Thank you.
I think there are possibly several layers to that. One is the Estonian type of approach that we have mentioned, whereby citizens can at least see who has had access to or made use of their data. Then there is a bigger question about how much appetite government has to reveal much more financial data about its internal operations. You mentioned the possible threat that if it does so, people might try to effectively game the system and manipulate the market. On the other hand, it might enable us to get better insight into where the public sector is doing a very good job and where other parts of the public sector could follow a particular organization's model because it's been very financially efficient in the way it operates. It might also enable us to see where other parts of the public sector are not functioning so well and could work together to help improve those areas.
Also, in the computer age, there is a potential level of transparency about algorithms and processes. For example, regarding welfare calculations, does government keep those processes entirely within itself, or does it enable third parties to potentially run my financial affairs against a welfare calculation system? There could be big benefits to citizens if they could share their financial details with a financial adviser. If a financial adviser could model my circumstances against government rules and calculations, they might be able to determine whether I could apply for benefits or whether I'm due a tax rebate or something.
There are many levels of transparency. I think it's a good question, because I don't think that I've seen anyone answer the question. How open does this government want to be in the digital age in terms of the type of information it makes available? As well, how open does it make some of its systems to allow for others to potentially come along and help government innovate and improve upon its services?