Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputies Jerry Buttimer and Thomas P. Broughan.

I welcome Deputy Calleary's comment that we should not move on from this debate as if nothing has changed. The thrust of the Government's policy is to learn from this and to change the way the Dáil does its business. These findings are undoubtedly disappointing for those of us who were members of that Government. The tribunal finds that a selection process that was fully intended to be robust against any undue influence was subjected, according to the tribunal findings, to influence. I am very conscious that many of the issues addressed here will be further tested in the courts, whether in criminal proceedings or in civil actions. I am equally conscious that one of my predecessors in this Department was found by a statement to have prejudiced a subsequent case. It behoves us all to be very careful in what we say.

Nonetheless the tribunal's findings, conclusions and recommendations need to be taken seriously. As Deputy Calleary and many others have said, we must develop the additional failsafe mechanisms needed to police all the dimensions of the interface between various vested interests and politics. That includes cases where major decisions are taken that change the value of assets, including land, and the issue of licences. Much of the programme for Government is about addressing that and the recommendations of the tribunal add to the scope for doing so.

I believe the Cabinet approved a selection process that was well designed in order to be fair and set objective criteria for the selection of a successful applicant that would be the best applicant, balancing a range of needs. We had tenders to select international experts so that would be done to the highest possible standards and the system was designed to be independent. People have asked whether the Cabinet could have done better. There has been commentary about the fact that the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, got an early announcement by going to a sub-committee of Cabinet and the tribunal finds the decision of that sub-committee was understandable, based on the briefing its members received - it recognised they made a decision based on the information they received. However, the tribunal was critical that it precluded the opportunity for further scrutiny, which is a fair point and one we must consider.

However, the counterpoint that must be borne in mind is that a system of independent rating of applicants conducted by people of international reputation was set up in order to take it away from a political process. If, by contrast, a meeting of Cabinet was to unpick the ratings, reweight and change the procedure, there would rightly be a very significant investigation as to whether this was political interference in a system that was designed to be independent. There is a balance to be seen there. As we design failsafe mechanisms we need to recognise that when an independent process is set up, it is not possible then for others to make the decision themselves and alter that. That balance needs to be borne in mind.

Deputy Lowry made a long address yesterday and I believe his position is untenable in the face of these findings. I admit he hotly disputes many of the findings. However, contesting those issues here in the Dáil, which is not a judicial forum and cannot sift the evidence and adjudicate, is not a convincing way to challenge the findings of the report. If he wants to convince people he ought to have exercised his rights to contest these issues in the High Court where he has an entitlement to do so.

Deputy Calleary asked whether we should be taking on the powers to expel a Member, which is a difficult question and one we would need to take a good deal of time to consider. As the Taoiseach indicated this morning the voters clearly have a constitutional right to select people and we need to think hard about how we can raise standards. This has arisen in other areas and is worthy of consideration. I am not sure there is an easy or facile way of dealing with it. However, we can deal very effectively with many of the recommendations. On the issue of political donations, Fine Gael is committed to introducing a ban on corporate donations. It is wrong - as we read in the report - that corporate interests can adopt a strategy of promoting themselves and their interest with politics in a sustained way. That can only damage public confidence. I can say with confidence that donations never affected any decision I ever took as a responsible Minister, but that is not the issue. The independence needs to be seen to be there as well as being exercised.

To be fair to Fine Gael, in the past it made a decision unilaterally to give up corporate political donations and ceased to take those donations. However, as other parties did not follow, it became an issue of unequal competition in contesting elections if one party was adopting what now is broadly recognised as the correct approach and others were not. Credit is due to the Minister, Deputy Noonan, for taking that stand. While perhaps the political system has taken too long to come around to his point of view, we now have a very clear Government decision which will be implemented.

Equally the transparency of lobbying needs to be addressed. The capacity of lobbyists to go beyond their legitimate right to inform must be addressed by proper legislation that sets out how that is to be done. The programme for Government recognises a number of changes will strengthen how all of this works. For example, we are proposing a very clear distinction between the areas of political responsibility and executive responsibility. The commitment in the programme for Government makes it very clear that we will bring to an end the unacceptable executive practice where no record is kept of ministerial involvement with an issue and resulting decisions. We need clarity and that is an important commitment in the programme for Government.

The tribunal has raised issues of company law and the need to address the matter of responsible behaviour. My Department has drafted a massive 1,400-section company law review. It includes a head that will set out new fiduciary duties for directors, which will represent an occasion to address this matter. My Department will need to decide whether we proceed with that legislation in its present format or seek to take out a subset for early implementation.

In many other areas the programme for Government commits to real reform that will make a difference. As I have mentioned, the separating of the political decisions of Ministers from the executive decisions of implementation by the Secretary General will create a much clearer and better relationship. The introduction of legislation on whistleblowers will also give greater public confidence that the system will respond to any failings. This is an opportunity to make very significant changes. Of course people outside the House will be very frustrated that it has taken 14 years to produce this report. The programme for Government makes commitments to have better Dáil investigative powers, to deal with the spancelling of the Dáil as an investigative agency and to look at the new legislation for tribunals which has lain fallow on the Statute Book - it was produced but never implemented. We need to address those and this is an opportunity to put down a clear line and change the culture of politics for the better.

See this speech in context