Member

The subjectivity of the OAD test in this draft statutory guidance is deeply concerning and should be concerning to everybody in the House. Case-by-case assessments, the IFR using “judgment” and incumbents being investigated if the IFR has evidence of “grounds for concern”, are all vague, subjective and damaging to investment and growth. They are a playground for lawyers. The IFR must be able to demonstrate consistent decisions. Transparency and consistency will be key to avoiding reputational risk and potential legal challenge. That is what we need to consider carefully in this debate, and that is the reason I brought it before the House.