I am pleased to be back in the Seanad and I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this important matter.
The Second Interim Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments has rightly been described as a highly significant contribution to public and political life. Its findings on the modules completed to date are unambiguous and show the thoroughness with which the tribunal has carried out its investigations. Mr. Justice Flood has sent out a clear message to anyone who has any corrupt dealings or is contemplating such dealings in relation to the planning system that they will not get away with it. As Minister with responsibility for the operation of the planning system, I fully support that message.
Corruption and the act of hindering or obstructing a tribunal are criminal offences and the law in this regard must be enforced. The findings of the Flood tribunal are a blow to the political system. It is unacceptable for any person who holds high office and the trust of both the Government and the public to accept corrupt payments in return for political favours. The Garda Commissioner, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Revenue Commissioners and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement are examining the interim report. Mr. Justice Flood has already sent the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
This is an interim report and, at this stage, Mr. Justice Flood has not made any specific recommendations in relation to amendments to planning, local government or ethics in public office legislation. However, although much important work remains to be completed by the tribunal, some ongoing improvements of planning law and procedure can still be beneficially advanced by the Government in the meantime.
The Government has already made a series of significant changes to planning legislation in the Planning and Development Act, 2000. We have introduced more opportunities for public consultation, made the system more open and transparent, introduced measures to ensure we have up to date development plans and updated procedures for the making of declarations of interest by elected members and officials. The Local Government Act, 2001, has also brought about change. It sets out comprehensive ethics provisions for local government staff and members in relation to the operation of all their functions and not just planning ones. National codes of conduct are currently being drawn up by my Department to give effect to these provisions and are being finalised as a matter of urgency. In the context of an ethical framework, it is not merely enough to avoid actual impropriety. The actions of all participants must also be seen to be above suspicion. In order to avoid any risk of damage to public confidence in local government, any appearance of improper conduct must be avoided.
In light of the findings of the tribunal, the suggestion has been voiced that land use zoning functions should be made, or at least overseen, by a national zoning committee, possibly chaired by a High Court judge and staffed by planners. The central tenet in these suggestions is that zoning is not appropriate to local authorities or councillors. On this issue, it is important to note that Mr. Justice Flood has not made any findings in his interim report that the rezoning of land was procured corruptly. He found that Mr. Burke assured those present at the time of the payment of moneys to him that he understood the payment was being made to him in connection with the proposal to alter the planning status of the Murphy lands and further assured those present that he would honour his commitment to do so. Mr. Justice Flood found that the payment received by Mr. Burke amounted to a corrupt payment and all present were aware that it was such. However, the lands in question were not rezoned. The provisions of the Planning Acts contributed to this outcome. Zoning is carried out in public, following public consultation, and by majority decision of the elected members. No one person can, therefore, ensure the outcome of a proposal to zone land. That is as it should be. The majority of local councillors are honest people who carry out their functions faithfully and with no personal gain.
Subsidiarity in the taking of decisions at the lowest appropriate level is a principle which has been endorsed at international and national levels. It is a basic consideration, for example, in the definition of our relationship with the European Union and in charters for good governance issued by the Council of Europe and other bodies. However, it also guides Irish policies on good governance. We can all recall that in 1999 the people voted at a referendum to enshrine a role for local government in our Constitution. It is also the case that land use and zoning decisions are generally local government functions in other jurisdictions.
For all these reasons I am inclined to the view that land use planning is generally appropriate to decision making at local level. The key challenge, therefore, is to ensure openness, probity, fairness and efficiency in the operation of the planning system. It appears better, therefore, at this stage to press ahead with the recent reforms of the 2000 Act, while also awaiting the recommendations of the tribunal in due course.
The development plans to be adopted under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, are due for completion by the end of 2003. We will assess the process in the light of that experience. As the revised development control procedures only came into force on 11 March this year, it is a little early to judge their impact on increasing efficiency.
Aside from the planning code, the Taoiseach outlined in his public statement of 26 September 2002 the intensive campaign of legislative reform which has been launched to ensure the highest standards in public office. Three Acts, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2002, the Standards in Public Office Act, 2001, and the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) Act, 2001, have all been passed into law recently.
A key element of this legislation is the establishment of the Standards in Public Office Commission as a permanent statutory body set up to monitor, investigate and regulate the conduct of those elected to serve the people or who are employed in the public service. This is to ensure the maintenance of proper ethical standards. The Act imposes on politicians and others an obligation to have one's tax affairs in order and to swear a statutory declaration that this is the case. An independent and powerful body, such as the Standards in Public Office Commission, with an ongoing mandate to supervise and maintain proper ethical standards is the best guarantee that what has happened in the past will not be permitted in the future.
The Government also intends quickly to enact legislation to recover assets obtained by or enhanced through corruption. A corruption assets bureau will be established which will recover assets corruptly obtained and any increase in the value of an asset obtained through corruption. Under the new legislation, when a tribunal reports that, in its opinion, persons received or gave corrupt payments or received benefits as a result of corrupt practices in which they participated, a chief superintendent, acting as an officer of the corruption assets bureau, can go to the High Court and obtain freezing orders in respect of assets corruptly obtained or whose value has been corruptly enhanced. This is an important point which will apply whether the tribunal reported before or after the passing of the legislation.
The proposed new legislation will empower the High Court to appoint inspectors to the affairs of an individual or a company whose task will be to trace assets which have been corruptly received or whose value was corruptly enhanced through acquisitions and disposals and to report to the High Court on the current value of assets obtained with assets-funds which represent the direct or indirect proceeds of corruption. The High Court will be given specific statutory power to adjust the value of assets corruptly received into current day values. For example, if a person corruptly received £1,000 in 1960 and bought a house with that money, the High Court will be entitled to order that the current day value of the house be frozen or forfeited.
The Proceeds of Crime Act, 1976, applies to property which directly or indirectly represents the proceeds of crime. The proposed legislation will extend that definition to include reference to property, the value of which was corruptly enhanced. It is, therefore, clear that the Government will not tolerate corruption in public life.
The Government is wholly committed to providing the tribunal with the resources it requires to continue with work set out in its terms of reference in order that these matters can be resolved once and for all. To assist the tribunal, it has been enlarged by the addition of two new members. On 24 October I made an instrument appointing Judge Alan Mahon and Judge Mary Faherty as full members. I have also appointed Judge Gerald Keys as a reserve member. Judge Keys will sit with the tribunal to hear evidence with the intention that he will become a full member in the event that any existing member is unable to act for any reason.
The newly enlarged tribunal will recommence public hearings on Wednesday, 20 November, and I wish it well in its future work. There is no excuse for failure to provide information to the tribunal or hinder its work and I call on all those asked to co-operate and assist to do so in a full and truthful manner. The Government welcomes the interim report of the tribunal and the clear message it sends to all who engage in corrupt practices that wrongdoing will be exposed. The legislation proposed, enacted and enforced by this Government will ensure we have anti-corruption provisions appropriate to a modern democracy.