Archives - Page 432 of 491 - Village Magazine

Posted in:

Icreland – the fundamental difference

by Village 31 August, 2012

Ireland’s controlled and framed Constitutional Convention shows that democracy here is still a joke Article by Niall Crowley Three years ago a tiring joke was doing the rounds as to the difference between Iceland and Ireland. Ultimately it turned out to be no joke. Now to one letter and a half-year another difference has added itself – democracy. This one is not much of a joke either. The government’s proposals for a Constitutional Convention highlight the difference. It is going for a politically-controlled and tightly-framed review of our Constitution. The Icelandic government went for a people-led and popularly-framed review of their Constitution. The Act on a Constitutional Assembly, 2010, kick-started a process of Constitutional review in Iceland that was based on a framework of norms and values that were ‘crowd-sourced’ – that conducted by a Council of elected citizens, and that involved significant public scrutiny and participation. The first step in the process was a government-convened national meeting in November 2010 of 1500 randomly selected citizens. This was modelled on a civil-society deliberative assembly previously convened by the Canadian ‘Anthill’ group in 2009. Participants at the meeting were gathered in small discussion groups on a range of constitutional matters. They discussed and reached consensus on the values to govern how these matters should be addressed in the Constitutional review. This meeting ‘crowd-sourced’ values for the new Constitution. Elections were held for a 25-member Constitutional Assembly in November 2010. The Assembly had to have a minimum of 40% of women and of men. Any citizen could stand, and Ministers or members of the Parliament were not precluded. 522 people stood for election on the basis of required sponsorship by between 30 and 50 citizens. The turnout was low at 35.95%. Fifteen men and ten women were elected. Those elected included lawyers, political-science academics and journalists. They were largely recognisable public figures. Nevertheless the members were definitely chosen by the people on a non-partisan basis. The election was challenged and ruled invalid by the Supreme Court based on technical faults in the process of the election rather than its outcome. The government decided to appoint those elected to a Constitutional Council on the grounds that their popular mandate was legitimate. The Constitutional Council worked on a full-time basis for four months with the support of a legal council. It presented a draft Constitutional Bill to the Parliament in July 2011. This Bill will be subject to a referendum this year. The Constitutional Council used social media to engage the public in their work. The proceedings of the Council were upstreamed to the internet. All drafts prepared by the Council were available on their website. A semi-formal collective of individuals formed a Constitutional Analysis Support Team which analysed the drafts and which convened an open meeting of citizens to stress-test the final draft for gaps. The outcome of this process has not been radical. It does, however, reflect solid and significant progress towards a more equal, environmentally-sustainable and participative Iceland. The preamble to the draft Constitution states that “We who inhabit Iceland want to create a fair society where everyone is equal” and that Iceland rests on the “cornerstones of freedom, equality democracy and human rights”. A specific chapter makes provisions in relation to both human rights and nature. It includes a provision that “the utilisation of resources shall be guided by sustainable development and the public interest”. Public participation derives from three provisions. Ten per cent of the electorate can petition for a referendum to be held on legislation that has been passed by the Parliament; two per cent of the electorate may submit an item of business for debate in the Parliament; and ten per cent of the electorate may submit a legislative Bill for consideration by the Parliament. One letter, six months and a whole lot of democracy makes for a pretty fundamental difference. Apart altogether from the advantage shrewd policy-making has gained for Iceland economically, there is a whole democratic joke whose butt is not Iceland but Ireland.

Posted in:

Just fix it

by Village 31 August, 2012

Remove corruption and developer-centredness from planning and local government Article by Catherine Murphy Of all the boom-era faults we should be determined to fix, planning and development law and local government design should rank amongst the most urgent. It virtually goes without saying that the present economic difficulties in which we find ourselves are, largely, a direct consequence of the permissive and reckless relationship that existed between banks, the property developing elite and some elected officials – particularly those at local level. Too often it is solely the Department of Finance that is examined for clues as to the nature of our recent economic collapse. And, while not proposing in any way to mitigate the responsibility of those responsible for developing and implementing inflationary policies where the property boom is concerned, it’s clear that in order to have a property boom you must first have land zoned for development and planning permission granted; responsibility for that lies across the river at the Department of the Environment and amongst Local Authorities. An external investigative process was initiated by the then Minister for the Environment John Gormley TD in 2010, in order to probe alleged planning irregularities identified in Carlow, Dublin City, Cork City, Cork County, Galway and Meath. However, as opposed to continuing and pursuing this type of inquiry, newly appointed Minister for the Environment, Phil Hogan TD, unfortunately took the opposite approach. Almost immediately upon assuming office in March 2011 Minister Hogan cancelled the external investigative process – a disappointing turn of events given that we know the process was well-advanced by the time the Fianna Fáil-Green Party government fell in January 2011. Several planning consultancies had prepared tender proposals and the independent panel of planners to oversee the investigation had been agreed upon. As has been noted by contributors to this publication and others, this decision by Minister Hogan is widely seen as a massive retrograde step. A view supported by several developments this year alone. The publication of the Mahon Report and An Taisce’s State of the Nation Report , not to mention the conviction of former Fine Gael councillor Fred Forsey for taking corrupt payments, should have set alarm bells ringing in the Minister’s office, but unfortunately the decision to wind up the investigations was not reversed. A state of affairs confirmed in the Dáil on 3rd May of this year by Minister for Planning, Jan O’Sullivan TD, who confirmed her predecessor Willie Penrose TD had made a policy decision in favour of internal as opposed to external inquiries in the interests of making a saving to the exchequer. The result of those internal reviews, released on 12th June, is that there was a finding of no prima facie evidence of corruption in the planning process in the seven local authorities under review. Unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of an independent investigation to reassure us of that conclusion. We do, however, have the benefit of several examples where external authorities have investigated isolated instances of alleged corruption and malpractice in our planning system. If we look at one of the complaints that was subject to the original investigation (and investigated by aforementioned internal review) relating to Cork City Council, we can see that the Office of the Ombudsman, conducting a limited survey of nine city and county councils in response to alleged irregularities in Cork, concluded that, “different local authorities, including Cork City Council, are adopting different practices and procedures and taking different interpretations of the legislation and guidelines”, and that this, “suggests that there are difficulties of a systemic nature which may need to be dealt with on a systemic basis.” Such a conclusion is alarming, although in the specific Cork example it’s important to note that the Internal Planning Review stated that the matter was resolved to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction. Nevertheless, if a limited investigation of nine authorities can result in a conclusion such as the Ombudsman’s, surely it is incumbent upon the current government to restore confidence in the system they govern by initiating a fully independent inquiry. It goes without saying that the Mahon Tribunal is the most exhaustive and comprehensive example of an independent external investigation into planning irregularities conducted to date, albeit far too costly for the taxpayer and far too protracted in its deliberations. Its conclusions scarcely need re-stating – damning, as it was, of the planning system in Dublin and of several elected officials and local authority staff, and scathing in its assessment of corruption which it found had had a malign effect on virtually every level of Irish political representation. If there was a chance that even some of the activities which Mahon uncovered were happening in other local authorities, then to my mind, for continued public confidence in our planning system, the argument for fully independent investigations of other councils where irregularities have been already identified is a strong one. Admittedly, Mahon’s remit was exceptionally broad; I make no case for an investigation of Mahon’s duration and certainly not its cost – however we can be reasonably sure that an internal Departmental investigation would not have resulted in the same information coming to light. The final example which came to prominence recently is that of former Fine Gael councillor Fred Forsey. Mr Forsey’s conviction for accepting corrupt payments came about in large part because a third party with detailed knowledge of the misdeeds decided to speak out. We would most likely never have known of the extent of planning corruption committed by Mr Forsey in Dungarvan if there were not a source with such knowledge available. If it’s also the case, as has recently been alleged, that senior members of Fine Gael were in fact aware of improprieties surrounding Mr Forsey in 2007, then the case for impartial and independent investigations into planning irregularities becomes virtually impossible to ignore for any politician concerned about the credibility of our planning authorities. And yet, the Government has not budged. Beyond the immediate political sensitivity of commissioning

Posted in:

Politics

Tax wealth

by Village 31 August, 2012

Campaigners should unite to demand fairness in the tax system Article by Patrick Nulty Sinead Pentony has done us all some service. In the last Village, she highlighted the fact that Ireland’s overall tax-to-GDP ratio is third lowest in the EU at 28 per cent. The burden of adjustment since the recession began has been carried by spending cuts, rather than changes to our tax system. There is ever-increasing acceptance that we will need to enter into a new funding programme when the IMF-EU deal runs out. This is further evidence of a giant policy-failure. Those who advocate the policy of “cut first, grow later” must now make themselves accountable. Will they admit that their austerity policy has failed, and that if it hasn’t worked so far, it is unlikely to somehow miraculously start delivering now? Recent CSO and ESRI figures have shown that low- and middle-income earners have borne the brunt of fiscal adjustments and that Ireland is becoming a radically more unfair society as austerity deepens. The first step in a major effort to tilt the balance would be the introduction to Ireland of a wealth tax. A wealth tax is a tax which is levied on the wealth held by a person or entity. The tax rate is typically a percentage of the taxpayer’s calculated net worth, and varies in proportion to that worth. The Fine Gael-Labour coalition government introduced a wealth tax in 1975. We taxed annually at a rate of one per cent the net market value of the taxable wealth of individuals, discretionary trusts and non-private trading. When Fine Gael and Labour lost office in 1977 Fianna Fáil abolished this tax. It was a tax that Labour had pushed hard to introduce, and wealth taxes would have been once been part of mainstream social-democratic thinking in Europe. In many countries, wealth taxes have been another casualty of the neo-liberal consensus and euro-wide decline of social-democratic politics. However, France, Norway and Switzerland continue to levy wealth taxes, while Luxembourg applies a form of wealth tax on companies. In France, the tax is worth €4.4 billion a year. In tiny Luxembourg it is worth €8 billion. According to the Minister for Finance, a wealth tax applied along the French model would raise €500 million a year. Over a five-year period it could be worth up to €2.5 billion, which would remove the need for many cutbacks. It should also be noted that there would be benefits in other tax areas. It would provide the Revenue Commissioners with a new audit-base to ensure compliance in areas like income tax and capital taxes. I recently submitted a series of questions to the Minister for Finance on wealth-tax proposals. In a written response to me, he wrote: The Government does not propose at this time to introduce a wealth tax. There is a clamour now calling for growth measures. The new mantra is “not just cuts, but growth too”. The problem is the cuts are killing the opportunities for growth. The cuts in the capital budget alone in budget 2012 cost 10,000 jobs, according to the Department of Finance. The increasing volume of research relating to inequality in Ireland shows that such cuts generate structural inequality and will damage our economic growth in the long run. Unless we respond to the continuing crisis with measures on the revenue side which can help drive investment in the economy, we will be ignoring opportunities to confront the crisis. In the absence of political will, it may very well be left up to citizens to demand a wealth tax that is both economically prudent and socially fair. This campaign in Ireland would be following in the footsteps of the tax-justice movement elsewhere. Groups such as Community Platform and Reclaiming our Future have led the charge on this issue. They need now to be joined by other forces, including public representatives, to build a movement which will have to be listened to. Patrick Nulty is Labour TD for Dublin West and former secretary of the Poor Can’t Pay campaign

Posted in:

General

Richard Dawkins interview. Rationality’s Man on Earth. By JP O’ Malley

by Village 26 July, 2012

‘if you want to understand life, don’t think about vibrant, throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology”. ‘Philosophers already speculate about a situation where you download your brain’s entire contents into a computer and the computer does the thinking for you after you are dead’ Sitting in Richard Dawkins living room is pleasant. The first thing you notice is the volume of books blanketing every wall. On the top shelf I spot a copy of ‘The God Delusion’. Nietzsche may have declared the death of god over 130 years ago, but Dawkins is perhaps the most famous exponent of the view that secularism is the only rational option when it comes to a belief system. Due to the wave of controversial publicity this book received, when it was published in 2006, many people still see him as an angry, arrogant atheist but in person the man himself is placid, courteous, a perfect old-school English gentleman, speaking in slow, authoritative, sentences: a skilled debater, and a fountain of knowledge. Dawkins’ area of expertise indeed is not religion, but evolutionary biology. His latest erudite book: ‘The Magic of Reality – How we know what’s really true’ roves far from this base. Teaming up with the illustrator Dave Mc Kean, the book – peppered with cartoon-style images – explains the science behind natural processes such as earthquakes, rainbows, evolution, space and time, and how languages are formed. Everywhere he distinguishes between myth and reality, fact and fiction, encouraging children to ask rational questions about why things happen on this planet. For example in the first chapter entitled Who is the first Person? Dawkins explains the myth of the Garden of Eden. He then goes on to explain, in a very simple way, the theory of evolution. Most scientific concepts are intelligible to children, says Dawkins, and his book aims to prove it. “I think evolution doesn’t enter the national curriculum until the age of about fourteen, it’s part of my ambition to get that changed. Some people think it’s a concept too difficult for children to grasp. I disagree”. While Dawkins wants to discourage the notion of spells and supernatural magic, he says he is well aware of the value that myths play in cultural and historical heritage, and literature. “The Old Testament and The Greek and Norse Myths – I could have added the Celtic Myths, which are beautiful – these are all important tales for understanding English literature. Children should know the mythical background to literature: you can’t read Keats without knowing The Greek Myths for example”. You sense somehow that this latest book is a little tamer and won’t cause the sort of controversy or notoriety that characterises some of Dawkins’ other books. For example, ‘The Selfish Gene’, (written in 1976, selling a million copies) was misinterpreted by many readers. In the book Dawkins postulated a revolutionary biological hypothesis, entitled the selfish gene theory. This stated – in Darwinian terms – that everything that human beings do is driven by genes which are necessarily inherently selfish in order to maximise their chances of survival. However, the book also goes on to to explain how altruism is an evolutionary trait, and why it is of benefit to mankind to act with kindness. How does Dawkins react to people who misinterpret his work? “It seems to me these people read the book by title only, and they assume they have read the book when they have only read the title”. I ask him about the woman in Australia who wrote him a letter after reading the book, telling him she thought her life wasn’t worth living and who tried to commit suicide. “Well if you come at life from a religious point of view and you feel your life has a purpose, and you’re then subsequently told that you’re a survival machine for your genes, it makes you feel futile and sort of useless. But you have to overcome that by realising that that’s only the interpretation of a Darwinian view of why you are here, but we can each make our own purposes in life, and we do. The purposes we have in life are varied, they could be: to write a book, to learn to play the piano, to get married to a certain person. In our day-to-day existence we don’t feel as though we are survival machines for our genes”. Dawkins declared in his 1986 book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’: “What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, not warm breath, not a spark of life. It is information, words, instructions…. if you want to understand life, don’t think about vibrant, throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology”. When I ask him how far technological advancement will change the human mind, he is reluctant to make predictions without evidence, but is keen not to underestimate the potential power that computers may have in the future. “The whole molecular genetics revolution since Watson and Crick (the scientists who discovered the double helical structure of the DNA molecule in 1953) has been the digitisation of life, and it is astonishing, revolutionary. So a large part of biology – genetics – is information technology. Brains haven’t got that far yet. But it is possible that in the future computers will increasingly take over brain function. Philosophers already speculate about a situation where you download your brain’s entire contents into a computer and the computer does the thinking for you after you are dead. These are all science-fiction-type speculations that are not totally to be ruled out. If computers/ robots/ machines are given the capacity to reproduce, then they could evolve”. Dawkins coined the word ‘meme’ back in 1976. He argues that running parallel with our genetic evolution, is a cultural evolution in man. Just as genes jump from body to body, via sperm and egg, so too memes (ideas) pass from brain to

Posted in:

July 2012 Editorial – calling for an end to impunity for white-collar criminals

by Village 26 July, 2012

Democracy depends on justice. Justice must be dispensed evenly. This democracy is subverted by the flagrancy and impunity of white-collar crime – crime committed by the upper social classes, a type of crime that has ultimately ravaged this country. At every level the criminal system has been set up to ensure maintenance of the status quo, and certainly not to challenge the privileges of the wealthiest or most powerful in society. There is some sign that progressive legislation is being introduced but the culture in the criminal justice system and particularly among the prosecuting authorities has allowed white collar crime to fester and grow – from widespread tax evasion to deception on a gigantic scale causing the loss of billions. Regulators raided the offices of the Anglo Irish Bank in February 2009. Three years on, the investigation continues. This is far from the first time that the State has launched a lengthy investigation into white-collar crime. The investigation into Merchant Banking’s failure to comply with financial regulations in the 1980s lasted for six years before it was determined that the case could not be prosecuted. Criminal investigations of planning corruption in the 1980s were abortive. In 2011 High Court Judge Peter Kelly refused an application from the gardai and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) for a six-month extension to their joint inquiry into Anglo Irish Bank.”Will it [the inquiry] ever end?” he thundered, occasioning privately-expressed outrage from the beleaguered gardai, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the ODCE. Three separate investigations are ongoing into Anglo after its spectacular collapse likely to cost the country around €25bn. It appears that the refusal of ten witnesses to co-operate with the ODCE is one of the principal reasons why the Anglo investigation rolls on interminably. Last year the ODCE submitted five extensive investigation files on Anglo to the DPP. In the first quarter of 2012, it sent another three large investigation files to the DPP. The ODCE now regards the investigative phase of its Anglo Irish Bank investigations as almost complete. Yet no charges have been referred against Seán Ftzpatrick, David Drumm or Michael Fingleton. It is entirely a matter for the DPP to determine if, and to what extent, any of the extensive investigation files which she has received from the ODCE and the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation warrant prosecution. The biggest problem seems to be the mentality of civil servants in the prosecuting authorities who do not see the urgency of the imperative to prosecute those who have riven our country with their greedy corruptions. There is evidence that the judiciary, led by some of the Tribunal judges and Judge Kelly, but also the likes of Judge Griffin in the Circuit Court who recently sentenced Councillor Forsey for corruption, understand the significance of advancing these prosecutions, but the ODCE, DPP, Central Bank and the Fraud Squad are timorous, and deferential in the face of the moneyed and the professional. Since its inception, the Competition Authority has secured 33 convictions against companies and individuals, but the yield has been low: €600,000 in fines and no one sent to jail. The ODCE has secured around 300 convictions, mostly in the District Court where fines and penalties are derisory. In its 10-year history, the ODCE has never secured a single prosecution for insider trading or market abuse, though last year it did finally secure a three-year prison sentence arising from a company law conviction. The only convictions related to the drawn-out tribunals have been of Ray Burke for tax evasion, George Redmond (eventually overturned) and Frank Dunlop for corruption, and Liam Cosgrave for offences under the ethics acts; as well as of Liam Lawlor for blatant obstruction of the Planning Tribunal. More are needed. Comparisons have inevitably been drawn with the US where Ponzi scheme supremo, Bernie Madoff, is serving a 150- year jail term and where even cuddly newspaperman, Conrad Black, did porridge. But there is little appetite in cosy Ireland to replicate the US prosecutor’s panoply of wire-taps, plea-bargaining, monetary incentives for witnesses to testify against former colleagues and the wholesale removal of discretion in sentencing from judges. Consideration needs to be given to granting US-style immunity from prosecution to corporate whistleblowers. It is also time to consider the introduction of pre-trial hearings that would force prosecutors to show their hand at an early stage, flushing out frivolous cases and reducing delays. Such hearings would deal with complex issues such as disclosure, admissibility of evidence and disputes over documents and expert evidence before a single juror is empanelled. There should be a debate as to how prosecutors should be more democratically accountable. Rudolph Guiliani and Eliot Spitzer both made names from aggressive prosecutions of white-collar criminals, though it seems clear that US-style elections would introduce an undesirable majoritarian populism to prosecution. A law is required, as in the UK, to compel witnesses (as opposed to suspects) to co-operate with serious fraud investigators. Many powers to procure co-operation and information from are on the statute books: there is little evidence that those powers have been used or fully tested. The powers must be reviewed immediately to see if they can be improved by reference to the experience of other jurisdictions such as the UK. Indeed last year Minister for Justice Alan Shatter introduced the Criminal Justice Act 2011, which sees witnesses being compelled to provide information to Gardai across a broad range of white collar/fraud categories if it might be of material assistance in preventing the commission by another person of a relevant offence or securing the prosecution of any person for a relevant offence. But above all we need a change in the ethos of the criminal justice system. A rigorous programme of training for judges, lawyers, Gardaí and officials in the Office of Corporate Enforcement, Central Bank, Competition Office and Director of Public Prosecutions and Revenue offices must be initiated as soon as possible.

Posted in:

Why no prosecutions?

by Village 26 July, 2012

Why no prosecutions? Some unethical behaviour is not criminal; and some prosecuting authorities are slow or inert. So bankers and the villains of our tribunals are not getting justice. By Michael Smith The law on corruption • The main relevant law in place when the activities considered by the tribunals took place was the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916 included the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889 which applied only to local authorities and created an offence of corruptly giving or receiving any consideration as an inducement or reward for exercising official authority in a particular manner. Simply stated, this Act made it an offence for members or servants of such bodies to accept or seek bribes. • The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2001 made it easier to prove corruption because the person who gave the gift [or consideration or advantage] or on whose behalf the gift [or consideration or advantage] was given had an interest in [the way official powers were exercised] the gift or consideration or advantage was deemed corrupt. • Established in 1996, the role of the Criminal Assets Bureau is to carry out investigations into and potentially freeze the suspected proceeds of criminal conduct. • Findings of Tribunals can’t be used in evidence in criminal proceedings. BOX 2 Ray Burke, Frank Dunlop, Liam Lawlor served prison sentences arising, directly or indirectly from the Planning and Payments Tribunals. The twelve others who feature on the cover of the magazine have not faced prosecution Ray Burke Minister for Foreign Affairs June-October October 1997; Minister for Justice 1989-1992; Minister for Industry and Commerce 1988-1989; Minister for Energy 1987-1988; 1987-1991; Minister for the Environment March-December 1982. Experience in Tribunal Shortly after his appointment as Minister for Foreign Affairs, allegations resurfaced that Burke had received IR£80,000 from JMSE AND Bovale developments. Burke denied the allegations but resigned from the Cabinet and from the Dáil in 1997, after just four months in office. This allegation led to the establishment of the Planning Tribunal chaired by Justice Feargus Flood. In an interim report of the subsequent Flood Tribunal, Flood judged Burke to be “corrupt”. The Flood Tribunal found that “the assignment of Briargate by Oakpark Developments Limited to Mr Burke conferred a substantial benefit upon him which in the opinion of the Tribunal was given in order to ensure that he would act in the best interests of Oakpark Developments Limited’s director, Mr. Tom Brennan and his associates when performing his public duties as a member of Dublin County Council and a member of Dáil Eireann. In the opinion of the Tribunal the transfer of Briargate to Burke amounted to a corrupt payment to him from Tom Brennan and his associates. More problematically, the Tribunal was unable to discover what actions Burke performed for Tom Brennan or his associates in return for the benefit provided to him. Experience in Court In July 2004, Burke pleaded guilty to making false tax returns. The charges arose from his failure to declare for tax purposes the payments that he had received from the backers of Century Radio. On 24 January 2005 he was sentenced to 6 months in jail for these offences, though he he got some remission. Possible Criminal Action Presumably the difficulty was that the Tribunal as stated “was unable to discover what actions Mr. Burke performed for Mr. Tom Brennan or his associates in return for the benefit [corruptly] provided to him”. Frank Dunlop He was appointed Press Secretary of the Fianna Fáil party in 1974, based at Leinster House. He was head of the Irish Government‘s Information Service and Government Press Secretary from 1977 to 1982. He became a lobbyist, specialising in planning matters, and for a while fronted an RTE political programme with Fergus Finlay Experience in Tribunal Dunlop was initially brought to the attention of the Tribunal by Tom Gilmartin, who alleged that Dunlop was being used as a bag-man for developers wishing to pay bribes to politicians in return for favours. When he first took the witness stand in 2000, after failing to provide a written statement, Judge Flood responded to his evidence by asking him to reflect overnight on his position. The following day, Dunlop began to reveal payments that he had made to politicians. Experience in Court When charged Dunlop replied “we always knew this day was coming and I will not be contesting the charges”. Dunlop was sentenced to two years in prison for corruption, with the final six months suspended. He had pleaded guilty to five charges of corruption. He admitted handing over money to politicians at the time of crucial rezoning votes at council meetings relating to lands at Carrickmines in Dublin. The 62-year-old was initially charged with 16 counts of bribing Dublin City Councillors, but he pleaded guilty to five sample charges. In May 2009, he was sentenced to two years in prison for corruption, with the final six months suspended. CAB/Anything else The Criminal Assets Bureau successfully obtained a High Court order in 2006, freezing relevant land assets of 107 acres at Carrickmines owned by Jackson Way Properties Ltd and preventing their sale. Rezoning increased the value of just 17 acres of the property from €8 million to €61 million. It is within the discretion of the DPP to prosecute Dunlop for other crimes implied in the Mahon Report. And CAB can be expected to pursue other lands deemed to have been the object of illegal zonings such as Cherrywood or Quarryvale. Nothing so far, mind you. Liam Lawlor First elected to the Dáil in 1977, two years later he became a member of Dublin County Council. In 1987 he was appointed Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies. Bertie Ahern appointed him chair of his “ethics” committee. In 2000 he was expelled from Fianna Fail who took a dim view of his presence in the