Well, I think there were a couple of warning signs that they reacted to, but they reacted to them very late.
For example, the department realized what was happening with the backlog and decided that they had better go in and review some cases to see whether they really had to go to appeal. I think that one-third of them, if I remember correctly, that the department looked at.... Remember, these had been turned down. They'd been turned down at reconsideration and they'd gone to appeal, but then the department went in and looked at them, and for one-third of what they looked at, they said they should pay it, right?
Really, they never should have gotten to appeal in the first place, but the trigger was the fact that the backlog got so bad they said that they needed to go in and look at them, and for one-third of them, they were actually able to say they could accept them.
The other thing that happened was that the tribunal themselves identified that their backlog was just getting worse, so they made some changes to their administrative processes. I've forgotten exactly what they were, but they made some changes to try to book the hearings more in advance, but even that was done after the backlog had reached 10,000 cases.
Fundamentally, the tribunal believes that a normal steady state is a backlog of 17 months' worth of work. Again, think of that from the point of view of the person who has an appeal waiting. You can say that a steady state is going to be 17 months, and maybe you can understand it from a tribunal point of view, but that would still cause me to ask some questions if I'm looking at it from the point of view of the person who's trying to get an answer to their appeal.