I just wanted to give a very specific example of where I think the departments need help, but I'm not sure what the latest status is.
In the PSL1 process, a substance is assessed and is declared toxic after five years, and then it gets handed over to a risk manager, who is leading a consultation with an industry group—sometimes a hostile industry group. The major finding, or one of the findings, in 1999 was that the risk manager was not equipped with a science-based risk management objective. The substance has been declared toxic, but the risk manager doesn't know how much reduction needs to be achieved in order to make sure the risks are manageable. He or she is simply asked to engage industry and to get as much action as they can through a negotiated settlement.
I don't know whether the situation has changed for the PSL2 topics; that's one of the recommendations we made. But it was obvious to us that leadership at the commencement of that risk management exercise is needed, so that the risk managers know what they have to negotiate. And if they can't get it voluntarily, then they really have to use a regulatory approach to achieve the reduction.
I don't know what the situation is today, but that was an area of leadership, not in the sense of blue sky but of very practical direction, to help risk managers achieve the risk reduction objections they needed.
A second area where leadership is clearly going to be needed is on the DSL, the domestic substances list, and in the application of the precautionary principle. There are going to be more uncertainties in the future than there were in the past, and somebody has to make the decision on how that principle is going to fall on those substances where there's uncertainty. But you can't expect public servants to be making those kinds of decisions. I don't think it's their role.