I agree with the points on here about the viewers and listeners at home being allowed to hear the conversation between the ref and VAR as it seems to work OK in rugby and cricket. I guess it might be more difficult technically for spectators in the ground but I can't think of another reason why they shouldn't too. These are not state secrets being discussed after all.
I also agree with Nemesis about opening up the VAR's role although I guess for them to have credibility, they would need to have refereeing experience at a decent level. However, that said, I am not convinced about Swarbrick's suitability if his contributions in The Times are anything to go by when he invariably supports the decision of the officials. I can only actually recall once when he disagreed so not sure that he can bring a sufficiently dispassionate view to the proceedings.