Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will not name anybody or any local authority. The Chairman should not worry. I am just making the point that being in the public eye does not necessarily produce good quality outcomes in terms of planning decisions. The Central Bank is a good example of a regulator that is publicly known and the interventions of which lead to good public debate, but we should also look at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Environmental Protection Agency has independent enforcement action powers. Nobody - probably none of us in this room, bar the Minister and his officials - could tell us who the head of the EPA is but we all know that the EPA takes decisive action when there are breaches of environmental regulations or contracts. It is a different context, but it shows the value of having independent enforcement powers in addition to the Minister. Who holds the Minister and the Department to account in all of these matters?

I agree with the Minister that the office of the planning regulator should not be a second appeals body. I agree with him in respect of that because that would simply provide a way for those trying to slow down planning decisions. In other areas where there is an appeals process within a particular decision-making process, for example, the appeals office in the Department of Social Protection which is independent, even when an appeal is concluded, appellants have the right to go to the Ombudsman which does not delay the decision but is a final check to ensure that there were no irregularities in the decision-making process. There is no reason the Minister could not design a mechanism for persons, whether for members of the public or whistleblowers within the planning process, to be able to make complaints but, just like with the Ombudsman where there is a strict screening criteria which is not to review the substantive decision but to see if there were irregularities in the process of making the decision, one could ensure that it would not become, as the Minister rightly states, a second appeals body to An Bord Pleanála.

There are compelling arguments - the Mahon tribunal recommendations reinforce this - why the Minister should review this issue. The Minister can do so without undermining any of the salient points he made in terms of the need for greater transparency in the political process and the authority of the Minister and the Government to set policy and legislation. The strongest argument is the tribunal was set up, it made a recommendation but this is not what was recommended; I have yet to hear the Minister explain why that recommendation should not be implemented in full.