Mr. Martin Callinan:

I dislike intensely talking about individual cases but this was a very difficult case that had a significant public interest. I accept that. Nevertheless, I will be limited in what I say. As I mentioned to the Senator, I have certainly articulated in very clear terms my thoughts on that particular report. The idea of people running agents off the books, allowing them to participate in crime and related activities is a no-no as far as I am concerned. There is no contest.

With regard to the 63 requests, it is important we understand certain issues.

In the first seven months of that particular investigation, which ran for four and a half years, 104 volumes of documents, averaging 200 pages per volume, was handed over. That is in addition to well in excess of 1,000 other documents ranging from one page to 60 pages. If one took a mean average of 30 pages and added the two together, one is dealing with well in excess of 50,000 pieces of documentation that was produced to that investigation. In my view, that was a huge level of co-operation, although people will have their own view on the matter. It required two superintendents and a full-time staff to service the requests within the cohort of 63, which translated into something like 237 requests when they were spread out.

Part of the difficulty - we brought this to the notice of the ombudsman's office - was if, for instance, in request one, when all the relevant material was gathered up and produced and there was a requirement to revisit it because there could be ten other subsets of inquiry, that one request remained open, which helped to elongate the process. We did not think that was particularly fair but there one goes. We have moved on.

The Senator asked me about lessons regarding contemporaneous notes and grave concerns that have been expressed. I want to assure the committee, the Chairman and everybody who happens to be watching and listening that there is a very tight regime in place now in terms of the notes that are required to be kept when meeting informants. That process exists and can be examined. There is a clear audit trail. That is in place.

Yes, I was surprised to hear the comment about the lessons of the past regarding the Morris tribunal. None of us need to go into that dark period in our history but I was surprised to hear some of the comments because very clearly, since 2006, my organisation has put a lot of time and energy into getting a bespoke system that fits international practice and is accredited by experts in Europol and the CEPOL police college. Our international partners, as I said earlier in response to a previous question, have commented about and are very comfortable with us in terms of the type of business that we do. In terms of giving reassurance to the committee, I am very happy that the system we have in place speaks to international best practice.

On the issue of the 30 days and whether it would be helpful for a high level official to come in and examine the area, particularly in the area of non-compliance presumably, what has happened since we met the Minister was an agreement by all of us that he would appoint a high level official in his Department to sit down with a representative from my organisation and the ombudsman's office. That senior officer is Assistant Garda Commissioner John O'Mahoney who is in charge of the crime and security area. He can speak to the very high level and sensitive stuff right down. He is working with the other official and someone at appropriate level in the ombudsman's office to look at these issues and to try to identify where the blockages are in order to free them up before they fester and cause a problem. That is in place now. Have I covered all of the points raised by the Chairman?