Mr. Brian Purcell:

The opening remarks I made, in which I set out particular issues on matters covered in Mr. Guerin's report, refer solely to that particular report. I stated this in the letter I sent to the clerk to the committee, I mentioned it in my opening remarks and I said in turn that I had deep concerns about answering questions on the Guerin report. My view was that the difference with the Fennelly commission is that the commission itself was established and its terms of reference were set out, the judge is in place and he has commenced his work. He has written to me and, I believe, to others, so the work of Mr. Justice Fennelly's commission is already under way. The difference between this and the Guerin commission is that, while I still have concerns that by giving evidence here there is a potential that it in turn may prejudice or undermine the commission, it has not yet been established and its terms of reference have not been set out. It is a problem, and this is exactly what I meant when I spoke about the difficult position I am in when trying to deal with this. I have set out why I could not answer questions on Mr. Justice Fennelly's commission or anything relating to the terms of reference, and have tried to adopt as open, honest and frank a manner as I can in trying to facilitate the work of the committee. I am not sure whether the committee is trying to do this, but I almost get a sense that members are saying that because I answered questions on the Guerin report, I should answer them on the Fennelly commission. By asking about my approach in dealing with questions - and I do not accept the word "rebuttal", but people have different interpretations - I feel the committee is trying to use the fact that I have been as open-----