Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 2004

Vol. 178 No. 23

Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments Bill 2004: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche)

Senators will recall that when I was here on 17 November last, I gave notice during the debate on the amendment of the terms of reference of the planning tribunal that I intended to bring a short Bill before the Oireachtas. The Bill will give legal backing to the discretion granted in the amended terms of reference to the tribunal to decide which issues within its terms of reference to investigate. The Attorney General advised me that it would be important to underpin this new discretion with legislation.

On 3 December, I made the instrument giving effect to the amended terms of reference as passed by this House and the Dáil. Under paragraph J(7) of the amended terms of reference, the final date for receipt of any new complaint or request for investigation is fixed by the terms of reference as of 16 December of this year. The exercise of the discretion by the tribunal on any new matters that come to its attention before 16 December is vital to the running of the tribunal. Otherwise, I was advised that an argument could be made that the exercise of the discretion may be considered to have been outside of the tribunal's powers. This is the reason this legislation has been brought before the House so quickly. I briefed Opposition spokespersons on the amendment to the terms of reference and on the need for this Bill prior to the motion to amend the terms of reference being brought before the Oireachtas.

For the benefit of any Members who were not present for the debate on 17 November, I would like to review the reasons for amending the terms of reference and the consequent need for this Bill. The tribunal was established by the Oireachtas in 1997 to examine certain specific activities and letters that had aroused suspicion of corrupt acts in the planning process. It was also mandated to investigate any other matters that came to its attention that could amount to corrupt acts in the period since 20 June 1985. In July 1998 the terms of reference were expanded further, at the request of the tribunal. As a result, the tribunal had a mandate to investigate any allegation of corruption, whatsoever, associated with the planning process. This was a very wide remit indeed.

Notwithstanding the fact that the tribunal was expanded to include three members in 2001, the work of the tribunal, based on its terms of reference, has proved to be unwieldy. As a result, the tribunal itself in its fourth interim report issued on 15 June of this year requested a change to its terms of reference to allow it more discretion in the issues it investigates, with a view to shortening the anticipated duration of the tribunal's activities.

In the report, the tribunal indicated that it still has a large volume of work on hand which, if its mandate played out to its fullest extent, would all have to be investigated. The tribunal therefore indicated that it could see the work carrying on until 2014 or 2015. The tribunal recognised that this situation could not continue and it sought a discretion to decide what matters it should investigate. In addition, if the tribunal decided that the continued pursuit of its inquiries were of limited or no further value in discharging its mandate, it sought the power to report that to the Oireachtas and to convey to the Oireachtas the wish of the tribunal that its investigations and inquiries should terminate on a date to be specified by the tribunal.

Following the publication of the report, the Government mandated the Attorney General to consult with the tribunal on changes to its terms of reference. That arrangement for consultation through the Attorney General was queried elsewhere but that is clearly envisaged under the 1998 tribunal's legislation. The changes which were then consented to by the tribunal go further than those originally requested in the interim report. The amended terms of reference were agreed by both Houses on 17 November this year when we had a good debate on the topic. The tribunal has indicated that the amended terms of reference, together with the additional resources given, will allow it to complete its public hearings by March 2007, a substantially shorter timeframe than that indicated in the tribunal's fourth interim report.

Since we have already debated them, I will not repeat the detail of the changes made in the new paragraph J which was added to the terms of reference. Suffice it to say that paragraph J enables the tribunal to complete its current investigations into planning issues in Dublin, including the Carrickmines and Quarryvale modules and interlinked matters. Any new complaint or request for investigation must be received by the tribunal by 16 December of this year. By 1 May 2005, the tribunal must decide which new matters on its books will proceed to a public hearing. To allow the tribunal to prepare its final report, no new investigation can be referred to public hearing by the tribunal other than matters that come to light during existing investigations.

The discretion being granted to the tribunal, which is the subject of this legislation, is in paragraph J(6) of the terms of reference. This will allow the tribunal to decide to carry out any preliminary investigations as it sees fit, in private, using all the powers conferred on it under the Acts, in order to determine whether sufficient evidence exists regarding any matter before it to warrant proceeding to a public hearing if deemed necessary; to decide not to initiate a preliminary investigation or a public hearing of evidence regarding the matter, notwithstanding that the matter falls within the tribunal's terms of reference or in any case where it has initiated a preliminary investigation in private, whether concluded or not, but not yet initiated a public hearing of evidence in the matter; or to decide to discontinue or otherwise terminate its investigation, notwithstanding that the matter falls within the tribunal's terms of reference. This is a rather convoluted provision but, if Senators consider it, they will see it is not an unreasonable discretion requested by the tribunal.

In exercising this discretion the tribunal must have regard to the following matters. First, the age or state of health of one or more persons who are likely to be in a position to provide useful information, including oral evidence to be given privately or publicly. This would include the age or likely state of health of any such person at the possible date in the future when that person or persons might be expected to be called upon to give oral evidence or to otherwise co-operate with the tribunal. In particular, the tribunal may consider the issue as to whether such person's age or state of health is or is likely to be an impediment to him or her being in a position to co-operate with the tribunal or to give evidence to the tribunal in private or in public.

Second, the likely duration of the preliminary investigation or public hearing into any matter. Third, the likely cost, or other use of the resources of the tribunal, of such investigation or any stage of the investigation into any matter. If, for example, the tribunal were to receive an allegation that €250 or €500 had been improperly received, under the existing arrangements, the tribunal would have to pursue discovery which could cost €9,000 or €10,000 to investigate. The tribunal should have the discretion to take a common sense approach in such matters.

Fourth, whether the investigation into the matter is likely to provide evidence to the tribunal which would enable it to make findings of fact and conclusions or to make recommendations. Fifth, any other factors which in the opinion of the tribunal would, or would be likely to, render an investigation, or the continued investigation into any matter inappropriate, unnecessary, wasteful of resources, unduly costly, unduly prolonged or which would be of limited or no probative value.

During the debate on the tribunal's amended terms of reference, the issue of using more positive language in regard to the discretion was raised. However, the language used is that requested by the tribunal. The tribunal's legislation requires that any amendment to the terms of reference must have the consent of the tribunal. Therefore, I pointed out at the time that my hands were tied on this matter. In any case, the tribunal and the Government are happy that the language in the terms of reference will allow it to exercise its discretion flexibly and effectively.

In the course of the debate in the Houses on the amendment of the terms of reference in November of this year, reference was made to future investigations of allegations of corruption. The Government has put in place a number of mechanisms to investigate allegations of corruption. These include provisions in the Planning and Development Act 2000, the Local Government Act 2001, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. If the tribunal, on the publication of any interim or final report, recommends further action in this area, I assure the House such recommendations will be given full consideration.

In particular, the legislation brought forward by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and enacted in July of this year as the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 allows for commissions of investigation to be established. It is envisaged that these commissions will conduct their inquiries in a less confrontational manner and will be more cost effective than tribunals of inquiry. We all know that the costs involved and the length of time taken to come to conclusions has been a cause of public disquiet. Among other things, the legislation addresses a point which I know to be of concern to Senator Bannon, as well as to the Government, namely, to ensure that the legal costs of these investigations do not go out of control. This matter was raised by a number of spokespersons when I spoke on this issue in the House previously.

The Commissions of Investigation Act provides that a specified Minister may direct that a competitive tendering process be used in selecting persons to work with the commission, including barristers and solicitors. In addition, when a commission is being established, the full costs of the commission will be estimated and the chairperson of the commission will have to seek authority from the specified Minister if the estimate is to be exceeded. My colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, will shortly bring forward legislation to address the issue of the legal costs of tribunals, particularly third party legal costs. This will give this House an opportunity to debate the issue more thoroughly.

The House will be aware that the planning tribunal has been given additional legal resources to allow it to complete its work within the time limit it has set for completion. This is in line with the Government's commitment to ensuring that the work of the tribunal will be completed fully and properly. When allied with the changes to the terms of reference, the additional staff will result in a substantial reduction in the projected life of the tribunal and, as a result, an overall reduction in the final cost of the tribunal to the Exchequer.

The proposed legislation will underpin the tribunal's exercise of its discretion as to which matters it will investigate or bring to public hearing. This will help the tribunal to complete its mandate in a more timely way and within a more certain framework. The changes in the terms of reference and this legislation will allow the tribunal reach findings and make recommendations to help ensure that the events it has investigated cannot occur again. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Bannon

I welcome the Minister to the House and pay tribute to the work carried out to date by Mr. Justice Flood and Judge Mahon. While it has been an excessive exercise, involving a significant financial burden, the tribunal's value has been in the exposure of corruption and the lack of transparency at the heart of Government and the suspicious actions of some Ministers. The tribunal has exposed a web of corruption in planning in Dublin on a scale far beyond that expected by the public and involving developers, public representatives and a former council official.

No one could deny that the tribunal has done a major service in exposing such duplicity and opening the door to the prevention of such corruption in the future. No stone has been left unturned in this matter and the worms underneath have been exposed. Unfortunately, such a process is not as rapid as had been hoped. The Mahon tribunal is now in its seventh year and has incurred high ensuing costs for taxpayers. The expenditure of this money raises emotive moral issues in regard to its alternative uses. Many believe this money would be better spent on our under-resourced and crumbling schools and hospitals. This evening we have heard there are several hundred people on trolleys in hospitals throughout the country. This sad problem is not unique to Dublin. The expenditure of this money would be better spent on the marginalised, the disabled — the list could go on and on — and all the people who would benefit from money many people across the country consider has been wasted on nothing more than fat-cat lawyers.

What we want and expect to see from the Government now is a proposal to change the system and make a difference. We, on this side of the House, want to see a different planning system and we want corruption exposed in a more efficient manner than going through a tribunal. Even a fraction of the money spent on the tribunal could be used properly on resourcing the planning system to ensure an open transparent planning process. This is what is demanded by the public and politicians across the country. Some 99% of politicians are decent honest people and that must never be forgotten.

I call on the Minister to tell us what he envisages will replace the Mahon tribunal as a forum for receiving complaints of corruption, which have dogged this investigation. Fine Gael is proposing the setting up of a committee of investigation to investigate such allegations. It is apparent that the current tribunal suffers from grave problems. It moves too slowly, it costs too much and its remit is far too broad — the Minister referred to that this evening.

In proposing to wind up some investigations, and not even begin others, the tribunal will also refuse to accept new business in the form of new allegations. From 16 December, the date the Minister has set, many people will go home happily and eat their turkey in peace this Christmas. Interestingly the date now given for the conclusion of the tribunal's work, March 2007, coincides with the timescale for the introduction of a drastic cut in lawyers' fees. Former Minister McCreevy's much publicised move against barristers' fees will have no discernible effect on the planning tribunal, where senior counsels will collect approximately €2,400 per day for the duration.

Mr. Roche

No impact.

Mr. Bannon

The €36 million cost of the tribunal since 1997 is tantamount to legalised corruption. The cost is unbelievable. People in every walk of life and in neighbouring EU countries are talking about the high costs of the various tribunals.

In the 1930s and 1940s in Ireland, the County Management Acts were introduced because of widespread allegations of corruption and jobbery. As a result, the process of power within local government shifted from the elected representatives to officials, with the effect that we now have probably one of the weakest local government systems in Europe. This needs to be addressed and I hope the Minister will do so, decentralising more powers to the elected members and making them more responsible. That is what we all have been crying out for. We all served terms on local authorities. I served 18 or 19 years on a local authority and I know how cash and responsibility starved were local authorities over that period. I hope the Minister will do something——

Mr. McCarthy

He has the figures to prove it.

Mr. Bannon

——and bring a more positive response to the development of local government.

It is time for change. That change must be seen in the planning process and the way we do business, in particular in dealing with development plans and rezoning issues, which are undoubtedly at the heart of the corruption which has been exposed by the tribunal. According to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, bad planning and corruption in the 1960s and 1970s cost this country approximately €160 million. This is not acceptable under any circumstance. Fine Gael wants to see an end to a back door unofficial system and the nod and wink planning that has been exposed, through the tribunals, in the former Dublin County Council and Dublin City Council. We want proper sustainable development and realistic development plans.

It would be an outrage and totally untenable if, when the costly and lengthy work of the tribunal comes to a natural end, there was nothing to replace it and if what happened in the past were to occur again, with all concerned taking one step forward and an inevitable two backwards. This inevitability must be anticipated, prevented and thwarted by proper structures being put in place. While we are aware that the tribunal has already highlighted problems in regard to corruption in planning decisions, I would be interested to know if the tribunal is fully satisfied that legislation is in place to prevent any reoccurrence of such corruption or any other. I stated on 17 November that in the programme for Government a commitment was given to introduce a proceeds of corruption Bill, but strangely the Government seems to be withdrawing from that commitment. What is the Minister's policy on this?

It is imperative that we, as legislators, consider how we can improve the planning process and make it more accessible and open. What proposals is the Minister prepared to make to assist local councillors with regard to meetings between them and developers? They requested such assistance and a forum should be established to address their concerns. Apart from arguing that there should be no such contact, steps must be taken to ensure that if it does take place it should be done solely through the council. There should be no impediment to a developer writing to or appearing before the council to make his or her case. This should be transparent and in the council arena and should not involve approaches to individual councillors. I have called for this measure for a long time.

Can Members of the Oireachtas put an added value into the planning process to improve accountability and transparency? In that regard, the ball is in the Minister's court. Many councillors are concerned about the issue and feel that the current situation must change. Councillors are prepared to take on the responsibility of making good planning decisions but they are being put under excessive pressure in many cases. This pressure can be personal and localised and is always totally unacceptable. In the search for the greater good, the Minister must consider what will be good for local authorities.

The Mahon tribunal has been in existence since 1997 but it could be 2007 before it makes recommendations. During this long period there has been little or no response from the political system, apart from the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. We in the Oireachtas must be seen to be pro-active and must consider measures to ensure that despite human weakness and greed, such a tribunal will never be required again. The only way this can be achieved is by changes in the planning laws. This is the least that the public, who have paid the excessive bills of the tribunal, can expect and strongly deserve.

At the very least the public must be kept fully informed on a regular basis on the findings of the tribunal. I have tabled two amendments to this effect. The tribunal must publish reports as soon as they are completed, not wait until some future date when the passage of time has blurred their impact and immediacy is lost.

As the tribunal winds its inevitable way to a conclusion, the decision to divide it into three separate inquiries is welcome but I wonder why this was not done at the time new judges were appointed to sit with Mr. Justice Flood two years ago. The tribunal is currently required to investigate every matter and discrepancy brought before it. Strangely, however, its title and the title of this Bill is the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments Bill. Where there is a demand for investigation, no matter what the subject, there is a lawyer only too happy to take the case.

At the end of the day — many days in this case — a number of questions need to be answered. These include if the public has achieved value for money from the work of the tribunal. Has it revealed the scope of the corruption culture and, more importantly, will it ever be stamped out? Has the public been well served by an investigation lasting almost five years into the actions of a single person? The tribunal did what had to be done but the question now arises as to what is to be done in the future. The answers must come from the Minister. The first thing he could do is to accept my amendments. I received a notice about my amendments from the office of the Cathaoirleach. Surely in a democracy——

An Cathaoirleach

That is out of order. Senator Bannon is completely out of order. The Chair ruled his amendments out of order and he knows the reason.

Ms White

The Senator does what he likes.

Mr. Kitt

I welcome the Minister to the House. Like Senator Bannon, I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Justice Flood and Judge Mahon and the tribunal. The tribunal's work is very important. The Minister has explained to the House the reason the legislation is required. He made the point about the need to allow the tribunal discretion on the amended terms of reference. The Minister introduced motions which were passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas on 17 November 2004. The Minister has clarified a number of issues which were raised in the House in previous debates. He explained the discretion allowed because of the age and state of health of one or more persons who are likely to be in a position to provide useful information to the tribunal. The Minister also said that it could take up to 2014 or 2015 to complete the work of the tribunal if there was no change to the terms of reference. This has now been done.

The Minister referred to the age and state of health of certain persons. Other issues were raised by Senator Bannon about the likely cost and duration of the investigation and whether the investigation is likely to allow the tribunal to make findings of fact and conclusions and-or make recommendations. We must consider that any other factor which the tribunal considers could have an impact on its investigations.

The Minister stated that the public hearings of the tribunal would be completed by March 2007. He stated that 16 December 2004 is the cut-off point for submissions to the tribunal. I am pleased the Minister has brought forward this instrument which was signed on 3 December 2004. A good day's work is being done today in clarifying these matters.

The Minister used the phrase "not unreasonable discretion" and this is very true. The tribunal now has the opportunity to look at issues. The case of a small sum of money which may cost the tribunal €9,000 to investigate highlights the way in which costs can get out of control.

The Minister referred to other legislation on planning and development and local government which he and his predecessors introduced. These include provisions in the Planning and Development Act 2000, the Local Government Act 2001, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001.

The Minister has been proactive in the planning process. Many local authorities have had planning difficulties. I was a member of Galway County Council in the 1970s when section 4 motions were used for the first time in the county council chamber in order to implement decent planning laws. RTE's "Seven Days" programme came to County Galway to look at some of the proposals and section 4 motions that had been passed. I do not think the programme found anything that was irregular. Everything was done with proper planning and development and there was no question of corruption.

Thanks to the Minister and his predecessor, there is more understanding of what it means to build a house in rural Ireland. The regulations on one-off housing have been particularly helpful. Problems still exist about pre-planning meetings and this is an issue which should be dealt with as a priority by local authorities. Electoral area committee meetings are being held and County Galway has five electoral areas. This issue could be raised at those meetings in conjunction with other issues.

In Galway it is proving difficult to see a planner. I recommended to the county council that it should make more staff available as one way of dealing with issues that could cause problems with the planning process. Once a planning application has been submitted it must be decided upon within a statutory period of time and this is to be welcomed. Very simple things such as the taking over of a housing estate seem to be lower down the list of priorities. It can be very difficult for residents of housing estates when they are informed that their housing estate will not be dealt with promptly. This is not acceptable to me nor to any county councillor in Galway. The process of finalising housing estates and taking them over is not happening.

A similar situation applies to the enforcement of planning permissions. The question of quarrying is also an issue in the Minister's constituency as it is in County Galway. It is a matter of waiting for enforcement officers to deal with these issues because they must deal with planning applications first. If issues such as pre-planning are dealt with, there will not be difficulties down the road.

Mr. Justice Flood and Judge Mahon have discovered that corruption took place. I am pleased that these issues are being discussed. I hope it will lead to another debate in this House about planning, An Bord Pleanála and interest groups who have a role in planning. I welcome this legislation and welcome the Minister's explanation of the thinking behind it.

Mr. McCarthy

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Roche, to the House. I was not present on the last occasion on which this matter was debated but I contributed to a debate on planning following the Minister's appointment. These are related issues. I welcome the legislation and I will be supporting it. The tribunal must be given as wide an ambit as possible. Back in 1997 nobody would have envisaged the amount of time, effort and expense put into the then Flood tribunal, now the Mahon tribunal. If the wisdom of today had prevailed at that stage, it is possible the House would not be having this debate. It is important that we broaden the terms of reference and scope of the tribunals.

For nearly ten years, tribunals have been a permanent backdrop to politics and public life. The public, by and large, wear tribunal glasses, so to speak, when looking at the body politic. It is sad for politics and many politicians of all political persuasions and none that a handful of people were corrupt. We need be mindful that of the 1,500 or 1,600 parliamentarians, Deputies and Senators, since independence, only a small, albeit unacceptable, number were corrupt. The vast majority of politicians have always been hard-working, decent people.

The cost of the tribunals is an important factor in determining how people judge their performance. Rightly or wrongly, this is the yardstick by which some people measure their workings. People are not ready to sift through a great deal of fine detail. Several interim reports have been published and much of the language used has been difficult to understand for the layman. Nevertheless, the value of the tribunals is being realised, particularly when one considers the manner in which Mr. Justice Flood was able to call a spade a spade in his interim report. He was able to state that Mr. X or Mr. Y was corrupt and took payments while abusing his public position to advance the cause or positions of private individuals. To reach the point at which the tribunal has correctly pointed a finger was a positive development.

For many years, rumours abounded about corruption in the planning process in Dublin. The dogs in the street knew of them. Although the Garda investigated corruption in the early 1990s, it was unable to find someone who could provide names or proof that corruption took place or link corrupt payments with specific planning decisions. Thankfully, the tribunals have been able to do this. While costly, the tribunals have proved vital in exposing the corruption and dishonesty which characterised a number of individuals, particularly in the Dublin area, during the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

Mr. Justice Flood, who has retired, deserves special mention, not least because he worked beyond retirement age on the tribunal he chaired. In addition to chairing many public hearings, he spent many days and weeks locked away in private investigation. With his distinguished legal career and expertise, he did considerable work and brought structure to the operation of the tribunal. His achievements as chairman of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments since its inception in 1997 went above and beyond the call of duty. The House must single him out in that regard.

Mr. Justice Flood proved that private interests were advanced by those who abused public office and that some of the people who gave rise to the establishment of the tribunal deliberately obstructed and lied to it. He had no bones about calling a spade a spade and identifying the individuals responsible for the filth emanating from the tribunal.

We can thank the inquiry for creating the culture of recent years whereby a light is shone into the area of planning, in particular, and public life in general. The element of transparency and expectation would not prevail had it not been for the work of the tribunals. It is, at a minimum, disappointing to learn in the interim reports of what everybody knew but nobody could prove until Mr. Justice Flood took the chair of the tribunal, namely, that a number of people, primarily developers, politicians and, specifically, one senior official of a local authority, worked hand in hand to ensure their material vested interests would be served at the price of honesty and transparency in public life.

Senators know many public representatives working at local and national level. We know the amount of energy, commitment, hard work and effort invested in this role despite the absence of a guarantee that one will have one's job after the next election. One of the direct consequences of the behaviour of a small number of people involved in corruption was to bring opprobrium on all politicians of all persuasions.

With regard to the costs of tribunals, the Mahon tribunal is in its seventh year, which is a long time. While we all realise the benefit of the tribunal and we hope it will achieve its overall objective, we must also be mindful that it is extremely expensive. Members of one profession have made millions out of the process. In April this year, the Secretary General of the Department of Finance told the Committee of Public Accounts that all tribunals and inquiries had, by that date, cost the State €144 million, of which €103 million was spent on legal costs. A further €300 million was estimated for third party costs, which brings the total cost of tribunals at that date to well over €400 million.

Let us consider the efforts made by the Tánaiste, while Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in the area of insurance and what has been achieved since the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was established, on the recommendation of the Motor Insurance Advisory Board chaired by Dorothea Dowling. The Government considered the legal costs of insurance claims, namely, litigation and associated costs, the profits of the legal profession and the manner in which it made money out of young people from insurance policies. Having examined the issue, it decided the system was not fair and established two excellent boards, one as the consequence of the other. As a result, the price of insurance premia have fallen, albeit not on the scale which would make us all happy.

Some representatives of the insurance industry and the legal profession did not want to know about the creation of the Motor Insurance Advisory Board or its successor. While insurance and the tribunals are different areas, the same principle applies. We need the services of solicitors, junior counsel and senior counsel but we need to examine the issue with a view to ensuring value for money is obtained and the amount of money spent on tribunals is worthwhile in terms of what they achieve. A good case has been made in favour of introducing a process of tendering. Provided the approach to the manner in which the costs of the tribunal are negotiated and settled is mindful and coherent, the process will be worthwhile.

One of the satirical political television programmes of recent years concentrated five minutes of its 28-minute weekly production on two men in wigs and black gowns counting out money. While the programme took the mickey out of the system to an extent, it also displayed in no small way the mindset associated with the involvement of the legal profession in the tribunals and the manner in which the costs of the tribunals have escalated at an alarming rate in recent years. That said, the process is worthwhile. If we must admit it is a painstaking process, so be it. The work carried out by Mr. Justice Flood and, in the past year, Judge Mahon has helped to establish that we have confronted the issue. Proof is available that people corrupted the system.

Senators must ensure the tribunal is allowed to operate within the remit it requires. We can amend its terms of reference to give it the powers and scope necessary to tackle the issues before it in a constructive fashion. That is a follow on from the debate in the Dáil with regard to the appointment of two additional judges. This measure is expensive but absolutely necessary. When one considers the projected dates of the tribunal's conclusion, it reinforces the requirement for us to deliberate and ensure the enactment of legislation which will give the tribunal the powers it needs.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is a short but important and welcome Bill. Why has it taken so long to provide tribunals with the discretion necessary to allow them do their work more expeditiously? Nobody would agree to the original and untenable proposition that they might continue to 2014 or 2015. There has been widespread public dissatisfaction with the length of time and cost of the tribunals. We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Justice Flood and Judge Mahon and members of the Judiciary involved in other tribunals for the work they do. However, there is understandable public disquiet. The public sees no concrete outcome; it sees tribunals dragging on interminably and lawyers getting fat in the process. However, the tribunals have carried out a valuable public exercise and the money has been well spent. Indeed, money has been derived for the Exchequer which it would otherwise not get. The net cost is perhaps not as dramatic as it could be.

As Senator McCarthy said, the tribunals have shone a light into areas of public life that otherwise might never be subjected to such scrutiny. That is to be welcomed. Irrespective of the detailed outcome of the tribunals, their work has helped improve public governance, the relationship between Government and private enterprise and developers as well as the relationship between local authorities and those in private enterprise in pursuit of rezoning. In that regard, they have had a beneficial effect.

The legislation is eminently sensible. I welcome the discretion conferred on the tribunal in paragraph J(6) of its terms of reference, as outlined by the Minister, with regard to deciding whether preliminary investigations take place in private or whether to initiate a preliminary investigation. Why did this not happen earlier?

One cannot say, as Senator Bannon did, that tribunals are terrible, while all the parties in both Houses were vocal about the need for such inquiries. There was unanimity in establishing them and providing them with terms of reference. There is a question mark as to whether to use such a vehicle. The terms of reference were expanded at the request of the tribunal, but in future we may need to look more critically at drawing up more narrow terms. Otherwise the tribunal becomes open-ended.

People have constitutional rights and they exercise these rights. It can be a frustration and impediment to the workings of tribunals. However, these rights must be vindicated, if necessary, through the courts.

We must look at other ways of dealing with matters of this nature. The committee of investigation has been mentioned. One was recently and expeditiously carried out in the House of Commons and reached firm conclusions in a matter of a few weeks, rather than years. Much can be said about dealing with some of these matters by way of parliamentary inquiries or commissions, notwithstanding the case of Abbeylara which created its own difficulties. There are other methods of dealing with these matters and perhaps we must give them prominence. This is, however, based on hindsight. The original momentum to establish the tribunals was irresistible, and there was widespread public demand. It has, as Senator McCarthy said, shed light on certain areas.

I agree with Senator Bannon's point about legalised corruption. If farmers, trade unions or any other group in society tried to defend actions similar to those of the legal profession, they would be shouted out of court. However, the Houses seem transfixed, like rabbits in the headlights, when confronting the legal profession. In terms of budget speeches, there was widespread and correct dissatisfaction with the small number of wealthy individuals and millionaires in this country who avoided tax. However, we allow enormous fees to be paid. Why can a tribunal not be like any other organ of State, in that it applies, works and sits office hours? Why is it tied to the terms of the court? Obviously, people must have holidays and I do not dispute that. However, it is based on the judicial system and the way matters are dealt with in the Four Courts. This is not appropriate for a tribunal. I do not know whether it is necessary and cannot be changed.

I want to speak about penalties which might accrue from tribunal findings. Tribunals make findings of fact, people have a constitutional right to defend themselves and the court has a different way of doing things. Compared to other jurisdictions, such as France, the penalties applied here indicate a defect in the law.

Senator Bannon spoke about money for good planning. There is no question about the issue. Local authority planning departments have not been well endowed with funds and there have been many hold-ups and difficulties. However, it is wrong to say that if tribunals did not exist the money would be allocated to planning departments. It does not work like that. The money might go to planning departments, but I doubt that would happen. It has been said that the sum of €160 million was the cost of bad planning. There is a lack of conjunction between the cost of the tribunal and what is required in terms of money for planning, and the cost of the planning system.

The State is entitled to ask that highly paid and privileged people have some degree of morality. There is not much morality in the fees earned by extremely privileged individuals. There is a lack of conjunction between what they are paid and the resources of some of the people who must enter the doors of the Four Courts. However, that might be beside the point.

The tribunals have been effective, irritating, frustrating and costly. However, they have performed a useful service. This legislation will improve how they operate and it is appropriate we give the tribunal the necessary discretion to expedite its work and reach its findings as quickly as possible.

Mr. Brady

I also welcome the Minister to the House. He brings with him considerable experience in the area of planning. He has championed a number of causes in his own county and will bring this to bear in his role as Minister.

I welcome the legislation which, as has been pointed out, bolsters and enhances previous amendments to various Acts relating to tribunals. The 1997 legislation has been amended a number of times, the most recent change being, as referred to by the Minister, the one which provided for the chairman to apply to the High Court for direction on the matter of costs and to divide up the work of the tribunal among different divisions as determined by him. These changes are welcome. The legislation, which was requested by the tribunal, will enhance work already being done.

We must look again at why the tribunal was established. It was established to find the truth regarding grave accusations made against people in public life. If we are to continue to have confidence in the system in which we work and for which we are responsible we must ensure that public office is not used for private gain. The tribunal was established to find the truth. This legislation will enable the chairman and his staff to get to the truth quicker and in a more cost-effective manner. That, too, is to be welcomed.

It is when the tribunal has completed its work and due process has taken place — another basis on which the tribunal was established — that the Dáil and Seanad will have to take appropriate action. We must work to overcome some of the legacies left to us and to restore trust in public life. The essence of the tribunal is an exercise in restoring that trust and we all have a role to play in that regard. The Minister referred to the raft of legislation introduced to deal with corruption. Other recently introduced legislation includes the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001 introduced to deal with matters relating to general and local elections, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 introduced to deal with donations. Much of that legislation was introduced as a result of issues which took place before our time. The first tribunal Act was introduced in 1921; it is not a new phenomenon.

The Minister also mentioned that the Planning and Development Act 2000 introduced provisions to deal with planning matters. It is up to Members of the Oireachtas to implement legislation and to ensure it works. Following the resignation of Mr. Justice Flood, legislation was enacted to deal with the issue of determining costs and to allow the current chairman to make an order on costs, part of which, as he was not chairman at the time, he would not have been party to. Despite everything we have done, there is widespread dissatisfaction about costs. Anyone who canvasses at doors or attends meetings on a regular basis is aware of that dissatisfaction. It is an issue with which we all have to deal, sometimes on a daily basis but, particularly, at election times. The public's cynicism is palpable. It is up to us to restore trust in the institutions in which we are involved.

I welcome the Commissions of Investigation Bill which will provide a different and more cost-effective mechanism for dealing with such issues. However, that legislation will not prevent the establishment of tribunals, if needed, subsequent to its findings. That is to be welcomed. The Law Reform Commission studied all aspects of tribunals and their implications and made recommendations which are being studied closely. The tribunal has, since its establishment in 1997, proved to be effective to a certain extent. However, it is becoming more difficult to justify costs and to convince the general public there will be results and consequences. It is up to us to ensure that is what happens. Legislation such as this will ensure that that happens sooner rather than later.

The Bill will provide the chairman with the ability to finalise the proceedings to everybody's satisfaction, including the tribunal's satisfaction, which is most important and will hopefully result in the restoration of some confidence in the structures in which we work.

I welcome the section dealing with issues such as the age of witnesses. We all recall the pictures of Mr. Redmond in handcuffs being taken away from court. Perhaps that picture is what was needed for people to realise the consequences of their actions. We must bear in mind that the aim of the tribunal is to get at the truth. It is not an exercise in humiliation but in finding the truth and making recommendations based on the facts established in the course of its proceedings. This legislation will ensure that happens.

The chairman of the tribunal indicated it may be 2014 or 2015 before its work is completed. It is essential this legislation is brought forward and implemented as quickly as possible as it may result in the tribunal completing its work in 2007 and that is to be welcomed.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche)

I thank Senators Bannon, Kitt, McCarthy, Dardis and Brady for their contributions. Senator Bannon was a little unfair in suggesting I would not accept amendments. It must be pointed out that the amendments tabled were out of order for the good reason that neither he nor I tied the hands of this House when the legislation was enacted in 1998. The process is well understood. The tribunal requests amendments and that is what prompted this legislation.

I do not disagree with Senator Bannon that more productive use could have been made of the massive resources employed in tribunals and nor do I disagree with Senator Dardis who said a degree of public scandal had been caused by the costs involved. To be fair to the tribunals, these arrangements were put in place by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The point has to be made that if these arrangements have proven to be unwise or unnecessarily cumbersome, the blame lies with us and not with the tribunals. Sometimes, when criticising what has happened, we tend to lose sight of that reality.

I thank Members for the wide-ranging debate. I would like to touch on a number of the issues raised. I have already dealt with the issue of resources but, at the end of the day, it is important if we are to cleanse our system of the suspicion of corruption that we spend the necessary resources.

Senator Bannon also indicated his concern regarding corruption and suggested that not enough has been done. I suggest, with respect, that he is being a little unfair to himself and other Members of the Oireachtas. The Planning and Development Act 2000 introduced a number of changes to deal with the issue of transparency. One issue dealt with in the conclusion of the report of the tribunal was the non-application of development charges in a particular case, which was an issue of corruption. Greater transparency has been created in the 2000 Act in that the whole system of charges, once decided in secrecy, are now decided by council members. Not only was more transparency created, a job was given to councillors. In the past several years, the Department has been proactive in providing policy advice and guidelines, for example, on residential densities, telecommunications masts and child care. I will shortly issue guidelines on one-off rural housing. Our planning system is and always has been more transparent than elsewhere and we are sometimes inclined to flail ourselves unnecessarily on this issue. Modern guidelines make the system more transparent.

Senator Brady pointed out that arrangements for dealing with the planning code and disclosures of interests have been introduced. Legislation and a regulatory framework have been introduced that deal not just with the conduct of public representatives but also of public servants, a positive and beneficial development. The Local Government Act 2001 provides a comprehensive ethics framework for local government. The Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 was also important legislation in this regard. The framework has the three basic requirements of annual declarations of interests, the disclosure of any interest in a matter coming before a local authority and the public register of interests. I put it to Senator Bannon that this is more transparent than the frameworks in place in most other European states. The Freedom of Information Act also provides for a surprisingly open system. The final framework for separate national codes of conduct for local authority councillors and employees has been drafted. A framework that did not exist in the past is now being put in place. It did not exist in the past because people did not see the need for it. However, they see the need for it now.

Other legislation against corruption has been introduced, such as the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001. It strengthens the laws on corruption by providing a presumption of corruption where there is proof that certain persons in public office received moneys. The Standards in Public Office Act 2001 is another important part of the architecture of preventing a recurrence of these events. Most Senators will accept that we cannot legislate to create standards. We as public representatives must create the standard and must be more vigilant than we were in the past. This is an issue for everyone holding public office. The corruption of one brings blame on us all. As Senator McCarthy said, if the thousands of individuals involved in both Houses of the Oireachtas and local government were taken into account over the years, corruption has not been a feature of our system. We have been remarkably lucky that there has been no corruption within the public administration body. Far too often, we are inclined to flagellate ourselves on this issue, rather than look at comparisons elsewhere. That is not to say that we should not strive for standards of excellence, but we have generally done so in the past.

Senator Bannon raised the matter of the fees structure continuing until 2007. On 17 November, I told the House it was not practical to introduce a change to the structure before the tribunal terminated on 31 March 2007. I made a joking reference to the fact that the date is my birthday. The best birthday present we could all have is that the tribunals will be wound up by then. A question was raised on the cut-off date, 16 December 2004, for submissions to the tribunal. As the tribunal has been operating for seven years, there are few people, even in the remotest parts of the island, who are not aware of their existence and have had adequate time to make submissions.

This slight Bill will give the tribunal the self-discretion it should have been given in the first instance. When these issues came to public light, there was an anxiety on all sides of both Houses to get the tribunal up and running. No Member, however, anticipated the tribunal taking on a life of its own. The more modern arrangements introduced under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 are less cumbersome and inflexible. It must be remembered that the capacity to appoint a tribunal of inquiry into any other issue will always remain with the Oireachtas. We are not seeing the end of tribunals. Hopefully, we will see the end of the need for tribunals but the legislation will always be there.

Senator Bannon's amendments were not ruled out of order because of any inflexibility on this side of the House. It arises directly out of the 1998 legislation requiring the Oireachtas to respond to proposals that come from the tribunal and removes the capacity for us to adopt the type of additional amendments he wishes. I am sure other Senators wished to table similar amendments. Sadly, that is not the point at which we are. The measures to be introduced in the Bill are focused on meeting the requirements of Judge Mahon and his group. Tribunal meetings in plenary session have been a cumbersome device. We are now assured when the modules currently in public hearings are completed, different sessions of the tribunal will take place. That is how the tribunal intends to brings its work forward. I am grateful for the contributions made in the House. I do not wish to appear inflexible or arrogant, of which occasionally Ministers are accused when rejecting amendments. However, I am sure Senator Bannon understands the basis upon which the decisions were taken. I thank Senators for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kitt)

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Brady

Now.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.