I just want to support what the general consensus is. I think it makes sense not to define too much what the study is going to be, what level it will be at. We should allow that to flow a little with a certain amount of flexibility to pursue avenues of interest or inquiry that are perhaps brought in by witnesses at one point, or specifically by the information commissioner.
I'm not opposed, but I'm a little wary of the idea of a briefing by the same people who we're going to be asking to testify possibly and challenge as witnesses. It's not necessarily a terrible thing, but if we're having them first as teachers and then we're having them as people we're perhaps cross-examining a week later or two weeks later, I think we need to be mindful of the dynamics we set up. Perhaps it does help to have it in camera, or perhaps it is counterproductive to have it in camera. We could discuss this a little further, that detail, on Tuesday. But certainly having them in on Thursday to give us all a grounding.... If I'm still here next week I'm going to want to have a little more knowledge on it, and I'm sure some others won't mind.
So I'm supportive of that, as long as the plan of eight meetings is potentially expandable as a duration. That's important, because we don't yet know what sort of scope or details we're going to be studying. But I'm supportive.