Mr. David Courell:

Apologies for the repetition but it is several things. I made the point earlier that the level of evidence sought contradicted the committee's assurances that it did not want to go into specific cases. Ten of the 16 items sought related to a specific case. When we advised the committee of our inability to furnish it, the same request kept on consistently being made by the committee. Again, this made us uneasy with regard to the scope being respected in the way we expected it would be. The other variable was the introduction of additional attendees, most notably an individual who works in our communications department. That person does not have an active role in safeguarding and would not logically have been an attendee the association would have introduced to this forum. Again, it was another indicator that there was an expectation of delving into the detail of a specific case.

I reiterate that our position was never intended to show any disrespect to the committee. Our concerns were grounded in a genuine desire to ensure we did not compromise justice for those involved in the case.