Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Should I give the Minister of State a shovel to dig an even bigger hole? I have never heard such an explanation and if it reflects the thinking behind Better Local Government and the regulations appertaining to local elections, I am sad and sorry because we will have problems.

I will give the House another practical example. While we all accept that the regulations which apply to the Oireachtas are fine, why should it follow that expenditure on elections to local authorities should be open-ended, provided it is recorded? How does one prove the amount is precisely as recorded given that a report into the figures recorded for the various elected Members following the previous general election indicated that they varied significantly? I presume we all read the legislation and regulations in the same way. I do not accept the notion that local and national elections be treated differently. Leaving it open to local authority members to spend as much as they like on elections, which some of them will do, leaves it open to question whether we will be able to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances which gave rise to this debate.

Once political or financial corruption takes place in the kinds of circumstances addressed by Mr. Justice Flood, there is no way the average member of the public can get fair play. Regardless of whether corruption involves money or political favours, it eliminates fair play from the system and leaves the individual out in the cold. It does not matter how big the tent at Ballybrit, how convivial the atmosphere or how much champagne or other beverages consumed there, it does not take one whit from the fact that once one goes down the road of political favouritism or providing a return for financial contributions, the system becomes seriously defective. The third interim report is a crystal clear example of the manner in which business was conducted at the time under examination. Suggestions have been made, however, that favouritism continues to prevail, which would be a serious problem if it is the case.

I do not wish to cast aspersions on the Minister of State or his party, but when a party has been in power for all but two and half of the past 20 years, it poses a serious problem for the country. What amazes me is that the Fianna Fáil Party received a mandate from the people, given that the allegations in question were in the public arena at the time and were widely known and discussed. Court cases, court challenges and so forth were under way so how do we explain the election result? With due deference to my colleague, Deputy Seán Ryan from north county Dublin, the electronic voting in Dublin and Meath could have been part of the problem. I presume the electronic voting had no effect on the election result so it would not be fair to go down that road. We will deal with the issue of electronic voting on another occasion.

Young people today face a serious problem in that they cannot understand the reason they are unable to buy a house. The reason is that the majority of houses are bought by investors for whom significant tax concessions are available. They move in quickly and snap up new houses which come on to the market. It is not unusual for a block of apartments to be sold over a weekend for €240,000 or €250,000 each. In one recent case, not far from my constituency, the unit price increased by €80,000 during a weekend. Despair descends on young people when they see this kind of thing going on and they automatically conclude that something is wrong. I am deeply upset and discouraged at what I see happening, particularly given that the public, for some reason I cannot determine, saw fit to give the Fianna Fáil Party an overall majority and would have done so had Tarzan not climbed up a pole and warned the oncoming multitudes of what was about to happen.

I cannot understand the reason corruption in Dublin and elsewhere continued without detection for so long. I made a similar comment on another matter yesterday. I am surprised that for a long time no action was taken on foot of reports I know were made. I am not suggesting that all zoning was corrupt or was approved under pressure — much of it was correct — but the process was brought into dispute by the mere fact that it was surrounded by questions about corruption. I would love to have more time to address these matters.

See this speech in context