I believe the Privy Council Office feels entitled to direct Parliament, tell Parliament what it should and shouldn't do, in a way that it does not feel Parliament should tell the Privy Council Office what it should and shouldn't do.
Forgive me, sir, I will use an analogy. As I read that document, that's what the lawyers call “construing” something. They have construed the powers of accounting officers and the powers of Parliament as narrowly as possible. To give you an analogy, it is like the old definition of a platonic lover: someone who holds the eggshells while someone else eats the omelette. Well, what has happened here is that the Privy Council Office is eating the omelette and leaving Parliament with the eggshells, and I think that's the wrong way to go.