Just to give some sort of context, really.
You've heard from DAC Akers, I know, on more than one occasion, and I for one have complete confidence in the investigation that she and her teams are doing. But I think it is important perhaps to say that they are operating in a very different environment from 2006. Firstly, clearly, they are getting co-operation from News International, albeit, as she has said to Select Committees, more now than when Weeting started.
Secondly, the resources that the Met, through me, has been able to make available to her of course is completely different, for reasons I know you understand.
Thirdly, the fact that at an early stage, as a result of what had gone before, the material began to be loaded effectively and accurately onto a database I think has made a difference.
She's operating under a wider interpretation of section 1 of RIPA, undoubtedly, as her start point, and her team's mindset is a wider view of both what a victim is, how they're defined, and also indeed a wider view of what the material gained in 2006 contained in terms of potential lines of inquiry and suspects.
But perhaps the most important thing, in a sense, is the context more broadly. Public opinion in terms of these issues is in as very different place from 2006, where, of course, we were completely dominated by the terrorist threat. That investigation in 2006 broke new ground, and now, albeit this is not beyond the bounds of possibility and has indeed happened, that DAC Akers could be criticised for investigating the press too thoroughly -- as you know, this has happened in the last couple of weeks -- actually I think it's important to recognise that the world she's working in is so very different from 2006 in terms of the degree of resistance and outrage that was likely to follow on such an investigation back then.