Professor Ursula Kilkelly:

There are a couple of issues. One of the concerns that arise when one considers the matter is that there was a gap in the fulfilment of the terms of reference with respect to the feedback visit, which, according to the terms of reference, was due to happen prior to the report being finalised. It was clear that the feedback was about the process of engagement with staff. We did not seek a root and branch review of Oberstown at that time. Rather, we sought expertise and insight from a different perspective of what was happening on the ground, with a view to creating a dialogue that would enable changes to be implemented. It was intended to be an unlocking of hearts and minds on the issues. It was not intended to commission - nor would it have been possible to do so in the timescale - the kind of root and branch review that perhaps should have been commissioned. It was very much intended to be a process to enable staff to move forward.

An extraordinary amount of time has been spent on this process by me as chair and the board as a whole. In the early days, while responding to the initial drafts of the report, the focus was on factual accuracy checking. Extraordinary attention was paid to concerns that arose from the report at the time and they were flagged early on to the reviewers in detailed form. It was also flagged early that because of the nature of the report, that is, the way in which it was written, the tone and the implication of what was being said rather than the substantive or critical nature of it, we became aware of legal matters that would require review, particularly in the context of Irish constitutional law and the fair procedures law that has recently been outlined by the courts. In the context of that broader responsibility of the board, whatever the reviewers could do in response would always be limited. The key issue was that the board did its job in ensuring that it was taken care of adequately and prudently.

At every stage, I flagged that legal review would be necessary as a prudent step and that the nature and timing of any publication was a matter for the board in the light of its broader legal responsibilities, not only under the Act but under broader Irish law. Those matters were brought to the attention of the reviewers and I was clear about them. It is the distinction between, on the one hand, a process of factual accuracy and what that can yield and, on the other, a more substantive process that is essential to ensure fair procedures are followed. The review of that was subsequently the specific interest of the board.