Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)

I thank the Minister of State for coming before the House for this debate and I wish her well in her role. This debate brings back to me the difficult time my party, its members and I experienced in the aftermath of the publication of the Mahon tribunal report. The period in question was very upsetting for us, particularly as people in whom we had placed our faith and whose evidence we had waited to be adjudicated upon were found extremely wanting by a tribunal of inquiry.

It is worth considering the findings of the tribunal and engaging in the type of political commentary and criticism to which they have already been subjected. That is certainly the entitlement of Members on all sides. However, all parties must look to their own records and their own dealings with this and other tribunals. A number of media commentators, particularly in the context of the Moriarty tribunal, have questioned the value of tribunal findings. Those in the media need to question their own actions and opinions. A tremendous amount of forensic investigation was done in the context of following a particular money trail relating to a number of individuals and a huge amount of evidence was gathered. I recently saw some documents which provide details of the donations made by one particular company during the 1990s. It would appear that there was something for everybody in the audience, including elected Members, all parties, constituency organisations, etc. All of this is documented in the tribunal's findings. The donations to which I refer were not found to be corrupt, although some of them may perhaps have been. In the context of this debate, we must look to ourselves and our parties. We must also look to the future in order to identify what we can change.

The tribunal was established by Fianna Fáil in 1997. I accept that it was necessarily established and that there was no great act of bravery involved in its being set up. The tribunal had to be established in light of the serious allegations that were floating about at that point. Who would have thought it would have ended almost 15 years later with significant costs? It is relevant to talk about the costs but not in the context of trying to undermine the tribunal and the findings it made. There is a debate to be had not just on tribunal costs but legal costs in general. I heard one commentator pointing out the State is the largest procurer of legal services and effectively sets the price. That is what happened in the tribunal. We set the price and, in fact, the price filtered down to the rest of the legal services. This must be addressed because the costs are not worth it and could have been done much cheaper.

My party had some devastating findings made against some of its members. These were acted upon within 24 hours. We fully accept the findings of the tribunal. We have to because we set it up. There is much talk about the tribunal not having any legal effect and just being a judge's opinion. The findings of fact, however, are there and were made by learned judges. They must be accepted by Members of the Oireachtas. As I said already, they should also be accepted by media commentators. Over the past few days, several of them have come out of the woodwork, employed by certain individuals, to state the findings are just judges' opinions. That is not correct and it does not bode well for law and order if judges' findings are not accepted in whatever forum they are made.

We must look to the future too and how the planning system can be changed. The single most significant measure contained in the report was the establishment of a planning regulator. Significant progress was made by the previous Administration with the planning and development legislation which corrals councils into a certain course of action decided at national level, a good development.

The tribunal did not agree that planning regulation should be carried out by a Minister. The fact that the ultimate decision and power is moved away from councillors to an independent person who should not be subject to lobbying or corruption is a positive step forward, one which I support. It is important the planning regulator will do a better job than other regulators have done who have become captured by the very utilities they are supposed to regulate. Regulators always seem to go with the companies they are regulating. I would hate to see that happening with a planning regulator. Any planning regulator should have a short term of office and be replaced every two years to ensure he or she does not fall into the same trap the financial regulator did, where there was a game of golf with the banks every so often. Who is to say that could not happen again? The only answer to that is to have short terms of office for a planning regulator.

The tribunal judges saw much of what went wrong with planning. There was much crime which has been and is being dealt with by the courts. The judges recommended breaches of ethics should be a criminal offence. They recommended an increased role for the Standards in Public Office Commission and that politicians should be restricted from land deals for two years after leaving office, as well as providing audited accounts. Much of these measures are already in the proposed legislation on corruption and are to be welcomed.

The disclosure requirements should be updated. Annual disclosure is not enough. If a politician comes into assets or property, he or she should be subject to a short disclosure period subsequently. We should have to declare any loans we have. The public interest requires we declare our assets but also our mortgages. In this tribunal and in other reports, it came to light there was a certain amount of insider dealing in obtaining mortgages involving the political system as well as media figures and other people of influence. They were all able to get loans on an easy basis from certain financial institutions which partly contributed to our economic collapse. For politicians to be above reproach, we should have to declare our mortgages too.

I look forward to the proposed legislation arising from the tribunal's recommendations. Since the tribunal was established, Fianna Fáil introduced many measures in planning legislation. They have not all worked, however. While it is important to have a centralised system for setting out guidelines, some of the national guidelines have not worked. The retail planning guidelines were a disaster. Shopping centres were built in areas which are now empty. It was not councillors but An Bord Pleanála which sited these shopping centres after objections by residents. That was a failure of national guidelines on which, presumably, An Bord Pleanála was acting.

I have also heard that regional guidelines are defective. I often say I do not want to get involved in this area as it is not my concern. If politicians move away from highlighting flawed guidelines, we could have some of the mistakes of the past made again. There will have to be a role for politicians in some way to advocate on behalf of their communities and the broad general interest.

This report, as well as the Moriarty tribunal report, is with the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Garda. Nothing has happened with the Moriarty findings. Who is to say nothing will happen with the Mahon report? I suppose certain things have happened with some people serving time in jail and other cases before the courts. However, I am not sure the type of retribution and justice required by the public will happen. This would be a shame after so many years and so much money spent.