Mr. Tony O'Brien:

I wish to make it clear for the record that I am reading out a notice issued by a PR company on behalf of St. John of God to all media on 13 July. The heading is "A note to editors". It states:

A review is underway into the St John of God Order’s payments to mitigate a future possible pension liability and contractual obligations in 2013, which resulted in payments of €1.64m to 14 employees. On Friday 8th July, the HSE stated to the media that the Saint John of God Order was not in compliance in respect of these payments. This statement was made before the review had even commenced and the Order believes such a statement is seriously prejudicial to a fair review.

Separately the Order is still awaiting a response from the HSE on this matter, following a letter it sent to the HSE on Monday of this week.

I will cut in here to say that that letter was from a firm of solicitors acting for the order. It goes on to state:

The Order is very keen to co-operate fully with the HSE review once a fair and due process is followed.

Understandably, subsequent media coverage has reflected the prejudicial nature of the HSE statement confirming the result or final determination of the proposed review. Radio and TV interviews and commentary and press headlines and reporting have included frequent references to "salary top-ups to 14 St. John of God" personnel.

In the interests of fairness and factual correctness, the order humbly requests that editors would use "payments (totalling €1.64 million) to St. John of God employees, which are now subject to HSE review".

Then in bold print one line appears which states:

To describe them as salary top-ups is simply incorrect.

The payments were made following independent professional advice to discharge a possible future pension liability and contractual obligations, and should not be described as a salary top-up.

Further, also note the St. John of God Order is a worldwide organisation. St. John of God Community Services (Ireland) is a section 38 entity. Unfortunately, there have been frequent general references to the St. John of God Order and also references to St. John of God Hospital. The hospital is not a section 38 entity or part of St. John of God Community Service.

We would therefore request that TV footage or photographs do not feature the hospital.

Our office will be happy to accommodate the media by arranging permission to shoot or photograph the appropriate facilities that are part of the section 38 St. John of God Community Services.

Kind regards.

It is signed by a named individual for a named PR company. Then it states, "On behalf of the St. John of God Order". I will not name the PR company in this instance.