Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputies Terence Flanagan and Kieran O'Donnell.

I am absolutely amazed by the reaction of the Government to this Bill, which was introduced by my colleague, Deputy Phil Hogan. When I first saw it, my immediate reaction - on a completely non-political basis - was to say, "Hear, hear, it is time this was done". The legislation constitutes a necessary item of reform and I would have thought the debate on it would have been short-circuited by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government indicating that the Government was prepared to accept it in principle, with the proviso that it could be tweaked on Committee Stage, and allow Second Stage to pass.

The legislation before the House has been referred to as a Fine Gael Bill. In that context, Deputy Hogan considered what happened with the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and at the Committee of Public Accounts, which reached an all-party agreement that legislation to deal with this matter should be introduced. However, such legislation never emerged. All Deputy Hogan did, therefore, was to draft the necessary Bill in respect of the all-party agreement to the effect that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority be placed under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In such circumstances, I cannot understand how any Member of the House can vote against the Bill.

As already stated, the Bill implements an all-party decision. Why was such a decision made? It happened because of people's horror with regard to the picture that emerged of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. It is clear that drastic action is necessary. I have been a Member of the House for many years and having participated in the activities of the Committee of Public Accounts, I have become somewhat battle-hardened. However, I have never come across anything quite as bad as what occurred in this instance.

What makes matters worse is that this is a body which had such a bright start. Everyone accepts and agrees that it did such marvellous work. In the past six or seven years, however, it squandered the capital it built up in the context of its reputation, good name and the good work it did previously. This happened because the authority was taken over by the Dublin equivalent of those who previously occupied the Fianna Fáil tent at the Galway races. If one examines the connections among the board, Anglo Irish Bank and the developers involved, one will see a common thread emerge.

The horrifying scale of this scandal means that the taxpayer has been left completely exposed. The amounts involved are quite enormous. I refer here to the massive sum - some 26% of the whole - used to purchase the Irish Glass Bottle Company site in Ringsend and also to the loan facility, the soft loan, the guarantee and the money borrowed from Anglo Irish Bank, which is now owned by the State. It is something of a financial carousel. As the authority is not paying up in respect of this site, Anglo Irish Bank, on behalf of the State, will be obliged to foot the bill. If the carousel completes a further turn, it will be passed on to NAMA which, again, is guaranteed by the taxpayer, who is being exposed in respect of enormous sums of money.

The question arises as to the action we should take on this matter. An investigation must take place with regard to what occurred in the past. However, that is not the issue. In that context, the real issue is how we ensure that events of this nature do not happen in the future. The Comptroller and Auditor General has a role to play. I have witnessed the latter's work in respect of many State bodies. A recent example in this regard, which garnered a great deal of publicity, was his investigation of FÁS. The Comptroller and Auditor General carries out forensic examinations in respect of the relevant details relating to any matters of concern and the Committee of Public Accounts can then not merely expose some of the horrific activities which might have taken place, but also ensure that a system be put in place to prevent any recurrence of such activities.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government indicated that he cannot accept this Bill, which was introduced by Fine Gael but which contemplates an all-party decision reached by the Committee of Public Accounts, and put forward a number of reasons in this regard. In that context, he referred to the State's code of corporate governance and indicated that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is subject to it. The code states that bodies such as the authority should conduct their business in such a way that conflicts of interests can be avoided.

When I began to consider the activities of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, and in light of the code of corporate governance to which I refer, I was stunned when I discovered that it is the planning authority for the area that comes within its remit. It, therefore, acquires properties on the basis of joint ventures and it then, in effect, provides planning permission in respect of developments relating to such properties.

This blows a total hole in the stipulation that there should be no conflicts of interest. I cannot understand how any Government could permit the coming into being of such a scenario. What is worse is that the Fianna Fáil-led Government extended the authority's borrowing limit in order that it might raise the funds necessary to allow it, on a joint-venture basis, to become involved in acquiring properties in respect of which it could then issue planning permissions. How can this be justified under any system of democratic governance? The Government bears major responsibility in respect of what occurred in this instance. What I have just described strikes me as being one of the worst aspects of this entire affair.

It is clear that other elements of the State code of corporate governance, such as those relating to proper procurement practices, the rules relating to participation in joint ventures, etc., were not complied with. The Minister indicated that the accounts were properly audited. I will not criticise those from KPMG who were only doing their job in this regard. KPMG did its work, properly and efficiently, in the context of producing an audit and informing us as to what is the bad news. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General does not operate in the same way as KPMG. The latter deals with its client, namely, the authority, whereas the Comptroller and Auditor General holds a constitutional office and works on behalf of everyone in the country who pays tax. That is why we want the Comptroller and Auditor General included.

The third point raised by the Minister in defence against this Bill is that there is an oversight arrangement with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. He misconstrues entirely the role of an Oireachtas committee such as the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in contrast to the role of the Committee of Public Accounts. There are two significant aspects to the Committee of Public Accounts. It works with the Comptroller and Auditor General, who undertakes forensic analysis and produces detailed figures. The Committee of Public Accounts operates on a non-political basis. It leaves politics to the line committees. The politics of this issue is a matter for the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We need a procedure so that the figures for this authority can be forensically examined by an independent body and the matter can be dealt with by the Committee of Public Accounts. The Comptroller and Auditor General is the obvious body for this task.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, resembles St Augustine, who asked to be made pure but not yet.

See this speech in context