Professor Ursula Kilkelly:

Personally, I am not in the business of arguing over contracts when it comes to payment for work done. The reviewers did lengthy and detailed work and paying them was the right thing to do, notwithstanding related concerns and issues. Treating people properly was an element in dealing fairly with the authors. On Deputy Mitchell's point on transparency, Oberstown is one of the most scrutinised organisations and facilities in the country. It is absolutely right and vital that is the case.

As I mentioned, since we have come into place we have overseen significant increases in the amount of information about Oberstown in the public domain. This committee has been out there and is invited out routinely, as is anyone else who wants to come out to see the campus and the operation and to meet with staff and perhaps young people. Multiple other reports have been either published or shared with the relevant stakeholders. HIQA has access to this report and of its inspections were published in full.

A full constitutional action aired many of these issues in the High Court last year. That is ultimate accountability. We have produced annual reports. We have published extensive data on our single separation process and other restrictive practices. We have regular stakeholder meetings and multiple mechanisms are used, statutory and otherwise, to ensure there is as much transparency as possible in what we do. I completely understand Deputy Mitchell's frustration on the issue of the recommendations.

From our perspective, however, it had to be safe to place the full report in the public domain. Regrettably, that was the stumbling block we came across. We had to deal with the reality of the risk presented at that time in the way we did. I am confident that if we did it again it could be done differently but there is no cover-up.