Mr. Jim Gannon:

I am trying to remember back to the specific narrative that accompanied the direction in that case, but generally we outline the issues that would have been raised in general terms in the consultations. That would encompass those raised by the seven. Oftentimes we would have common issues raised across a number of different respondents, so we would not go into detail saying who had responded in any event. If issues are raised, we take them into consideration. If they are deemed to be confidential or commercially sensitive by the correspondent, we would refer them with no greater or lesser rigour than we would those who have not been declared commercially sensitive, so if issues are raised, they are addressed by our consultation response.

The second part of it was with regard to the direction itself. Again, we went out with a direction that said we reserve a right to impose a moratorium if that is deemed necessary. We have asked EirGrid to report back to us periodically on the effectiveness of the measure to ensure it is having the necessary effect, but we did direct it to consider those assessment criteria in its understanding and with regard to the expertise and the specific technical knowledge it has with regard to constrained areas concerning the scale and nature of some projects that come to it for grid connection. That is just a level of detail of expertise that is only in the transmission system operator with the engineers and models it has. EirGrid would understand better whether things should be allowed go forward in particular areas or as they bring different mitigation measures. It is to provide a framework EirGrid can use to protect security of supply as it considers these applications, but it has the expertise to really understand the level of challenge posed by the applicants.