Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

It should have raised alarm bells. I have already said a number of times that this requires a root-and-branch review of our processes.

I want to be as clear as I can about this because I do not want to leave here with anybody misled about anything. There was a prosecution in 2011. The charges were dismissed on the basis that the Deputy said, which is that our witness was advised she was not needed. The 2012 prosecution was successful. There was a prosecution in 2016. There was a departmental witness and the case was dismissed, notwithstanding the fact that the witnesses turned up. There is a case preceding the "Prime Time" one, which the Chairman referred to. As I looked at the file, it seemed it was very much focused on the physical infrastructure and the suitability of the premises. To be fair to the people involved in this, I am not sure they had guidance on how to interpret the provisions relating to fit and proper person. I accept that the Department should have provided that guidance.