Finally, on the whole issue of the maximum penalty and how that triggers the ultimate consequence, I thought it was interesting that you said that ideally it's the parliamentarians who would decide, but it seemed to be your second choice of the actual sentence. I have sat on a quasi-judicial body, a youth justice committee, and I find that there is a great deal of discretion. Judges themselves have discretion and no doubt the seriousness and consequence of losing a pension would all be factors when a judge takes a look at negligence or whatever it might be with a member of Parliament.
If we do not have your first choice of parliamentarians making the decision, is it fair to say that your clear second choice would be sentencing as opposed to the maximum limits, and then could you expand on that as to why?