MR DEHAL
Mr Chairperson, the fact that they have been distributed, is not something of Mr McBride's making, as we all know, I think that is common cause.   Perhaps it would be wise at this stage to say that Exhibit C includes the 29 evidence of Mr McBride and Ms Apelgren and it has indeed been agreed between Mr Richard, Mr Prior and myself that Ms Apelgren's evidence will not be included in Exhibit C, it would be expunged from the record and would not be used, nor referred to.  The only premise on which they sought to have McBride's evidence included in the record is because of that ambiguous terminology in the application for amnesty by Mr McBride.  I think that is where the enquiry in terms of logistics begins and ends.  In terms of the legal argument, I agree with you fully Mr Chairperson, except that I have not prepared argument in that regard.  I think that inquiry legally is a very  important one, and perhaps ought to be properly addressed, researched and argued.  I for one would like to argue it after having properly researched the question.   Mr Chairperson, that brings me purely to privilege.  I don't concede that Mr McBride has waived his right to privilege.  He is not the one that handed over the document.  I think the question about privilege is not a simplistic one, it is not as simplistic as Mr Richard has you believe.   As I have already submitted, Mr Prior has erroneously caused the document to be included.  I have now explained fully the dates on which it was received, bear me out, I mean the date on which the application for amnesty was received, bear me out, and hence the privilege was not, sorry the handing over of the document was not the making of Mr McBride, that privilege is not waived by him.  I have submitted that the Act itself protects Mr McBride, the 29 proceedings were held in camera and I refer you Mr Chairperson, to page 1, of course purely for the legal argument, without causing it to be included in the record, to page 1 and page 2 of the evidence of Mr McBride in the 29 proceedings, two paragraphs in particular, on page 1, from lines 15 onwards where Mr McBride affirms and states and then the Chairman says "this is an inquiry in terms of Section 29 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995.  This is not a hearing of the Truth Commission, but it is an investigative inquiry and as such in terms of the Act, is held in camera.  I want to stress that absolutely no finding will be made at this hearing, that is not the purpose of the hearing.  I will briefly outline the obligations and duties ..." and then he deals with Mr Brian Currin, the Attorney-General's  inquiry, Mr McNally, and then on page 2, from lines 7 onwards on the second paragraph, the honourable Chairman says the following - "the Act also provides that any incriminating evidence obtained at such an inquiry, is not admissible against you in a court of law, or any other institution that is established by law."  The one proviso to this, and that is that any evidence obtained at this hearing, may be used against you where and if you are charged with perjury arising out of the making of conflicting statements.  Honourable Chairperson and Members, I submit respectfully that Mr McBride and indeed Mr Currin who went into these 29 proceedings, did so fully understanding that to be the beginning and the end of the protection afforded them if they were to testify.  Perhaps if this was not the understanding, they would not have so testified.