The mechanics of delivery will also be hugely complex, with public and private sector participation both playing significant roles. Again, there is no single, trite answer in a forum such as this to ‘who does what’.

I will however suggest a few tips: government needs to get better at assessing what can and cannot be achieve in practice using digital services. There is no end of theoretical modelling that will show us how x transaction can be reengineered in y ways to deliver z savings. But apply that theory to the reality of 60m citizens with an almost infinite variety of personal circumstances, motivations and behaviours and previous solid business cases start to crumble. It is extremely unlikely, in my view, that a mechanism can ever be constructed which will allow for single sign-on to a trusted relationship with lots of areas of government at the same time, such that meaningful and useful transactions can be carried out. The drawbacks and pitfalls scale much, much faster than the benefits. I can draw you a theoretical model of how a single identity and PIN could do the job, but I wouldn’t be able to implement it (even accounting for the fact that much of what we understand about rights and privacy would have to fundamentally change to do so). But that is a much deeper debate than suits this comment box.

Rather than barking up the same old trees, government needs to improve in other disciplines – I’ll offer two for consideration. 1. Smart service design – whereby real-world cases, cutting across many departmental areas of responsibility, are used as a starting point for developing solutions. Strong leadership, to ensure that such smarter services can be pushed through to delivery, even where this means some flex in departmental ownership, or amendment to policy. And 2. Risk assessment – simply replicating offline services online doesn’t work. We know this. Much is changed simply by the act of providing a service in a remote, anonymous, scalable and rapid channel, such as the web. Reliance on old forms of ‘friction’, such as the filling in of complex forms, or the use of a physical signature, don’t have the same meaning in a digital channel. Risks, of fraud or error, need to be wholly reevaluated in light of the digital channel.

Directgov’s flagship service, still – after more than 5 years – the car tax renewal, works so well because of decisions like this. There is no requirement to go through an elaborate identity-proving process every time you buy a tax disc. What’s the worst that could happen, really? You might buy a disc for someone else? Wow. And the car itself is oblivious to the fact that its details are being shared across MOT, insurance and DVLA databases. It’s a car. It doesn’t care. It’s because almost every other service is about a person that makes them so difficult, and the tax disc magic so hard to repeat. And although, generally, we need to be sure that someone is entitled to the services they claim – and that appropriate data sharing safeguards are observed – I still feel there is more that could be done in assessing service risk in a way appropriate to the channel being used.

Full disclosure: as per Question 1.

However, assuming they are required (this is the “access channel to wider content” that we mention above), lists of places (mainly websites) where users can go for further advice and services should be included. This is where charities, those that offer charged services and other possible links (other Governments etc.) come in. There should be mechanisms for proposal and establishment of links. But these links should always make clear on the site, to all including those using assistive technology and/or with sensory impairment, that they are links to content or services that are outside the jurisdiction of government.

However, assuming they are required (this is the “access channel to wider content” that we mention above), lists of places (mainly websites) where users can go for further advice and services should be included. This is where charities, those that offer charged services and other possible links (other Governments etc.) come in. There should be mechanisms for proposal and establishment of links. But these links should always make clear on the site, to all including those using assistive technology and/or with sensory impairement, that they are links to content or services that are outside the jurisdiction of government.

The above is a “logic” formulation. In practice government will appoint agents to do some or all of the production, maintenance and support tasks. But they should work entirely within the imprimatur.

The critical capabilities that Directgov should provide include a single point of access to all government information and services including a single sign-on capability; MyGov can be a reality. There will thus need to be a single central set of services which can connect into services provided by the departments and local authorities and this should be within Directgov.

Directgov’s other key role will be to work with the departments and local authorities to get them to adopt digital delivery (these skills are rare and in high demand in the private sector). They will need to be a change agent challenging the other parties to think in very different ways to accelerate the channel shift securing the savings that the country needs right now.

By doing all these things, Directgov will then provide a single trusted source of information and services to the citizen. This will become increasingly important as other sites crop up offering to provide similar services but charging the citizen for services that should be free. That isn’t to say that there isn’t a role for the private sector but only where they truly add value to the citizen.

Add on some bare bones presentation, just so there’s somewhere for reference.

Then, engage the wider community. Make the access sufficiently broad and deep, and believe me, the enthusiasm and creativity that will be engaged will be beyond your dreams.

Oh, and while you’re at it, recognise that some information doesn’t fit so well – because it’s driven by an occasion, a person, whatever. Set some guidelines about how procurement is to be done, and a budget ceiling of £500 per site. Add a thin skin of monitoring to spot sites that have gone moribund and prune them and to make sure there’s a standard way of checking a site’s credentials. Stand well back. Of course, not everything will squeeze into those shoes, but almost everything will – and at the moment the total cost to the taxpayer of assessing new web requests is well over £500 per occasion.

The notion of centralised log-ins is a terrifyingly large basket with all our eggs in it. The idea that it can do search better than Google is laughable.

Another important source of data is the people using your services. You need to find out who they are, and allow them to change their preferences too. If they declare their interests frequently, you’ll be able to shape directgov around them, become intuitive, responsive, and proactive about their needs.

In summary, central government doesn’t have to collect all the necessary information itself, but it should set recognisable standards that everyone who contributes can agree to, and stick to, otherwise the data will rapidly become unusable.