Lord Clement-Jones (LD)

My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak to Amendments 428, 429 and 445, all of which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Doocey. I return to the question of the governance of international law enforcement data-sharing agreements under Clauses 209 to 211. Can I make a radical suggestion? To save time this evening, given that this is something of a minority sport in this context, perhaps I could make a few points showing the Minister the error of his ways, then he could respond briefly and write to me afterwards. I think that would be an efficient use of our time. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, comprehensively rejected my calls for enhanced protective measures and a privacy impact assessment. He argued that the existing data protection laws—the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018—were sufficient, rendering my amendments duplicative and unnecessary. But since the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, the statutory threshold for overseas data transfers has been lowered from “essentially equivalent” to merely “not materially lower”. The European Data Protection Board has explicitly warned that this new standard omits vital safeguards against foreign government access. The safety net that the Minister relies on has giant holes in it. These amendments seek to place vital statutory guardrails around the powers granted in Clause 209, which allow the UK to implement international law enforcement information-sharing agreements via secondary legislation. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have returned to a fundamental principle: we cannot allow technological or administrative deployment to race ahead of the rule of law. Amendment 427 would require that when regulations under this clause involve highly sensitive personal data, including biometric, genetic or health data, they must be accompanied by enhanced protective measures. Amendment 428 would mandate a privacy impact assessment before such regulations are made. In Committee the Minister suggested that existing data protection law already provides these safeguards, but the Government are simultaneously moving to simplify and dilute those protections in the Data (Use and Access) Act. If we are to transfer the sensitive biometric identities of UK citizens to international partners, the requirement for a PIA should be not a matter of ministerial discretion but a statutory obligation in the Bill. Amendment 429 would require an annual report to be laid before Parliament on the volume and categories of information shared under these agreements. The Minister’s response in Committee was that this would be unnecessary bureaucracy. Transparency is crucial for public trust. This is a lesson that we should have learned from the Post Office Horizon scandal and the discussions surrounding live facial recognition. Without a clear yearly account of where our citizens’ data is going, Parliament is essentially signing a blank cheque for international surveillance. This is a matter of not just civil liberties but economic security. Any perception that the UK is lowering its standards for international data transfers puts our EU data adequacy status at grave risk. Transparency is not a burden but a prerequisite for our digital economy. Finally, Amendment 445 would require that all regulations made under Clause 209 be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Currently, the Bill relies heavily on the negative procedure. Given that these agreements could involve sharing data with jurisdictions that lack effective redress or equivalent privacy protections, the negative procedure is essentially an insult to the standard of scrutiny required. If an agreement is important enough to share the data of millions, it is important enough to be debated and approved by both Houses. On these Benches, we support the principle of effective international co-operation to stop serious crime but reject the idea that efficiency must come at the expense of accountability. These amendments provide the teeth that the current drafting lacks. They would ensure that we do not sleepwalk into a surveillance society by exporting our data without a clear statutory audit trail. I urge the Minister to accept these modest, evidence-based safeguards. I beg to move.