning' or the reality it expresses, provided that rezoning is done for the proper motives and in a way that is clearly straight and honest. I do not agree with the notion that every decision in development planning where elected councillors have a role must agree at every point with official advice. If that were the case, we would not need councillors to have independent minds, indeed we would not need councillors at all.
We have councillors not just to rubber-stamp official recommendations but to balance the many issues involved in what is always a complex process. That is why the law gives responsibility to people who are fully accountable to the electorate. However, some of those who are responsible to the electorate wear as a badge of honour their opposition to all rezoning, as if it proved their integrity that they were unwilling to respond to the changing needs of the populace. It is time these people were forced to get real and to admit that rigid adherence to the zoning of decades ago is no virtue in the face of today's needs.