Yes, that's true. You'll forgive me if I'm a bit brutal with you, but I don't think this sort of format is capable of doing the work we've done, and there's a very particular reason for that. When groups of MPs gather to do studies of this nature, all of us bring our own preconceived ideas to the table. That's the nature of who we are. We are members of Parliament. We are tribal. By and large, we arrive here believing in certain things, and it's very difficult, within the format of Parliament, to simply break that down.
The reason I took this outside of Parliament was because I felt I needed to take a pace back and let others, who are not driven by political imperatives, follow the facts. Everything we produced has not been written by me but by people who have some experience in this. I have simply followed the facts. I hope those facts, and ultimately the solutions, are available to the government on the basis that they don't have any political side, that they are simply what we found and the best ways to resolve them. They have looked at international comparisons as well.
Certainly there is a weakness within a parliamentary system in delving too deeply into things. Where committees like this work really well is in interrogating government and asking why they failed or why they haven't done stuff or why they should do things. Once you get past that, the problem is in this nature of looking too deeply. The distractions and the tribalism make it quite difficult to do that, I think.