Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I had the honour of being elected to this House in 1987. Throughout my time here, the spectre of corruption has hung over political life. While endemic to the system, it has not been endemic to all parties. The role played by Labour Party and other councillors during this period in opposing the prostitution of the planning process in county Dublin in particular has not been afforded ample recognition. A price was paid for that opposition. Opposition to the planning process was often successfully portrayed as opposition to development and the sting was considerable. The mantra was often, "Support us and our plans or oppose the economic well-being of your constituents". At a time when there is rightly considerable cynicism about politics, the consistent and honourable approach of some is worthy of mention. I am proud to be now standing by one of those people, Deputy Joan Burton. As the Tánaiste indicated last night while corruption may have infected all levels of political life, it did not affect all parties. This is primarily a Fianna Fáil problem. Like Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, I am disappointed with Deputy Martin's response last night. Finger pointing and "What About You" are no response to the crisis his party is rightfully facing. To be honest, I expected more.

I want to concentrate on how we can address some of the issues this report gives rise to, issues that must be addressed if we are to restore some trust in politics. This is not the first time my party has led a response to the misdoings of others. In the aftermath of the beef tribunal we led the political charge on ethics legislation and controls on electoral spending. Those reforms are noted by the Mahon tribunal. Now in the areas of whistleblowing, freedom of information, ethics and the regulation of lobbyists we need to go further.

The original legislation under which tribunals of inquiry operate - the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 - predates the establishment of the State. As noted by the 2005 Law Reform Commission report on public inquiries, the tribunal of inquiry legislation was in fact put in place originally to investigate allegations of political corruption. In the early years of the State the tribunals of inquiry mechanism was utilised to inquire into a broad diversity of policy issues, as well as quasi-criminal matters. The process was also used in the aftermath of what might be termed "disaster". As the final decade of the last century unfolded, however, tribunals of inquiry increasingly became and now remain synonymous in the public mind and in popular culture with the purpose for which the legislation was initially passed, namely to inquire into allegations of political corruption. It is a matter of the most profound political regret and most serious public concern that following the publication of this recent report we find ourselves marking in this House yet another milestone in a litany of tribunal reports - the beef tribunal, McCracken, Moriarty and now Mahon.

Despite the voluminous information provided in the final report of the Mahon tribunal, analysed in forensic detail over 2,730 pages, the second paragraph of the first page of the introductory section of the report provides us with one stark overriding conclusion, widely-reported and almost chilling in its brevity: "Throughout the period examined by the tribunal up to the late 1990s, corruption in Irish political life was both endemic and systemic". The findings of the Mahon tribunal, following from those tribunals which preceded it, inevitably raises some far-reaching and searching questions for the political system in the first instance, but also for its administrative, regulatory, law enforcement and judicial systems, as well as for the Fourth Estate, the media, and indeed for society more generally. We cannot expect to find facile answers to what are in certain instances deep-seated and entrenched problems. Neither can we afford when faced with some uncomfortable and unpalatable truths to allow ourselves lapse into passivity or a sense of perceived powerlessness. Rather the findings of this report must provide further impetus and momentum to the delivery of key elements of the Government's existing political reform programme which in several important respects echo some of the major recommendations of the tribunal.

The report should also encourage us, as already is evidenced by the Government's response to it, to review the case for deepening and intensifying various reform commitments contained in the programme for Government that can help deal decisively and definitively with some of the legislative gaps and regulatory weaknesses that permitted the abuses and serious malfeasance disclosed by the tribunal of inquiry to flourish. It is equally important we adopt an entirely objective, balanced and clear-sighted perspective on the findings of the report. It is striking and highly significant that in the opening page of the final report, directly following the over-arching conclusion to which I have already referred, the tribunal also stresses the majority of public officials perform their functions with the utmost integrity. This is an important point to be acknowledged.

There can, of course, be no doubt whatsoever that the findings of this report have done significant damage to the reputation of and public trust in the political system. However, in vigorously condemning the corruption, abuse of office and significant ethical lapses disclosed in the tribunal's report and in taking all necessary and appropriate steps to prevent their recurrence, it is imperative that we do not fall victim to pessimism and despondency regarding ethical standards in the public service and among holders of public office which is properly characterised in the tribunal's report as the mistaken assumption that, to quote the report, "everyone is doing it". I believe the enduring threat to public confidence in the legitimacy, basic decency and integrity of our political and administrative system resides not in the findings of this report, as serious as they are relating to specific instances of corrupt behaviour and unreliable and unbelievable testimony. Rather, it lies in what seems sometimes, almost routinely, to be accepted as a conventional wisdom denying there is a clear and navigable way forward in fixing what has been demonstrably wrong. It can also be manifested, dispiritingly, in strident declarations that we have heard from some that the State is morally bankrupt and its political culture rotten.

Such sentiments are to a certain extent understandable in the immediate aftermath of a tribunal report whose findings were so damning in particular respects. They are also often borne out of a deep frustration and pronounced fatigue regarding the slow pace of political reform, particularly evident over the past decade following a period of significant political reforms including, for example, the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation in 1997, the Electoral Act in 1997 and the Ethics Acts of 1995, all under the last Labour Government.

Ultimately, the final report of the tribunal itself stated: "Those who believe that those in the public sphere are corrupt do a great disservice to these individuals. In addition, they may inadvertently contribute to corruption by both dissuading those of high integrity from entering public office". Some of the main initiatives which I am actively progressing in my Department include the introduction of whistleblowing legislation, the regulation of lobbyists, the restoration and extension of freedom of information and the examination of how accountability requirements for the Civil Service can be strengthened. I will bring greater detail of these to the various committees involved in introducing them. This is a comprehensive programme and one to which my Department is totally committed. Some may use this report to fuel further opposition to politics and the political process. Phrases like "they are all at it" have been music to the ears of wrongdoers over the years. However, we in political life would do well to reflect on why such frustration abounds amongst the public. Ultimately, it is because it is perceived there is insufficient accounting for wrongdoing.

It is not simply about this report or previous reports about political issues. There has been no adequate accounting for the crisis that has impoverished the State and its people. Not only have those responsible not been punished, if that is appropriate, they have not even been stood up and asked to explain themselves.

The line between the Executive and those that prosecute offences is clear and understood. Nonetheless, the public has a right to expect the State ensures wrongdoing, by whomsoever, carries consequences and penalties.

See this speech in context