MR DEHAL
Mr Chairperson, I think that inquiry is very wide, I have four things to say in that regard.  The first is when I received the bundle of documents, marked C, contained Greta Apelgren's evidence and indeed Mr McBride's, I immediately called Mr Currin to establish whether there was any privilege attached to them, as I understood 29 to be as my learned colleague, Mr Berger, argued and indeed the Committee understands it.  Mr Berger told me that there was an agreement prior to the 29 hearings, that any evidence led therein would never be used - sorry not Mr Berger, Mr Currin, sorry.  I see that that agreement is included on page 1 and 2 of the 29 hearing on Mr McBride's evidence and secondly Mr Chairperson, that whereas Mr McBride and I say this without prejudice, whereas Mr McBride has no difficulty with what he said in the 29 proceeding,  he has difficulty on advice from Mr Currin and myself that 29 proceedings in themselves, are privileged, and that the moment they are referred to within the ambit of these proceedings, then the level at which these documents and this evidence may well be used in subsequent proceedings, takes a different tone.   If it is confined to a 29 proceedings, then the level of prejudice and the content and the way in which it may possibly be used in criminal proceedings and any other proceedings, has a different tone to it, a different nature to it.