Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

342. To ask the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government his views on whether it is appropriate that his Department published a non-determination of facts naming persons in the reviews carried out into the CPO at Three Trout Stream, Charlesland, Greystones, County Wicklow given that both the reviewer and his Department have accepted that these reviews are not statements of fact and that the reviewer has subsequent to the publication stated that they did not receive relevant documentation from Wicklow County Council in the carrying out of their reviews; and his further views on whether the reviews should be removed from publication on all Government websites. [24176/21]

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer to the reply to Questions Nos. 794 and No. 796 of 21 April, 2021 provided by my colleague, Mr Peter Burke TD, Minister of State for Local Government and Planning.

The reviews state that, during October 2011, concerns over the CPO and loan application were the subject of representations to the former Minister from three named Wicklow public representatives. Similar concerns had been raised in correspondence sent by the Public Accounts Committee to the former Minister in July 2011, as well as during meetings of Wicklow County Council.

The reviews proceeded following receipt of legal advice from and consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. Terms of reference were agreed to address the specific concerns that had been raised by the public representatives. The reviews sought to establish the processes followed by my Department and the Council and to identify any deviation from relevant legal requirements and administrative requirements or practices.

The reviews found that there was no deviation by Wicklow County Council or my Department from the relevant legal requirements and administrative requirements or practices, and concluded that almost all of the concerns were not well founded or were misconceived.

The CPO was a matter of public interest and the reports on the findings of the reviews were accordingly published in the interests of transparency.

It is not considered that there is any basis for the removal of the reports from Government websites.