Thank you, sir. What I'd like to say, and I know we talked about for lunch, I really would like to assure you sir that that original investigation with my team, and we were working with our senior management, and yes, Mr Clarke from my perspective was that threshold, we absolutely put a lot of effort into that investigation, with the best of intentions, and we were absolutely not influenced by any of the things that have been suggested and what your Inquiry is about, which I think is entirely right and proper.
When it comes to 2009, and I've thought about this, is with Mr Yates, he from my perspective was in the invidious position -- and I've had an insight into the role of Assistant Commissioner now -- he is basically inheriting, if you like, an investigation that he had nothing to do with. It was a hugely complex investigation, as you've seen. I know a lot about it. And I am trying to get him to understand the ins and outs of that investigation, and he is trying to take all that on board. These briefing documents were part of that process.
Again, in my workings with him, I've not worked with him directly before, but I saw nothing or heard nothing that made me think that we -- that there was anything wrong going on here, that we were looking to hide anything. He was looking at an investigation that was four years old. I briefed him and over the period I believe he was genuinely seeking to understand what had happened and make proportionate decisions.
I just want to assure you that I've seen nothing that makes me think that there is anything other than a genuine desire to do a proper investigation and to keep the public informed about what's going on.