He talked about the initial investigation being an absolute disgrace, but that was the investigation that enabled both parties to be heard, that brought in the Parliamentary Service legal counsel and the Public Service Association (PSA), and that on the balance of the evidence decided that the case—not that anybody had lied or that something didn't occur—could not be established. Now, the matter of the fact that two people might have been working in close proximity for several months after the end of their investigation is, I think—well, in the Minister's words—an absolute disgrace. I think it speaks to something else that, indeed, maybe there was something of a détente, a recognition of a misunderstanding. Who knows? And the Minister can answer if he wishes, he'll have the chance. But the reality is, the second investigation, on the day this individual was dismissed, was suspended, he was driving to work, hearing about a rapist in the building, having absolutely no idea that reference was being made to him until Mr Gonzalez-Montero picked up the phone and called him into his office and told him to bring a PSA delegate. No interview, no restatement of the facts, no hearing his or her side of the story; out the door straight away. Well, I know which one sounds like an absolute disgrace in terms of process, and it's not the first one. 