Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators Bannon, Kitt, McCarthy, Dardis and Brady for their contributions. Senator Bannon was a little unfair in suggesting I would not accept amendments. It must be pointed out that the amendments tabled were out of order for the good reason that neither he nor I tied the hands of this House when the legislation was enacted in 1998. The process is well understood. The tribunal requests amendments and that is what prompted this legislation.

I do not disagree with Senator Bannon that more productive use could have been made of the massive resources employed in tribunals and nor do I disagree with Senator Dardis who said a degree of public scandal had been caused by the costs involved. To be fair to the tribunals, these arrangements were put in place by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The point has to be made that if these arrangements have proven to be unwise or unnecessarily cumbersome, the blame lies with us and not with the tribunals. Sometimes, when criticising what has happened, we tend to lose sight of that reality.

I thank Members for the wide-ranging debate. I would like to touch on a number of the issues raised. I have already dealt with the issue of resources but, at the end of the day, it is important if we are to cleanse our system of the suspicion of corruption that we spend the necessary resources.

Senator Bannon also indicated his concern regarding corruption and suggested that not enough has been done. I suggest, with respect, that he is being a little unfair to himself and other Members of the Oireachtas. The Planning and Development Act 2000 introduced a number of changes to deal with the issue of transparency. One issue dealt with in the conclusion of the report of the tribunal was the non-application of development charges in a particular case, which was an issue of corruption. Greater transparency has been created in the 2000 Act in that the whole system of charges, once decided in secrecy, are now decided by council members. Not only was more transparency created, a job was given to councillors. In the past several years, the Department has been proactive in providing policy advice and guidelines, for example, on residential densities, telecommunications masts and child care. I will shortly issue guidelines on one-off rural housing. Our planning system is and always has been more transparent than elsewhere and we are sometimes inclined to flail ourselves unnecessarily on this issue. Modern guidelines make the system more transparent.

Senator Brady pointed out that arrangements for dealing with the planning code and disclosures of interests have been introduced. Legislation and a regulatory framework have been introduced that deal not just with the conduct of public representatives but also of public servants, a positive and beneficial development. The Local Government Act 2001 provides a comprehensive ethics framework for local government. The Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 was also important legislation in this regard. The framework has the three basic requirements of annual declarations of interests, the disclosure of any interest in a matter coming before a local authority and the public register of interests. I put it to Senator Bannon that this is more transparent than the frameworks in place in most other European states. The Freedom of Information Act also provides for a surprisingly open system. The final framework for separate national codes of conduct for local authority councillors and employees has been drafted. A framework that did not exist in the past is now being put in place. It did not exist in the past because people did not see the need for it. However, they see the need for it now.

Other legislation against corruption has been introduced, such as the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2001. It strengthens the laws on corruption by providing a presumption of corruption where there is proof that certain persons in public office received moneys. The Standards in Public Office Act 2001 is another important part of the architecture of preventing a recurrence of these events. Most Senators will accept that we cannot legislate to create standards. We as public representatives must create the standard and must be more vigilant than we were in the past. This is an issue for everyone holding public office. The corruption of one brings blame on us all. As Senator McCarthy said, if the thousands of individuals involved in both Houses of the Oireachtas and local government were taken into account over the years, corruption has not been a feature of our system. We have been remarkably lucky that there has been no corruption within the public administration body. Far too often, we are inclined to flagellate ourselves on this issue, rather than look at comparisons elsewhere. That is not to say that we should not strive for standards of excellence, but we have generally done so in the past.

Senator Bannon raised the matter of the fees structure continuing until 2007. On 17 November, I told the House it was not practical to introduce a change to the structure before the tribunal terminated on 31 March 2007. I made a joking reference to the fact that the date is my birthday. The best birthday present we could all have is that the tribunals will be wound up by then. A question was raised on the cut-off date, 16 December 2004, for submissions to the tribunal. As the tribunal has been operating for seven years, there are few people, even in the remotest parts of the island, who are not aware of their existence and have had adequate time to make submissions.

This slight Bill will give the tribunal the self-discretion it should have been given in the first instance. When these issues came to public light, there was an anxiety on all sides of both Houses to get the tribunal up and running. No Member, however, anticipated the tribunal taking on a life of its own. The more modern arrangements introduced under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 are less cumbersome and inflexible. It must be remembered that the capacity to appoint a tribunal of inquiry into any other issue will always remain with the Oireachtas. We are not seeing the end of tribunals. Hopefully, we will see the end of the need for tribunals but the legislation will always be there.

Senator Bannon's amendments were not ruled out of order because of any inflexibility on this side of the House. It arises directly out of the 1998 legislation requiring the Oireachtas to respond to proposals that come from the tribunal and removes the capacity for us to adopt the type of additional amendments he wishes. I am sure other Senators wished to table similar amendments. Sadly, that is not the point at which we are. The measures to be introduced in the Bill are focused on meeting the requirements of Judge Mahon and his group. Tribunal meetings in plenary session have been a cumbersome device. We are now assured when the modules currently in public hearings are completed, different sessions of the tribunal will take place. That is how the tribunal intends to brings its work forward. I am grateful for the contributions made in the House. I do not wish to appear inflexible or arrogant, of which occasionally Ministers are accused when rejecting amendments. However, I am sure Senator Bannon understands the basis upon which the decisions were taken. I thank Senators for their contributions.