David Norris (Independent)

I do not believe this would have arisen only I spotted it going through. There are too many of these instruments going through without debate and I am pleased I forced a debate on it although it is only a small one. The Minister's speech is a recital of what he has said previously. He stated the data would be depersonalised and fields that could identify an individual would be masked and so on. I imagine the Minister has heard of Quantico. These data can be recovered and what the Minister has stated in this regard is rubbish. Let us be open and honest for a change about the kind of information being exchanged with the Department of Homeland Security.

It is interesting to note the technique of the Government side is exactly the same as for the fiscal treaty, that is to say, to frighten people. First, it involves telling them that it is the same, that nothing has changed and that it is only incarnating what has been in place already, while second, it involves terrifying them. These data will be given about everyone. They include passenger names, addresses, credit card details, seat numbers and, in exceptional circumstances, sensitive data such as a passenger's ethnic origin, religious beliefs, physical or mental health or sexual orientation. What justification is there for that?

I note my good friend Senator Bradford mentioned the war on terror. That was one of Mr. Bush's phrases. We are giving all of this back to one of Mr. Bush's organs which is certainly implicated in torture. I am referring to the Department of Homeland Security as well as the CIA. I note one phrase used was "alleged torture". There was nothing alleged about it. If anyone in the House, including the Minister, believes being half-drowned by waterboarding is not torture then they should consult the international authorities on the subject.

A university study has been published of this new version of the protocol and attacks it for excessively long retention periods, a lack of protections and few improvements over earlier agreements. The European Commission's lawyers warned against it. The terms of the agreement are controversial and have been since the beginning. They have been the subject of adverse opinion issued by the European Data Protection Supervisor. Not only that, the Dutch MEP, Sophie in't Veld, the chair of the relevant committee, and her committee have opposed it. One reason was proportionality. No one wants to see innocent passengers blown up. I do not believe the other side of the House or the Minister would suggest that people such as I, who have human rights reservations, would want them blown up.

I call for an explanation of why people's religious beliefs or sexual orientation should be exchanged. When the lawyers asked about this and were given a response by the European Parliament, they were against it. Why? The relevant committee was against it and the European Data Protection Supervisor was against it. The agreement will result in the transfer of this information to a deeply suspect body. How would the people in the Visitors Gallery feel if details of their religious persuasions or beliefs, their credit card balances, their bank balances or information on their sexual orientation and other private information was transferred to one of Mr. Bush's organisations? No, thank you. I will be calling a vote and I am glad I spotted it.