Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a very important discussion document. I agree with Deputy Dowds that the powers of the Office of the Planning Regulator would have to be carefully and finely tuned in order that the local democratic process would continue but also that the oversight, which seems to be one of the key issues, would be very thorough and very full in every respect.

On the question of the regulator forming an opinion on possible systemic failures and corruption risks, that is not a difficulty for me but I would have thought it would be a matter for the Garda Síochána. I would like the witnesses to expand on that.

Again I agree with Deputy Dowds that the systematic abuse of the planning process by a small but significant minority of councils led to the tribunals and the appalling corruption they exposed. I welcome the increased vigilance but we must ensure it is fine-tuned and the correct people are doing the right investigations. I note that the witnesses are nodding in agreement. I presume I will get a response on that issue.

I like the fact that the Office of the Planning Regulator provides for research, training and education in planning as well as that one of its core functions will be to evaluate and assess development plans. However, in the instance that the Office of the Planning Regulator forms an opinion with which the Minister of the day disagrees, the Minister will be required to explain the reasons for that, lay such reasons before the Houses of the Oireachtas and also make them available on the Department's website. I would like to tease this out. I presume a regulator would not form such an opinion unless it was a significant issue and the Minister would not disagree unless there were significant reasons for doing so, but the resolution of that difference of opinion should it arise, rests with the Minister. That is my understanding. Is the requirement to have an explanation given in the Houses of the Oireachtas adequate? I am thinking out loud. Should the Minister be obliged to ensure his or her reasoning is benchmarked?