Dr. Dennis Jennings:

I cannot answer the last question except to say that perhaps the rush has caused additional costs. These are very complex matters, like any information technology, IT, project, internal or external. This is an IT project under the Government's framework that is required to build an infrastructure across all Departments, with their existing proprietary and other systems. It is truly enormously complex. That is the case unless it is done in a way that is standardised and scalable so once there is a beginning in place, other Departments can simply adopt a set of rules and connect. It is like the Internet or the web in that regard, with a set a rules that allow people to join and scale up, or else it will not work. It will cost a fortune and not work. The next time it is attempted, it will also cost a fortune and not work.

That is why this legislation or its replacement is really important, as it redefines the way we think about and access data, as well as privacy, with regard to the relationship between the State and the citizen. That must be thought through at the macro, legal, Government, technical and semi-technical level, so it will work and we can implement components between two Departments for example. If we demonstrate that it works, we can add a third Department. If it is not scalable and all of this is ad hoc, it will cost a fortune again and again.

The best example, albeit in a different environment and so on, is Estonian. Coming from the Soviet Union, it had all recognised functions of the State but not the budget for 1.2 million people. It built a very structured, open and scalable system that allowed it to build what is considered the best infrastructure for the management of the relationship between the state and the citizen on the globe. I had the opportunity to look at that, which is what helped me to write some of these principles, and I was very impressed. What really impressed me is its neighbouring country, Finland, after years of ad hocexpenditure and costs, adopted and implemented the Estonian system, which was designed to be comprehensive from the ground up. Not only have they the right sort of legal, policy, governance and technology basis in a scalable system that Estonia had, tailored to the Finnish needs while using the same technical infrastructure, but Finland can also share data - legally and appropriately - between the two States.

This is a dramatic example that I would commend to the committee and ask them to have a good look at. I am not saying everything about the Estonian model is right or perfect. For example, do not get involved with their e-voting system, as it is completely irrelevant to our complex system.