Mr. Robin Mandal:

I will have a bash at answering that. I feel very uncomfortable telling other people what their jobs should be, so I ask for forgiveness now. What I understand both the Flood and Mahon tribunals to have meant was that the regulator would be the equivalent of An Bord Pleanála in the sense of being the supreme court in administering how the planning system works. Had the regulator taken a more nuanced view of what that meant, it would not mean being the Minister's hit person against local authorities. It could have taken a nuanced view of what the interpretation of national policy meant at local level. I will cite an example, which has been driving other people to insist the national planning policy guidance is mandatory. This would be something like the size of back gardens. They ask why a back garden should be a different size in Drogheda than in Dundalk, or Dublin 6 or Dublin 9. The answer is because they are different. However, ministerial directives do not allow that. On one hand, therefore, the directive is saying that everyone's garden has to be the same size. One cannot say what should or should not be built, or what proportion of build-to-rent can be in a particular area. One must do this or one must do that. That is all coming from ministerial direction. They might consider saying they understand that, and in the enforcement of those directives take the view that not everywhere is the same. All of our main streets do not have to look like Hounslow town centre. All of our suburbs do not have to look like Croydon. There are nuances. That is where the real strength lies. That is where I believe both the Flood and Mahon tribunals were directing us. It was to mediate the power of the Minister. Instead, they have become the hit man.