Ms Helen Dixon:

I appreciate that many people will not have had the time to read the correspondence that was published by the Department, but what the correspondence indicates is that in response to the first request to meet, which was in a letter addressed to me by Jacqui McCrum, the deputy secretary general at the Department, I responded to that letter from Jacqui McCrum on 22 August indicating in the affirmative that I was willing to meet and that a meeting could indeed be useful once the Department had tabled the implementation plan, which I directed in the letter of 15 August. In fact, Deputy Cullinane will see from the correspondence on 22 August that I was open to meeting once that implementation plan was tabled. I did not hear anything further about a meeting until correspondence from the Secretary General on 3 September. The correspondence issued to me after a press statement had issued from the Department earlier that day and the Minister had done some rounds of media, all of which indicated that the findings of the Data Protection Commission were to be rejected and that the findings were to be challenged. By the time the correspondence of 3 September landed, which confirmed that the Department did not intend to comply with any of the directions that had been issued, it was out of the question that a meeting would be appropriate. I will quote accurately from the correspondence of 3 September from the Department:

However, given the strong and sincerely held differences in opinion between your Office and both Departments, [it is referring to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform] (based on the advice received from the Office of the Attorney General), as to the correct interpretation ... of the relevant legal text and ... the import of this difference in interpretation not just for the PSC and SAFE 2 and the organisations and citizens that rely on them.

I will find the relevant section.

The Minister wishes it to be known that she is anxious that her officials and officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform should engage in discussions with your office to determine if there are any measures that can be agreed, without prejudice to our respective positions, that might address the Commission's concerns and negate the requirement for any Enforcement proceedings.

It was entirely inappropriate that we would engage in a meeting where we had issued finalised findings and clear directions as to what was required to bring it into compliance.