Ms Josephine Feehily:

First, I do not think I did. I remember feeling at the time that I had been robust in my response.

I am very conscious of fair procedure and we received the material at 8.30 p.m. the night before. We had read it quickly. That particular meeting in public was at 11 a.m., which is unusual, because the Commissioner had a security engagement. We said we would consider it in detail in the afternoon and then we wrote the letter. To that extent, I was trying to make sure that we had not jumped to conclusions. We wanted to study these eight pages and to see if there was something. We also asked a number of questions in public session that might have helped us understand. Before coming to a conclusion, which we did that evening, we felt it was reasonable to give the Commissioner an opportunity to answer some questions and then for us to go back and consider carefully what we had received. We formed a view and we conveyed that view to the Commissioner a couple of days later about the non-acceptance of the material.