Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate in the House this evening on the analysis, findings and recommendations of the fifth and final report of the Mahon tribunal. However, it gives me no pleasure to have before us a report with findings of the kind we have all been digesting over the last few days.

It is important that the Dáil, as the primary democratically elected forum in the State, provides the necessary time to consider a report of such profound significance for the fundamentals of politics and public life in Ireland. It is for that reason the Government was determined to ensure that this week's normal Dáil business time would be devoted to a debate on the report, ensuring that Members from all sides have the opportunity to have their initial reactions to the report placed on the record of the House.

The publication of the report last week has brought to finality a process that began in November 1997, when the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments was established in response to serious public concern in respect of allegations of corruption relating to the planning process, in particular insofar as this related to the Dublin area. In the intervening years, the tribunal has held over 900 public sitting days, has called over 400 witnesses to appear before it, and has gathered more than 60,000 pages of evidence and 76,000 pages of correspondence.

The final report has been a long time coming - perhaps far longer and at greater cost than anyone would have imagined or expected at the outset. Nevertheless, if there were any doubts as to the value and importance of the tribunal's work, those doubts were comprehensively countered last Thursday. For that reason, I wish to pay tribute to judges Fergus Flood, Alan Mahon, Mary Faherty and Gerald Keys for presiding over many years of hearings and investigations and presenting the comprehensive final report we now have before us.

I refer to some of the main findings of the tribunal. The final report is voluminous, running to more than 3,250 pages, and it will take some time to fully digest its findings and recommendations. However, the summary findings and recommendations - in Chapters 17 and 18, in particular - tell us that last Thursday was a dark day, not only for those individuals on whom its findings reflect so poorly, but also for a system that failed to prevent, detect or respond adequately to what the report describes as:

Corruption in Irish political life [which] was both endemic and systemic [and which] affected every level of Government from some holders of top ministerial offices to some local councillors and its existence was widely known and widely tolerated.

The tribunal meticulously and methodically carried out its work over the course of the last 15 years. As the report states:

Tribunals must possess both political and financial independence and enjoy public trust and confidence. Attempts to illegitimately undermine that independence or erode that trust and confidence are nothing less than attempts to undermine the inquiry being undertaken by the relevant Tribunal, and in so doing frustrate the will of the Oireachtas.

Perhaps one of the most serious aspects of the inquiry is the fact that the judges have stated in their report that they came under "sustained and virulent attacks" from senior Ministers of the last Government at a critical stage of their investigations, and that this overt interference questioned, inter alia, the legality of its inquiries, as well as the integrity of its members.

The report's findings merit full consideration by all the relevant organs of the State. In that context, following initial consideration of the report over the course of the day of its publication, I considered it essential to bring it to the immediate attention of the relevant authorities. On Thursday evening last, therefore, I wrote to the Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the chair of the Revenue Commissioners, and the chairman of the Standards in Public Office Commission. In doing so, my purpose was to refer the report to them for their consideration and for such investigation or further steps as they may consider appropriate, given the content of the report and the issues of public importance it raises. It will, of course, be a matter solely and exclusively for these various organs of State to decide on what action, if any, to take on foot of the report. I have full confidence they will arrange for the report to be considered carefully. I understand that the Garda Commissioner has already referred the report to the Criminal Assets Bureau for urgent attention and a co-ordinated response across the Garda organisation.

In addition to the grave findings of fact, the report also sets out a series of policy recommendations for consideration to help ensure that similar situations do not arise again in the future. These 64 recommendations relate to a range of policy areas, including planning, conflicts of interest, political finance and lobbying, bribery, corruption in office, money laundering, the misuse of confidential information and asset recovery and confiscation. Although it is not possible for me or my Government colleagues to respond in a comprehensive or definitive fashion to the 64 recommendations at this early stage, I can assure the House that the report is already being given full and urgent consideration without delay. This morning the report was the subject of an initial consideration by the Cabinet on foot of which all relevant Ministers have been asked to consider as a matter of urgency the report's recommendations that fall within their respective remits. This initial consideration is to be completed by the end of April so that the Government can collectively come back to the issue again in May, with a view to considering how best to respond to the tribunal's recommendations.

Without pre-empting the analysis my Government colleagues and I will be undertaking, a preliminary examination of the 64 recommendations suggests that some at least are already being addressed through, for example, reforms of the tribunals of inquiry legislation and new legislative proposals in regard to political funding, corruption, whistleblowers and the registration of lobbyists. The progress which this Government has made in these areas in its first year in office, in advance of last week's publication of the tribunal's final report, demonstrates our seriousness about reform and our determination to minimise a repetition of some of the occurrences on which the tribunal has made findings.

I leave it to my ministerial colleagues to elaborate on their specific areas of responsibility referred to in the tribunal recommendations as part of their contributions to this debate. For my part, I wish to outline some of the major reforms I am already progressing which should help to minimise the scope for a recurrence of the behaviour and practices that are brought to light in the tribunal report.

On the matter of political donations, as Deputies will be aware, I am currently leading the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Donations) Bill 2011 through the House, and am pleased to note that a number of specific recommendations of the tribunal are already being addressed in that legislation. Under the Bill, the books of political parties will be opened up to public scrutiny. I am proposing that the maximum amount that can be accepted as a political donation will be more than halved. I also want to see greater openness, with significant reductions in the thresholds for the public declaration of political donations. Other measures in the Bill provide for greater transparency by both donors and those in receipt of political donations.

Building on the relevant commitments in the programme for Government, this Bill goes further than any previous legislation in asserting the right of the people to know how their political system and political parties are funded. The Bill is informed by an understanding that excessive and secretive corporate funding of politics is corrosive to democracy and to public trust in politics. Therefore, the Bill aims to see the development of a system of political funding based on a large number of small donations from citizens rather than a small number of large donations from corporate bodies. As part of the analysis now underway, my Department is reviewing the report's recommendations in regard to electoral matters with a view to facilitating early Government consideration of the need to bring forward amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage, where appropriate.

Another issue that has come under close scrutiny in the tribunal report is the ethics framework. My colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, who has previously highlighted the importance of ensuring that the legislative framework in respect of ethics is robust, modernised and relevant in today's world, will now examine both this tribunal's report and that of the Moriarty tribunal within the Government's overall political reform agenda. Within my own area of responsibility, the ethical performance of both elected Members and officials in local authorities is a key consideration. The Local Government Act 2001 introduced a comprehensive ethics framework for all those involved in the local government service. This framework imposed a duty on all to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest. A national code of conduct for Members issued in 2004 and a similar code applies to staff. The aim of these codes is to set out the standards and principles of conduct and integrity for local authority employees and councillors, to inform the public of the conduct it is entitled to expect and to uphold public confidence.

I will examine the tribunal report's recommendations closely in the context of the existing ethics framework to ensure that we take whatever further steps are necessary to restore and underpin confidence and transparency in the local government system, to ensure that the highest standards are adhered to, and to provide protection to the vast majority of Members and staff who behave with probity and integrity. Planning is clearly an issue that pervades the tribunal's work and analysis and I welcome the systemic transformation of the planning system in recent years that has, albeit belatedly, shifted from being developer-led to a more evidence-based and vertically integrated system. This reforming work is continuing and I will leave it to my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, to outline the changes already made and those that are planned. One can never eliminate the possibility of corruption in any system because, ultimately, a degree of trust must be placed in persons who operate those systems. This applies to the planning system as much as to any other. What one can control are the checks and balances, including public transparency in decision-making, to ensure any inappropriate actions or influence brought to bear on decisions can be identified and addressed. With my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, I am determined to make it a policy priority of my Department that the planning system continues to evolve into a more evidence-based regime so the scope for incorrect zoning decisions is eliminated as far as possible.

Ill-informed commentators have claimed local authority inquiries were stopped by me, a claim repeated by the leader of Fianna Fáil and the leader of Sinn Féin. It is shameful and lazy of people not to research the topic better because that is not the case.

See this speech in context