Dáil debates

Wednesday, 22 March 2006

Private Members' Business.

Political Donations and Planning: Motion (Resumed).

6:00 pm

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before the commencement of Private Members' business, I again remind members that the subject matter of the motion relates in part to a sitting tribunal of inquiry established by the Houses under the relevant Acts. As Members are aware, the Chair has ruled on a number of occasions that issues currently before a tribunal are not a matter for the Dáil. The Dáil must not attempt to have a parallel tribunal on these matters. While the motion has broad policy implications which are clearly in order for debate, reference to direct evidence before a tribunal by named or identifiable individuals who have not been convicted of any offence should not be made. There is an onus on Members to ensure their contributions are not in breach of Standing Order No. 56 which states:

[A] matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner so that it appears to be an attempt by the Oireachtas to encroach on the functions of the Courts or a Judicial Tribunal[.]

I ask Members to bear this in mind when making their contributions.

The following motion was moved by Deputy Sargent on Tuesday, 20 March 2006:

That Dáil Éireann, in view of the on-going and damning admissions that senior politicians have received payments, which can only have been made to promote certain vested interests at the expense of the common interest of the Irish people, their families and communities:

—condemns those parties that have failed to discipline their members for their collective amnesia with regard to moneys received from developers and their agents at the time of wide-scale rezonings by local authorities;

—deplores the culture of alleged corrupt planning and rezoning that has resulted in urban sprawl, where schools, playgrounds, local jobs and public transport were not provided in tandem with housing;

—regrets the Government's continual and overwhelming support for the interests of private developers over the public interest, which has resulted in its failure to provide a suitable mix of social and affordable homes; and

—condemns the poor transport planning which in combination with questionable rezoning led to a doubling of the average commuting distance between 1991 and 2002, resulting in a significant deterioration in people's quality of life; calls on the all parties to:

—decline funding from developers, as the mere acceptance of such moneys may be constructed as having an undue influence on development decisions;

—put in place measures to ensure that the majority of the increase of value in rezoned land shall accrue to the State and endorse the recommendation of the Kenny report of 1974 that would allow local authorities to purchase land for housing at the existing use value plus 25%; and

—create properly planned communities that are well-designed, that contain a variety of housing types and tenures, with mixed-use developments, and that are well-linked by sustainable transport links.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"having established and resourced the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments:

—notes the four interim reports of the Tribunal and awaits the findings of the Tribunal on matters currently under examination in public hearings, as well as any overarching recommendations for legislative amendment;

—notes the comprehensive ethics framework applicable to local government councillors and employees under the Local Government Act 2001, supported by separate Codes of Conduct issued under the Act in 2004;

—notes the importance attached by this Government to probity in public office generally, as reflected in the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001 and the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004;

—notes the detailed controls in relation to political donations and election spending enacted in the Electoral (Amendment) Act 1998, the Local Elections (Disclosure of Donations and Expenditure) Act 1999, and the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001;

—notes the increased transparency of the planning system under the Planning and Development Act 2000;

—commends the Government's commitment to implementing the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) as the strategic national planning framework for achieving more balanced regional development, in the context of Ireland's rapidly changing economic and social circumstances, including population growth which will see the population increasing to around 5 million people by 2020;

—notes that the NSS is having an increasing influence on policies and programmes across a range of Government Departments and agencies, underscored by the Government's decision in July 2005 that the regional dimension of the next National Development Plan, now in preparation, will be broadly based on the NSS;

—notes that at regional level, a key policy bridge between national development priorities and local planning has been put in place with the adoption of Regional Planning Guidelines in each region to provide a strategic framework for local authority development plans and local area plans;

—notes that the priorities of the NSS and regional planning guidelines have been recognised in the Government's 10-year investment plan for transport, Transport 21;

—notes the success of Government policy in expanding the range of housing supports and facilitating record housing output in the face of unprecedented demand;

—notes the requirement upon planning authorities to prepare housing strategies providing for a mixture of house types and sizes to meet the needs of all categories of households, including provision of Part V social and affordable housing, and to zone adequate land to meet these projected housing needs;

—welcomes the record levels of funding being provided for social and affordable programmes, under which, for instance, 23,000 units of social housing will be commenced in 2006-2008;

—endorses the Government's new Housing Policy Framework' Building Sustainable Communities', under which active land management strategies are being put in place to support an expanded programme of social housing delivery in mixed community settings; and

—notes the broad range of measures under which an element of the increased value of zoned and serviced land may be recovered, including, development levies, Part V provision of social and affordable housing or its equivalent value, capital gains tax and the Government's readiness, if necessary, to pursue other options in this regard."

—(Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government).

Photo of Barry AndrewsBarry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is unfortunate that the Green Party did not deem it fit to be present for its own Private Members' business. The Deputy has just arrived and I apologise. I am glad there is someone here.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a week for apologies.

Photo of Barry AndrewsBarry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not that kind of apology; it is just courtesy.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is one of those people.

Photo of Barry AndrewsBarry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I read with interest Deputy Sargent's article on what he proposes to do after the next general election. It was a dance of the seven veils in which he courted the different types of coalition before deciding which way he would go. I loved his choice of words. He said it would be very difficult for the Green Party to go into Government with Fianna Fáil. If we were to say that it would be very difficult to go into Government with Sinn Féin, we would be pilloried and rightly so. The Deputy then beautifully rolled out of the situation and said that it would be up to the membership of the organisation to decide what the party would do. That is great leadership on the part of Deputy Sargent. The Green Party has only recently come to grips with the concept of leadership, so it is not at all surprising that he would distance himself from that decision. It makes one wonder what he and his party are thinking.

Deputy Sargent stated that he is inclined to prefer a Fine Gael led Government to a Fianna Fáil one on the basis that there is a need for a change of Government. That is arguable and I would not agree with it. He stated that there is a tradition of corruption within Fianna Fáil. Garret FitzGerald has said that since the 1960s, less than 1% of national politicians were corrupt. Mr. FitzGerald is respected on both sides of the House and if his assessment is correct, then it rubbishes what Deputy Sargent suggested in his article. In the mid-1990s, John Bruton called in his city councillors to tell them that they were a laughing stock because of what they were doing regarding rezoning. I do not condone what happened among Fianna Fáil councillors, but why do Green Party members think that Fianna Fáil is so much worse when they consider the facts that have emerged from the tribunal? It is the typical attitude of a party that is not prepared to lead. It is an example of the cloudy thinking that has deflected attention from the serious issues that have been raised in this debate.

This debate is about corruption, which is the use of a public position for private gain. If a politician decided to agree with the residents' association in the hope that they might all vote for him, would that constitute selling a public role for private gain, that is, for electoral dividend?

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What if they gave him €2,000 for it?

Photo of Barry AndrewsBarry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For their own private interests, the Green Party Deputies are using their position in the hope that they will benefit at the next general election. We all do it and let us be honest about it. Therefore, they should not get up on their high horse about corruption. We need to remove the opportunities that exist and three things have been done to achieve this. First, the inquiry had to be set up and that has been done. Second, the defamation laws had to be reformed and that has been done. People were blowing the whistle in the early 1990s and they were intimidated off the pitch by the threat of legal action. Third, a raft of electoral reforms were put in place.

We must be constantly vigilant. We must be clear that we condemn all corrupt planning practices. My party has been in power and opportunities have arisen as a result of that. Therefore, we must be clear that we will not tolerate such corruption. The defamation laws represent the next step in moving Ireland away from its sad history of corruption, especially in Dublin. There is too much of a burden of proof on the person who is alleged to have defamed another person. The law is too restrictive and it needs to be changed. There is no sense in what the Green Party is suggesting and it is unusual that it has turned down the opportunity to introduce a Private Members' Bill as it has done proudly done in the past. I support the Government amendment.

Mae Sexton (Longford-Roscommon, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss planning matters and the actions that are now in place to remove the suspicion in the public mind about political favours. It is very important that all democrats do so and demonstrate their determination to see even the slightest hint of corruption removed. It is in the interests of all politicians to give that reassurance to the public.

This Government has played an important role in taking steps to fix real and perceived problems. The Progressive Democrats Party is proud of the role it has played in tackling administrative corruption. While most of the holes identified have been plugged, others will emerge in the future. I am confident that the Government will continue to ensure that anything that emerges will be tackled immediately. We have established and resourced the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments. We delivered the Standards in Public Office Act 2001, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001 and the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. We have ensured that there are extensive and detailed controls on political donations and election spending and we have enacted two Electoral (Amendment) Acts and a Local Elections Act. Specifically, we have worked to increase the transparency under the Planning and Development Act 2000 as the lack of transparency over decades led to understandable public outrage. The Progressive Democrats Party remains committed to investigations into what happened in the past and actions to prevent them in the future. It is impossible to legislate for personal honesty, integrity and decency, as that is in the domain of the individual.

I listened to last night's contribution and noticed a great willingness to make broad spectrum accusations. I do not intend to contribute to that type of debate tonight and make allegations against any party nor defend any party as a group. I am here to illustrate the role of the Progressive Democrats, and our parliamentary party in particular, first in representing the interests of citizens and no one else in voting and policy decisions, and second in driving out corrupt practices from all political processes and reassuring the public that it can expect the highest standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest.

Regrettably, attempts were made in the House last night, in particular by the Green Party, to tarnish the reputation of the Progressive Democrats by referring to the Tánaiste and reading newspaper articles into the Dáil record. I refer Members to her contribution at the tribunal last month, an appearance that turned out, despite all the hyperbole, to be a non-event. Our time would be better spent in reassuring the public that the political system is capable of preventing corruption where it has been identified and where it is possible to do so, rooting it out and ensuring that it does not recur, rather than in political point-scoring, pre-empting the findings of a tribunal that the Oireachtas itself established.

Members must remember the job we gave the tribunal. It is only right that it hold its meetings in public. It will prepare its final report, which will be presented to the Oireachtas for it to make decisions. The tribunal has been mandated to make recommendations, and the Progressive Democrats Party is determined that they be acted on. It is taking time to do so, perhaps longer than any of us might have anticipated. We were all aware of the intricacies when the tribunal process was established, and we cannot now criticise its work or complain at the time that it is taking to collate the information.

In any event, the Government has not been idle in anticipation of the tribunal report. I have already referred to the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002. The Progressive Democrats has committed itself to the introduction of increased public scrutiny and consultation. The public justifiably expects planning permission and zoning decisions to be based on what is best, most sustainable and appropriate. Given the rate of growth in the population, employment and prosperity resulting in those developments, we must provide a proper planning system that is independent, designed to be fair and impartial, and open to scrutiny.

The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002 increases political oversight of the system and extends the rules on ethics for planning authority staff. The dilution of public confidence in the planning system resulted from a lack of integrity, proper conduct and concern for the public interest among councillors and employees working either individually or together. The Act now makes it a matter of duty for councillors and employees to ensure they reach the highest standards. We now have an annual declaration of wide ranges of interests, the disclosure of interests in matters before authorities, and public registration, all measures with teeth. Failure to comply is an offence, and the penalties are rightly set high enough to act as a deterrent.

I do not blame the public for its frustration, anger and concern. We share its concerns, along with many other Members. We have acted to root out the causes rather than to exacerbate that worry and frustration through broad-stroke criticism of the kind the Opposition attempted last night. The public does not want that but to see that steps are being taken to sort matters out. The Opposition implies that the system is corrupt and inefficient in its entirety when, although no doubt with its faults, by international standards it is open, transparent and effective.

The vast majority from all political parties have no involvement in corruption. Nonetheless, the Progressive Democrats is strong in its determination to sort out whatever problems exist at whatever level. Our rapid and extensive economic success and changing population have generated unprecedented demand for homes. We must provide a system that delivers what is needed in a way that attracts the public's confidence. That is our job in this House, and I assure Members that the Progressive Democrats intend taking that matter seriously.

Photo of Noel O'FlynnNoel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I recall saying in my maiden speech nine years ago that we were being unfair to Ray Burke. That has come back to haunt me, but I state on the record that I was proven wrong. It shows what immense benefit the tribunals have been to the Oireachtas in recent years. I also believe, like my colleagues, that this motion is aimed purely at grabbing headlines. It does not refer to far-reaching reforms and legislative initiatives undertaken by the Government and pays no regard to the ongoing and thorough work of the tribunals established by the Oireachtas.

The truth is that where issues have arisen regarding office-holders, we have shown that the highest ethical standards are expected. Office-holders must at all times observe the highest standards of behaviour and act in good faith to promote the common good. The motion seeks to tar all elected representatives with the same brush. The natural assumption of wrongdoing is both offensive and unjust. The vast majority of elected politicians in this State act with integrity, doing their level best to represent their constituents without fear or favour. Other countries now approach us seeking information on how our systems of accountability work.

This Government has initiated the most far-reaching inquiries in the history of the State. We have not only prescribed higher standards but provided for serious punitive consequences. The Green Party does not seem to be aware of the ironic nature of its motion. I am surprised, since I get on reasonably well with Deputy Eamon Ryan; I do not know whether he drafted it. The Greens seem oblivious to the cost that they and their supporters impose on the taxpayer through boycotting infrastructural projects around the country such as those in the Glen of the Downs and Carrickmines. Now they show fervent opposition to the M3. It does not seem to matter to them that this vital infrastructure is important to our growing and prosperous economy or that building roads will have a massive impact on the quality of life of those living in the area.

The rules of the Planning and Development Act 2000 were extended, something to which other Members have referred, to cover the ethics of planning authority staff. That introduced more opportunities for public consultation and scrutiny of zoning decisions and the granting of individual planning permission. It increased political oversight of the system of development contributions. In addition, the Department has been intervening more proactively in planning policy advice and issued guidelines on such matters as increasing residential densities, mobile telephone masts, child care facilities and quarries. Their purpose on specific subjects is to assist local authorities in carrying out their planning functions and give all those involved in the planning system up-to-date guidance on best practice.

There is a requirement in the 2001 Act regarding the ethics framework for local government employees and councillors. The Act's founding principle is that it is the duty of every councillor and employee to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest. The framework is based on three basic requirements, the first being an annual declaration of a wide range of interests, the second disclosure of beneficial interests in matters coming before the authority, and the third a public register of those interests. There is also a requirement to disclose an interest in any matter that arises in a local authority's performance of its functions in which a councillor, employee or connected person has an interest. Failure to comply with the key requirements of the legislation is an offence, and the penalties concerned have been set at a high level to achieve a clear deterrent effect.

As the final element in that comprehensive ethics framework for local government, separate national codes of conduct for local authority employees and councillors were published under the Act in 2004. Their purpose was to set out standards and principles of conduct and integrity and to inform the public of the conduct. One is entitled to expect them to enhance public trust and confidence in the local government system. In Government, we have established nine tribunals, which I will not list owing to time constraints. We are determined to find the truth, wherever and whatever it is.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is up a tree.

Photo of Noel O'FlynnNoel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are determined to deal with every issue from every tribunal. The Government is committed to restoring confidence in public life. We believe that politics is about serving others. Elected office is the highest honour any citizen can achieve. The Government's legislative programme is the continuation of a well-entrenched process of modernisation and openness in Government. The legislative initiatives include the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act 2005 which provides for further provision in respect of the recovery and disposal of the proceeds of crime. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 provides for the establishment of an independent Garda ombudsman commission and inspectorate. Political donations must be channelled into a special account and it will be an offence not to so do. Donations are capped and audited. The Standards in Public Office Commission will investigate breaches. The code of conduct for office holders, which was published by the Standards in Public Office Commission has applied since 3 July 2003. The Local Government Act 2001 updated the declaration of disclosure regime for councillors and relevant staff and was introduced on 1 January 2003. The code of conduct for councillors and the code of conduct for employees of local government was introduced in June 2004 under the Local Government Act 2001. The Civil Service code of standards and behaviour became effective from 9 September 2004.

Last night, Deputy Boyle, who is not present in the Chamber, made some comments in the House on fundraising. All parties engage in fundraising. The alternative is State funding of all political parties.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All parties receive State funding.

Photo of Noel O'FlynnNoel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This would——

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Corporate donations are not needed.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy, without interruption please. Deputy Eamon Ryan will have his opportunity to speak.

Photo of Noel O'FlynnNoel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This would impose a huge financial burden on the public finances. I do not believe the public would be happy with that position.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The public is funding the parties with a lot of money.

Photo of Noel O'FlynnNoel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Opposition and the Green Party do not mention the legitimate and legal fundraising that occurs across the political spectrum.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some of it is illegitimate.

Photo of Noel O'FlynnNoel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Green Party is actively engaged in such endeavours itself. On 8 November 2004, Deputy Gormley told The Irish Times that "serious fundraising methods must be found. We are looking at appointing a fundraiser, or out-sourcing it". I also look forward to hearing Labour's views and plans for proposed fundraising and to debating that issue in the House in the future.

If Members are serious about fundraising and if they want the public to fund them, that can be done.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Photo of Noel O'FlynnNoel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, all political parties engage in fundraising. In that sense, it is legitimate.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Government's amendment to this motion, having listened to the debate last night. My colleague, Deputy O'Flynn, commented that in his maiden speech, he made a reference to Ray Burke which he subsequently came to regret. In my maiden speech, some five years later, I also had reason to speak regarding former Deputy Burke. I did so from a position of personal knowledge of the man and of local knowledge of the activities in County Dublin at the time. I believe that one of the positive effects of the difficulties which have arisen for politicians in recent years is a real determination on the part of the vast majority of politicians of all colours to rid our profession of the possibility of a repetition of what happened in County Dublin. While it probably also took place in other areas, we know about County Dublin.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do that by getting rid of rezoning problems. It is easily done.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Deputy Eamon Ryan to allow the Deputy to speak without interruption.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was friendly advice.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Last night, the contributions of Opposition Members and of the Green Party in particular appeared to be intent on maligning those of us elected to public office who are, as I have just stated, making strenuous efforts at present to rid ourselves of the legacy of a particular era. However, I felt that the comments were particularly directed towards the Fianna Fáil Party, of which I am proud to be a member. I formed the impression that criticism in the debate was directed almost exclusively at the Fianna Fáil Party. There was no attempt at a balanced debate and no other political party was referred to in last night's deliberations.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Progressive Democrats was mentioned. The Deputy can ask the Ceann Comhairle.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wonder whether this has anything to do with a certain cosying up, for its own purposes, on the part of the Green Party with Fine Gael. Does it seek to become the third party around the coffee table in Mullingar?

As for the Labour Party, I have often reflected on the source of its income. I wonder whether it will reconsider the huge revenues it receives every year from the trade union movement.

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are not huge. Would the Deputy like to know the sum?

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Much of it is deducted at source from trade union members who do not know where their money goes. It is taken from members and activists of all political parties and none. I wonder whether this has been a topic of discussion in Mullingar, where Deputy Kenny was quick to repeal his predecessor's ban on corporate donations. It did not last long and was only in place for approximately 16 months. After one election defeat, it was back. I congratulate Deputy Kenny on his pragmatism. This evening all Members are saddened by the absence of their Sinn Féin colleagues from this debate.

Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should speak for himself.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wonder did the Sinn Féin Members, who castigated Fianna Fáil last night, raise the same level of concern within their own party with regard to the criminal activities that took place. Everyone knows that activities such as money laundering, protection rackets, smuggling and bank robberies took place. Bank robberies for political fundraising is not a recent phenomenon. I had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of such a raid more than 30 years ago, at a time when they began to emerge as a fundraising phenomenon. I did not hear any acknowledgment of such activities last night on the part of Sinn Féin Members.

Since 1997 in particular, this country has made huge strides. We have made remarkable progress and such progress automatically brings with it a tension with environmental standards. A natural, physical tension exists and all must strive strenuously to get the balance right between economic progress and appropriate environmental standards.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Helping the Deputy's paymasters.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The acknowledgement by the World Economic Forum at Davos of Ireland's environmental achievement should be considered. A report prepared for that forum by Yale and Colombia Universities ranked Ireland tenth of 133 countries globally and seventh in the European Union for environmental achievement.

We are making rapid progress and have come a long way. However, it ill behoves us as politicians, regardless of the political gain to be accrued, to castigate the current generation of politicians. For example, Members should consider the progress made in waste collection. Moreover, Deputy Sargent shares my wish that the number of beaches in north County Dublin flying the Blue Flag would show a significant improvement. We expect that to happen and it will come about as a result of good infrastructural capital investment keeping pace with the progress being made.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is long overdue.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am aware that time is against me. In supporting the Government's amendment, I wish the Green Party well in their sojourn on the high moral ground. I am told it is a lonely place and cannot accommodate much of a crowd.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are enjoying it. The Deputy should come up there some time.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to move the Labour Party amendment.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not necessary to move it at this stage because there is one amendment before the House, but the Deputy can discuss it.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will refer to that amendment in the course of my contribution.

I welcome the opportunity which the Green Party motion provides for a debate in this House on the funding of politics, the planning of the country's development and the related issues which have arisen in the debate regarding housing, transport and land use generally. The purpose of the Labour Party amendment is to find a constructive way, through an all-party committee, to improve the legislation and regulations on political funding and to support the calls of the Green Party for action on the Kenny report on land and for action to improve the way in which development in this country is planned.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They still take money from developers.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yesterday the Ceann Comhairle cautioned the House about the conduct of this debate while the Mahon tribunal is still hearing evidence and has yet to report on the matters which it is considering. The Green Party motion relates directly to the current hearings of the Mahon tribunal and it invites the House to draw conclusions about the evidence before the tribunal has reached its conclusions and has reported on them to the House.

Having established the tribunal, the House must allow it to independently carry out its investigations and to report to the House as it sees fit. We in this House cannot conduct our own parallel inquiry or reach parallel conclusions. We must resist pre-empting the conclusions of the tribunal, however politically tempting that may be. We must also be conscious that the current round of tribunal hearings are taking place in the period immediately before a general election, with the increased possibility of tribunal evidence being spun for political advantage. We must also recognise that our starting point today on this issue is quite different from what it would have been in the 1980s or early 1990s, which is the period principally being investigated by the tribunal.

When the Labour Party was last in government we worked to put in place a new regime for openness, transparency and accountability in political and public life. The rainbow Government, through my colleague, Deputy Howlin, introduced the new electoral legislation which limited spending on elections and which provided for the public declaration of political donations. We also introduced the freedom of information legislation which allows the public greater access to the previously secret side of public decision-making. That corpus of legislation has of course been amended over the years and it needs to be recalled that today, unlike in the 1980s and 1990s, it would simply be illegal to give or receive many of the payments, certainly the larger ones of £30,000 etc., because there are legal limits on the amounts of donations which can be given to or received by individual politicians or by political parties. Today, all payments such as those about which we hear from the tribunal would have to be publicly declared to the Standards in Public Office Commission and would be open to the press and to the public. Today, every donation of whatever amount given to a political party or to an individual politician must be lodged in a special account the details of which must be submitted to the Standards in Public Office Commission each year.

In addition, we all are individually required to make annual returns to the Standards in Public Office Commission detailing any interests we may have in land, shareholdings, directorships etc. which might even remotely affect or influence the discharge of our public duties. This is quite proper and it means that we should not in future need expensive tribunals to determine who got what from whom and when. That information should now be lodged with the Standards in Public Office Commission and be available to the public, and any politician or officer of a political party who fails to provide that information or who provides false information to the Standards in Public Office Commission can be prosecuted. As the House will be aware, there has been a recent successful prosecution for failure to disclose information to the Standards in Public Office Commission.

All these procedures are relatively new and they need to be kept under continuing review. That is why the Labour Party is proposing tonight that there should be an all-party committee to review these procedures and to make recommendations on any changes that may be required to update the legislation or regulations to ensure the highest possible standards of transparency and accountability in the funding of all political parties and all political activity.

Let us be clear about our objectives in this. There is no place for bribery, corruption or illegality in our democracy, in our public decision-making or in the funding of political activity. The question is, however, how does one achieve this objective. One way would be to ban all private funding of political parties and political activity and to allow only for the State funding of parties and of politics. This would probably be unconstitutional, however, since the constitutional right to organise probably includes the right to financially contribute to the organisation of one's choice. In any event, the exclusive State funding of politics would discriminate against new and emerging political movements since State funding would probably be based on performance at a previous election.

Another way, which the Labour Party advocated some years ago and on which we introduced a Private Members' Bill, would be to ban corporate donations to politicians and to political parties. In the course of the debate on that proposal, however, it was pointed out, with some justification, that that would not necessarily resolve the problem as it would prevent neither the directors nor the members of a company from individually contributing even greater amounts to an individual politician or to a political party, nor would it prevent the establishment of front donation bodies for the purpose of making such contributions.

The Green Party motion suggests that all parties should decline funding from developers as the mere acceptance of such moneys may be construed as showing an undue influence on development decisions. In my view this approach is not adequate. What, for example, does one do about political donations from somebody who is not a developer today but who may be next year or from somebody who has a material interest in a development or a development company which is not known to the recipient of the donation? What does one do about receiving a donation from somebody who has a material interest, not in promoting the development but in opposing the development, for instance, the owner of zoned land who opposes the rezoning of neighbouring land which might affect the value of his own?

Often Members on all sides of the House are asked to oppose particular developments because of the possible impact which they might have on property values or, indeed, on the commercial activity of competitors. About a year ago there was an issue — I do not want to mention the individual case — which was the subject of considerable discussion at the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government, where we received considerable submissions from competing commercial interests on whether a particular type of development should proceed. A formula that bans the acceptance or making of contributions by developers would, for example, exclude the issue that arises in regard to competitors.

Our objective is straightforward. We want a planning system free of corruption and malpractice. Planning decisions at any level should never be based on bribery or corruption. Not all planning decisions, however, are bribed or corrupt nor are all political contributions but, clearly, lessons must be learned from the past nine years of investigation into planning and payments in Dublin by the Mahon and Flood tribunals. We need to put our collective intelligence together to draw on those lessons and put in place even better controls and safeguards. One way to deal with this might be to have within our public decision making process, whether that involves planning decisions at local government or national level, a requirement that those who make decisions should declare whether they have an interest in the application and whether a contribution has been made to them or their political party. The political donations are publicly declared anyway. If an issue arises in a local authority about a planning or rezoning decision and a member received funding during the previous election from an individual or company in that area, perhaps the way to deal with it is to have a requirement that the interest is declared before the debate, decision or vote takes place. An all-party group might usefully address such a suggestion to better deal with this issue.

I refer to the Government amendment, on which we will be required to vote later. The Labour Party cannot support it. As often happens, the Government amendment is self-serving. The Government is availing, wrongly, of the opportunity of a debate on a serious issue to clap itself on the back about its performance on planning, infrastructure, housing and related matters. The amendment is quite laughable. We are asked to commend the Government's commitment to implementing the national spatial strategy, which it abandoned as soon as it was published. The Government's so-called decentralisation plans completely ignore the strategy. The only time we hear about the strategy is when it is hauled out in the context of a motion such as this. It does not inform major planning and strategic decisions.

The amendment states the national spatial strategy is "informing the formulation of the next national development plan". The electoral requirements of the Government is the only factor "informing the formulation of the next national development plan". The next NDP will be unveiled piece by piece, constituency by constituency, project by project as the Government's manifesto for the 2007 election. When Ministers visit community halls, hotels and various other venues to make grand announcements in the company of the local Government election candidates, they will be spending the people's money. Expenditure on such projects is not the sole property of the Government parties.

The Government asks us to note its success with a range of housing supports to facilitate record housing output in the face of unprecedented demand. The Government abolished the first-time buyer's grant and it will not amend the rent allowance regulations to provide decent housing benefit, which will overcome the poverty trap experienced by many people in private rented accommodation. The so-called record achievement on social and affordable housing programmes is laughable. Less than 5% of housing output is built by local authorities, the worst record in the history of the State. Since Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 came into operation in 2001, 300,000 dwellings have been built in the State. Even if we generously allow that Part V would not have applied to half those dwellings because they were built on land that was not zoned for housing or they were one-off houses or they were built in units of less than five or on sites of less than 0.1 hectare, that leaves 150,000, 20% of which should amount to 30,000 social and affordable dwellings. At best approximately 2,000 such houses were built largely because in 2002 when Part V should have captured the planning permissions that were then extant, the Government caved into the construction industry lobby and handed back 80,000 affordable housing sites to the industry.

I welcome the proposal in the Green Party motion regarding the Kenny report on building land. This was the subject of a Private Members' Bill I introduced more than two years ago on behalf of the Labour Party. I proposed a formula for the compulsory purchase by local authorities or a national housing authority of building land in a way that would be constitutional and that would take out the element of speculation, which has contributed so much to the escalation in housing prices. At the time the Government responded that an all-party committee was examining this issue. It had been asked to do by no less a person than the Taoiseach who stated one of the major causes of high house price inflation was the cost of building land. The committee reported in April 2004 and the Government has done nothing to advance it. It took a year of questioning on my part and that of other Opposition spokespersons even to get the Government to debate the issue. It is clear the Government has no intention of dealing with the issue of the cost of building land and speculation on such land. Its failure to do so over the past eight or nine years means it will become more difficult to do so because any intervention by way of compulsory purchase, for example, of building land would mean local authorities entering at the top end of the market. The Labour Party will vote against the self-serving Government amendment put to the House.

Photo of Arthur MorganArthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy, McHugh, Healy, James Breen and Gregory.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Photo of Arthur MorganArthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My colleagues, Deputies Ó Caoláin and Ó Snodaigh, have already spoken in support of this motion. I will deal with the demand in the motion for the implementation of the Kenny report.

I noted the misleading comments of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche on the Kenny report during his ill-tempered contribution to the debate yesterday. He is clearly hurt by the wording of the motion.

Sinn Féin's position on this matter is that where there are unmet housing needs, the local authority must have the ability to acquire land at below market value to address chronic social housing shortages and to provide land at reasonable cost to those currently being priced out of the housing market. Local authorities should be able to acquire land at existing use value or existing use value plus a stipulated percentage as outlined in the Kenny report.

The recommendations of the Kenny report were a matter of extensive discussion and consideration by the Oireachtas All Party Committee on the Constitution of which I am a member. The ninth progress report of that committee made a number of significant recommendations on the capping of land prices in line with the Kenny report and concluded that it would be constitutional to implement the Kenny report.

In its conclusion the committee stated:

The committee is of the view that, having regard to modern case law, it is very likely that the major elements of the Kenny Report — namely that land required for development by local authorities be compulsorily acquired at existing use value plus 25% — would not be found to be unconstitutional.

It continued:

Indeed, it may be that in certain respects, the Kenny Report was too conservative, since there seems no necessity that either the act of designating the lands in question which are to be the subject of price control or the payment of compensation to the landowners thereby affected would require to be performed by a High Court judge.

In its submission to the committee, Sinn Féin pointed out that the finding by Costello J. in Hempenstall v. Minister for the Environment, 1994, that "a change in the law which has the effect of reducing property values cannot in itself amount to infringement of constitutionally protected property rights". This supports the view that compensation based on existing use value or existing use value plus a stipulated percentage as outlined in the Kenny report is constitutional. Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 was tested in the Supreme Court and found to be constitutionally sound. However, the Minister proceeded to gut this provision to suit developers.

It is time the Government stopped hiding behind imagined constitutional problems when seeking to justify its failure to bring forward legislation to control the price of building land. Such legislation should be brought forward and tested legally as was done with section V of the Planning and Development Act 2000. We could make the same criticism with regard to the failure to bring forward legislation to abolish ground rents.

The Government has, to date, failed to make a substantial response to the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution report on property rights. It has not indicated whether it accepts its recommendations. The Taoiseach may have been only attempting to kick to touch the whole debate about the escalation of house prices when he asked the all-party committee to look into the matter. The report the committee produced made a number of significant recommendations on the capping of land prices in line with the Kenny report of 1973. We must ask why the committee report has now joined the Kenny report gathering dust on a shelf in a Government office. We all know the reason. The Government would rather pander to developers than deal with low income families living in squalor with urgent housing needs.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to address this key issue. I come from an area that has experienced consistent high levels of housing development over past decades where planning is a topical issue. As a member of Kildare County Council since 1991, I participated in making a number of development plans and saw at first hand the kind of pressure brought to bear by both landowners and speculators. I sought the inclusion of a broad strategy for development in Kildare. Eventually, after an almost warlike situation, that was the approach adopted. The strategy at least gave the public some idea of what was planned for their area, which was an improvement.

This country does not have a planning system, just a development system with planning controls. There is a significant difference between the two. This leads to the question as to why we end up with one-dimensional development where development is predominantly housing with infrastructure such as schools only being provided when the crisis kicks in. Leisure facilities are largely provided by endless community fundraising with a hope of lottery funding for those organisations that can raise the required local contributions. We see facilities such as sewage treatment systems at breaking point before an investment is made.

Planning must be about both physical planning and planning for services and infrastructure. It is difficult to see how the national spatial strategy will deliver balanced regional development. I was told through a reply to a parliamentary question last year that the national spatial strategy was basically a physical plan. Those areas designated hubs and gateways — too many of them — did not see it as a physical plan. The expectation is that the strategy will deliver much front-loaded infrastructure. With substantial land banks remaining in the greater Dublin area, it will not be the national spatial strategy but the market that will dictate where people will live. We plan for one thing but deliver something else and wonder why we have chaos. Local authorities are supposed to have regard to the regional plans. However, the words "have regard to" have been tested in court and have been found to be meaningless.

A significant constraint to which we should pay attention is the ability of the river Liffey to provide water in the eastern area. This ability is on a knife edge as there are two large abstractions due in the near future. The ability to provide water may well be what provides the ultimate constraint. The two abstractions due will be the final ones. If an industry like Intel arrived on our doorstep tomorrow, we could not accommodate it due to this critical constraint.

If we are to rebuild confidence in the planning system that has been so badly damaged by revelations in recent years and in the tribunals, we must get real about the system. This means we must interconnect housing and industrial development with the like of public transport. It means we must decide not just to build houses but communities.

8:00 pm

Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this motion and thank the Green Party for raising the issue. It is timely and appropriate that as legislators we should discuss the actions of some of our Members, which can at best be described as suspect. Seven political parties are represented in the Dáil and it is appalling that Members of four of those parties have admitted receiving substantial payments in dubious circumstances from developers, their agents or bagmen.

Members of Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have all admitted to accepting money from people who subsequently found themselves under investigation. This is a damning indictment of all those political parties who at one time or another formed the Government. So much for standards in high places and accountability. Why can our main political parties not be straightforward, old-fashioned and honest? The smaller party's claim that it must be in Government to keep an eye on the bigger party is bogus. The glaring truth is that they are all the same.

Is it any wonder that the two parties in Government, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, are not prepared to condemn those parties that have, in the words of the motion, "failed to discipline their members for their collective amnesia with regard to monies received from developers and their agents at the time of wide-scale rezonings by local authorities"?

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Chair has pointed out on a number of occasions that it is not in order to discuss evidence given by a named or identifiable individual who has not been convicted of any offence.

Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not named anybody or quoted any evidence given to any tribunal. This motion is a rational proposal that would get the support of all democratically elected governments if the case was applicable in their country. Regrettably, it does not have the support of the Government. The response of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to this motion yesterday was hysterical. When his hysteria is tied to the hysterical responses in recent days of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, the reality of the situation becomes clear. This Government is close to the edge.

The standard response of the Government is that it cannot interfere with the work of the tribunals. This motion does not ask for any such interference. It merely asks for a condemnation of those parties that have failed to discipline their members for their collective amnesia regarding moneys received from developers and their agents at the time of widespread rezoning by local authorities. I do not ask the Government to interfere with the workings of the tribunals and, in fact, the original motion makes no mention of tribunals. The persistence of the two parties in Government in hiding behind the tribunals and refusing to condemn the wrongdoing of their members is inexcusable and makes a mockery of their claim to be open, transparent and honest. Their failure to act gives politics a bad name and tarnishes the name of all politicians.

Photo of Séamus HealySéamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support this motion placed on the agenda by the Green Party and wish to address the issues raised in the final three paragraphs of the motion. With regard to contributions from developers and their acceptance by politicians, it can be argued that this motion does not go far enough. Politics and political parties should be State funded and all contributions should be banned. I do not accept that State funding must, of necessity, be related to votes garnered in a previous election. If the political will existed, we could have the wit to develop a system of fair State funding.

I recall when I became involved in local government in the early 1970s, the Kenny report was published and was a key issue at the time. Many, if not all, officials in local authorities looked forward to the implementation of the report. Unfortunately, that has not happened but it should happen now. It has not happened because many of the political parties are wedded to developers of all kinds.

In recent years, enormous housing estates have been developed with no real reference to community facilities, green areas, community halls, sporting facilities and so on. That has given rise to continual occurrences of anti-social behaviour and creates problems for families living in such estates. Housing estates should be properly designed to include community and sporting facilities.

Fine Gael and the Labour Party tabled amendments to the original motion which do not appear to be contradictory. I would have preferred to see them tabled as addenda rather than amendments.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Fergus Finlay, in an article in the Irish Examiner in February 2004, wrote that "If Ireland were in Africa, we'd send observers to help build democracy". Ironically it was the revelations of his former co-presenter on RTE television, Mr. Frank Dunlop, that prompted him to write the article. By then, the culture of payments for votes had so enveloped politics that any allegation made was believed to have substance. It has continued thus, with the same Mr. Dunlop alleging what he wishes against deceased members of council authorities and no one can emphatically contradict him.

It does nothing for the reputation of this House to have to debate the quality of current and former Members and family dynasties. No one takes enjoyment in the continual revelations and subsequent tarnishing of the Cosgrave and Haughey names. Equally as bad in recent weeks has been the trail of councillor after councillor and Minister after Minister trying to explain to the tribunal how they had forgotten or failed to recall donations received in planning and rezoning applications. We should not be too concerned about bird flu gripping this country as it would appear that a bird brain strain has already taken root where any form of detail regarding money is suddenly forgotten.

The failure of successive Governments to implement the 1974 Kenny report and this Government's failure to implement the recommendations of the All Party Committee on the Constitution on property rights has allowed corruption in the planning process to become the norm. Some improvements have been made, starting with the introduction in 1995 of the Ethics in Public Office Act and continuing with the refinement and enhancing of that legislation. However, it is not enough. For Ministers to brush away details of payments as oversights on their behalf is simply not good enough. Neither does it matter how they voted on individual zoning applications. It would be much better if they could say that they refused the payments and that is what this motion proposes, namely, that all donations from developers be refused lest they be seen as buying any form of influence.

At the root of these payments was an attempt to get lands rezoned and secure planning for massive developments which were nothing more than a licence for the type of urban sprawl which has contributed to so much of the anti-social behaviour in society today. No more should we allow the development of projects that do not include proper social facilities, greenfield areas, schools and a transport infrastructure that ensures the continual growth and development of community and social life. It is time for this Government to embrace the theme of social and affordable housing which it has promised for years. It is time for us individually and collectively to put this House back in the news and into people's lives for all the right reasons.

Tony Gregory (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht iomlán a thabhairt don tairiscint seo ón Chomhaontas Glas. I wholeheartedly support this motion from the Green Party. That party and the Independent Deputies are among a minority of Members of this House who have consistently made clear their condemnation of the activities of those public representatives, including members of the main parties in the Dáil, who accepted payments in the rezoning scandals involving people such as the self-confessed corrupt lobbyist whose well known name I am not permitted to mention.

Any public representative who is in any way corrupted through rezoning or other bribery should leave public life. There is no other way to resolve this issue finally and preserve the honour and integrity of this House and the democratic process. This will not happen, so it will be a matter for the electorate at the next general election to reject those who have behaved in a corrupt manner, whether in the recent rezoning scandals of which we have read and heard so much, and fair play to Mr. Vincent Browne for outlining the issues in greater detail on his radio show, or in other similar scandals.

The real outrage is that the billionaire developers and builders who were the main beneficiaries of this corruption continue to reap rewards and amass enormous wealth at the expense of the people forced to pay scandalous prices to obtain a home of their own. The abandonment by this Government of the plan to integrate 20% social and affordable homes into all housing developments demonstrates that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will always cave in to the interests of their builder and developer pals. It is the private developers and not the public interest that calls the shots in the current Government.

I support the call in this motion that no politician should accept money from developers where those same politicians are in a position to influence development decisions. In my constituency, when the Spencer Dock consortium involving Treasury Holdings was seeking planning permission for the largest planning application in the history of the State, those same developers were funding Fianna Fáil. I have no doubt this practice continues across the State. A major step away from the corruption of the past and the present would be achieved if the House were to implement the recommendations of the 1974 Kenny report and, as the motion states, to empower local authorities to purchase land for housing at its existing use value plus 25%. Will that happen while Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are in power? Not a chance.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Motions such as this are of immense importance for several reasons. They allow the House to examine the Government's record in dealing with corruption and the abuse of public office. The Government, since its election in 1997, has introduced the most comprehensive package of reforms to tackle corruption and to ensure probity in public office and in the public service. It established a tribunal to investigate planning corruption and payments to politicians.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, will copies of the Minister's speech be made available to us?

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope it is made available to Members.

The tribunal, having already issued four interim reports, is continuing its work in public hearings. The Government improved the transparency of the planning system. The Planning and Development Act 2000 extended rules relating to ethics for planning authority staff. It also introduced more opportunities for public consultation and scrutiny of both zoning decisions and the grant of individual planning permission. It increased political oversight of the system of development contributions.

A new regime of ethics in local government was introduced. The Local Government Act 2001 provided a new and comprehensive ethics framework for local government employees and councillors. The Standards in Public Office Commission was established. The Government introduced new controls over political donations including comprehensive requirements as to the size and disclosure of political donations. Legislation governing corruption was modernised.

The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001 was enacted during my tenure as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Under the Act corruption is presumed where there is proof that certain persons in public office have received money or other benefits from a person who has an interest in the way certain functions are carried out or the outcome of specified decisions, including planning decisions. In effect, this reverses the burden of proof. A person who receives a payment in those circumstances will have to prove the payment is not corrupt, instead of the prosecution proving that it was. This makes prosecution for corrupt payments easier. Even the most dispassionate observer must acknowledge the Government has taken inordinate measures to root out even the hint of corruption in our public affairs.

Motions such as this are of immense importance for another reason. They afford us the opportunity to examine the performance of the Opposition and to see if its actions live up to its rhetoric. This is more especially the case when the motion is sponsored by the bicycled tut-tutters and windmill blowers of the Green Party.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I suppose the Minister will mention the slugs and the lettuce too.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the Minister without interruption.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The party's members have built a number of political careers by constructing the illusion that Utopia waits if one grows enough carrots, pulls enough turnips and eats enough lettuce.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the Minister for zero tolerance.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Since entering the House, the Green Party has opposed every economic initiative undertaken by the Government. It has resolutely opposed every job creation measure——

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister for fallacy.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——every economic initiative and every inch of infrastructural development proposed.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is out on that much.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In place of the solid economic proposals initiated by the Government, the Green Party has proposed nothing other than woolly blather about eco-friendly initiatives. If its Members ever choose to leave their gilded retreats and engage with ordinary people who work everyday for the money they need every week——

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister referring to those working people in the tents at the Galway races?

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——they will find that the produce of their eco-friendly initiatives will put neither food on the table nor heat in the house.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Even for the millionaires.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the Minister without interruption.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Government adopting any of the Green Party's stated initiatives in the curtailment of the national development plan would inevitably lead us to mass unemployment, economic stagnation and curtailment of essential services.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the Finnish, German or New Zealand Governments?

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Deputy Eamon Ryan wish me to take some of the Minister's time from his own time?

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Green Party Members, who sit in the most exalted perch of the Dáil's moral tree, would return Ireland to the donkey and cart and paint a pig in the parlour image of a nation which boasts the most educated young population on earth.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not the sewer.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no greater testament to the paucity of their political integrity than the fact that one of the signatories to the motion referring to amnesia in others said he was unaware of his own share portfolio in corporate sludge for three years.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister equating corruption——

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Silence.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is a total disgrace.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that the Minister's definition of corruption?

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no greater illustration of their political hypocrisy than their acceptance of Deputy Cuffe's explanation even though the value of the portfolio amounted to €3 million and fell to €1.3 million in more than 1,000 days.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Minister, a point of order has been called.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Cheann Comhairle, you have told the House that we cannot address Members individually. The Minister is implying that inheriting a share is the equivalent of bribery.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not a point of order.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That shows the Minister's lack of knowledge as to what bribery really is.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I must point out there are 20 minutes remaining in the slot, 15 of which are for the Green Party. Deputy Eamon Ryan is eating into his 15 minutes by interrupting the Minister.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I am not hearing it now. I will hear it when the Minister has concluded.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It relates to the ruling made by the Chair yesterday.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not a point of order. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. The Minister has five minutes left and it is an obligation on the Chair that he gets them.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is a disgrace.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Green Party Members are thin-skinned enough to throw it but not hard-skinned enough to take it.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is an absolute disgrace.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will repeat what I have just said. There is no greater testament to the paucity of their political integrity than the fact that one of the signatories to this motion referring to amnesia in others said he was unaware of his own share portfolio in corporate sludge for three years.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What amnesia? What about declarations in the public record?

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no greater illustration of their political hypocrisy than their acceptance of Deputy Cuffe's explanation, even though the value of the portfolio amounted to €3 million and fell to €1.3 million in more than 1,000 days.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What hypocrisy.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How many houses did Deputy Callely own and how many did he declare?

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no greater monument to their bankrupt leadership than the minor sanction——

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has gone so low, he is in the gutter.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——imposed on Deputy Cuffe which was his replacement as environment spokesperson.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are in the sewer. You are a sewer rat.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are the Members who hold themselves up as the protectors of our environment to the young and the impressionable.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are a clown.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are the Members who hold themselves out to the world as Ireland's moral guardians. These are the Members who would make Ireland greener.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister's time has concluded.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are the Members who look well for the speck in other men's eyes but never for the mote in their own.

Asking the Greens to protect our environment is the moral equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is left of it.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Green Party is ethically two-faced.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister to give way.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the latest "do as I say, not as I do" party on the political firmament.

Photo of Pádraic McCormackPádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is great stuff.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, its political dexterity does not end there. It picks its enemies with the same political abandon as it chooses its friends.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister to give way to the proposer to the motion.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister give way?

Photo of Pádraic McCormackPádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He cannot give way because he is getting carried away.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The same criterion of expediency is used in this process as was applied in the framing of tonight's motion.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister's time has concluded.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Cheann Comhairle, I ask for the Minister to give way.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It matters little to the high priests of Irish politics that their latest best friends forever, Fine Gael and Labour, have major policies in stark contrast to their own.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister to give way.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Green Party is only happy to help Fine Gael and Labour on their way to a misty-eyed vision of a kaleidoscope government, accommodating a rattlebag of diametrically opposed policies. It matters little to them——

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister's time has concluded.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should keep quiet.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It little matters to the Green Party that, in the words of Deputy Gormley, it has profound disagreements with Fine Gael. It is a matter of no consequence——

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are off your trolley.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——to the party that it does not agree with Fine Gael on economic or criminal justice policy.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Minister, I am obliged to call Deputy Eamon Ryan.

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is still going at it.

Photo of Pádraic McCormackPádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

His face is as red as his tie.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is little more than an inconvenience to the white knights of fresh air that the putative Minister for Finance, Deputy Rabbitte, is numerically challenged. The famous witness at the tribunal said he gave Deputy Rabbitte €3,000 and only got €2,000 back.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Minister, I ask you to give way.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While the Labour and Green parties share few policies in common, there is considerable proximity in the consequences of their implementation.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is the Minister whose Department wastes 37% of its funding on dogs.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue——

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Their effective and economic and taxation policies will jointly drive jobs out of the country and undermine our prosperity.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Minister, I am obliged to call the Green Party.

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I for one am not disposed to accepting criticism on ethical fronts from Deputy "Chemical" Ciarán Cuffe and his friends in the Green Party.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is being disorderly.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Get out.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister does not understand a word.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call on Deputy Eamon Ryan.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Eamon Ryan and Sargent.

I am glad the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism has finally agreed to dún suas. The Minister's Department spends 37% of its funding on the dog and greyhound industries, wasting funds on highly profitable industries that make many donations to the Fianna Fáil Party. I am glad he has eventually sat down to listen rather than ranting. I hoped the Minister would have said something meaningful.

I come from a constituency where the sense of community has been destroyed by naked greedy commercialism. Developers, both the corrupt and those out to make a few bucks, and the political process with its corporate donations have turned Lucan and Clondalkin into conurbations with no facilities and the social ills that follow suit. Gridlock, social breakdown, anti-social behaviour is all happening in Clondalkin because of bad planning. It would be bad enough if it was due to incompetence. The Government points out how it has been in power for the past 30 years while the rainbow Government was only in power for three years. However, it is the Government that has presided over developments in Lucan with no follow-up facilities such as school places for young children. One such example is the Quarryvale centre at Liffey Valley, which is well known through the deliberations of the Mahon tribunal. We know what went on there but I will not refer to those deliberations as I am precluded from doing so in the House. Let us say, however, that what we have now is a spanking, grey, monolithic shopping centre that serves people who drive from 50 miles away.

That project was supposed to provide jobs to people in north Clondalkin but patently we can see that many of the people working there are not from north Clondalkin. It was supposed to provide a community centre for people in north Clondalkin but it has not done so. Liffey Valley is not a centre for anywhere, yet South Dublin County Council is trying to turn Quarryvale into a library for both Palmerstown and north Clondalkin to save money. Palmerstown was promised a library years ago and north Clondalkin needs one but locating it in Liffey Valley, which can only be reached by car, is not the best place. It is a testament to bad planning.

Deputy Glennon asked why the Green Party was not having a go at some of the other parties in the House. I want to point out that the majority of bad decisions were made by Fianna Fáil politicians. That cannot be denied and the tribunals have shown that to be so. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, had a go at Deputy Gormley accusing "his sort of people" of throwing stones at the Progressive Democrats offices.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He withdrew that remark.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let me tell the House about the Minister, Deputy McDowell's sort of people. His sort of people are those who rezoned Laracon against the wishes of 97% of the people living in Lucan. They are the Minister's sort of people.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That comment was withdrawn. The Deputy should take that back.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Those people rezoned land that is owned by supporters of the Progressive Democrats.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Stop defending him.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not defending him.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am certainly not going to defend him.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pointing out that the statement was withdrawn in this House.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He repeated it on "Prime Time".

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Gogarty, without interruption.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is an element of hypocrisy here and that is why I deplore the fact that the likes of the Labour Party are tabling an amendment to our motion in an effort to weasel out of the simple, clear statement at the heart of our motion, which is to ban corporate donations. That is what I am calling for. The first thing that Deputy Rabbitte and Deputy Kenny did when they assumed leadership roles was to bring back such donations. Why did they do that? The reason is that we can cast stones at Fianna Fáil members whom we know are the bad boys and we can cast stones at the Progressive Democrats whom we know are the high moral ground hypocrites to beat all hypocrites.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not appropriate to refer to anyone as a hypocrite.

Photo of Paul GogartyPaul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, they are being joined in hypocrisy by Fine Gael and the Labour Party who talk about bad planning and corruption, yet are still taking payments from big business. I will give the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, an example. He had a go at the Green Party over shares which, as we know, were totally above board, and Deputy Cuffe got rid of his shares. As a Green Party member I support farming jobs and organic farming. Let us say that the organic farming movement donated a grant to me for my election campaign. It does not matter if it is a worthy cause. The fact that I take money has compromised me in any decision, no matter how good it may be. Similarly, if I agreed with a planning development and thought that Adamstown was the best thing since sliced bread but took one cent from a developer, I would have been fundamentally compromised.

I am calling on Members of the Opposition at least to support our motion by condemning the practice of corporate donations and bringing them to an end. As legislators, we cannot make decisions if, even in the interests of legitimate political donations, we are tainted in some way. We have to make decisions without any influence whatsoever. That is why I am asking for the motion to be supported.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was proud to know and to join some of the people in the Glen of the Downs when they were protesting against that road development. Last night, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, said they were professional protestors, but I do not think they were. They were ordinary, decent, normal people — good, bad, mad — the same as any grouping one would find anywhere, comprising a mix of different people. People like Gavin Harte and Adrian Murphy worked there and I would stand up and defend them. I honour what they did and they have been proven right. The basic point they were making about transport — that we cannot serve this city by providing more and more roads — has been proven to be true. They were thoughtful people who saw that protecting the environment is not just about protecting the Amazon forests but also about protecting our nature when we have it close by. I honour them for their stance in that regard.

In the early 1990s, a friend of mine, Michael Smith, dragged me into a case he was involved in for a simple motive. He wanted to protect the valleys in which he grew up. He saw that massive development was about to occur as a result of rezoning, so this ordinary person began to do something about it. Much bitterness arose from that. About half way through, he realised that as hard as he campaigned he did not have a chance because the other side was buying the votes that were needed. On cold days, I remember standing outside the public hearing, which was paid for by the developer. The shiny Mercs would arrive and the shiny shoes would emerge. Those developers smiled when they saw us protesting outside because they knew what fools we were. We did not know what way the system worked.

I listened to the Minister, Deputy McDowell, last night puffing his chest out and saying that he has to protect the State. To my mind, people like Michael Smith, Colm Mac Eochaidh and others who started to expose all this, were defending the State by revealing that the political system had been tarnished by widespread corruption. The key point was not to get heads on a plate and the key loss is not that of dignity or decency in the political system. The key point was always that corrupt planning was bad planning. People like Michael Smith, Gavin Harte, Adrian Murphy and Colm Mac Eochaidh could see that if we allowed our city to be developed in that way it would be at a real cost to people's everyday lives involving long commuting times and a lack of proper facilities, as Deputy Gogarty said.

That is the reason we tabled this motion, not to contradict anything that is going on in the Mahon tribunal or anywhere else but to bring to its senses a Government that still does not realise the cost and effect of such bad planning. The Government will not make the fundamental change needed to get rid of that rezoning profit which has corrupted our planning process and ruined so many communities.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of the Green Party-Comhaontas Glas, I thank my colleagues in the Technical Group, including the Independents, the Socialist Party and Sinn Féin, as well as Labour and Fine Gael, for their general support for what we are endeavouring to highlight. The motion is born out of frustration over the lack of a serious response to the drip-feed of disclosures from long-standing members and former members of local authorities, particularly Dublin County Council of which I was proud to be a member. One line in our motion states "the mere acceptance of such moneys from developers may be construed as having an undue influence on development decisions". That quotation is not from the Green Party but from somebody who sat painfully through all the sessions, Mr. Justice Flood.

The Government does not seem to have taken note of that point, however, or acted upon it. No disciplinary measures have been taken against members who misled their own internal inquiries. No change in the fundamental financial temptation, which created the brown envelope culture, has been put in place, notwithstanding the legislation that has been referred to in the debate.

Those being punished are not the corrupt politicians who abused their power and the people's trust, but the ordinary families and householders of this country. People living outside towns had to travel three times as far to work in 2002 compared to 1981. In 1981, 76,000 workers travelled more than 15 miles to work, while by 2002 more than 280,000 workers were in that category. Since 1996, we have had a trebling of oil prices. Those costs are not being put on people by the protestors the Minister likes to go on about, but by the Government that allowed bad planning to occur, making Ireland car dependent.

We are the most car dependent country in the world, 70% more so than France or Germany, 50% more than the United Kingdom and 30% more than the USA. We now estimate that CO2 emissions will cost an estimated €1 billion in carbon credits. If one adds the costs of tribunals one is hitting the taxpayer by bad planning at every turn. The taxpayer is being punished, not the corrupt politicians, and that is why the motion needs to be acted upon seriously.

The most noteworthy claim by the Government is that it established the tribunals but the Dáil established them. Even so, the culture of rezoning and obscene levels of profiteering by developers remain the same. Farmers all over Ireland, including many in my constituency, regularly receive knocks on the door from people with cheque books offering to buy bits of their land for agricultural prices in the hope that certain auctioneers and builders can sit on that land, get councillors to rezone it and then build on it regardless of planning, if they can get away with it. This is the essence of the corrupt system that has been allowed to continue and continues to this day. We are not simply saying it is wrong, we are saying there is a solution. The solution has been well examined by the Joint Committee on the Constitution on which I sat and on which Deputy Cuffe still sits. The Kenny report recommends that land required for development by local authorities should be compulsorily required at existing use values plus 25%. That recommendation has been examined and found not to be against any constitutional provision on private property. It has been found to ensure good planning and to remove the corruption temptation that exists.

If the Minister is at all serious — and he has yet to convince us — about ridding Ireland of bribery, corruption and the bad planning which results from it, what action will he take to punish those who confessed to misleading their parties as well as the public? What action will he take to put into practice the Kenny report which was reviewed and examined? What will he do to reassert that the most appropriate way to ensure that windfall profits accrue to the community is to take action based on the 1974 Kenny report? These are the question we ask of the Government which has yet to state it will implement the Kenny report.

Whether Members support our motion will be a political expedient matter for themselves. At the very least, they should not rubbish the work done by eminent people on all sides of the House for many years, and for many months on the most recent consideration this report. As Deputy Gilmore stated, the Taoiseach called for this work to be done. If the Minister is serious about rooting out corruption and bringing about a change in the planning system, he will implement the recommendations of the all-party committee. To do otherwise is to indicate how corrupt the Government has become.

Deputies:

Hear, hear.