Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

I appreciate that the Government and the Whips have set aside a substantial amount of time this week for this debate in that it is taking place over three days. However, at the same time it is not satisfactory or enough. We are now in the graveyard shift and many Deputies and members of the media have gone off for their tea, I presume, and there is not much interest in the debate. This should be televised because it is our Parliament. What we need after the report of the Mahon tribunal is for the political system to react and the Parliament to debate it in a considered and thorough way and then make decisions on what to do next.

We have been waiting for this report for a long time and much water has gone under the bridge, although from listening to this debate one would never think so. The report runs to thousands of pages. I read what I could of it and I have tried to digest as much as I could of what it means. However, I have not had enough time. It contains many significant findings and recommendations. We must also consider that what is at stake with the report is democracy and our political system. We do not need knee-jerk reactions or to be passive as politicians and implement the recommendations simply because they are made or, alternatively, do not do so because it is not convenient.

I read as much media coverage as I could over the weekend. One of the articles I read was by John Waters who wrote about the lack of analysis in media reports, particularly in the broadcasting media. He stated it was basically repetition of the headlines of the report. I would add to this that there was sensationalism and sweeping statements. Many people have made simplistic comments on it. I did not see any profound analysis in the media. I saw what I expected from people and nothing more.

Many people commenting say all the dogs on the street knew what was happening. I was at the coal face in the Lucan electoral area where the planning decisions on Quarryvale and other developments were taken. I was not an elected representative but we did not know. We knew decisions were being made and we tried to stop them as best we could but we did not know money was changing hands and we did not know about what has come out in the report. Why did the people who say everyone knew not say it at the time? If everyone did know why was it not in our news media? Why was it not being reported?

Much of what happened did not start between 1989 and 1991, the years with which the tribunal report begins. What happened in the Lucan area started when the former Deputy, Liam Lawlor, who has since passed away, tried to have his own land rezoned, I believe in 1981. This was an extremely questionable and controversial decision, so much so that the then Taoiseach, Charlie Haughey, had it overturned. Many other bad decisions were made. Decisions were not taken in the interests of the community or with its wishes.

There is not enough commentary. Perhaps it is because politicians are on the defensive but this is not the full picture. Corruption is not endemic in political life. Most people going into politics are honest. This is my fundamental profound way of thinking about politics. People take easy swipes at politicians because they think they can. We must defend the political system. There were councillors who did not get involved in this. Many people campaigning against the rezoning ran for election and my father was one of them. He lost out to John O'Halloran in the 1991 local elections. Community groups were established to fight against the rezonings. I knew and worked with many of them who have since passed away. They were constantly vigilant against attempts to rezone lands which had been protected and they achieved some victories. While the local communities were victims they were not passive victims. People got organised and Lucan Planning Council was established to fight attempts to rezone lands, for example at Liffey Valley.

Members of the electorate reacted because they stopped voting for Fianna Fáil in the numbers they had been in local elections. There has not been a Fianna Fáil councillor based in Lucan since the 1999 local elections and a Fianna Fáil representative was not elected in the ward in the past two local elections. This is largely because of the bad planning decisions. Much good work has been done since then. Communities adapt and they are resilient. There is much community effort in places such as Quarryvale and Lucan and I am sure it is the same in other communities. People adapt, they must live with the fact that Liffey Valley exists and they make the best of it.

When I was a councillor we dealt with the Adamstown strategic planning zone. It was adopted by the council to try to prevent what had happened before. It involved proper planning whereby developers had to provide facilities in tandem with developments. It has only approximately 1,000 houses but there are three primary schools, an outstanding second level school and a train station. The developers were made to provide all of these thanks to the work of councillors. This is to make the point that there is a far more complex picture then is being painted by many people who churn out their columns and who make soundbites in reaction to all of this.

A new Government was elected in 1992 and many measures were introduced which have made a difference in politics, including the Freedom of Information Act, legislation on disclosures, political donations and political expenditure. In the history of South Dublin County Council, which was established in the mid-1990s, a section 4 was never proposed or passed because of the stigma attached to it and its bad reputation. The voters did not want this type of thing any more and the councillors ensured that it did not happen. I do not suggest it is perfect, but like the rest of life politics is complex with good and bad people who do good and bad things. We must realise this is the case and we should not throw out the baby of democracy with the bath water of what has happened.

I examined the recommendations as best I could, in particular with regard to planning because this is what it is all about. I agree on the need for more checks and balances and transparency. Some work has been done on this but there is no question that more needs to be done. We need to give more democracy to local government. We need more participation by the public in decisions taken. We should not let the elitists who now say, "I told you so" rule the day and have democracy at local level emasculated. We do not want this.

While I agree with some of the report's recommendations, as a democrat I fundamentally disagree with others. Paragraph 1.14 of chapter 18 of the report states the ability of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to give directions to regional and local authorities should be entrusted to a planning regulator. I have a profound problem with this. John Gormley, as a member of the previous Government, changed the system from where the Minister could give direction on a development plan if he was not satisfied it conformed to strategic policy to the Minister being able to make a development plan for councillors. Democracy could be bypassed with the decision being made at the top. The tribunal states planning powers have been too centralised, but it proposes the same powers be handed over to a regulator. This assumes that just because someone is unelected he or she is less likely to be corrupt, but this is not borne out by what has happened throughout our history in many respects and in many institutions. There is no guarantee that just because someone is not elected he or she will not be corrupt.

There is an idea that a Minister or a regulator at the centre can make decisions for what goes on in local communities. Local communities have something to say about what plans are made for their areas. The way this was done was through their local representatives.

See this speech in context