Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I understand that, particularly where the board, or an coimisiún, as it will be, decides not to go with the inspector's recommendation, as it is entitled to do. Section 123(2)(b) states "under paragraph (a) shall state the main reasons for not following the recommendation in the report". If there were a way of defining "in detail", it might work, but I honestly do not see one. I take the Deputy's point that if the board or commission goes against the view in an inspector's report, it should state its rationale for doing so, and I also take his point on where an explanation for a refusal might not be as detailed as required. On the point on the phrase "in detail", the matter is well covered. There might be some potential for confusion or challenge if we allow one to ask whether the explanation is detailed enough. Who decides on the threshold of detail? I expect, particularly in the scenario the Deputy painted, namely where the commission does not go along with the recommendations in the inspector's report, that it would have to state the main reasons for not doing so. I am just thinking this through with the Deputy. Main reasons are very clear but to imply "main reasons and other reasons" would not really be. However, if the Deputy comes up with something else in advance of Report Stage-----