Of course, and that I have no issue with.
The question you raise is the question of notice to the requester. I'm quite sure that if a requester saw this, and then saw also that we basically applied parliamentary privilege after consulting with Parliament, that again would raise the other issues I was raising. The question would be who made this assertion, because that's the basis of making a claim of parliamentary privilege. There are rules that apply in terms of what is parliamentary privilege. The Vaid case actually made it very clear that if parliamentary privilege is asserted and has an impact on third parties, the court will give this claim of parliamentary privilege a lot more scrutiny.
That's the situation we're in, if that is the case. Frankly, I would think that would lead to litigation.