rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2008.

The noble Lord said: The Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 streamlined and modernised the United Kingdom’s mutual legal assistance relations with the rest of the world when it came into force on 26 April 2004. Today, in an effort further to improve international co-operation and in order to comply with our international obligations, we are seeking to designate the United States of America under various sections of that Act.

One of the advantages of the new arrangements is that they will improve our ability to achieve justice for British victims of serious crime. The order reflects the fact that on 25 June 2003 an agreement on mutual legal assistance between the United States of America and the European Union was concluded. As a result of the provisions of this agreement, it was necessary for the United Kingdom to amend its bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty with the United States.

The terms of the amended bilateral treaty make provision for the parties to make and execute requests for assistance in locating bank accounts and to provide banking information relating to criminal investigations. This is in similar terms to European agreements aimed at tackling serious international crime, in particular, economic crime and money laundering. The domestic powers to make and receive such requests are found in Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Act.

Designation of the United States of America under Section 51(2)(b) of the Act for the purpose of Sections 32, 35, 43, 44 and 45 will allow requests for such orders to be executed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and for such requests to be made to the United States of America by certain judicial and prosecuting authorities in the United Kingdom. Designation under Sections 35 and 44 of the Act—account monitoring orders—is not required under the strict terms of the agreement. However it is felt that such designation would be sensible, especially given that the Secretary of State retains a discretion whether to issue directions under Section 35.

Likewise, no express provision has been made to limit the designations to terrorist and money laundering cases, as is permissible under the agreement, because the Home Secretary retains a discretion whether to issue a direction under Section 35. It would be open to the Home Secretary to refuse to make such a direction where the request was made in a non-terrorist or money laundering case. In relation to outgoing requests, there is no such discretion. It will be up to the United States to decide whether to refuse a request to it on the basis that it was outwith the treaty.

The amended treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America will provide both Governments with a sound framework for future co-operation. We are clear that we will not allow criminals to escape justice simply because the evidence required is located overseas, and we are committed to assisting our international partners in doing the same. That is what the order seeks to achieve and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

Moved, That, the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2008. 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord West of Spithead.)

I am most grateful to the Minister. We accept that this is a technical amendment, which is necessary in order to designate the United States of America a participating country. However, I should like one or two reassurances from the Minister.

I have two quotes, and if the Minister feels that it is easier to reply in writing, I shall quite understand. The first is from a newspaper report:

“One source at the department”,

of Homeland Security in America,

“said that as a result of the deal, the U.S. was likely to ask for full details on everyone visiting from Europe”.

The second quote is from Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union:

“The US is essentially asking the rest of the world to conform to our”—

that is, the United States’s—

“very limited notion of what’s private”.

He goes on to say that,

“it provides for wide access of data which are supposed to be protected under EU law”.

Those are emotive statements, especially in the light of the recent debates over the Lisbon treaty and of concern over what appears—certainly in the eyes of the public—to be the very one-sided procedure for extradition. I think that the House, and indeed the public, will be seeking reassurances on these matters, which I hope the Minister will be able to give. As I said, if that is by way of a letter, that will be perfectly acceptable to us.

My other question concerns the cost to the private sector of the order. I think that it has been put at between £1.5 billion and £2.5 billion over the next 10 years. I shall be grateful if the Minister can give us further information on that.

I think that the Committee is somewhat scarred by the experience of the very unilateral nature of the extradition agreement with the United States. There is certainly still a perception that the US is not a very equal partner in bilateral treaties, in that it takes what it wants but gives very little or nothing in return. It was in that vein that in a debate on 6 December 2007 the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, described a bilateral assistance deal with the US as unilateral. In that spirit, I have several questions for the Minister. What are the rights of access to data held or the rights of correction and deletion? Are they included? Are the rights expressly guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU data protection directive?

At the time the EU’s agreement was made, Statewatch concluded that there were no effective data protection provisions worth speaking of and that there was nothing to ensure that the considerable body of EU data protection legislation was respected. What right of access is available for people to find out what data about them have been shared and stored, and what guarantees are in place to ensure the proper protection of those data? How many parties are they shared with once they arrive in the United States, and does the deal include any protocol for the deletion of data supplied to the US authorities at any time in the future, or are they simply kept indefinitely?

The Minister mentioned that the Secretary of State would have within his discretion the power to refuse a request. Can he give any examples of when he would be likely to refuse such a request? The Minister said on 6 December, in the debate to which I referred, that it is very unusual that this matter has come to light and that it is something that we cannot talk about in detail because it involves criminal action. He then went on to talk about the volume of requests, which I think was 5,000 to the UK each year. I wonder what volume of requests we make to the United States. What is the balance of requests made and received? Can he give any idea of the balance of requests that are likely to be granted?

I thank noble Lords for those points. The noble Viscount is right that this is a technical amendment. It is much more constrained than the noble Baroness thinks. It is important to remember that once this designation order comes into force—there are a number of countries in Europe where it will also be coming into force—it will allow orders to be sought only where they relate to a person who is the subject of a US investigation into a criminal offence. It will not cover every citizen coming to the UK. It is much more constrained. The information we are talking about is very precise: a bank account number and details or the name of the person holding that bank account. The order covers a specific area that is being looked at.

The large amounts of data being asked for do not relate to this order as it is not in force as yet. We do not think there will be that many requests under this order, but we think it is right because once they have signed it off, we will have an agreement covering every country in the EU. The EU and the US have now signed up, so clearly we need to be part of that. We think the order makes sense because if we are conducting a criminal investigation against a person, it is important to be able to get information about his bank account, if it is held somewhere else.

This order is much more restricted than the noble Baroness thinks. I know her concern about the amount of data that can be pulled out and used. This order is much more technical and specific. Her fears and concerns are unfounded in this case. They often are in the other cases, but in this case they certainly are, because the order is much more focused.

The noble Baroness asked if I could think of an example of requests that the Secretary of State could refuse. I find it difficult to think of an example because the order is so narrow. It would be strange if a request for data about some details about the bank accounts of someone being investigated was refused. I cannot easily think of a specific case where that would occur. However, it is right that the protection is there just in case there is an occasion to stop the sort of thing that the noble Baroness has fears about. If I have not answered all the questions that were asked, I will get back in writing on them when I have looked at Hansard.

I thank the Minister for his reassurances. We on these Benches appreciate the need to tackle globalised crime in a globalised world. However, if the criminal investigation finds that the person is innocent, are his data deleted?

I do not know the details on that, but I will get back to the noble Baroness in writing.

I should say something about the totality of requests on all sorts of things, and we are talking about 4,000 or so requests from the US, but they are not in this tiny area where nothing has happened yet. I would see the number as very small indeed. I commend the order to the Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Committee adjourned at 6.04 pm.