post, it was proposed that its duties should include responsibilities for providing unattributable covert briefings to the press ; and it was stated that the incumbent would be required to make on-the-spot decisions on matters of national security during such interviews. It seems that, in the event, the arguments for including these responsibilities in Mr Wallace's job description were made orally rather than in writing to those who approved the establishment of the SIO post. But presumably Mr. Wallace was told what duties he was expected to carry out; and indeed it would appear that he had already been undertaking unattributable briefing activities of this kind, which may have included disinformation. The inquiry undertaken by Calcutt confirmed that Wallace had, indeed, been working for the intelligence services during the 1970s and that his enforced resignation from the Ministry of Defence had been made on the basis of a false job description designed to conceal his covert role in psychological warfare. Calcutt also found that members of MI5 had manipulated the disciplinary proceedings taken against Wallace. In the light of the Inquiry's findings, Wallace was awarded compensation by the Government. Although King had informed Thatcher that part of Wallace's role not only involved the dissemination of Intelligence, but also the gathering of Intelligence, and was described by the former heard of Army Intelligence in Northern Ireland as one of his "best sources", there was no mention of that critically important fact in Archie Hamilton's statement to Parliament. Wallace's solicitor, Jim Nicol, referred Calcutt's report to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, on the basis that the conclusions indicated that Security Service officers who manipulated the proceedings had attempted to defraud Wallace. The Metropolitan Police referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for guidance. The DPP concluded that it would not be in the public interest for the police to pursue the matter. Despite the findings of the Calcutt Inquiry, the Ministry of Defence refused to allow the Defence Select Committee to have access to Wallace's secret job description. In a letter dated 11 February 1991, the Ministry of Defence said that Wallace's job description contained "sensitive information relating to the security and intelligence matters" and that the provision of such papers, even under the conditions relating to the committee's access to classified information, "would be inconsistent with the conventions" Dublin bombings inquiry Evidence from Wallace was used by the Barron