Alex White (Labour)

What the Minister says is useful and helpful, apart from the conclusion. It seems the first reason, namely, sensitivity of information and the third, the risk of an inadvertent revelation of sensitive information, are the same so there are two rather than three reasons. The fact that there is sensitive information within the Central Bank which people might seek is not of itself a reason for excluding the application of the Act because there are many controls and savers in the freedom of information legislation. The Minister knows well this is for the protection of this or that information or this or that exclusion of the availability of information in particular circumstances. It is possible to circumscribe this. It is relatively easy to circumscribe and delimit the level, extent and sensitivity of information in regard to what is made available.

I am disappointed that a simple statement that some information may be sensitive of itself is a reason for rejecting the amendment. However, I am encouraged by what the Minister said in regard to his revisiting this issue which is important. The argument has been made many times and I will not hold up the House by revisiting and rehearsing it. The question of confidence in the system requires to a very considerable extent that information be available to the public, not only from the point of view of idle curiosity, as it were, but because where information is available and accessible to the public, whether through the efforts of journalists or well motivated individual citizens, there is a much better chance of the presence of a higher degree of confidence in these institutions, which have taken such a battering in recent years. On foot of what the Minister said, I will take his word that he will revisit this issue in the autumn legislation and will not forget the undertaking he has given. We can revisit the issue then and on that basis I will not press the amendment.