Thank you.
I want to understand from the witnesses... My understanding is that political interference should probably be left defined by regulation, because we have to make sure it's both consistent and objective. There's one part of this definition that I find quite troubling.
For example, look at (i):
(i) to apply a law not according to the intention of Parliament but according to some other interpretation preferred by the person so influencing or directing,
I would think that is incredibly subjective. There are probably 10 people who would offer 10 different interpretations of what Parliament intended laws to mean sometimes, and that becomes the subject of all kinds of litigation.
Do you believe this is an objective component of a definition if you look at (i)? Would we be best advised to do what I think a further Conservative amendment does, which is define this by regulation, think it through and have an objective definition consistent with other laws?