Very quickly, on the compensation issue of any compensation paid, look, you are making massive cuts to our services here in London. I hope that you are going to recover any monies that have to be paid, if they are paid eventually, from the owner of this or from the Association of Chief Police Officers Terrorism and Allied Matters (ACPO TAM) who were meant to be supervising these officers. I do not think the MPS should be paying for that and I hope it is not going to be further cuts. We need to follow that and MOPAC needs to be on top of this to make sure that it is giving that money back. That is its role.
On overseas deployments, not undercover deployments, but where we are commissioned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to do work in the overseas territories, former dependants, and such, there has been a recent case that was, I think, the Cayman Islands where one of our officers got themselves into difficulty, was sued, counter-sued. The MPS rightly supported that officer in dealing with the legal challenges he has faced. On the wider issues of that particular deployment, are there any lessons that the MPS is learning about the commissioning of overseas from the FCO, the terms of reference of how we are doing it or not doing it? That is all part of the problems around this legal case. What lessons are being learned and have they been taken on board? Is MOPAC supervising that, because that seems to be MOPAC territory, not just yours? You should be passing that to MOPAC saying, 'Here we are. This has happened. What else has happened?' Has that happened, because I think the legal case is being concluded? I am not sure.