Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)

I welcome much of what the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has said, particularly his proposed programme of reforms which I was pleased to hear him announce. I endorse the sentiments expressed by the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have addressed this matter already. In particular, I support the actions that have been taken by our party leader, Deputy Martin. In the introduction of its report, the tribunal referred to certain statements by Ministers during its proceedings that it believed were calculated to undermine or collapse it. Some sections of the media have attributed one such statement to me, but the tribunal did not name the individuals to whom it was referring. If the tribunal regards my statement as too flippant, harsh or disrespectful, I regret making it. However, in no way was I seeking to undermine or collapse the tribunal's work, nor was I acting in concert with my colleagues or anyone else.

My position on these matters was set out comprehensively in a speech that I gave in the Dáil on 30 January 2008. Like the many people throughout the country, including those I represent, whose taxes were paying for the tribunal, I was concerned by the length of time that it was taking and the consequent cost. I referred to Mr. Justice Flood's interim report, in which he acknowledged the need for urgency. When he formed the opinion that continued questioning would not resolve conflicts of evidence, he stated so and moved on. I dared to suggest that his successor should follow that precedent. Logically, if my criticism of the urgency with which the tribunal was proceeding undermined the tribunal, it was equally undermined by Mrs. Justice Denham in her judgment in a case arising from the Mahon tribunal on 4 July 2007. She stated: "The fact that the tribunal is still inquiring ten years later is the antithesis of an urgent public inquiry."

Former Fine Gael Minister and distinguished jurist, the late Professor John Kelly, argued in his authoritative work on the Constitution that "criticism of the Courts is permissible". That quotation can be found on page 933 of the latest edition of his seminal work. Professor Kelly quoted various legal cases and judgments in support of his proposition that, not only should people be allowed to criticise the courts, but that such criticism should be welcomed. If it is permissible to criticise the courts without undermining their authority, surely it is permissible to criticise a tribunal similarly.

If some found my criticism unacceptable, how would they regard the criticisms of various superior court judges in various cases taken during the course of the tribunal? For example, in the 2004 O'Callaghan v. Judge Alan Mahon & ors case, the High Court declared that certain procedures of the tribunal amounted to "a failure to observe and protect the applicant's rights to fair procedures and to natural and constitutional justice". What about Mr. Justice Hardiman of the Supreme Court who stated in open court that the tribunal's procedures were "extraordinarily unfair" and that there was a reasonable inference that the tribunal had "prejudged vital issues" or "suppressed" certain materials? What about his comment in the same judgment where he referred to the "profoundly flawed nature of the Tribunal's procedures and its insensitivity to the requirements of justice which that produced"? My remark, however flippant it may have been, pales into significance by comparison. I have not quoted these judgments to attack the tribunal further, but to put my remark in the context of the ponderous declarations of superior court judges and to show that, had my remark been calculated or served to undermine the tribunal, it would have been further undermined by those.

Not only did I enthusiastically support the establishment of the tribunal, I supported its efforts at all times to discover the truth about the corruption in the planning process. Several times while I had the privilege of sitting around the Cabinet table, the Government of the day received various requests from the tribunal for assistance of one type or another. I readily supported all such requests, as my then Cabinet colleagues will be aware. Nor did I act in some form of conspiracy with anybody. A few times, the Government Press Office asked if I would give a media interview concerning the workings of the tribunal. I agreed to do so when I was available. I informed no other colleague in advance of giving those interviews, nor did colleagues inform me of interviews they gave. A number of times, the media contacted me directly and I agreed to speak with them without consulting anybody. Given the fact that I went on record quite a bit concerning the tribunal, I am amazed that the national broadcaster, RTE, which has a well deserved reputation for balance and a lack of bias, could only find one statement.

Sinn Féin criticised me in the House and accused me of making an incorrect statement concerning what it called an honest and honourable man. I admit that I was incorrect and I paid a heavy price, but I dispute the claim that my statement was about an honourable and decent man. I wish to lay down a marker, in that I will take no criticism on standards from the spawn of murderers, robbers, extortionists and purveyors of every sort of crime imaginable. When Sinn Féin of all parties talks about standards, it sticks in my craw.

The report's findings are public. I accept them and urge the Government to act immediately on the report's recommendations. I was delighted when the Minister, Deputy Howlin, confirmed that this was his intention. I have no difficulty with any of the tribunal's recommendations. They should be implemented as quickly as possible. The only reservation I have is about whether the recommendations on their own will be sufficient to ensure that these practices do not recur. In this regard, it would be of considerable assistance if the various organs of State to which the Government rightly referred the report took decisive action as quickly as possible against the various people whose actions have been condemned therein.

It is difficult for somebody from outside Dublin to comprehend the full extent of the corruption in respect of rezonings and planning permissions in the Dublin area. I represent an urban area, although a much smaller one, that required a fair amount of land rezoning as the suburbs spread out from the 1970s onwards. However, there was not a hint of anything similar to that which occurred in Dublin. The former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. Gormley, instituted an investigation into planning practices in five local authorities before he left office. Whatever the dispute about the facts, the current Minister should institute an independent inquiry into the matters in question. I do not recall the then Minister's decision being discussed at Cabinet. Perhaps it occurred after I had left the Government, but there must have been at least some basis for it. In light of the type of activity revealed in the report of the Mahon tribunal, surely we should leave no stone unturned to ensure that the process in each local authority area is beyond reproach.

The Mahon report is not the only tribunal report that we have to hand. It has been more than a year since the Moriarty tribunal made a series of recommendations that have not as yet been implemented. Although Harold Wilson stated that a week could be a long time in politics, I realise that a year can be a short time in politics, particularly in the case of a new Government that has had many other issues on its mind. However, the Government has both reports to hand. I earnestly urge it to implement all of their recommendations with the greatest possible speed and to do whatever else is necessary to ensure that the integrity of the planning system is beyond reproach.

See this speech in context