Seán Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution on the third interim report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments. I compliment Mr. Justice Flood and his team for the work they have carried out on behalf of the people. The Labour Party believes that any person who receives a corrupt payment or who hindered or obstructed the operation of the tribunal, should be brought to task and made to pay for his or her actions. This report, like the previous one, relates to activities, actions, decisions and payments made and received by individuals involved in the planning process in Dublin County Council from 1985 to date. I was a member of the county council from 1983. As a councillor I worked tirelessly with a small group of Labour Party activists in endeavouring to win back the Labour seat in Dublin North. This was a daunting task given the political environment that existed in the constituency at that time, a matter to which I will return.

Anyone present in the council chamber was well aware of the carry on. I was very conscious of the central role played by certain builders and developers in the planning process, especially when section 4 rezoning motions were on the agenda on a monthly basis and during the development plan review. The interaction between the landowners, builders, developers and their agents, and the Fianna Fáil and most of the Fine Gael councillors, was very evident. I was present and witnessed agents for these people drafting rezoning motions and amendments in the packed public gallery — there was not much room for the ordinary public. These were then passed into the chamber to willing councillors who were prepared to submit motions in their own names.

I witnessed the way the voting was organised to ensure that as far as practicable, the timing of votes was scheduled to suit the rezoning lobby. If the outcome was uncertain, which was not often the case, a runner would be sent to Conway's pub to ensure that any stragglers in the pub were whipped into the chamber to ensure that another rezoning was carried. It would have been very unusual if a celebratory drink or party were not on the agenda for Conway's pub or the Royal Dublin Hotel after the meeting, paid for, of course, by the new millionaires.

Ray Burke's Fianna Fáil organisation in the constituency was awesome at the time. There never seemed to be a shortage of manpower, transport, including lorries for posters, or meals at election time, and all of the boxes in the polling stations were manned and paid for. As a party we always suspected that payments were made by developers for services rendered for election purposes. This was the machine the Labour Party had to take on not only in the council chamber, but also in the constituency to win back the Labour seat.

Even though we had no money to run campaigns, I was proud of the decision taken by my wife, Patricia, and me when we entered politics not to accept contributions from builders and developers in case it might in any way undermine decisions we would have to take. Notwithstanding that, as I have said before, I received unsolicited cheques, which we never cashed and all of which I brought to the attention of the tribunal. If I, as an objective person looking at the proper planning and development of the area, received unsolicited cheques, which were never cashed, what contributions were made to the election funds of those who supported rezoning motions over the years?

The second interim report in particular outlined what we were up against. The report concluded that offshore bank accounts were set up in the Isle of Man and Jersey to accommodate corrupt payments, mainly to Ray Burke. This money was to be used a political slush fund. As far as I can recall the accumulated payments of all the contributions of which we are aware came to more than £250,000.

The third report concluded that George Redmond, Frank Reynolds, Joseph Murphy junior, and Michael Bailey hindered or obstructed the operation of the tribunal. Many of these are closely connected with the Fianna Fáil Party. Furthermore, Joseph Murphy junior and Michael Bailey made corrupt contributions to George Redmond. In one way or another all of these people, and there may be many more, were major players in the planning process. Is it any wonder that the planning system was debased and the general public was totally disillusioned?

In light of the revelations from the tribunal, has the role of the developer and landowner changed with regard to planning? A pertinent question must be asked as to whether a development plan should be governed by land ownership and be developer-led, or governed by the proper planning and development of an area. Like the Minister, I acknowledge that lands must be rezoned for housing. While I acknowledge there is a role for builders and developers, should it be the central role? This is a fundamental issue.

In the context of whether things have changed, I refer to a letter I sent to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, on 16 January. In the letter I stated: "I requested you to carry out an investigation into the circumstances of the proposal to rezone 84 hectares (200 acres) of sensitive (some highly sensitive) lands to residential A1, which is part of variation 34 Donabate lands which was recently passed by Fingal County Council." While I have received an acknowledgement of the letter, I have received nothing else to date. The land which is elevated and forms part of the wider peninsula overlooking the Broadmeadow and Malahide estuaries, was purchased by developers with a view to having it rezoned as residential, to accommodate up to 2,500 dwellings even though at present a local farmer seeking to build a single house for his son would be unlikely to secure planning permission given the sensitivity of the land.

Following research over about two years, the Donabate planning study report March 2003 was published, and was approved and signed off by the county manager. His planning department advised that any development on this land would have adverse implications for this area of coastline in landscape and visual terms and recommended, in particular, that building not take place in extremely sensitive areas. The council planners were very concerned about the proposal. This opinion was also supported by studies commissioned by Fingal County Council from consultants Brady Shipman Martin in May 2001 and February 2003.

The Donabate study was due to be discussed at the Balbriggan/Swords area committee on 27 March 2003, which did not have a Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael majority. However, it was removed from the agenda the day before the meeting and deferred to a future meeting, as "certain people" were unhappy with the contents of the report. Less than three weeks later, an amended report, the Donabate planning study report April 2003, was published and was brought before a special meeting of Fingal County Council on 6 May. The new amended report recommended that the 200 acres of sensitive lands be zoned A1 which was totally at variance with the previous report. I am aware that at least one councillor was extremely angry with the original March 2003 report and made this known to the officials. Furthermore, and interestingly, it was decided not to present the new report to the area committee meeting as originally envisaged, but to bring it before the full county council meeting.

In view of the inconsistencies contained in the two reports, I appeal to the Minister of State and his senior Minister, Deputy Cullen, to carry out an investigation into the variation process from the very outset to the publication of the reports and furthermore to ascertain what representations were made to have these lands zoned A1, especially between 24 March 2003, when the first report came out, and 6 May 2003. There was a time period of three weeks involved.

I do not accept that the alteration of the plan was justified on planning grounds. These are the facts. Sensitive lands were purchased — an area of 200 acres — for which it was difficult to obtain planning permission. After a study lasting two years, the council's report recommended against zoning 200 acres of land to residential A1. Certain people, including the developers and some councillors, were unhappy with the plan. Then the original plan was pulled at a meeting. After three weeks a new, amended report recommended rezoning the 200 acres.

What should be the role of the developer or landowner in planning? Who receives priority? Is it the landowner or the community who will have to live with the consequences? In this case, the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael councillors who bulldozed this plan through the council made their priority very clear. As a public representative who became aware of irregularities and undue influence being used by certain councillors, I felt I should stand up and be counted. If I felt that something wrong had happened, I had a duty to those who had elected me and to myself, as a person who has always stood up for proper, open discussion and debate. The Minister says the best way to obtain the right decisions — decisions which encourage sustainable development — is to ensure they are made in an open, transparent way that can be measured against standards. Notwithstanding the decision that was taken, transparency is required in the plan I have outlined.

The people are disillusioned because of what they see happening in the tribunals. It is easy for certain people to put the message across that all public representatives are the same and they are all at it. I, as a public representative and a member of the Labour Party, and my colleagues in the Labour Party at local and council level, were never involved in any skulduggery or corruption. We will continue to stand for sustainable development and transparency. If the report helps us to identify those people who brought corruption into this process, they should be dealt with. It is to be hoped we can learn from the mistakes of the past and ensure that in the future, people can have confidence in the planning process and that young people will be more prepared to go into politics at local level.

See this speech in context