Internet of Things – an opportunity for Government?

When the world’s mobile telecoms movers and shakers gather in Barcelona next week they will inevitably be thinking about the next wave of the technology revolution. The Internet of Things and Machine to Machine have been talked about for a while and there will be an impatience for the commercial impact to really be felt.

Aside from commercial judgments, what about how governments should exploit the potential of digital to solve today’s challenges. In Barcelona I will be discussing with ministers how we can realise the potential of this new technology across the public sector.

A starting point is the urgent need for governments to do things differently.

The old ways of delivering public services were forged in the post war industrial economy. They are no longer affordable. By contrast, communication with citizens has never been more affordable thanks to social technology. And the problems are now so complex that the only practical way to solve them is collaboratively with citizens.

So this is the right time to argue for a new mindset, learning from the commercial world and finding new models of service delivery. The Internet of Things offers some interesting examples.

I have been using wearable technology to monitor my health for 18 months and know it changes my health behaviour for the good. In doing so I am conscious of the trade off in terms of that health data also going to a third party. If we can find a way of building public trust in the use of their data there is huge potential in public health to save on care and on chronic diseases like diabetes.

There is plenty more. Driverless vehicles can help with congestion, and smart meters can help with affordable heating and tackling climate change. Prof Stephen Heppell has been doing very interesting analysis around the ideal learning environment – the right levels of light, heat, sound and air quality for learning – a smart school can deliver these things. There is also the great learning potential from analysing the huge amount of data created by the Internet of Things.

But I must also sound some warnings.

I have already touched on the growing concern about personal data. Connecting objects appears to be all about creating more data points. Some of that will be data about me that I may not want others to know. If my smart meter is hacked into, could thieves then surmise when my home is normally empty? How safe is my health data and my shopping data?

The technology revolution is creating economic growth but it is not evenly distributed. Recent reports suggests that the richest 1% now own 99% of the wealth. That is not sustainable. The rise of extreme politics and terrorism has to be related to a sense that the status quo is not delivering for many, and so people are looking for an alternative. Will this next technology wave of the Internet of Things lessen or exaggerate that problem?

As a schools minister in the UK, I was responsible for a huge spend on classroom technology. Unfortunately the element of the budget for training got stripped out and so we had a limited return on investment. We had become so be-dazzled by the potential of technology enhanced learning that we had forgotten about the people.

People must be at the heart of this new technology. And here I am impatient to see genuine attempts to design co-creation into public services.

In the commercial world we have seen the technology journey from producer efficiency to consumer personalisation, to now co-creation.

So the challenge is to combine the ability to connect things, with people generated design. Ministers in Barcelona would be wise not be too dazzled by the Machine to Machine technology until the loop is closed of people to machine to machine to people. Then they can get the consent and to harness technology to deliver what the people want from their public services – more for less.


Speech on Arsenal Fanshare scheme & fan involvement in football

My Lords it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord Holmes, even though he plays in blue.

I declare an interest as a lifelong supporter and current Season Ticket holder at Arsenal Football Club.

I know only too well the unique bond that exists between a supporter and a club. Often it brings frustration and despair but also the greatest moments, such as winning the Cup at Wembley.

It is a commitment for life and the power of football in people’s lives can bring many positive things including the focal point of community pride. But we must remember that without Fans football is nothing. For example at its most cynical, fans are vital wallpaper and ambient sound for lucrative TV coverage.

I was until recently a Director of the Arsenal Fanshare Scheme. This is a pioneering scheme that enabled Arsenal fans to buy a part share in Arsenal. As the price of one share is now £15,000 the scheme allowed fans to come together within the scheme to own an affordable part of a share – called a Fanshare.

The FSA regulated scheme was successful at its launch and hailed by many including the FA, the Premier League, Michel Platini of UEFA and Jeremy Hunt and Hugh Robertson who as Secretary of State and Minister for Sport respectively spoke positively of the scheme as a model for football clubs to follow in terms of supporter ownership engagement.

The scheme quickly secured almost 2,000 members and collectively they held 120 shares in Arsenal. That meant that 2000 more fans had a small share in Arsenal’s ownership and there were 120 places to attend the Annual General Meeting and hold the Club’s Directors to account. Fanshare holders received the Club’s Report and Accounts and all the information that Chief Executive Ivan Gazidis sent to Arsenal’s Supporters.

Arsenal has benefited greatly over many decades from maintaining stability in its ownership structure, and from having supporters who own shares and are actively involved in this structure. Plurality of ownership has served Arsenal well and is the best way to ensure the necessary checks and balances are in place to protect the club’s long-term future.

Sadly for Fanshare there was a takeover of Arsenal Football Club by Stan Kroenke during the early days of the scheme. This changed everything. Despite many attempts to engage Mr Kroenke has refused to meet with anyone from the Scheme and he has refused to support it to develop. With him buying up all the shares during the takeover, the scheme has struggled to find new shares to buy and was unable to market itself to new members. It is now facing closure. A final plea for him to issue new shares to the scheme has been refused.

In this regard it is a great pity that the DCMS has taken so long to establish its Expert Group on Football Ownership as recommended to it by the Arsenal Supporters Trust. If it had done so it might have found ways to provide more support to schemes like Fanshare. While Ministers spoke highly of it they have regrettably offered no tangible support when it mattered.

As the Arsenal Supporters’ Trust advised the Culture, Media and Sport Select Cttee, there are legislative barriers such as those contained in the Financial Markets and Services Act that made it more difficult to promote the scheme and I welcome that there is now finally a group to look at these barriers.

But we need to go further. We need to discuss how Supporters are given a greater say in the way that Clubs are run. That is why I welcome the proposals put forward by Clive Efford MP and my party to have Fans elected onto the Boards of Football Clubs.

In my opinion, and many other fans I meet, clubs like Arsenal are too important to be controlled solely by just one person and these measures would address that.

This could be achieved by legislation. It could also be achieved by the Premier League and the Football League making changes to their rulebooks.
The Arsenal Supporters’ Trust has argued that these rules should reflect supporters at all Clubs being treated in the way they would if they held equity in the Club, even in cases where they do not:

Engagement would specifically cover:

1. Providing a financial and reporting format similar to that required under the Companies Act.

2. Twice yearly meetings between representatives of the supporters’ trusts and directors and/or executives of the club, at which discussion can take place on the performance of the club and the views of the wider membership can be directly reported.

I hope that the Government can make progress with these issues in the recently announced Expert Working Group. And I also hope that they will correct their omission of not including any representatives from Premier League Clubs who face these engagement barriers.

But their track record to date isn’t encouraging. For real change we have the proposals from Labour and that is why my advice would be to always support the team in Red!

Thanks to @timpayton

lords, Politics, Uncategorized

From the Ridiculous to the Sublime – the Lords Delivers!

I must confess.

Today I voted in one of the most bizarre elections in the world. And I voted for someone who was eligible to be a candidate because he is the great grandson of Herbert Asquith, the former British Prime Minister. I was also one of an exclusive electorate, as members of the House of Lords were the only people eligible to vote.

But the Lords are not elected, I hear you cry! That is mostly true but not when it comes to the ones that are there by birth. Yes, this was the by-election for a vacancy for a hereditary peer (see my earlier blog), and on this occasion the whole House was eligible to vote (with convention saying it ought to be a Liberal).

I voted because I thought I should, but clearly this is the Lords at its most ridiculous.

redbenchesBy contrast I also picked up a copy of the Lords internal newsletter the Red Benches. This included a story telling me that they were testing a new system of recording votes using iPads. This is so that they can record them more efficiently and publish the results more quickly.

This is a very good thing for accountability.

All Lords divisions are published and are easily searchable. The public can then see how we all voted, very soon after we did.  We have nothing to hide.

The Lords have been doing this for some time. It begs the question as to why the Commons don’t do the same…


Change the political paradigm

Six months ago I stood down from the Labour frontbench after nine years, to take up an exciting full time job in education. I still attend the Lords to vote and speak, but I have enjoyed having some distance to reflect on politics in this country.

Outside of Westminster and the media, most people say the same thing: “I’m not really interested in politics…they’re all the same.” I’ve heard that on doorsteps for over twenty years, accompanied by declining turnouts at elections, but I’ve rarely stopped to really drill into what people are saying.

A yes supporter decorates his home -
That changed last month when 85% of voters in Scotland showed they were deeply interested in politics. When politics became relevant to them. Whilst the Yes campaign lost, there was a strong sense that voters on both sides wanted politics to change significantly. I don’t believe Scottish voters are unusual.

At one level “they’re all the same” could be about people in politics. Too many private school and Oxbridge educated white males – like me. Too many who’ve never achieved anything outside politics, and too much over-promotion of intellect and under-promotion of empathy.

But reflect longer and there are perhaps two other aspects where it may look like “they’re all the same”.

they’re all the same

First, is the appearance that they care more about winning power than using it. I know the vast majority of politicians are in it for the right reasons but the entire political culture is geared around Westminster elections and the positioning needed to win them.

The middle ground is where elections are won and so parties disproportionately focus on how to win votes and craft policies to appeal to the same few electors – leaving everyone else feeling irrelevant. It exposes politicians as being inauthentic; because what they feel is hidden behind what the middle ground tells them they want to hear.

To the disengaged this looks like a game. A game where negative campaigning wins. That dwells on image. That does so because political parties can’t risk setting out a vision that describes doing anything profoundly different, in case it loses the election.

This is the second problem. The way politics is done hasn’t changed much since the Empire. The debates for decades have been about the role of the state, and the balance of tax and spend. Now the main UK parties seem to agree on cuts and balancing the budget, but with a heated debate about which benefits to cut and how much tax to give away. But it all sounds very similar.

The old ways of doing things are now as useful as Stone Age tools in the Bronze Age

An ageing population, climate change, globalisation, technological change, indebtedness – all the great challenges facing us mean the current paradigm must change. The old ways of doing things are now as useful as Stone Age tools in the Bronze Age.

The case for wholesale change in the way representation, executive decision-making and law making is done has never been stronger. By happy coincidence the public are desperate for a new way of doing things too. Many politicians are starting to see it too but like music industry bosses waking up to Napster and iTunes a decade ago, they don’t know what to do. Meanwhile the destructive populism of UKIP is allowed to thrive in the vacuum.

There are no easy prescriptions to the sickness sweeping our politics. But I would start with looking at what is going on in the new economy.

In their 2010 book Macrowikinomics, Dan Tapscott and Anthony Williams offer some clues.

They start with the story of how Ushahidi was used in the 2010 Haiti earthquake to massively improve the effectiveness of disaster response. This crisis mapping site was developed over a weekend by a Kenyan lawyer in 2008, following disputed elections. When the Haiti earthquake struck it took an hour for the same platform to start recruiting the global Haitian diaspora, from a basement in Boston, to translate, categorise and geo-locate thousands of text messages in real time. They used Skype to then relay information to search and rescue teams in Port-au-Prince and respond to requests from the World Food Program and the US military. This bottom up technology proved way more effective than observation on the ground.

This is a social application of the disruptive technology that is the heart of the sharing economy.

The Linux free open source software, that is now in everything from BMW cars to Android phones, has spawned a $50,000,000,000 Linux economy. There are many other examples where co-production of services by consumers is creating massive value and disrupting whole industries, most recently Airbnb. Many of these “prosumer” products are highly resource efficient, empowering of the public and are growing really fast.

What if these forces were embraced by government? What if the sharing economy was accompanied by a sharing society? Could we design public services to cut out the middle layer, the agents, the managers, the bureaucrats, and directly connect consumers and professionals?

There are signs that some are starting to do this.

  • Fix my Street, here in the UK, is a long standing example of changing the relationship between local people and local government.
  • I met a group from China last week who told me about their system of national care credits, where the care you give can be exchanged in the future for care you receive.
  • The US Patent Office has moved to using the public to check patent applications – the volumes became unmanageable and so they had to crowd source it to keep up with innovation (if patents can be effectively regulated by the public, why not replace the House of Lords with mechanisms for the public to improve legislation instead?).
  • TES Global operates a platform for teachers to share their teaching resources. The network has over 6.5 million members downloading over ten items per second.

digital mutualism

Truly designing digital mutualism for public services ought to be a no-brainer for progressive politicians. It is putting power wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many not the few. It is the co-operative movement re-born in a post-industrial age. But is does mean those with power and influence choosing to give it up – including at the top of the Labour movement.

Embracing a new political paradigm is a big ask. Are we ready for strong government but less active government? For public sector innovation, ending the cult of the policy expert, and being open, transparent and collaborative?

The prize is better services, more personal and at less cost. It depends on rebuilding trust out of the trust we have to share our homes on Airbnb, rather than out of the ashes of the expenses scandal.

This sharing socialism may not be the new paradigm. But I am convinced that the old paradigm is over. If we don’t find a new one fast we will be left behind, and people will find a new politics.

Jim Knight is a member of the House of Lords and Managing Director of Online Learning at TES Global.

Climate change

Reflections from 5,000 Years Ago


The sun is high and across the bay are the sandstone cliffs being battered by sea. You can just see the occasional wave coming through a great stone arch carved out of the coast on the southern edge of the bay.


Walk along the bay and you are at a remarkable set of grassy mounds and stone workings. This was home 5,000 years ago for Neolithic people at Skara Brae, a village exposed by the sea winds in 1850. The remains are remarkably intact. It almost looks like Hobbiton, with small door ways and turf roofs – Tolkein was a professor of Anglo Saxon at Oxford, maybe his interest in ancient history brought him here?

At the visitor centre there is a complete replica.

As you walk in, the first thing you see is a large stone dresser on the other side of the hearth. Either side of the dresser are small troughs for storing water and food. All around the room are compartments for curling up and sleeping.

People lived in this community for 600 years – from 3100 BC to 2500 BC. The sea was further away and the community had access to a fresh water loch, before getting to the beach. They were farmers of livestock, fishermen and cultivators of food in the fertile soil fed by warm Gulf Stream air. They made clay pots, and fashioned their tools from stone and bone. There was some local wood and other driftwood from the Atlantic.

In many ways they appear to have had a successful existence. There would have been reasonable supplies of food and energy. There was trade and enough interaction with others to avoid genetic in-breeding.

But then it stopped. There appears to be few clues as to why.

These Stone Age people would have witnessed gradual climate change. The erosion of the sea, eventually taking away their local water supply. The depletion of their natural wood resources and with it a main source of energy.

The threat of technological change was inevitable. Jim Crace’s great novel The Gift of Stones tells the story of Stone Age craftsmen being made irrelevant by Bronze Age invaders. Seemingly technological change opening new ways of doing things and making the world smaller.

So why did the community at Skara Brae close? I suspect that their way of life became unsustainable despite their resourcefulness. After 600 years of stability, they would have had to change.

As we all do from time to time.


Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red

A couple of weeks ago I met my Mum at Tower Hill tube station. She was in her raincoat and trying to make her phone work when I found her.  We walked the few yards to get our first glimpse of the poppies at the Tower.  This wonderful installation, by Paul Cummins and my good friend Tom Piper, is an extraordinary spectacle.

IMG_2565Even so early on in the work to plant 888,246 ceramic poppies, the scale moved me. Each poppy was a life lost and by November the moat at the Tower of London will be full.  It is very beautiful and I will keep going back to see it unfold.

For my Mum it was particularly moving.  Almost one hundred years ago to the day her father joined up.  Unlike his brother George, he survived, but he never recovered his health following the gas attacks in the trenches.

A member of the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women awaits the beginning of a Lights Out WWI remembrance ceremony at the Bevis Marks Synagogue (from The Guardian)


Then last week I met up with a friend for dinner.  We had a lovely meal, I had yellow fish curry, at Granger & Co in Clerkenwell Green.  We were talking about the centenary of WW1, and she told me that she had been involved in some of the events in the Jewish community.  The Lights Out remembrance ceremony at Bevis Marks synagogue sounded particularly  special.

Naturally our conversation went on to discuss the impact of the awful events in Gaza and Israel.  Sadly too many people struggle to see the difference between the actions of the Israeli government and Jewish people generally.  There is an awful rise in anti-semitic attacks in this country as a result.

That in turn reminded me of a conversation I had two weekends ago at a party on a boat in the Lagoon at Venice.  I was a guest of the Kinnernet Italy conference organised by Yossi Vardi. Yossi and I were having a quiet chat in between the food, wine and dancing.  He was encouraging me to come to Israel to visits some of the schools he supports for Israeli Arabs.

It is too long since I last visited Israel and Palestine, and saw for myself the dangers of taking sides in the conflicts there.  Watching BBC2’s wonderful The Honourable Woman this weekend also reminds me of the layers of complexity in the region, and the pitfalls for those who try to stay neutral.

This weekend I have also been dragged back into  There I find more on the war records of my relatives.  I have found out a little of what I think is my wife’s grandfather who also fought and survived in the trenches.  I think I have found his pension record showing an honourable discharge on health grounds from the Royal Sussex Regiment after three years service.

But there is another member of Anna’s family I found out about through Ancestry.  Marks Cohen was her great grandfather.  He was born in Russia, the son of a rabbi.  He escaped forced conscription into the Russian army aged 14 and arrived in London speaking only Hebrew and Russian.  Fourteen years later he too signed up and was one of those many Jews who fought in the British army during the Great War.

All of these stories are reasons why I was so pleased when my friend Hannah asked me to help with the education programme for the Blood Swept Lands installation at the Tower.  By researching our own family stories of the war we can reconnect and remember their sacrifice, but we can also remember what binds us together.  The terrible conflict in the Middle East is so divisive, and yet commemoration of the Great War can also remind of us that however different each of us is, there are bigger things that bind us.



Hereditary Peers’ By-election – Not a Silly Season Story!

On Friday, when I got home to Weymouth and opened the post, I found a House of Lords Notice. I ignored my usual irritation at the waste of money sending post rather than email, and extracted the green notice from its plastic wrapper. With great amusement I read the headline:

Hereditary Peers’ By-election

To many this may be confusing. Many would only know the Lords as an undemocratic house of Parliament made up of political life appointees, like me. Others may also think the Blair government got rid of the hereditary peers fifteen years ago. So what is this by-election, and how come those who are there by birth are also elected?

The green notice opens by saying:

“The death of Lord Methuen on 9 July 2014 has created a vacancy among the expected hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords. Under Standing Order 10, this vacancy is to be filled by means of a by-election.”

This all goes back to the deal that was done under Lords reform back in 1999. The Labour government wanted to get rid of all the hereditary peers, but needed to persuade them to vote for their own abolition. The compromise was that 92 were allowed to remain, as long as the rest lost their seats.

Now you might think that was an elegant solution; that the Grim Reaper would then slowly reduce that number down over time until all the Hereditary Peers literally died out. But you would be wrong.

The compromise also included the deal whereby if one of the 92 passed away then their place would be filled by a by-election, hence this procedure to give someone the right to make law in this country.

So who can vote and who can stand?

“All Members of the House … are entitled to vote in this by-election.”

So that is clear, the voters are the Lords themselves and polling day is on 21st October 2014.

On who can stand, there is some boring detail but in this case:

“Those eligible to stand are all those hereditary peers whose names are listed in the register of hereditary peers wishing to stand for election as members of the House of Lords.”

So the hereditary peers were not abolished at all. The larger pool of hundreds lost their right to sit and vote but they, and their successors, are on stand by to get elected when there is a vacancy.

Which is why, in this eccentric country we know and love, the only people elected into our second house of Parliament are those that are there by birth!

PS There are also elections to Labour’s NEC. For those that are interested, I have voted for Luke Akehurst, Johanna Baxter, Crispin Flintoff, Florence Nosegbe, Ellie Reeves and Peter Wheeler

lords, morality

Assisted Dying – my view

Today the Lords debates this very difficult moral question. There are over 125 speakers limited to 4 minutes each. Rather than take up more of my peers’ time it seems more efficient to blog my views. One day maybe this approach will be embraced and such expression could be appended to the Hansard record.

This issue has generated a lot of correspondence – more than I have had for some time. Much is hand written, normally personal and very thoughtful. Opinion is evenly divided, although emailers seem more against and hand writers more for Charlie Falconer.

I am not religious. I note that Christian opinion is now split and I will say no more on the faith based arguments than to say that it seems we are happy to “play God” in preserving life, we “play God” when we put animals out of their misery, and in my irreligious state I don’t see the logic which says assisted dying is any different.

I am also not a medical professional. This bill would ask a lot of them and I hear the difficult ethical arguments. Much as with abortion we should not require any doctors to make these difficult decisions to assist suicide, it should be something they are ethically comfortable with.

Given what I am not I must therefore start with what I believe, based on my own experience.

As I was growing up my father had cancer on a number of occasions. Over thirty years before he died he was given a 50:50 chance of survival, and the same ten years later. His desire to live through that sickness, I suspect largely for his family, combined with the NHS to keep him going for many years. I am therefore cautious about how we define terminal illness.

I have been deeply moved by those who also were given a few months, were very depressed, but are now still alive and enjoying a quality of life. With this bill some of those people may have felt too much of a burden and been helped to die.

I also remember well my grandmother’s acute pain when she died and how grateful she seemed for her doctor being generous with the medication at the end. I strongly believe that this empathy is what most of us would want for ourselves in a similar position. That is why I support this bill, but I also know that this sympathetic use of potentially lethal pain relief is a treacherous place for doctors.

My own experience has therefore informed my thinking on Assisted Dying. This is a profoundly difficult issue where the balance between safeguarding the vulnerable and safeguarding the needs of the individual in tragic circumstances need to be weighed up very carefully.

I support the bill at second reading. However I will also want to see close scrutiny as it is improved by the parliamentary process, to ensure we learn from international experience and get the best safeguards in place that we can.

Image from

Data, digital, Politics, Security

Your Privacy at Risk – Your Security Enhanced?

This is the text of my speech today in the Lords on the controversial Data Retention & Investigatory Powers Bill

My Lords, I have to start—like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who made such an excellent contribution—by saying that the Government’s handling of this Bill has been a disgrace. I cannot repeat any better why it is a disgrace, and it would be ridiculous of me to try to compete with the noble Lord’s analysis. To have given Parliament three days when they have had three months to consider their response is a disgrace. Although my ministerial experience, at just five years, is much more limited than that of the previous speaker, whom I equally respect, particularly his experience as Home Secretary, I know that when there was the threat of a case in the European Court, Ministers would receive a risk analysis. I find it difficult to believe that no one in the Home Office had a plan B. If they were to lose that case, the thinking was not going on within government as to how they were going to handle losing the case and the uncertainty with which they would then have to deal with the RIPA powers. So I am afraid that that is my starting point.

I would also strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon and others when they say that there is a need for Parliament to be seen to address the very real public concerns over the balance of privacy and security and the desire for personalisation of digital services. Some of us use digital services very heavily and are only just becoming aware of how much our desire for all those personal services that come through on our phones and tablets generate metadata that are now the subject of this legislation. Given the need for Parliament to be seen to address and debate, and lead a debate in the wider public, on those concerns, it is an affront to see the legislation railroaded using the fast-track mechanism. The basis of my comments is to analyse whether some of that is justified.

Yesterday, as is my wont, I gave some friends and some of their family who are over from Canada a tour of the Palace of Westminster. Highlights of that tour are always things such as the Magna Carta; there is a copy in the Content Lobby, and we will enjoy celebrating its 800-year anniversary next year. Then there is the statue of Lord Falkland, where the sword was cut to allow a suffragette called Marjory Hume to be taken off to prison in 1909, and the plaque commemorating Nelson Mandela speaking in Westminster Hall. Best of all is the broom cupboard in the Crypt, where Emily Wilding Davison hid on the night of the 1911 census, and the phrase at the end that Tony Benn put there:

“By such means was democracy won for the people of Britain”.

That tour contains in its highlights all those moments where we recognise hard-won civil liberties for us as individuals, both here and around the world. It is incumbent on us as a Parliament and those who serve at any given time in this Parliament to protect those liberties as strongly as we protect the safety and security of the people in this country.

We also need to remember that we have a different tolerance of our own privacy, because we agree to become public figures when we agree to come here, than do most people who live in our country. The information in Who’s Who would probably allow anyone who wanted to steal some of my information to do so, because it has my mother’s maiden name as well as my date of birth, which are the sort of questions that you get asked online. We understand that when we fill out the entry in Who’s Who and we are aware of the risks that we take when we do so. I hope when we make up our security information online that we are also aware of it and are accordingly cautious.

We also need to be aware of the issue of metadata. When I sat in the audience in the Donmar Warehouse theatre a month or so ago, as a guest of my noble friend Lord Mitchell, watching the play “Privacy”, we heard gasps from the audience when they found out how the default settings on an iPhone mean that Apple knows exactly where we are and exactly when at any given time, unless we change those settings. They were some of the greatest moments of theatre that I have seen in some years—it was my first profession— when I heard the gasps of the audience who saw the pictures of their houses flashed up on the back of the screen, because the researcher had researched them using metadata to show where they all lived. That is metadata, the subject of the Bill—and that is something that we have to be cautious about.

There has been a breakdown of trust in recent years between the people of this country and the state, particularly those pursuing criminal investigations. This is because of Hillsborough and Savile; because of phone hacking, and plebgate. We must have an active debate on a regular basis because of PRISM and because of the powers that the private sector and, through it, the state and GCHQ have to access our data. As a Parliament we have been remiss in not debating Snowden as actively as we should have and as actively as they have done in the US. If we do not, I think we are failing the public

I am persuaded by the arguments that Clauses 1 to 3 are necessary. I believe that security and the ability to continue criminal investigations mean that we have no choice but to pass Clauses 1 to 3 of this Bill. This was well put by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. We need the status quo for criminal investigations.

I welcome the concessions that my right honourable friend the Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has won in getting the RIPA review and six-monthly reporting into the legislation. I worry that the thinking behind these reviews is through the prism—if that is not the wrong word—of security and law enforcement as the starting point, rather than the data privacy of individuals. I should also like to see a review of the operation of the Information Commissioner’s Office. According to its website, it is:

“The UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals”.

That office needs to be the guardian of members of the public on these issues. I hope the Minister will be able to give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Information Commissioner’s Office will be included in some of that review work.

Clause 4 concerns what I will call the new powers overseas because I cannot pronounce extraterritoriality very well. I struggle to see the emergency for this to be included in a fast-track Bill. In the report of the Constitution Committee, published today, paragraph 11 says:

“It is not clear why these provisions need to be fast-tracked”.

It may not be fashionable to quote Liberty but it says that Clause 5 of DRIP, read together with Clause 4 (8), gives the Government “new, express powers” to go to foreign webmail providers and demand that they hand over or obtain communications data. The objectives of the snoopers’ charter are therefore met via another route. That is their charge. If the Minister were able to respond to that, I think that supporters of Liberty would be pleased to hear it.

As I am sure your Lordships will all have done, I have received a letter from a list of highly credible legal experts on internet law. These are professors from a whole range of our best universities. They say that this clause,

“introduces powers that are not only completely novel in the United Kingdom, they are some of the first of their kind globally”

The letter continues,

“the proposed Bill arguably breaches EU law to the extent that it falls within the scope of EU law, since such mass surveillance would still fall foul of the criteria set out by the Court of Justice of the EU in the Digital Rights and Seitlinger judgment”.

They would say that the reassurance which the Minister gave, following my intervention, is not true. I am sure that everything the Minister is saying is on good advice and in good faith. I know him to be a completely honourable and truthful man and I do not question what he is saying. However, I would value it if he were able to publish or circulate to Members of your Lordships’ House the advice he has received that this legislation, particularly Clause 4, is not in further breach of EU law, and that it will not extend the legal rights—not the practice but the legal rights—of government in respect of these matters.

On balance, very reluctantly, I support the Second Reading of this Bill, but I question whether Clause 4 should continue to be in the Bill.