Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The intention was good. To be fair to the two professors, they dispute Professor Kilkelly's interpretation of how the process worked. They say they engaged all the way through, were open and willing to change and interact, welcomed feedback and wanted to engage with staff and the board. They have a different interpretation and presented that evidence to the committee.

If the only issue is that the feedback session did not happen before finalising the report, is it Professor Kilkelly's understanding the reviewers were willing to address concerns with the final report and make changes? When it was realised this would be an issue for the board and those implicated - I mean "allegedly implicated", as we do not know the nature of the implication - did the board discuss with the reviewers how to fix it, how to go about publishing the report, whether the review session could be held immediately, if doing so would have a material impact on the findings and whether the tone could be altered in some way? Alternatively, did it just decide not to proceed because the process had not been followed in the absolute order?