In raising the same matter, I wish Mr. Justice Mahon and his colleagues well in the task ahead of them. I thank Mr. Justice Flood for his work on the tribunal. I also wish to thank him for his work as chairman on the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities which cleared the way for the disability Bill. Perhaps the Government will ensure that his legacy is put in place with the disability Bill soon as it is already long overdue.

Was Mr. Justice Flood pushed or did he jump? Has the Taoiseach learned any lessons to date from the Flood tribunal? Has the report by Mr. Justice Flood been taken on board? The fact remains that if one is associated with Fianna Fáil it helps one to get ahead, even more so if one is corrupt.

What about the shares in the Green Party's back pockets?

Have the Flood investigations had any impact on the way the Government does its business? I am not talking about former Government press secretary, Mr. Frank Dunlop, in that association. The Taoiseach should also apologise to me because he did not indicate to me that he had a meeting on 26 May.

Are there three trays on the Taoiseach's desk – one in-tray, one out-tray and one tribunal correspondence tray? In June 2001, the Taoiseach received a letter from the tribunal requesting help. However, there was a delay in getting back to it on the matter. In January 2002, there was another similar letter. I can understand how Mr. Justice Flood could have been deeply frustrated, not just by the delay in getting correspondence, but also by the mounting costs as those delays continued to impact on the work of the tribunal. Does the Taoiseach accept any responsibility for having wasted taxpayers' money by prolonging the delay in his replies to the tribunal? The tribunal could have handled matters better if it had the resources earlier.

To correct the Deputy, I had no meeting with the legal team or Mr. Justice Flood.

He did not tell us.

I said that I knew about it. The Deputy's indication is that in some way we frustrated Mr. Justice Flood. I will again put on the record the letter from Mr. Justice Flood in which he refers to correspondence with the Attorney General and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, on his resignation and the reasons underlying it:

I note in the public press and now in the House the vexative statement that action-inaction by the Government in relation to requests from the tribunal for additional judges and other matters has caused frustration and the real issue for my resignation. I wish to state categorically that this is not so. My decision is in no way related to or consequent upon any action-inaction of the Government of any kind. My relation with the Government is through the Department of the Attorney General. I have at all times during my tenure in office had a relationship with the Attorney General's Office which has been exceptionally cordial and co-operative. The allegations that the work of the tribunal has been delayed or frustrated, in any way, by the Government is completely groundless and is nothing to do with my decision to resign. My reasons for resignation are solely set out in correspondence with the Attorney [General] and Minister Cullen. I trust this clarifies the matter. Signed: Feargus M. Flood.

With regard to the lessons learned from the tribunal, I led the last Government that brought in the most legislation since the foundation of the State – rightly so – to deal with all of the issues surrounding corruption, planning and ethics.

I listened carefully to what the Taoiseach said. I do not recall him saying that Mr. Justice Flood was not frustrated. He may have been giving various reasons as to why he resigned. It is what he is not saying that is also interesting. Does the Taoiseach accept that the Oireachtas has a particular interest in this matter, given that it is one of the few opportunities we have to bring about change rather than talk about something or ask the Government to do something about it? For that reason, the setting up of the tribunals by the Oireachtas is of particular interest.

Does the Taoiseach further accept that the Government has a job to take action beyond that, and that the kind of action that is needed, aside from the various legislative measures that the Government has introduced, which I acknowledge, still misses the point that temptation, corruption and greed are still endemic in the planning process? Does the Taoiseach accept the fact that the Government continues to guarantee that windfall profits from land owners and land speculators accrue not to the community but to—

The Deputy has moved away from his original question.

I am dealing specifically with the Flood tribunal and the lessons arising. If we do not learn from it then we are wasting taxpayers' money. On that basis, I asked the Taoiseach whether he would remove the corrupting influence of gross profiteering from land rezoning by, for example, taking on board the ideas – whatever about the legislation – proposed in the recent Green Party sponsored Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2003?

The Deputy's time has concluded.

That is the way to tackle corruption because it removes the temptation to profiteer with unwise rezoning. Will the Government act on this?

On the general point, I am sure there will be ongoing recommendations coming from the reports on which the Government will act. I have always stated that. Whether it was in regard to the conclusions of Mr. Justice McCracken or issues in regard to the Moriarty or Flood tribunals, the Government has already introduced legislative measures. I accept that legislation can always be improved upon.

The Deputy made a reference in his first question to what I did not say.

Not to what he did not say.

I am not too sure to what he was referring. He specifically mentioned, as he did on two previous occasions, the appointment of judges. I wish to refer to a letter of 15 May 2002 from John Gallagher, the senior counsel to the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments to the deputy director of the Office of the Attorney General. The letter stated:

As I indicated on the telephone my view which is shared by Mr. Justice Flood is that the instrument should not be made until after Mr. Justice Flood has submitted his interim report to the Oireachtas. I will communicate with you in due course in relation to the operative date for the new instrument and in the meantime would ask that you communicate with the Department concerned to ensure that the amending instrument is not signed until after its agreement with the sole member as to the operative date.

There was no delay on the part of the Government. I thank the Deputy for giving me an opportunity to kill that one because I also saw that in the newspapers.

I am glad I asked that question.

That was mentioned in the newspapers and it was never the intention of the Government to do other than co-operate fully.

Were the resources made available for him to do it?

I am pleased to be able to answer these questions and I hope that I have responded to the issues that were raised.

In the House yesterday people said that the big issue in the weekend newspapers was that Mr. Justice Flood had been frustrated by the Government. Since I answered that one, they have moved on to another issue. I have tried to answer all these issues as best I can in the limited time available.