James Bannon (Fine Gael)

——and bring a more positive response to the development of local government.

It is time for change. That change must be seen in the planning process and the way we do business, in particular in dealing with development plans and rezoning issues, which are undoubtedly at the heart of the corruption which has been exposed by the tribunal. According to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, bad planning and corruption in the 1960s and 1970s cost this country approximately €160 million. This is not acceptable under any circumstance. Fine Gael wants to see an end to a back door unofficial system and the nod and wink planning that has been exposed, through the tribunals, in the former Dublin County Council and Dublin City Council. We want proper sustainable development and realistic development plans.

It would be an outrage and totally untenable if, when the costly and lengthy work of the tribunal comes to a natural end, there was nothing to replace it and if what happened in the past were to occur again, with all concerned taking one step forward and an inevitable two backwards. This inevitability must be anticipated, prevented and thwarted by proper structures being put in place. While we are aware that the tribunal has already highlighted problems in regard to corruption in planning decisions, I would be interested to know if the tribunal is fully satisfied that legislation is in place to prevent any reoccurrence of such corruption or any other. I stated on 17 November that in the programme for Government a commitment was given to introduce a proceeds of corruption Bill, but strangely the Government seems to be withdrawing from that commitment. What is the Minister's policy on this?

It is imperative that we, as legislators, consider how we can improve the planning process and make it more accessible and open. What proposals is the Minister prepared to make to assist local councillors with regard to meetings between them and developers? They requested such assistance and a forum should be established to address their concerns. Apart from arguing that there should be no such contact, steps must be taken to ensure that if it does take place it should be done solely through the council. There should be no impediment to a developer writing to or appearing before the council to make his or her case. This should be transparent and in the council arena and should not involve approaches to individual councillors. I have called for this measure for a long time.

Can Members of the Oireachtas put an added value into the planning process to improve accountability and transparency? In that regard, the ball is in the Minister's court. Many councillors are concerned about the issue and feel that the current situation must change. Councillors are prepared to take on the responsibility of making good planning decisions but they are being put under excessive pressure in many cases. This pressure can be personal and localised and is always totally unacceptable. In the search for the greater good, the Minister must consider what will be good for local authorities.

The Mahon tribunal has been in existence since 1997 but it could be 2007 before it makes recommendations. During this long period there has been little or no response from the political system, apart from the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. We in the Oireachtas must be seen to be pro-active and must consider measures to ensure that despite human weakness and greed, such a tribunal will never be required again. The only way this can be achieved is by changes in the planning laws. This is the least that the public, who have paid the excessive bills of the tribunal, can expect and strongly deserve.

At the very least the public must be kept fully informed on a regular basis on the findings of the tribunal. I have tabled two amendments to this effect. The tribunal must publish reports as soon as they are completed, not wait until some future date when the passage of time has blurred their impact and immediacy is lost.

As the tribunal winds its inevitable way to a conclusion, the decision to divide it into three separate inquiries is welcome but I wonder why this was not done at the time new judges were appointed to sit with Mr. Justice Flood two years ago. The tribunal is currently required to investigate every matter and discrepancy brought before it. Strangely, however, its title and the title of this Bill is the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments Bill. Where there is a demand for investigation, no matter what the subject, there is a lawyer only too happy to take the case.

At the end of the day — many days in this case — a number of questions need to be answered. These include if the public has achieved value for money from the work of the tribunal. Has it revealed the scope of the corruption culture and, more importantly, will it ever be stamped out? Has the public been well served by an investigation lasting almost five years into the actions of a single person? The tribunal did what had to be done but the question now arises as to what is to be done in the future. The answers must come from the Minister. The first thing he could do is to accept my amendments. I received a notice about my amendments from the office of the Cathaoirleach. Surely in a democracy——