I understand that.
You're saying that there's another "need to know", a second layer of “need to know”, which is determined by the government and is not included or referenced in your bill. Where does that sit? Does that sit in the the legislation this is amending? Can you clearly identify it?
That's my concern when I read this: It seems to throw the doors wide open. You're saying no, and I appreciate that clarification, but I want an assurance as to where that other “need to know” sits within the the legislation and to just know that there's another gate people have to get through.
My concern would be that people would be able to access information they're deemed to need to know but that they perhaps shouldn't have access to, or where there is no rational justification for them to have access to that information.
There's lots of information I'd like to have access to. I'd like to have access to the information that's referred to in the NSICOP report on the allegations of foreign interference in the Conservative leadership race. I would like to have access to that and be clear on that.