The writing of contracts is quite difficult. Obviously we've gained a lot of experience over the last 15 years in the writing of P3 contracts. We still, I believe, make some huge mistakes, and we have done so recently in Canada on P3 contracts. The question is whether you can ever design contracts that are foolproof. I think it's probably quite difficult.
If you have a 35-year contract or a 40-year contract and things go wrong in the middle of the contract—and they do go wrong, even for P3s. They overspend. They come in over budget. Sometimes the contractors walk away. All of this has happened, especially in the U.K. That was the model, and now they're moving away from that. When things go wrong in the middle of a contract, the bargaining power of the public sector is minimal, because you have a single company handling the infrastructure.
I would agree with your basic point that if you are sharing risk, it's probably easier to arrive at a contract than it is if you are trying to transfer all the risk.
The proof has to be in the practical details. We have to evaluate each contract, and do it contract by contract. Of course, these contracts are not accessible to the public. All we get on the websites are very short summaries. In order to do a proper job of evaluating contracts, there has to be a whole different approach to freedom of information and accessibility. Much of what the private sector would say is market confidentiality should in fact be in the public realm.