Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress on the implementation of the Agreed Programme for Government 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22702/10]
Ceisteanna — Questions
Programmes for Government
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date regarding the implementation of the Renewed Programme for Government, with particular regard to those areas for which he has responsibility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23282/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the implementation of the Programme for Government 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24330/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress on the implementation of the Agreed Programme for Government 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25056/10]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
As Deputies are aware, our initial programme for Government made clear that its delivery was based on a growth rate of 4.5% annually. The renewed programme for Government takes account of the very much changed economic circumstances and of progress to date in implementing the programme and sets out the priority issues on which Government is focusing for the period ahead. I am confident it will serve us well. It is the responsibility of each individual Minister to ensure that the commitments in the renewed programme that fall with their particular portfolio are sought to be implemented.
We all have to adapt to changed economic circumstances. Just as businesses and families are adapting to the new reality, the Government has to do so too. The renewed programme will direct efforts on our behalf in dealing with national and international issues which are fundamental to our well-being and development. While the international economic environment remains uncertain, there is growing evidence of stabilisation of the Irish economy, reflecting the decisive action take in the 2010 budget and our commitment to further adjustments in 2011 and subsequent years.
We are focusing on implementation in order to try to deliver measures which will stimulate sustainable economic recovery and job creation in line with the Government's smart economy framework. The Department of the Taoiseach derives its mandate from my role as Head of Government. It is involved in some degree in supporting implementation of many aspects of the work of Government and provides support to me as Taoiseach and to the Government through the Government secretariat, the Cabinet committee system and its involvement in key policy areas and initiatives.
This day last week the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, who is rarely here and is not here now, said that legislation on the Dublin mayoralty, the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill would be passed by the House before the summer recess. One day later the Chief Whip released the list of legislation that will be passed before the summer recess and none of the three Bills were on it. It might have caused some palpitations somewhere along the line. I ask the Taoiseach to clarify the position regarding the Dublin mayoralty legislation, the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill.
I am not sure that question is covered under this group.
It is part of the revised programme for Government. Is it expected that the three Bills to which I referred will be passed before the summer recess?
The statement by Deputy Hogan last week was unfortunately untrue and incorrect. On the Bills to which the Deputy referred, on all occasion the Chief Whip is constantly providing information for colleagues and other Whips in the House. It is not a question of suggesting that those Bills will not be passed. The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill is scheduled to be debated in the Seanad today.
There are dogs barking all over the place.
Let us hope they listen to their master.
There is wildlife here too.
Work is proceeding on the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill and the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill will come before the Dáil as soon as Committee Stage is completed. Bills have been referred to committees and we need to start putting some time-frames on the consideration of Bills in committees because some of them are doing work other than legislative work. Leaders rightly complain in this House that Bills are not returning to the House quickly enough. When one checks the situation it appears that a lot of other activity is going on in committee which——
We may need to change some of the Chairmen.
I would like to get some co-operation from Opposition Chairmen or spokespersons and for them to be available on some occasions. Deputies are busy and have other commitments but we need to start putting some time limits in place because once we refer Bills to committees it appears that the committees, without referring back to Government, decide how long it will take them to consider Committee Stage. That is not good practice. There is a lot of legislation we would like to have considered here.
I agree with the Taoiseach that the problem is that the list of legislation which is published always states dates cannot be expected or are unknown. I often thought that there is need for greater clarity on when these things are likely to come to fruition in the first place. I am sure it is very frustrating for Government Members to be speaking about Bills which they do not expect to be published until 2011 or 2012. I am not sure it is possible to get a sharper focus on that but it would be helpful. From the Taoiseach's reply, with the number of days we have left in this session, it is not clear if any of the three Bills to which I referred will be passed.
The revised programme for Government referred to three referendums over the lifetime of the Government. One concerns children's rights and another is to broaden the reference to the role of women in the home to one which recognises the role of the first parent in the home. There is also a proposal to support a referendum which is necessary to consider the establishment of a court of civil appeal. They are due to be taken during the lifetime of the Government. Given that it has a maximum of 100 weeks and most work has been done on the referendum on children's rights to date, does the Taoiseach think any of them will be held or is it likely that the Government will push ahead with the referendum on children's rights this year?
Making predictions can be difficult in any situation. The work which has been done by the committee is being considered by the Government and Ministers and will be considered by the Cabinet committee. Reports have been issued in the past few weeks and debates have taken place. We are trying to bring forward legislation before the end of the session. We are working on these issues, specifically on the children's rights referendum, which is a matter of priority.
The programme for Government and the revised programme for Government contain a number of interesting ideas. On 1 May the Government introduced the carbon levy on home heating oil. There was, however, a commitment in the programme for Government that relief would be provided to families and households on low incomes in conjunction with the levy. I ask the Taoiseach when this relief will be provided because it was not introduced in conjunction with the levy. A commitment to publish a fuel poverty strategy by the end of 2009 has not been met. When will we see this strategy?
The programme for Government commits to the establishment of an independent electoral commission to do all kinds of things. We have not heard anything about this proposal for some time. When will the commission be established? There was also a commitment on the banning of corporate donations to political parties. When are we likely to see legislation on that issue?
The best way of getting up-to-date information on individual aspects of the programme for Government is through the line Ministers who have primary responsibility for driving them. I say this as a general remark because there is no point in using Taoiseach's Questions as a means of covering all these areas in a compendium fashion.
In regard to the carbon tax, schemes are in place from October to April in respect of devising measures to assist people with their fuel needs. I understand that will be the system under which we will operate alleviating measures for the tax. On the fuel poverty plan, a direct question to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will ascertain the up-to-date position. Work is ongoing in regard to the electoral commission in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. A timeframe has not been put on this commitment but we are working through the issues arising.
I recommend that to get accurate information in response to parliamentary questions, which is the purpose of Question Time, it is best to seek the required level of detail from the responsible line Ministers.
I appreciate that line Ministers will be able to provide detailed information on these matters but I expected that they would have come to the Taoiseach's attention, at least in a general way, if they had been progressed. This would have enabled him to give an indication of the position in respect of them.
I am disappointed with the Taoiseach's reply on fuel poverty. He stated that alleviation measures for low income households will be part and parcel of the normal fuel allowance arrangements which apply from October to April. There was a commitment to introduce a separate measure to alleviate the additional costs which would be borne by low income households as a result of the increase in the price of home heating oil. That has not happened, however, and the Taoiseach is now stating they will have to wait until the normal fuel allowance is introduced at the end of the year. That is not satisfactory.
The Taoiseach made no mention of the legislation on corporate donations and whether it has come to his attention. On a more general point, which does not readily pertain to line Ministers, the Government made a commitment on the introduction of a legislative basis for a more open and transparent system for appointments to public bodies, including procedures for the advertising of vacancies, inviting applications from the public and creating panels of suitable people for appointment to various public bodies.
The Deputy is deviating from the subject matter of the question.
No, I am not. It is in the programme for Government.
It is a very detailed question.
I appreciate that but it is in the programme for Government. I am asking the Taoiseach about it because it is a general provision which is not the responsibility of any individual Department and I would like him to tell us what has happened to it.
With regard to the idea by the Minister for Health and Children, which she came up with as long ago as 2005, to develop co-located private hospitals on the grounds of public hospitals in order to fast-track the provision of hospital beds, none of them have materialised.
I ask the Deputy to submit a parliamentary question to the relevant line Minister.
I ask the Taoiseach the current position on the proposal for co-location. I am aware the revised programme for Government makes reference to it but has it been dropped?
As the Deputy will be aware, financial issues arise in regard to some of the health aspects but a question to the relevant Minister will produce detailed information.
On the question of public bodies, we are investigating prospective reforms, including for example the TELAC system for public appointments. We are trying to bring more structure to the filling of panels of people who are suitable for public appointment. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people who are prepared to serve on State bodies and public boards because of the level of controversy that surrounds them from time to time. Such controversies are justified in certain circumstances and people have to be accountable during their tenure, even if they are serving in a non-executive capacity. I do not claim it is a general problem but it is a trend and we need to work to ensure people of capacity and suitability are available to sit on various bodies and boards against a background of rationalisation.
I understand that TELAC pertains to top-level appointments of permanent staff, such as chief executives. Can I take it from what the Taoiseach is saying that it is now intended to give TELAC a role in the identification of personnel who might be appointed as members of State boards or non-executive directors of State companies?
The intention is to enhance the TELAC procedures to deal with public service reform issues and provide greater mobility for senior public servants, as well as to increase choice in respect of these appointments. I also have ideas for board procedures, whereby public service reforms can be progressed on the basis of a management board across the service.
Deputy Gilmore referred to some of the matters I wish to address in regard to the health heading in the revised programme for Government. However, I will take a different line of inquiry and, as my question will be general rather than requiring the level of detail that a Minister can best offer, I hope the Taoiseach will be able to assist me. Under the heading of health, the revised programme commits to what I have previously described as a totally ill-conceived and discredited private hospital co-location scheme limited to projects already——
It would be more appropriate to raise this issue with the line Minister by means of a parliamentary question.
I ask the Ceann Comhairle to have a little respect and allow me at least to finish my first sentence. As I was about to indicate, the commitment is limited to projects already committed to under existing contractual agreements. What is the position of the co-location scheme, which did not present during the Taoiseach's previous capacity as Minister for Health in the way it has under the stewardship of the current Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney? On a number of occasions, the Taoiseach confirmed the statement of the Minister that the purpose and intent of the scheme is to free up beds in the public hospital system by opening up beds in associated private, co-located facilities.
In the recent period of cutbacks, an estimated 1,000 beds have been closed in the public hospital system as a result of patients being moved from long-term care. This should have allowed for these beds——
The Deputy is speaking in significant detail.
This is relevant to what is stated in the programme for Government. The very raison d’être behind the proposition in the programme is that the scheme will free up beds in the public hospital system. Has the Taoiseach noted that patients being moved out of long-term care in our public health system has resulted not in beds being freed up for further patient access but in the beds in question being closed? The figures I cite are not mine but information proffered by health professionals in the hospital system which shows that 1,000 beds have been lost as a result of cutbacks in that regard.
I ask the Deputy to submit a parliamentary question on the matter.
The very purpose, allegedly, of proceeding with co-location was to provide additional bed capacity in the public hospital system. If that is not now a realisable expectation, and clearly it is not happening in any shape or form with beds being closed on a continuous basis, why would one proceed with the scheme? Does the Taoiseach not accept that it is fair for an Opposition spokesperson on health to conclude that our fear all along that this was yet another sop to the private, for-profit health business was indeed the basis of the proposition in the first place? I ask the Taoiseach to comment on this and indicate where he believes the commitment in that regard in the programme for Government is being met.
On the section of the programme for Government on enhancing democracy and electoral reform and the establishment of an independent electoral commission which, I understand, is to incorporate the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission with enhanced powers of inspection, several of the points in the section indicate measures that can be achieved within a 12 month period. Is it not fair and reasonable, if these are worthwhile objectives and some of them certainly are worthwhile, that they would be introduced now in order that some, if not at all, of them would be in place by the time the next general election takes place, assuming the Government's term runs its course? When is it intended to proceed with the establishment of the independent electoral commission, against the stated intent of the measures incorporated in the agreed programme for Government?
There is a dynamic in health policy to try to move the hospital based system, the traditional way in which we have provided care in the past apart from the general practitioner system, into the community to a much greater extent. That is fundamentally what we are trying to do. One also has a much greater degree of day case surgery than was the case ten, 15 or 20 years ago because current procedures make it possible to have people come to hospital, have a procedure done and return home. Day cases are an increasing part of the caseload in the system. This is welcome because it reflects advances in surgical procedures and helps, from the perspective of cost-effectiveness and the sustainability of budgets, to ensure people secure access to health care within the budgets available to us.
Over many years, we have built a mixed system of public and private health care in which there are designated beds for private patients in public hospitals. The idea of the mixed system was to ensure we had a good consultant staff. We now have new contracts with public only consultants following reforms introduced in this area.
The basic point of the co-location scheme was that one of the best ways to deal with the situation would be through developing private beds co-located with the public hospitals. One would then re-designate private beds in public hospitals as public beds. That would be the quickest approach and we saw what role this type of approach played in providing sufficient nursing home places. If we had not introduced the measures we did on nursing home provision, where private nursing homes play a role in the provision of care for public patients, it is clear from the procedures we have that we would not have provided sufficient places through the traditional public procurement route when one considers the number of public beds we have for nursing home care, which we mentioned in terms of the elderly, as against what the private sector was able to produce and ramp up very quickly. Issues arose in this regard but as a means of dealing with the issue, there is no question that there can be a role for private sector investment in the provision of public care and public facilities generally. We have seen this in respect of other infrastructure, whether physical, educational or in the health area, and I do not see a reason for anyone to have an ideological objection to it.
Financing issues have arisen because of the changed economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. The basic point, however, is that as in the case of care for the elderly, an effort is being made to keep people as close to home for as long as possible, consistent with their health needs, and to bring people from various disciplines into the community rather than taking the traditional approach to providing care in which an elderly person, beyond GP requirements, was brought straight into a district hospital or nursing home unit in the locality.
Reforms are taking place and changes are being made in the way care is being delivered. The impression I get from some of the arguments I hear is that people see the position as static and it is simply a case of providing more beds. Even with the current bed complement, we have a greater throughput in our hospitals than we had previously. This is because things are being done more effectively. If we were to stick to traditional models of health care delivery, quite apart from the crisis we are trying to contend with, we would not have the funds in any event to deal with the issue in that way.
Notwithstanding the debate on the issues, we all recognise that we have to lead change in these areas if we are to provide for the future health care needs of the population as society ages. This is a real challenge facing us, whether in terms of pension provision, health care needs or in other areas.
Specific questions on specific projects are best put to the line Minister. I have set out the health policy framework to which we are trying to work and which I believe to be necessary if we are to deal with the circumstances that are arising with the budgets the taxpayer will provide for the foreseeable future. That is how I see the matter.
The other question was on the electoral commission. Work on that is ongoing within the line Department. It is a programme for Government commitment that will need to be developed during the course of the remainder of the term of the Government in the coming two years. It is an issue that is being worked on.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin for a brief supplementary question. We need to move on as we have spent enough time on these questions.
In his response the Taoiseach indicated he did not understand why people would have ideological objections to the current two-tier public-private care delivery systems within our acute hospital network. I certainly do. I do not only object to it in ideological terms because it perpetuates inequality of treatment and care provision on the basis of ability to pay, which is the wrong basis. Would the Taoiseach not accept that it should be on the basis of need alone? We will clearly differ on the matter and I will not dwell on it.
I ask the Taoiseach to note that a number of vacant beds have been created within the public health care system by moving people out of longer-term care facilitation. However, instead of freeing up those beds for the need and demand that exists they have been closed. Yet, allegedly the raison d’être behind the co-location system was to free up beds in the public hospital system. Beds have been freed up in the public hospital system without the co-location situation presenting and yet they are not being made available and are being closed — some 1,000 of them.
Does the Deputy have a question?
The logic of this is that the co-location proposition does not stand, on the basis of the current practice. I am sure I am not unique among Deputies here and I am sure it affects the Taoiseach in his constituency. A significant volume of people present on a continuum who are concerned for family members who cannot get access to procedures. These people have presented on dates given to them for specific procedures to be performed but have been sent home because a bed could not be secured. That has happened in hospitals here in Dublin. It happened to at least two people from my constituency last week.
The Deputy is going into far too much detail.
I can only make the points as best I can. I am trying to represent people's concerns that I know to be real and valid. I ask the Taoiseach to note that there are real problems within our acute hospital network in our health system. I appeal to him to take greater note of that fact in the interest of the right of people to access to care.
My last question is on the independent electoral commission. Among some of the points indicated in the entire proposition was that it would decide constituency boundaries, administer voter registration, run voter education programmes and advise on ways to improve the level of women's participation in political life. These are all fine and important developments that the independent electoral commission could undertake. It is part of the programme for Government dated 10 October 2009, which I have before me. When does the Government intend to establish this body? Are these not measures that would be important in terms of improving voter participation in the first instance and women's participation in public life? Each of these is an important objective and I would like to know how serious is the Government's intention to live up to that commitment in the revised programme.
I call the Taoiseach briefly as we need to move on.
Let me make the point about the health issue again. The co-location issue is about re-designating private beds in public hospitals into public beds and in turn providing private beds co-located with the public hospital facility as the best way of working together and keeping consultants all on site. That is about the re-designation of private beds. The issue the Deputy is raising is different. It is about the number of public beds we are providing for the elderly within our hospital system given that there is a policy to move people, under the fair care system etc., back into the community within the homes and supporting people in their homes for longer. The traditional system in the past was that as soon as a person became somewhat infirm — we know there are different degrees of dependency which are set out in the various regulations in terms of people's eligibility for assistance etc. — he or she would have gone straight into the hospital system.
The freed-up beds could be used by everybody.
I understand the point the Deputy is making. It is within the question of trying to work within budgets. These are realities we must face. We are borrowing €400 million a week more than we are earning as a country. Of course we need to protect our people to the greatest extent we can. We are spending significant money. We are spending €16 billion this year on the health service and introducing changes and reforms. Everyone is saying changes are needed and are giving out about the health service. In fairness I know many people — as does the Deputy — who come back to us outlining that they have had very good treatment in the service. They tell us how well and professionally they were treated. They represent a far greater proportion of the representations I meet than those who met with problems. In fairness to those who work in the health service, let us stop characterising it as if it is a totally dysfunctional service that is not providing assistance for anybody.
Regarding my point that there should not be ideological objections, more than 1 million people have decided to have private health cover through VHI, Aviva and Quinn. People also make those choices. One's entitlement is not based on paying for it. A person who is sick can be brought into a hospital anywhere in the country and be treated. However, we sometimes convey the impression that it is otherwise but it is not. Where that happens I have been the first to say so. That cannot be a basis on which health care is provided and is not under our laws. In the past people have pointed up instances where a consultant's public-private mix has not been what it should have been contractually. There are many others who are conscientious in respect of these matters and do more than what they would be required to do contractually.
As far as I am concerned there is too much of everyone dumping on the health service as if it cannot provide anything. It is providing excellent service for very many people day in, day out, week in, week out. Reforms are being undertaken, some of which are succeeding. With others we are not getting the outcomes we would expect and we need to continue to work on that. In fairness, on the basis of the agreements which hopefully will be confirmed today in the ICTU we will have the prospect of working with people to transform the services. We cannot continue on the basis of status quo plus. In the foreseeable future no government will have that capacity to operate.
These are the facts that we must face up to. We can work together to try to find solutions to these problems on the basis that we are all committed to doing the best we can with what the taxpayer is in a position to provide or we can go on with what I regard as a somewhat false debate about decrying the changes that are taking place and still calling for changes. If we need reforms, we need reforms. We cannot be going on about the status quo ante. There is plenty of opportunity for people to explore from a political point of view and it is clear that is the case in some respects. If we are going to be straight down the middle with everybody about it, that is where it is at. We need to work with people on that basis.
There is a commitment in the programme for Government on the electoral commission. We intend to proceed with it. We do not require it for constituency reviews, which as the Deputy knows are settled for the next general election under the existing arrangements. There are reforms that can be put in place during the course of the term of the Government for the future, which will seek to improve advocacy, etc., in regard to some of the issues the Deputy also raised. These are issues that are being followed up and dealt with.
There are major priorities for Government regarding the economic situation and banking, which are rightly taking up much of our legislative and other time. These are the issues at the foundation of the crisis with which we are contending.
I will allow a brief supplementary question.
I agree with the Taoiseach's comment that we cannot continue with the status quo. In respect of the programme for Government and the way the Government is approaching the matter, over the next ten to 15 years we will see one of the single greatest demographic changes in the history of the country, with at least 700,000 people over 70 years old requiring the kind of help, attention and community care spoken of by the Taoiseach. The startling reality is that income from all taxation sources will be completely inadequate on current projections to meet that need.
I said it should be a brief supplementary question.
In the context of the Taoiseach stating we cannot continue with the status quo, is the Government focusing on the extent and consequence of the demographic change which will become a reality inside the next decade?
We are doing so, whether it is by acting on a new pensions framework to accommodate the new reality, better longer-term planning, consideration of the fiscal policy framework or issues pertaining to banking. These are valid points on their own but we must have an intelligent debate on them. There is too much black and white argument, as if it is all right on one side and all wrong on the other. People are far more intelligent and we should give them a little more credit for the discernment they have about the complexity of some of these issues.
We have limited time of just five minutes to discuss the next group of questions.
Freedom of Information
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of Freedom of Information requests received by his Department during May 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22703/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act received by his Department in May 2010; the number acceded to; the number refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24331/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
Nine requests were received in my Department during May 2010. One was granted, three were partially granted and five are currently being processed. All freedom of information requests received in my Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts. I have no role in processing requests.
This question is not directly related to the Taoiseach's Department but concerns freedom of information requests. I note the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy Bernard Allen, made the point recently that the HSE, in transmitting information to the committee, would have legal problems. Giving the same information under freedom of information rules to an individual citizen would not be a problem. Given the historic importance associated with the public accounts committee in all Governments, it should be possible for the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts to seek information in regard to an issue under Freedom of Information Acts.
We have put forward a view that the Act should be amended in this regard, which would be easy to achieve. Does the Taoiseach agree that the public accounts committee, which has for years been the most well regarded committee in the Houses and is completely independent, should not have a standing of lesser importance than any citizen in respect of the Freedom of Information Acts?
It is really a matter for the line Minister.
For a considered reply it would be best to put down a question to the line Minister in the Department of Finance outlining the considerations that need to come into play. I do not have sufficient knowledge to give a considered reply at this point.
Notifications of freedom of information requests with regard to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas indicate if the request has been received but there is no identification of where the request comes from. I do not know if it is the same across the board. Freedom of information is a two-way street and what is the Taoiseach's view in that regard? If freedom of information is to be given with regard to any matter here or an external issue, surely the identification of those people inquiring and the purpose of the information should also be offered in the exchange. That is not currently the case.
Sometimes there can be a statement of the obvious. I do not know the answer to the question. When freedom of information requests are received, the purpose is to give objective information. Until a time when they are deemed eligible, there is no need for further information. Perhaps it is just the way the information is given out. I will make inquiries.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the case he won recently in the High Court, where the Information Commissioner and Ombudsman had ordered the release of a document containing information on a 2003 Cabinet discussion on greenhouse gas emissions. The Information Commissioner ordered the document released and the Taoiseach appealed that decision by the Information Commissioner to the High Court. I note the Taoiseach was successful in that appeal to the High Court.
The regime concerning access to information about environmental matters is governed by the Aarhus Convention, which was signed by Ireland in 1998 but never ratified. It has been a matter of concern, particularly to environmental organisations and people with an interest in the environment, that Ireland never ratified the Aarhus Convention. I am surprised that three years into the life of this Government the Aarhus Convention has not yet been ratified. In the revised programme for Government it is stated that the parties would ensure that Ireland can ratify the Aarhus Convention by March 2010, which has come and gone. When will Ireland ratify the Aarhus Convention?
I am at a slight disadvantage but I understand some aspects of the convention have been ratified. I am not sure but I recall some documentation coming before us. I will check on the matter. With regard to the freedom of information aspect, it is true that on the Attorney General's advice, the Department appealed the commissioner's decision to the High Court and the case was delivered on 4 June. It upheld the Department's appeal and in summary found that the commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the regulations are in conflict with the directive. The High Court has such jurisdiction and decided that the regulations are not in conflict with the directive.
With regard to the regulations governing this issue and the access to information on the environment regulation, SI 133 of 2007 transposed an EU directive on public access to environmental information. It came into force in 2007 and the regulations are in compliance with the directive. The High Court has jurisdiction to decide on that, rather than the commissioner, and we wanted clarity on the point for future reference. The court found the regulations are not in conflict with the directives.