James Bannon (Fine Gael)

The motion before the House is a product of discussions and agreement between the Government and Judge Mahon. It is not the result of an open and frank consultative process between the Government, Opposition and Judge Mahon. Why were there not more meaningful cross-party consultations on the matter? I understand the members of each party met with the Attorney General and the Government. It would have been preferable if the Government was more inclusive in its discussions. It would have given the Opposition a better opportunity to meet Judge Mahon. This is not to say that the motion, which proposes the speeding up of the work of the planning tribunal, is not welcome in principle because, if the current terms of reference remain unchanged, the timescale for completion of the tribunal's workload will be ten or 11 years.

This morning in the Dáil, my colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, tabled two amendments. The first suggested that after each of the modules, the tribunal will conduct public hearings and issue an interim report. In the interests of openness and transparency, the tribunal must publish reports as soon as they are complete and not wait until a future date to report on issues which will have been in the public domain for a number of years.

The second amendment concerns the legitimate request to the tribunal to provide the Oireachtas with recommendations on the effectiveness and improvement of existing legislation governing the important issue of corruption. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments tabled by Fine Gael. We had no time to table amendments in this House because I only received the amended schedule this morning.

As a forum for receiving complaints about corruption, which have dogged this investigation, what does the Minister envisage will replace the Mahon tribunal? Despite its shortcomings, the tribunal exists as an official vehicle for dealing with complaints. It appears the door will be firmly closed in 30 days and the only recourse open to people will be the Garda. What proposals, has the Government to fill this void?

The proposed cut-off date for complaints is 16 December 2004. Fine Gael is proposing the setting up of a committee of investigation to investigate allegations of corruption, which should be taken on board. In An Agreed Programme for Government, the Government made a commitment to introduce a proceeds of corruption Act, but it appears to have withdrawn from that commitment. People have mentioned this to me on several occasions. I would like the Minister to spell out the policy on the issue.

In the fourth interim report, Judge Mahon anticipated that the tribunal would run until 2014. He now believes it will conclude in 2007, seven years earlier than scheduled. I am sure the Minister will agree this implies an extraordinary condensing of proposed investigations. It begs the question as to what has fallen off the wagon and what issues reported to the tribunals will not be investigated. It appears that Deputy McCreevy's proposed reduced fees will not apply to the agreed seven new staff members of the tribunal. Why are these people being paid exorbitant rates, which is causing widespread public concern? The principle of competitive tendering is not being applied in this instance. The cost of the tribunals since 1997 is a whopping €36 million, which is tantamount to legalised corruption. It is an issue which needs to be addressed because the general public are fed up with the costs associated with the tribunals. Perhaps the Minister will respond to these issues.