However, it should be noted that the introduction of a legislative Mib may mean the removal of flexibility. SoSFT and Mib can amend agreements with complementary agreements without having to go through a potentially lengthy parliamentary process.134 One difficulty, however, concerns exclusions and lack of transparency.135 An approach that mixes mib agreements and legislation could provide a solution to some of the challenges of agreements, such as the most important exclusions, such as main exclusions. which could be provided for by law. This would provide some flexibility for the mib to determine its process and requirements, with greater transparency and oversight of important elements of the legislation. However, this could create confusion with regulation in two places and further threaten cooperation. Another approach could be to ensure considerable transparency in the introduction of agreements by publishing discussions in the future. In addition, it is also important to strengthen cooperation with various organizations and other consultations. This, it is said, would be a less radical approach than legislation and would resolve some of the issues related to transparency, without compromising the relationship between the Mib and the government. This is a challenge for the courts, but Hansard is unlikely to support judicial interpretation. This remains problematic due to the limitations of available communication between SoSFT and mib. Legislation could therefore increase transparency in the introduction of agreements and make it easier for the courts. In addition, it would provide applicants and their legal advisors with important information on the interpretation of the agreements.
It is remarkable, however, that the mib provides „guidance for guidelines“ for both its 201557 and UtDA 2017,58 uda, which can be found on its website. On the other hand, they are not particularly long, nor do they offer sufficient intentions that oppose the introduction of the provisions. Since agreements do not need to pass through Parliament, Hansard`s parliamentary debates are largely unavailable to discuss the purpose and interpretation of the agreements.53 When a case is brought before a court to determine the interpretation of the agreements, the courts have the opportunity to defer to discussions between the Mib and the government.