Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin has tabled this motion, as others note, because we believe the appointment of an independent planning regulator is a matter of urgency and one that can be dealt with within a short time. It is regrettable that despite a Government commitment to appoint an independent planning regulator, the Government's proposed scheme for a new planning Bill does not allow for the establishment of such an office. They question is why that is so. The planning Bill that the Government now proposes to introduce will establish an office that is subject to the overall rule and veto of a Minister. The Government's amendment to our motion states that it is in a process of creating an independent regulator's office but the problem is that the proposed new planning Bill does not allow for the appointment of an independent regulator. The Irish Planning Institute has stated that with the Government's Bill the final say in planning matters will still reside in the office of the Minister responsible for the environment, not with the new regulator's office. The new regulator instead will act as an adviser to the Minister. Our proposal for an independent regulator answerable to the Oireachtas and appointed by an independent appointments board is clearly necessary.

The Mahon tribunal that has been mentioned, which investigated planning regulation decisions in Dublin, detailed a large web of corruption throughout the 1980s and 1990s. According to some, it cost the taxpayer €250 million with a former Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell, saying it would cost €1 billion. The Revenue Commissioners recovered up to €100 million of that money in undeclared taxes and so on. Three people were imprisoned, including one for corrupt practices and bribing politicians. Another was imprisoned for contempt of court. As we know, one of the modules examined the behaviour of a former Taoiseach. As has been mentioned, one third of Dublin City Council members were implicated as corrupt in the tribunal with respect to land rezoning and development issues.

We also know the tribunal was obstructed at every turn - there were approximately 400 court applications by developers and other individuals - and we can see that its recommendations are not being enforced. The last Government fell because of the perception of the electorate that there was an unhealthy relationship between politicians, wealthy businessmen, speculators and developers. The Mahon tribunal was described tonight by some Government speakers as a new departure but the promised new approach has not happened. The golden circle link between bankers, developers and politicians is still alive and well. The view has been peddled that corruption happens all over the world but it did not happen in Ireland. We know that is nonsense.

By not supporting this motion, the Government is refusing to abide by a key recommendation of Mr. Justice Mahon on creating an office for an independent regulator. The structure that the Government wants to create is clearly not as Mr. Justice Mahon intended, which would have brought about an independent entity with the power to make binding recommendations. We have seen much corruption in land planning in this country, specifically centred on the acquisition of lands and rezonings. Corrupt dealings on land regulations between politicians and developers brought them tens of millions of euro in benefits at the expense of the taxpayer and public services. It is clear that we need to properly investigate the significant legacy issues regarding planning. Additionally, we need to establish an independent planning regulator, with similar powers to the Ombudsman. It is regrettable that the Government is not acting to support increased accountability and transparency in planning matters in supporting this motion.

It will also be interesting to see how the electorate responds to those politicians who were seen as corrupt and who took corrupt payments if they stand in the next election. Hopefully, they will get the response they deserve.

See this speech in context