My first reaction is “Phew”, my Lords. We are all having to keep to time limits now. The Minister did an admirable job within his limit.
I wholeheartedly support what the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, said about Amendments 13 and 15 and what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said about her Amendment 12. I do not believe that we have yet got to the bottom of children’s data protection; there is still quite some way to go. It would be really helpful if the Minister could bring together the elements of children’s data about which he is trying to reassure us and write to us saying exactly what needs to be done, particularly in terms of direct marketing directed towards children. That is a real concern.
4.30 pm
The Minister said, “Yes, the balancing test absolutely will have to be carried out. It won’t be a recognised legitimate interest; it’ll have to be a balancing test, as ever”. There is a mantra taking place here: “We have no desire to water down child protection”. I take that at face value, but something that brings all of this together for us would be extremely helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has done a fantastic job in pulling together all the DPRRC’s recommendations and saying, “Right, we need to understand throughout why the Secretary of State has these powers”. As she says, the powers in Clause 5 go to the heart of the Bill. In my view, the legitimate interest balancing test should not have been disturbed, but, if it is to be disturbed and we are to have this new category of recognised legitimate interests, we will need to be extremely careful. That is why I put down a super-affirmative, but I much prefer the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Annexe 1 of the Bill, which can be changed by the Secretary of State, now provides a list of exemptions that includes national security, public security and defence, emergencies and crime. They are as broad as that—barely with qualification—in an already extremely broad category. So, when the Minister says that this is needed for changes in technology, it sounds extremely expedient on his behalf that this is being put in place. He prayed in aid the qualification to the new Article 6(1), but this is taking away fundamental rights. This is probably the most important Secretary of State power in the whole Bill—it is even more important than Clause 14, which we will come on to.
On that basis, too, the noble Baroness was absolutely right to raise the issue of data adequacy. Certainly, the vibes I am getting are that individual Members of the European Parliament will be kicking the tyres on this Bill pretty hard if it ever goes through in its current form. The Minister says, “Oh, well, the National AIDS Trust can rest assured that everything’s fine with these administrative transfers because we have such high standards currently”, but what we are trying to do is make sure that we retain those high standards and, if anything, increase them.
There is not a great deal of plausibility of trust here. If we do not trust what is happening out there, how on earth are the public going to? This whole thing seems to be built on an edifice whereby the Government
want things to be done without due care and attention. There is a feeling right through this Bill—particularly in Clause 5—that rights are being watered down. Of course, the legal advice I have on Clause 5 is that, at the end of the day, the necessity test may be necessary throughout, and so it may not be effective.
Then we get to Clause 7 standing part. That clause is also pretty baffling, but I will need to read the Minister’s response. Again, it is more wet towels. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 11.