Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let the facts speak for themselves. I do not see why the report could not have been redacted. I want to move on to some of the issues regarding the excuse for non-publication.

This idea of fair procedures and right to reply smacks of an excuse for non-publication. I do not understand what that means. Having examined all the documents released under freedom of information legislation, it seems to be elastic. According to the board, its decision not to publish was based on Irish law and constitutional matters. However, it took that decision prior to the Attorney General's input into the process. The Office of the Attorney General was trying to deliver a pathway towards publication in November 2017. I mean no disrespect to the board of Oberstown but it is not on the same level as the Attorney General, one of the chief guardians of the Constitution. The Attorney General's only caveat was that staff be given an opportunity to respond to concerns. That was the pathway to publication he set out. What was done? From material released under freedom of information, we know the director was given a chance to make an input into the process. How many other staff were given an opportunity to make an input into that process?