Unpublished planning report 'an open sore of corruption and failed oversight'

It is also understood that it is felt a redacted report would not eliminate the possibility of defamation proceedings as people would be easily identifiable.

However, Green Party TD Patrick Costello said some form of action must be taken around the report’s findings.

“At this stage we need the report to be acted on or released. It’s been around for years and it has never been closed off. It is there as an open sore of corruption and failed oversight. They’ve got the AG’s advice and never decided to act on it.”

Senior counsel Rory Mulcahy was appointed in 2015 to conduct a review into allegations by whistleblower Gerard Convie that there were irregularities in the local council’s planning department in the early 2000s.

Mr Convie had challenged the findings of an internal review into his allegations, which questioned his motives, in the High Court.

 In 2013, the Department of Environment had to withdraw the review, overturn the findings, and apologise to Mr Convie. Mr Convie presented a dossier of 20 sample cases to the government in 2010, prompting then environment minister John Gormley to launch an independent review.

That process was abandoned in 2011 with the change of government and his successor, Phil Hogan, ordered an internal review. That was completed in 2012 and concluded there was no evidence of irregularities and questioned Mr Convie’s motive in making the claims.

Mr Mulcahy delivered his report in June 2017, but it has yet to be published.

In a response to a parliamentary question from Social Democrats’ TD Catherine Murphy in June, Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien said there has been over 70 requests for the report to be released. These include 52 Parliamentary Questions, six requests by correspondence, 13 Freedom of Information requests, and two Access to Information on the Environment requests.

A Department of Housing spokesperson said that Mr O’Brien was “considering the report”. The department said that as the report was a scoping review, Mr Mulcahy “did not form any conclusion as to the truth or otherwise of those allegations in his report”, which are unproven.

They pointed out that the Commissioner for Environmental Information and the Information Commissioner have in the past decided not to grant access to the report.

“The Office of the Information Commissioner decision stated “placing the details concerned in the public domain would significantly breach the rights to privacy of identifiable individuals”.

“Furthermore, the decision of the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information notes that the report does not contain 'significant wider recommendations' that could be applicable to the planning system as a whole. Therefore, this is a matter that requires careful consideration given that the report details unproven allegations against named persons.”