Senator Dardis, on behalf of the Progressive Democrats, stated that people have rights and responsibilities and that a balance must be struck. There are many balances – some of us would argue there are too many – in the 1997 Act. Anything that is commercially sensitive, for example, can be excluded. This has frequently been interpreted to mean that anything which impacts on a semi-State company or public body with a commercial remit is almost automatically excluded. For example, an inquiry into Aer Lingus would almost certainly be excluded because the information would be commercially sensitive. This is pushing matters a little far, particularly when a company is in public ownership, has a public remit and, in many instances, a universal service obligation. That is one example of protection from information which has been extended above and beyond what is required.