Yes, I think that really would be justified.
The bill as it now stands talks about an overview of the cases, and that is much too minimal. In my opinion, the professional privilege argument is limited, because no one is obliged to take the money. There are conditions attached to the money. These are public funds. It's fine to say that people who are less well-off have as many rights as wealthier people, but these are public funds. Normally, that comes with transparency obligations.