Privatization is something that needs to be approached with a great deal of caution. Certainly, any government agency, any public service organization, might have somewhat inflated costs, might not be quite as lean in its operation as a private corporation, but in my opinion there is also some truth to the popular phrase that you get what you pay for. I think at times that privatization—the increasing experience in the U.S., although it's still somewhat mixed—while it might save costs, also reduces value. That enters into that subjective area that I mentioned earlier in passing, whereby it becomes a bit of a matter of personal opinion whether we are willing to accept a lesser quality of service in exchange for a reduced cost of that service.
I think savings certainly can be achieved, but often that may be at the expense of having personnel conducting duties who are less trained, less equipped, less prepared, less educated. It's certainly a function of what we are expecting people to do. We can see examples in the United States of very successful privatization efforts for discrete, specific, narrow policing tasks where it makes little sense to have a full-time, sworn, uniformed, equipped officer doing what amounts to little more than a security function. As to having private security personnel engaging in a broader level of public safety patrolling and handling incidents, I think that becomes a much more complicated circumstance.