Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for selecting this topic. Sometimes something so surreal or bizarre happens that it seems to pass us by and this is one of those topics. The Flood-Mahon tribunal was established in late 1997, initially chaired by Mr. Justice Fergus Flood until 2003 and then chaired by Mr. Justice Alan Mahon who completed its hearings and produced a final report in 2012. Mr. Justice Mahon was assisted by Judge Keys and Ms Justice Flaherty. It is difficult to comprehend that the tribunal ran for almost 17 years and after a cost of around €159 million, we are unsure as to what the outcome has been. The point has been made that the inquiry led to Revenue investigations that gained large sums of money for the Exchequer in tax settlement payments. The planning and development (No. 2) Bill based on the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal is due before the House in the near future. Some planning measures have been brought forward in the past as a result of recommendations from the Flood-Mahon tribunal.

The nightly evidence re-enactments on radio were akin to "Scrap Saturday" and the public saw a side of political life that only a handful knew existed. It certainly exposed an underbelly. Rules governing political funding and ethical standards have been developed and strengthened as a result of this tribunal. However, years later we find that some findings of the tribunal have been set aside. There is uncertainty as to what the findings were and the whole process appears to have been brought into disrepute. Owen O'Callaghan won a case against the tribunal regarding access to original documents held by the inquiry due to non-disclosure of full information. This was followed by the challenge by Joseph Murphy Jnr. and, most recently, the challenge by Mr. George Redmond. Former conclusions and adverse findings have been removed. Some findings of corruption have been removed and some witnesses who were deemed to have obstructed the tribunal will now have their costs paid.

The responsibility for this tribunal comes under the remit of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. It has cost the State dearly. It is now in a shambles. Who is responsible for this?

There are lessons to be learned. The interim and earlier reports are now clearly at variance with what will, ultimately, be the final report. It is important that the Minister shed some light on this debacle.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has raised an important matter. It gives me the opportunity to remind the House that the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, known as the Mahon tribunal, was, as the Deputy said, established in November 1997 to investigate allegations of corrupt payments to politicians in respect of planning permissions and land zonings in the Dublin area in the 1990s.

The public hearings relating to the tribunal investigations, which involved 589 days of public hearings and evidence from 427 witnesses, continued until 2008, as the Deputy said, with the final report being published in March 2012. The stark reality is that the tribunal opened our eyes to occurrences in the planning system which are indefensible and which will, it is to be hoped, not be encountered again.

During the course of its deliberations, the tribunal published four interim reports, with the first published in 2002, before, as indicated, the publication of its final report in 2012. Court challenges relating to the withholding or redacting of certain information in witness statements, as well as against certain findings in the interim reports relating to hindrance and obstruction by certain individuals, were initiated by certain parties at various times during this period. Subsequent Supreme Court judgments found against the practice of redacting witness statements, and also against the non co-operation and hindrance findings against specific individuals in some instances.

This has now resulted in certain corruption findings against certain parties being withdrawn from the second and third interim reports. These judgments have also resulted in specific parties now being entitled to legal costs which had previously been refused, with the vast majority of the concerned parties now being awarded their full costs. Contrary to recent media reports, it is not the case that the second and third interim reports have been withdrawn in their entirety; certain adverse findings remain in place. It should also be noted that no findings in the tribunal's final report and recommendations are affected by these Supreme Court decisions.

The tribunal estimated in 2014 that the total costs of its deliberations would amount to approximately €159 million. This figure was calculated on the basis that all parties would receive all of their costs. The recent findings of the Supreme Court regarding George Redmond will not, therefore, have any effect on this estimate.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To reiterate, the tribunal involved 17 years, 428 witnesses and, as outlined by the Minister, €159 million. It destroyed many reputations, rightly or wrongly. It brought down a Taoiseach. Yet, we do know not know its outcome. Where does accountability lie in this squalid affair? It is as if it operated in a parallel universe for which we in the House had no responsibility.

It is important that some time is set aside for a debate on this over the next few weeks, and that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government comes before the House to give a full account of where mistakes were made, what lessons have to be learned and what changes to legislation are required. He should also outline the current status of the tribunal. I understand - I may be incorrect - that a number of staff are working with the tribunal registrar; perhaps they are senior counsel or legal people. Are the costings and payments for those people included in the €159 million cost? When will the tribunal cease operation?

As far as the public is concerned, the findings do not amount to much because people do not have confidence in what the outcome or implications may be. I do not know if Mr. Justice Mahon is still chairman. Some documentation has been published on the website but it is unsatisfactory. This House established the tribunal and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government should come before it to outline the situation. I thank the Minister of State for her reply but there are no lessons to be learned from it and it contained minimal factual information on what happened. Where lies accountability in this affair? Nobody seems to be accountable for wrongdoing.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is expected that day-to-day operations of the tribunal will be finally concluded during 2015, and as I indicated earlier my Department was advised by the tribunal in May 2014 that the estimated final cost of the tribunal would be approximately €159 million, once all of the costs have been agreed and paid. This estimate was prepared in accordance with standard accounting practice and the agreed protocol on legal fees, on the assumption that all parties involved with the tribunal and who were entitled to apply for their costs would receive all of them.

On outstanding third party costs, the tribunal yesterday issued a clarification statement specifically countering recent media reports that the tribunal's estimate of its total costs, that is €159 million, is no longer accurate as a consequence of the outcome of the most recent Supreme Court judgment relating to Mr. Redmond. It is also worth noting that the work of the tribunal has resulted in significant settlements with the Revenue Commissioners by certain parties, which are expected to defray much of the costs associated with the operation of the tribunal.

The tribunal has been instrumental in highlighting certain deficiencies in the planning system, which are now being addressed in the forthcoming planning legislation with a view to ensuring that the mistakes of the past in this regard are not repeated in the future. The Deputy said there is uncertainty regarding the outcomes. The tribunal shone a light on the difficulties in our planning system, and we are now legislating to ensure those systems cannot be encroached upon again.

We are always open to people trying to get around certain rules and regulations, and perhaps that will always be the case. Our planning system is far more robust because of the tribunal.