Well, I think the common ground is potential conflicts of interest and priorities and the fact that in all of these, the common feature they share is they're all highly charged and stakes are high. So I do think there's common ground, and there's common ground in a sense that my inquiry into the Damian Green piece suggested to me that the framework that existed around initiating those inquiries/reviews/investigations was weak. There was weaknesses in the framework which allowed for the police to be drawn in, sometimes initially on the basis that state secrets were at risk, but actually in this particular case they were not, they were embarrassing issues, and it allowed for drift, and I've -- there were all sorts of other mechanisms that could have resolved it.
So framework -- and I think we'll come to this at some point. Parallel with the -- this Inquiry: is the framework strong enough, when the police have conflicts of interest and when they have to review things? Do they have a good anchor point, a good set of references to go by? And how do they manage -- and this is what I did try to look at in relation to Damian Green: how do they manage their way through this so that they -- if they decide to go forward or to stop, there is some respectable, proper process for a considered use of discretion?
And I set out an approach at the rear of that report, which was agreed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Cabinet Office, the Home Office and the police, about high-impact cases for which politicians, the police and government is one territory, but there are some parallels, clearly, with this high -- the high-impact case, as it were, issues that this Inquiry are looking at. There are some parallels in my terms.