Dr. Anna Bryson:

On the point that was made then about folklore, I suppose I would tend to agree with Mr. Hazzard MP that in some ways that is fine because it is people's stories. When I did oral history interviews for my PhD, I accept people told lies but I became very interested in that. It is the job of the historians to come in afterwards and state the lies and the gaps are interesting and they will footnote what actually happened and there is a narrative building up for that individual or for that community, and that is all interesting. There is a whole lot written about how untruths, gaps and omissions can be interesting for lots of reasons but the point is that it is that person's story, it is his or her interpretation, and it is not a kiss of death to the value of the material if persons misremember for various reasons because it is subjective to an extent. Every type of evidence is taken on its own merits with its own pros and cons, etc. For me, where it has crossover into folklore and stuff would not be too much of a concern.

Does Professor McEvoy want to go on to the point and I will come back on the international matter?