But to that extent, and witnesses may be giving evidence, which is in some respects secondhand, that people in their organisation know about but which they are providing the evidence to the Inquiry for, and in those circumstances we would say, in terms of the appearance of the evidence which those witnesses give to the Inquiry, indications of the issues which they are likely to face questioning on is going to enhance the evidence gathering process. It is not a question of witnesses being tripped up or hijacked, as your Lordship said. The woe would be, if a witness was hijacked, they would give partial or incomplete evidence which doesn't actually make sense or wasn't correct, and that can't be in the interests of the Inquiry going forward.
As I said, sir, it is not a question of -- we are not seeking a bulleted list of questions, but issues which a particular witness is likely to face questioning on, and indications to whatever level of particularity the counsel to the Inquiry feel able to give, we would say, would be beneficial to the Inquiry as well as the witness.
The second point in relation to that, sir, is in relation to this idea of suggestions to counsel to the Inquiry of supplemental areas of questioning, areas which counsel to the Inquiry may not be intending to go. If issues have been provided to the witness and the other core participants, as to what the witness is likely to face, we would say that process is likely to be enhanced as well, in the sense that you will be able to identify immediately if there is a particular issue which counsel to the Inquiry are not intending to pursue but which another core participant considers relevant or believes would be helpful for the witness to answer questions in relation to.
The alternative, I guess, is that --