What I'd like to suggest, then, is that in order to achieve balance.... After the meeting with the minister we have witnesses coming, two in favour, two against. I think that in the interest of balance we should come up with a questioning plan that reflects that. I believe this would make sense. I understand that in terms of practicality we have to break this into separate groups; I understand that.
Given that, I think it would make sense that we go to a single round, where we do it as we've always done it—1, 2, 3, 4—but in the second round I would suggest that in terms of balance it would make sense to alternate questions for each of the separate groups. I won't call them meetings, because we've said in the motion that this is one four-hour meeting. According to the original rules that we set out for this committee, what we should be doing is going to alternating questions after the first two rounds for the rest of the meeting.