Dr. Thomas Leahy:

It tended to be in general, particularly when I was looking at intelligence security because obviously there would be things related to particular acts in parliament that they are not allowed to talk about. In that respect one could talk about overall policy and how they saw that linking into events on the ground. Particular incidents sometimes got mentioned although the research did not necessarily look at that because I was aware there might be restrictions on what particular officials, past and present, might be able to talk about. It was important to get the sense.

I will give an example from the work I did about intelligence conflict there - how to understand how particular incidents can occur and there might not have been oversight in place because there might be big policies that said the aim is to fulfil X, but the government would not always keep tabs on that in terms that that is the policy and how people want to implement that generally is up to them; in terms of where that might lead particularly in some of the cases with things such as collusion, there is an understanding of the structure and culture that might have been created around that. Yes, I would have spoken to them.

I am also carrying forward this research about how the Irish Government deals with conflict legacy. We will be looking to speak further to former representatives of the State, past and present, and also particularly former British security forces members. There is more nuance when we are talking about things like amnesties than it would seem when one actually talks to people. There is a lot more division within even the British army, past and present, about whether that is a good or a bad thing.