Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their informative presentations. They were clear, coherent and laid out in detail, as I would have expected because this is how the witnesses do business. If we take anything from this as legislators, we must ask how a situation was allowed to develop where 400,000 tickets were sold in advance of the granting of a licence. It is not the fault of the witnesses as this is the system in which they must operate and I suspect we may have to consult them on another occasion on developing a legislative approach to this issue. At minimum, we must develop an appeals process because An Bord Pleanála usually acts as final arbiter in general planning issues relating to buildings and so on. No such system exists in cases such as this.

The Chairman has addressed Mr. Duffy's point on Mr. McKenna. Mr. Aiken spoke of the expectation that the five concerts would be granted permission. I am flabbergasted, frankly, that Mr. McKenna can make his statement as strongly as he does. When compared to the evidence yesterday from Mr. Keegan, there is a direct conflict and I do not know how it can be resolved. This committee is not undertaking an investigation but the conflict must be aired. Mr. McKenna is prepared to swear an affidavit, which is welcome, and Mr. Keegan has further questions to answer on this.

Yesterday, explaining how he reached the decision, Mr. Keegan covered the points raised by Mr. Duffy on unprecedented over-intensification and unacceptable levels of disruption. We probed him on this matter and he said he was prepared to allow four concerts. I still do not understand how four concerts, in addition to the earlier three concerts by One Direction, could have been acceptable, though unprecedented, and was not deemed over-intensification of use and an unacceptable level of disruption. Somehow the fifth concert was the straw that broke the camel's back. I do not accept this and when pressed on this issue yesterday Mr. Keegan made a slip by saying something had to be given to the residents. In other words, Dublin City Council had to be seen as doing something in response to the concerns raised by residents. I put it to him that had the promoters sought six or seven concerts the council might have granted permission for five on the basis he outlined and deemed it acceptable. He countered this.

On the issue of residents and objections, I have some sympathy for Dublin City Council as the process for lodging objections is not as detailed as it is for construction projects because there is no fee. The issue of how to deal with the situation now has been raised. Mr. Aiken said he spoke to a senior civil servant and Mr. Keegan yesterday mentioned having met a senior civil servant but I do not know whether the same person is in question.

Have the witnesses come up with any potential solution that could get us past this? The Government has refused to take a legislative approach. The witnesses considered a judicial review and Mr. Keegan made it very clear to us yesterday that he was prepared to gamble ratepayers' money to challenge it aggressively. What is the legal advice on whether it might have been successful? As a ratepayer, Mr. Duffy must feel aggrieved at the decision. Many ratepayers have contacted us, such as hotels, restaurants and the business community, who are flabbergasted by it.