Mr. Simon O'Brien:

There is an indication that threat one may well have been within the building at that time - that it was a piece of our own kit. It was not necessarily the piece of kit; it was the way it was behaving. We picked it up behaving in a certain manner. Because we wanted to test the provenance and the likelihood of this threat, we kept it under surveillance by another electronic device that merely looked at when it would come on and go off. Sometimes it would come on at 1.20 a.m. and go off at 1.40 a.m. and other times it would come on at 7 o'clock in the morning and go off at 11 o'clock. It was completely random. There is an issue with regard to that. I would not say the first company was in any way incompetent.

In relation to the report to the Minister, after a long and detailed briefing with the Minister on Monday, we furnished him with one report. It is not and never has been the behaviour of this commission to release reports under section 101 by designated officers.

The only time we let those go is to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have been in discussions with the Minister and his officials to the effect that we will try to give them a redacted copy. That is the reason, for the sense of clarity, if - as I suspect - the report is in the public domain and we have been seen as trying to furnish to the Minister some form of redacted copy of it, one again may believe public confidence may be damaged in the process. Consequently, we are very clear that the report will be retained by us. We will have it and, in many ways, as we go forward and more potentially comes out, if certain statements are repeated, we will know what report is out there and that might start to narrow down where we should look as to how it may have been released.