Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

The report of the Mahon tribunal is a chronicle of betrayal, ignominy and disgrace for the individuals it names and condemns, for the system of planning in Dublin that was foully corrupted and for the Fianna Fáil Party, which more than any other party housed those who have been found to be corrupt and wanting. The tribunal took a long time and cost a lot of money, but it has got to the truth in a way that no other investigation into planning corruption has ever done. The truth has been expensive to obtain, but as we survey the damage to our economy and our society, it is clear that not having the truth has been far more costly.

The reports of the Mahon tribunal - previously the Flood tribunal - have far exceeded what many thought possible when the tribunal was established. They set out clearly how the planning process in Dublin in the 1980s and 1990s was undermined and corrupted by a number of developers who sought to enrich themselves and by a number of councillors who were prepared to accept bribes. It provides another insight into the culture of corruption that existed for decades at the highest level of Fianna Fáil, in particular. I wish to express my appreciation to the members of the tribunal - Judges Mahon, Faherty and Keyes and, previously, Mr. Justice Feargus Flood - for the work they have done and the reports they have produced.

Several people, including journalists like Joe MacAnthony, Frank McDonald and Mark Brennock, raised questions about planning in Dublin over the years. However, it was always extremely difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to prove anything without a formal inquiry. In 1990, shortly after I was elected to this House, I called in the House for an inquiry into planning and rezoning in Dublin. Like several other members of the then Dublin County Council, I was concerned about what seemed to be happening at council meetings, and about the way in which so many rezoning decisions were being taken.

Based on what we now know, it was hardly surprising that no inquiry was conceded. I raised the issue in 1990 and put parliamentary questions to the then Minister for the Environment, Mr. Pádraig Flynn. He transferred them to the then Minister for Justice, Mr. Ray Burke. They both served under Mr. Charles Haughey, the then Taoiseach, and in a Government with Mr. Albert Reynolds as Minister for Finance and Mr. Bertie Ahern as Minister for Labour. Needless to say, no inquiry was granted.

Even when a tribunal was finally established, it was by no means certain that it would be able to get at the truth. Over the following 15 years, the tribunal was met by a wall of obstruction and obfuscation. There were many people who did not want the inquiry to succeed. Many of them took cases in the courts that delayed the work of the inquiry for very long periods. When it looked to be getting to the truth about Mr. Ahern, for example, it was subjected to a series of attacks by Fianna Fáil Ministers, which attacks are rightly the subject of severe criticism in the report. In the face of this obstruction, and in spite of these attacks, the tribunal has now concluded its work. Its final report is little short of devastating.

This was not a report about individual councillors taking bribes. What this report finds is that there was systematic corruption in the planning system in Dublin. Further, it makes adverse findings against elected representatives at the time in question at every level of elected office, from county councillor to Taoiseach. Councillors, Senators, Deputies, Ministers, two taoisigh and a member of the European Commission are referred to. This is not, as some are still trying to suggest, just a few rotten apples. All three individuals who led Fianna Fáil from 1979 until May 2008, all of whom held the office of Taoiseach, have now been the subject of adverse findings by tribunals, including the beef and Moriarty tribunals and now the Mahon tribunal.

While there are politicians from other parties against whom adverse findings have been made, the evidence shows that the problem was overwhelmingly a Fianna Fáil problem. The report does not make adverse findings against any current member of the Labour Party, as was widely reported on RTE last week. It made an adverse finding against one individual who was previously a member of the Labour Party, who was elected a councillor in 1991 and who was expelled from the party in 1993 when it was considered he was not acting in accordance with the standards the Labour Party expected of him. It did not require a tribunal and 15 years for Labour to take action against him.

The report shows that simple truths cannot be hidden in complicated and elaborate excuses. We do ourselves no service by reducing complexity to excessive simplifications. The report finds that there was corruption at every level in Irish political life. It does not state every politician is corrupt. The report condemns several politicians but it commends others.

There were some who sought to imply that my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, had questions to answer. He answered all questions and his actions were commended by the tribunal. I note also the part played by my colleague the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, who sought to expose wrongdoing and who was threatened with legal action for doing so.

It has been said and it is true that there are many honourable and decent people in Fianna Fáil who have been let down by the actions of their leaders. They feel reduced by the findings of this report but they are not the victims here. The victims are the people who live in poorly planned communities. The victims are those who have lost their jobs, who are in negative equity and who are picking up the tab for the destruction of our economy.

There is a direct connection between the corruption unearthed by the tribunal and the fact that our economy has been brought to the edge of collapse. The property bubble was a product of the toxic triangle between Fianna Fáil, the banks and property developers. There was a culture, at the highest levels of society, whereby individuals sought to make extraordinary fortunes on property development, and some politicians were determined to have their share. The question for Fianna Fáil is why it took so long for anyone to act.

It is important to place the report of the tribunal in its proper historical context. The seeds of this problem date back much further than the events investigated by the Mahon tribunal. The problem in Fianna Fáil dates from the transition that took place in the early 1960s, when the revolutionary generation within that party gave way to a new leadership. History shows that in the first two ministerial offices to which he was appointed, Mr. Haughey replaced Mr. Oscar Traynor as Minister for Justice and then Mr. Patrick Smith as Minister for Agriculture. Both men were veterans of the War of Independence and Civil War. Mr. Haughey, by contrast, was the leading light of a new generation, remarkable for its association with Taca, a body devoted to raising funds for Fianna Fáil – a forerunner of the Galway tent.

It is not unknown for post-colonial societies to experience problems of corruption when the idealism of the revolutionary era begins to wane, and when governments are faced with the challenges of economic development. As a new State begins to take an active role in economic development, it is common enough to find that opportunities arise for officeholders to enrich themselves dishonesty.

It is only fair to say that, during the 1980s in particular, there were many in Fianna Fáil who opposed Mr. Haughey and sought to remove him as leader. Some even left the party as a result. It is also fair to say that many who supported Mr. Haughey did so out of genuine political motivations, particularly in respect of his views on Northern Ireland. It is all the more disappointing, then, that so little was learned when problems came to light again under Mr. Ahern.

The report of the tribunal refers to the standard of proof that it applies, which is a civil standard. Its findings are based on a balance of probability. Other bodies, including the Revenue Commissioners and the Garda, have their own well-established standards and procedures, which they will now apply. The Criminal Assets Bureau has a particular role to play since the legislation governing it requires those being investigated to demonstrate that the source of their income is legitimate, not the other way around. There is also, however, a political standard of proof; it is a higher standard, one that failed to be applied both when Ministers attacked the tribunal itself and when they continued to support Mr. Ahern as Taoiseach.

The evidence that Mr. Ahern gave to the tribunal was manifestly inadequate. It was manifestly clear that he was unable to account for substantial amounts of money that he received. His explanations were little short of bizarre. That was obvious to anyone who read or listened to his evidence. There was a widespread view during the period in question that his evidence was not believable, something which the tribunal has now confirmed. It was clear for anyone to see that he was not co-operating with a sworn inquiry established by the Oireachtas. It was also clear, or should have been clear, that this placed him in an impossible position as Taoiseach. In those circumstances, others around Mr. Ahern had a duty to act and to uphold the political standard of which I spoke. In fact, their reaction was not to deal with the problem in front of them, but to attack the tribunal itself. As late as yesterday, Mr. Ahern continued to attack it, in the knowledge that the members of the tribunal cannot debate with him in public.

The Green Party, which was in office when Mr. Ahern was Taoiseach, looked the other way. The Green Party Ministers deliberately chose to ignore what was happening at the tribunal.

I can understand those who regard this report as yet another report on top of another tribunal after another inquiry, and those who, on examining what has happened in this country over the past five years, simply remark that no one - banker, developer or politician - has gone to jail. I do not blame anyone who is utterly frustrated by the slow pace at which investigations into the banking collapse have been proceeding. I share that frustration.

It is right that public representatives distance themselves from the administration of justice and that the law be and be seen to be impartial. However, it is surely right also that public representatives can express the frustration of the public over the fact that justice delayed is justice is denied. For the past 12 months, the Government has been engaged in the task of restoring political, financial and economic stability and of bringing the Republic back from the edge of bankruptcy. There is more than one way to be bankrupt, however.

Our Republic stands not just on law and the Constitution, but on the trust and confidence that we repose in each other and in the institutions of the State. That trust has been badly damaged. However, it is not damaged beyond repair. No matter how great the temptation, despair is a luxury we cannot afford. Of those who want to write off politics and political life, I simply ask: what is the alternative? The alternative to democratic politics is to be seen in the repression, chaos and violence of places like Syria, Mali, Belarus and many other states. There is plenty of evidence in this report of individuals who betrayed the trust that was placed in them. There is also evidence of others who did everything they could to expose corruption and who are commended by the tribunal. The very fact the tribunal was set up is the result of action taken by citizens acting in the public interest.

The Government will work its way through the economic crisis. We will examine the recommendations of the tribunal and bring forward proposals for reform. We will involve the people directly in the work of a constitutional convention which will look at how the political system can be reformed and the Republic can be renewed. We will bring forward laws to make it harder for this to happen again, laws which should have been enacted in a previous era.

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has already sent the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the Garda Commissioner, as well as to the chairs of the Revenue Commissioners and the Standards in Public Office Commission, for their consideration and for whatever further investigative steps are considered appropriate. The Garda Commissioner has since referred the report to the Criminal Assets Bureau and has asked the bureau's head to lead the Garda examination of the report and any follow-up action. As the tribunal noted, it is estimated the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Revenue have between them already recovered over €51 million as a result of the work of the tribunal.

At its meeting today, the Government decided that all relevant Ministers should consider urgently the tribunal's recommendations and revert to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government as the co-ordinating Department by the end of April at the latest with proposed actions in response. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, will subsequently report back to the Government on our collective response to the tribunal's recommendations as early as possible in May.

Some of these recommendations are already in the course of implementation including legislative proposals on political funding, corruption, whistleblowers and the registration of lobbyists. In the long history of our people, each generation has been confronted by its own historic challenge. Ours is to rescue the economy, to restore hope and confidence in our country and to restore the trust that we should all have in our public institutions. It is our challenge to leave behind us a system of government - a Republic - that enjoys the respect and allegiance of all our people.

The report of the Mahon tribunal hopefully leaves behind an era of corruption that must never be repeated. It provides us with the recommendations and the guidance which will help us along the road not just to economic, but ethical recovery.

See this speech in context