Mary Lou McDonald
Question:672. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government if a report (details supplied) will be removed from his Department's website. [7103/18]
View answerTuesday, 13 February 2018
Questions (672, 673, 674)
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:673. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government if, following a High Court judgment (details supplied), he will revoke his predecessor's public statement of 24 April 2013, which included a quoted excerpt from a report. [7104/18]
View answerMary Lou McDonald
Question:674. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government his plans to rescind a report (details supplied); and his plans to establish a new independent investigation regarding the compulsory acquisition of land at Charlesland, County Wicklow, by Wicklow County Council in 2004. [7105/18]
View answerWritten answers
I propose to take Questions Nos. 672 to 674, inclusive, together.
The conclusions and recommendations of the report referred to by the Deputy are the opinions of a specialist senior counsel who was commissioned by the then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to undertake an independent review on a non-statutory basis of the acquisition of land at Charlesland, Co. Wicklow by Wicklow County Council.
The report, dated 8 February 2013, notes that the reviewer did not have the benefit of statutory powers to compel the production of documents or to make any binding determinations of facts. It notes also that any findings or conclusions made should be viewed in that context. However, the report further notes for the record that the reviewer obtained the full cooperation of all parties that participated in the review.
It is important to acknowledge that the report in question was not the subject of the High Court judgment referred to in the details supplied by the Deputy. The reference to a particular element of the report in that judgment reiterates, for the purpose of context, what is actually stated in the report itself, i.e. that it is a statement of opinion rather than a legally established fact.
Against that background, I see no basis for taking the steps referred to.