Dr. Anna Bryson:

Maybe I will start with Senator Feighan's question. To some extent, I share the Senator's fears about it becoming quite an anodyne and risk-averse archive. When the Senator mentions the former combatants, I would stress the ICIR is really the place where people should go with that information. The oral history archive is not really primarily designed to be the place where ex-combatants would go and tell their story. However, that is not to say that those issues will not be there. The Senator quite rightly identified that the Boston College project has engendered a chill factor - it certainly has - but much good work will continue to be done within the confines within which we work. What we do is train people to understand that there is a limit to that. One cannot include information about crimes that have not been processed and duly determined and one would reiterate that. One takes appropriate measures to ensure that does not happen. To some extent, that perhaps limits some of the stories but going back to the point that has just been made, I would emphasise that the oral history archive is probably about broadening out much more widely and including the stories of a much wider range of people and it should not be a kiss of death to the archive. At the same time, I would take the Senator's initial point and share my broader sense that if it has this bureaucratic risk-averse approach with little imagination or creative vision, I would worry that that would for different reasons narrow and curb its potential.

Does Professor McEvoy want me to go on or does he want to take the next question?