Basically, our concern about doing that is that the government is still paying that return at the end because there is an attachment of how much money you get back on the so-called bond at the end. The government is still paying, but in many cases—in fact, Andrew referred to one of them—you're actually ending up paying more. You're paying more to get the service, and the public sector delivery or the not-for-profit community-based delivery would be less expensive and more effective.
It also creates a risk in terms of.... Let's take the Utah bond, for example. They decided they would target this area and these people. But if you actually need a service you might not mesh with the geographic area or the exact population that was targeted, so it's sort of basing social policy on the market.
Governments are withdrawing from the policy aspect of it for the design of what the success may or may not be, and there is no cap on their profit. Those three areas make us concerned.