Mr. John Quinlan:

I apologise. May I answer? This is precisely the point I am making. It was a contentious case in the area. It gave rise to a considerable amount of correspondence and examination. Had there been a difficulty with the procedures, this would have been pointed out. I have no doubt about that. Appeals would have been lodged. The fact that this did not happen in itself would be at least one indication that the Department's procedures were found not to be at fault. The systems in place for people to use were not utilised in a situation where there was much local public interest in the case.

This is more or less what I said the last time and it remains the position. The Department does not depart from legislation, at least consciously so, as I presume there are occasions when mistakes can be made. I am not aware of one. There are procedures for people to hold the Department to account. I am not aware that anybody in the area was deprived of those procedures. It is what it is.