I would add our own view, having observed these sorts of situations in the United States, of legislators who conduct oversight and who ask pointed questions being targeted. In the United States we had a detailed oversight discussion over the radicalization that occurs in prisons. Certain Congress members were aggressively treated in the media and pointedly by organizations that are known to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and known to have ties to terrorist organizations. As a result there comes a reluctance to discuss issues that maybe need to get discussed.
If you can create a barrier where the direct oversight of “you did this right” or “you did this wrong” is occurring at a committee level, then you have a parliamentary level that can observe that security committee and make sure the review that needs to be done is being done. That would be positive in our view because it would provide a level of protection to the legislator who is at risk of being targeted for influence operations.