I am pleased to attend the House to discuss the final report of the Mahon tribunal. By now, more than one month after its publication, Senators and those outside the House will have had an opportunity to begin to digest the full findings of the report. Its size — at more than 3,200 pages — makes this no easy task, but it is important for various reasons that we understand and, more crucially, accept its findings as the culmination of long years of investigation and public hearings. While it was a long time ago, it is worth recalling how, in 1995, two concerned citizens placed an advertisement in the name of a firm of Newry solicitors offering a reward for information leading to convictions for planning corruption. The late James Gogarty came forward with astonishing allegations of widespread corruption at the highest levels, from which events snowballed, leading to the resignation of former Minister Ray Burke and the setting up of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments.
In the intervening years the tribunal held more than 900 days of public sittings; called more than 400 witnesses before it; generated approximately 60,000 pages of transcripts; and exhibited more than 80,000 pages of documentation in public hearings. By any standards, this was a monumental task. In this regard, I pay tribute to the chairman of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Alan Mahon, and his predecessor, Mr. Justice Fergus Flood, as well as to the other two members of the tribunal, Judges Mary Faherty and Gerard Keys. Without doubt, they have rendered the State a considerable service which will be a turning point in how we collectively deal with corruption, most particularly in the planning system.
By any stretch of the imagination, the tribunal's final report makes for difficult and dispiriting reading. The venality of those found responsible for accepting corruption payments and the cynicism of those willing to offer them are truly shocking. The poor judgment shown by those found to have acted improperly is equally disturbing. The headline findings are, by now, well known. The report makes findings of corruption against a number of named individuals, including former Minister Padraig Flynn, the late Liam Lawlor, the lobbyist Frank Dunlop and developer Owen O'Callaghan. It also makes findings of corruption and-or impropriety against no less than 32 councillors. In addition, the tribunal concluded that former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern had not provided a truthful account as to the sources of various funds and, because of this, it was unable to determine their provenance. These events span the 1980s and 1990s. From this, we can conclude that we are not, unfortunately, dealing with isolated individuals or cases but widespread corruption and impropriety. The report states unequivocally that "corruption in Irish political life was both endemic and systemic" and that it "affected every level of Government from some office holders of top ministerial offices to some local councillors". There can be no more damning finding of the system.
However repulsed we may be, we should not and cannot avert our gaze from the findings of the report, nor should anyone seek to minimise, downplay, obfuscate and dissimulate in apportioning blame and responsibility to those who have brought the idea of public service into such disrepute. Unfortunately, all have been present in the debate which has ensued on the final report. However, we cannot throw our hands up in despair; rather, we must seek to rebuild our systems and procedures to strengthen the hand of the vast majority of those public servants, both elected and unelected, who go about their business with honesty, integrity and sincerity.
In the immediate aftermath of publication of the Mahon tribunal's report and having regard to its serious content, my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government referred it to the Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and the chairman of the Standards in Public Office Commission. The Garda Commissioner has since referred the report to the head of the Criminal Assets Bureau with a view to identifying what, if any, criminal offences have been disclosed which may require investigation by the Garda Síochána. It will be a matter solely and exclusively for these State bodies to decide on what action, if any, to take on foot of the report.
In addition, on 27 March, only five days after its publication, the report was formally considered at a Government meeting. The primary outcome of that meeting was that it was agreed that the relevant Departments, working with bodies under their aegis, as appropriate, would consider urgently the recommendations of the tribunal and, by the end of April, revert to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government with proposed actions to be taken on foot of the recommendations made and a timeframe for their implementation. The intention is that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will report back to the Government as early as possible in May with a whole-of-government response to the report's entire set of recommendations. Senators will appreciate, in view of the foregoing, that I am not in a position to provide a final and definitive Government position on the recommendations of the report.
Notwithstanding this, I would like to discuss the main recommendations in detail. As Minister of State with responsibility for housing and planning, I have a special interest in this area and, in particular, the ten recommendations the Mahon tribunal made about planning out of a total of 64 recommendations. In the first instance, before getting into the details of the recommendations, it is important to point out that planning corruption is not a victimless crime because it subordinates the public good of proper planning to the private good of developers who have deep and corrupt pockets. The Mahon tribunal revealed the wholesale degradation of the physical public sphere, particularly in Dublin, for the benefit of the few to the detriment of the many. I am keenly aware of the strong relationship between the need to have a planning system operating with integrity and efficiency and our efforts to overcome immense economic challenges and prepare for the country's economic and social recovery. I also wish to underscore the strong synergy between the planning recommendations of the Mahon tribunal's report and recent and ongoing reforms to the legislative underpinning and operation of planning.
In 2002 Ireland's first ever national spatial strategy was published. It was followed by the introduction of regional planning guidelines in 2004 and their substantial revision in 2010. Together, the strategy and guidelines provide for a more strategic approach to planning, where the debate is less about whose field is to be zoned and more about how places are to be used in the longer term. The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 has gone some way to establishing statutory recognition of the national spatial strategy and the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 provided for further amplification. For instance, the 2010 Act strengthened regional co-ordination, delivered a better alignment of planning nationally, regionally and locally, and introduced a new requirement for core strategies in the development plan process. This requirement is intended to secure a strategic and phased approach to zoning that will facilitate infrastructure provision — showing the location, quantum and phasing of proposed development and clearly demonstrating links to housing strategies, retail policies, transport plans, new schools, etc., while showing the adoption of consistent national policy across all our regions. This process is one that local authorities are strongly engaging with because they recognise the need for a stronger, plan-led approach to development that will facilitate careful management of, and prudent investment in, infrastructure provision at a time of acute pressure on the public finances.
However, the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal indicate that the progress achieved to date is not a panacea. While the 2006 and 2010 Acts have brought improvements there is still a significant job of work to be done to ensure that a coherent, forward looking approach to planning informs all decisions taken at local, regional and national levels. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of deliberations on the tribunal findings. However, Senators will appreciate there is a need for far-reaching reform of the way elected members, officials and others interact with the planning process.
The need now is to re-examine zoned land and to move to a position where all zoning is based on a quantifiable need that is community based rather than developer-led. The population targets which are used in the Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 have been incorporated into core strategies and will prove critical in helping to plan for future development.
The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 has provided a strengthened legal and policy framework for local area plans, particularly in relation to zoning at local area plan level. This underpins the need for consistency from the national spatial strategy, through the regional planning guidelines, to the development plans and finally to local area plan level. This is critical as, in reality, it is often at local area plan level that the strategic zoning decisions are taken. Development plans will incorporate the core strategies and local authorities will consider whether the relevant local area plans require subsequent changes to ensure consistency within the overall planning system.
The benefits that this process is bringing are significant, most notably the following: planning is better supported by evidence-based requirements and is linked to the Government's strategic plan, for example, through the national spatial strategy and capital allocations; there is a coherent basis to ensure planning and investment in infrastructure and services is focused on the most suitable locations; there is a tackling of the legacy of over-zoning and a move towards a more co-ordinated and joined-up approach to the delivery of critical services such as schools, public transport, water services and social housing; there is a focus on revitalising our city and town centres, moving against the tendency of the pre-tribunal era to envisage extensive, even sprawling extensions of our cities and towns, drawing the lifeblood out of older, established central urban areas; the elected members of the planning authorities are now required to bring together the key messages of a typically long and detailed development plan into a clear message about future plans and priorities in their area; and a level of certainty is being achieved about where development will take place, which will provide a level of certainty for developers. I take the opportunity to outline some initiatives in which I have been involved during the short period since I took office, which are pointers for the way forward. Recently I received the regional planning guidelines implementation annual report 2011, which was prepared by the eight regional authorities, having particular regard to the core strategy provisions of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 and ensuring proper oversight of the alignment of plans at national, regional and local level. This report is very significant because it improves strategic oversight of the planning system by effectively measuring how local, regional and national planning strategies are being co-ordinated through the core strategy-related provisions of the 2010 Act. The report of the regional authorities clearly demonstrates that serious progress is being made and must continue to be made in tackling what was often the planning systems historical addiction to zoning as opposed to focusing on the issues that matter most to local communities. The 2010 Act is aimed at decreasing the need for ministerial intervention in development plans and local area plans by bringing clarity to the legal responsibilities of planning authorities to have reasonable and evidence-based plans, rather than rely on the Minister's intervention in the plan process. This does not automatically rule out the need for my future intervention, in particular in the context of ensuring local plans and development plans are consistent. I will closely monitor their consistency with the now adopted core strategies in development plans.
On 4 April last, I launched an innovative Internet-based planning information system called Myplan.ie which for the first time draws together all the zoning maps of every development plan and local area plan in the country. The aim of Myplan.ie is to create a one-stop shop for information about plans and also to provide other information which is relevant to planning decision making, such as census information, heritage sites, patterns of housing development and so on. The system is fully accessible to the public on-line and is free of charge. As such, it enables a much more open and transparent approach to tracking the integration of plans across the country, and it promises to be a game-changer in terms of how the public will view the operation of the forward planning system.
I turn to the planning recommendations of the Mahon tribunal report. Recommendation No. 2, on direct election to regional authorities, will be considered in the context of the forthcoming policy proposals of the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, concerning further local government reform, to include the regional dimension. Recommendation No. 3, to an extent, has already been acted upon in recent legislative amendments. Recommendation No. 4 is a matter for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.
Other recommendations propose sensible improvements to enhance accountability, transparency and fairness in the planning process. I believe we would all largely agree on these but we must study them closely and consider them carefully as we prepare to respond to them in greater detail. I have already met officials in order to progress these recommendations, particularly, in the planning section of the Department.
Without question, however, the most fundamental recommendation is for the establishment of an independent planning regulator. In this one recommendation, the Mahon tribunal essentially tells legislators that notwithstanding the roles of local authorities and the Minister, and progress made in recent years in tightening up a previously lax system, planning, especially the forward planning process, needs independent oversight. This oversight function must have the appropriate legal mandate and resources to determine whether plans are in compliance with legal requirements and, if they are not, to determine what intervention may be necessary where serious policy departures have taken place, or where there is strong evidence of bad practice or systemic failure. In other words, the tribunal's assessment is that Ireland needs to introduce an element of independent review of forward planning and planning administration practice in the manner that An Bord Pleanála undoubtedly delivers in overseeing our planning application appeals system. I intend to look at this recommendation and consult on it. My main focus in all this is to improve accountability and transparency.
In the short term, Senators will also be aware of a legacy of planning complaints on foot of which the previous administration had announced a planning review that was intended to assess the application of planning legislation, policy and guidance within the development plan and development management systems at local level and to inform further policy development in these areas. A number of planning authorities, representing a broad geographical spread of urban and rural areas and large and small authorities, were selected to assist in the review of policies and practices by reference to a number of cases raised with my Department. I assure Senators that work on this is progressing at a pace and I expect to receive a report from my officials in the near future following which I will make a public statement, including any appropriate actions to be pursued in regard to further policy development and guidance while also taking account of the need to develop wider proposals for improving the transparency and openness of the planning system, as recommended in the final report of the Mahon tribunal. While I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the process, if warranted, I will instigate further investigation of any matters requiring this.
I turn to some other recommendations of the final report which fall within the remit of my Department. There is no doubt that the whole issue of political donations was at the centre of many planning controversies. As Senators will be aware, the Electoral (Amendment)(Political Donations) Bill 2011 has progressed through this House and is before the Dáil. I 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. The maximum amount that can be accepted as a political donation will be more than halved, 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, the 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, the 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 under way, 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 on Committee Stage, where appropriate.
These reforms go a considerable way to preventing the kind of wholesale subversion of the planning system by those willing to fund corrupt payments, often in the guise of legitimate political donations. This is a particularly insidious process, as it threatens public trust in the legitimate funding of the political process and political parties. By developing and open, transparent and moderated system of political funding, the room for corruption corresponding narrows, although, of course, it can never be eliminated.
Another issue which has come under close scrutiny in the tribunal's final report is that of the ethics framework. Within my Department's remit the ethical performance of 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, both members and employees. This framework which came into effect in 2003 imposes a duty on all to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest.
The requirements contained in the Act are developed in the Local Government Act 2001 (Part 15) Regulations 2004 which include an obligation on members and relevant employees to complete annual declarations. In addition, two codes of conduct, one for members and one for employees, were issued in 2004. 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.
The tribunal report's recommendations will be examined closely in the context of the existing ethics framework to ensure we take whatever further steps are necessary to restore and underpin confidence and transparency in the local government system, to ensure the highest standards are adhered to and to provide protection for the vast majority of members and staff who behave with probity and integrity. It should also be noted that the conduct of local authority members and employees comes within the remit of the Standards in Public Office Commission which oversees compliance with the requirements of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. In this regard, my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, who has previously highlighted the importance of ensuring the legislative framework in regard to ethics is robust, modernised and relevant in today's world is now examining the Mahon tribunal's final report and the Moriarty tribunal report within the Government's overall political reform agenda. In this context, it is worth noting that in its recommendations the Mahon tribunal explicitly calls for the establishment of a statutory register of lobbyists incorporating minimum disclosure requirements, as well as the introduction of a cross-sectoral whistleblower protection Act. The Government's recognition of the vital role that can be played by effective whistleblower legislation in discouraging and disclosing serious wrongdoing is fully in accordance with that of the tribunal. The current position is that at the end of February the Minister published the general scheme of a protected disclosures in the public interest Bill, while work has commenced in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of a Bill.
On lobbying, in the light of the firm commitment in the programme for Government and following the completion of a call for evidence at the end of last month, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is drafting a policy paper on the introduction of a register of lobbyists. This paper will form the basis for further consultation on the operational design of the proposed regulatory system and is intended to lead to Government approval for the drafting of a Bill for publication later this year.
Beyond the registration of lobbyists and the introduction of whistleblower legislation, a large number of recommendations in the final report relate to conflicts of interest, characterised by the Mahon tribunal as the root cause of corruption. Collectively, these recommendations point to the need for an extensive overhaul of the legislative framework in regard to ethics. In particular, the Mahon tribunal's report identifies a range of important issues relating to effective control of conflicts of interest, actual and perceived. These include the introduction of extended disclosure requirements; the removal of exceptions to disclosures; more timely updating of disclosures; a prohibition on gifts or benefits other than those of a nominal value; and extending the enforcement role of the Standards in Public Office Commission. In responding fully to these recommendations of the tribunal, further examination will be necessary of how ethics legislation might be simplified and also the case for adopting a more integrated approach with other related legislation. This may be required in order to ensure a comprehensive and coherent legal framework will be in place in the future to seek to guard against the abuses revealed in the tribunal's report.
For everyone in the House and all others outside it, the findings of the final report of the Mahon tribunal present a truly awful picture of some aspects of political life in the 1980s and 1990s. There can be no, nor should there be, gainsaying of this basic conclusion. These findings and the associated recommendations place a heavy burden on the existing body politic to ensure, simply, wholesale corruption is never again allowed to flourish unchecked in local and national government. Work to this end has commenced. Having referred the report to other organs of State, they must now be left to do their work independently on following up on what happened in the past. In addition, the Government has embarked on an urgent and active consideration of the tribunal's recommendations in order that we take whatever steps are necessary. The overriding aim is to ensure what has been set out in the tribunal's report will never happen again and work towards restoring public confidence in the political system. Nothing less is expected of us and nothing less will suffice.
