Professor Ursula Kilkelly:

I will deal with elements of the questions in turn. I completely agree with the Chairman's points on the legal costs and the overall cost of the review. I have the same concerns and the board has had a discussion on the matter at its two most recent meetings to ensure that we produce value for money in all the professional services on which we rely in order to fulfil our role and deliver the legal responsibility we have as a board of management. As has been mentioned, we are almost all voluntary board members but we must do a very serious job very carefully. We rely on professional services from time to time. It is a measure of the gravity of the matters at stake here that we sought to rely on independent legal advice and, in particular, that we were really careful to ensure we would not cause difficulties that would have much greater costs attached to them in reality. It was really a matter of being cautious and prudent, ensuring we had all the available advice at our disposal. I agree with the Chairman about the cost and we have asked management to review the cost of professional services and the decision-making around it. I share the concerns on the matter and it is something we are addressing.

The Chairman mentioned the reviewers' opinion either that they were not able to return to the campus or that they did not have oversight. I have been responsible for many reports commissioned by bodies who undertook to publish a report or where there was a discussion about finalisation or publication. It is completely understood that the matter is with the discretion of the party that commissioned the report. There would always be a process of fact-checking and engagement to ensure that what ends up being produced is fit for purpose. It is not always possible to get to that point and in this instance, unfortunately, there was something of a deadlock when it came to finalising the report in a satisfactory outcome.

The Chairman's comments are important but I, as chairperson of the board, engaged with the reviewers in order to seek to produce a positive outcome. It was the intention but it was very difficult in the context of the dialogue that occurred to see how we would get to that satisfactory point. I will come back to the process that the board subsequently followed because it was specifically focused on legal risk in particular.

The Chairman made a general point about oversight. The report has been seen by HIQA and the board has deliberated on that report. There has been a particular focus throughout the process on the implementation of the recommendations, as that is how value for money can be demonstrated when one runs into the kinds of difficulties we did. It is about focusing and prioritising the implementation of the recommendations, seeking to maximise the positive potential of a process. It is particularly important to note that the review happened alongside multiple other reviews, with various aspects of those reviews published in different ways. In addition, we had two full HIQA inspections, with five inspectors coming on two occasions for five days, since the operational review was undertaken. It continues to be a matter of regret that this report has not been published but there is no question about the amount of information in the public domain about Oberstown and its operations released by its board and management. It is significantly more than has been the case at least during my time on the board and the life of the organisation as a whole.

Transparency has been a focus and part of the issue with publishing the recommendations was about striking the most appropriate balance within our control and what we felt was prudent. It was about putting the recommendations in the public domain with a narrative that responded to them. It was considered to be the safest or least risky approach in light of the public interest, our need to focus on improvements and the significant work put into the report.