All right. Well, I agree with that, although by definition not everything will be uploaded all at once. I mean, the submissions -- the opening, really I would have thought that most of the core participants will have pretty strong views as to the direction that they think I should be taking. Nobody's being shy about making those views clear to date on specific topics, and therefore I anticipate that people will have views generically.
I am not suggesting that the opening submissions will deal with the evidence that I am about to hear; that would be quite unrealistic. It's really to set out your submissions on a global basis, as to how I should be approaching my task and potentially where I should be going.
I've no problem about people saying where they think I should broadly be going, provided there isn't a sort of carrot and a stick involved, because I have made it very clear to those to whom I have spoken at seminars or otherwise, that the whole problem is an industry-wide problem, which has to be solved in a way that works not merely for the industry or profession, whatever word you want to call it, but also for everybody else.
The one thing I do not want to do is to produce a piece of paper or a document that everybody reads and says, "Well, that's utterly unrealistic", and puts on a shelf and allows it to gather dust.
My fear is that if one looks at the history of investigations into these sort of areas, over the last 50 years, rather more has been put on the shelf than has been activated.
So my ultimate aim, and if I am disclosing my hand, I don't mind, is to produce a system, whatever it be, if it's the same or different, that works and has the support of everybody.
Now, that doesn't give the press a trump that says, "Well, we're going to say no to everything", because that also will be obvious.
It's critical that we move forward the debate, I think.