I was not seeking in any way to say that one set of experts should be more highly esteemed than another. I was making the factual point that my understanding, which has been confirmed, was that the Select Committee heard experts on both sides. Indeed, it engaged its own experts because it was not going to take the word of one set of experts against
the other. It spent many hours reviewing the case and reached its judgment. I was simply making the point that if that is established as a fact, I cannot see how we would be in any position to substitute our own judgment for theirs.