It's a very similar question, and a very live question within the U.K., Mr. Eglinski.
I will be careful here. I'm a civil servant, so obviously I can't speak for different political parties' philosophies in this area, but perhaps I can speak about how the debate has gone within the U.K.
The debate's essentially been about whether this is about a replacement of the role of the state or about the state essentially allowing itself access to different methods and ways of working that mean, with the same intent, its having more impact.
Certainly those who are proponents of it within the U.K. speak about the latter, and will speak, not about government ceding responsibility, but rather government saying, “Our responsibility is often to set the outcomes we would like to see, but we would like a rich diversity of organizations delivering against that.”
Those who challenge that have said, firstly, “Is that true?” Secondly, they have questioned how effectively these markets are working in particular, although within the U.K., both on the left and the right, I think there is a strong degree of support for outsourcing to the social sector. Some on the left have questioned whether these sorts of models of outsourcing are truly getting through to the social sector or are being captured by large commercial firms, often, they would argue, to the disbenefit of the most vulnerable.
Those are some of the policy challenges that people like me look at. Certainly the narrative around social finance has been that it might be a way of addressing some of those risks of outsourcing, but it would be fair to say that within the U.K. there's still a very live and active debate on that.