Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 63:"Page 21, line 11, leave out ““any other””" The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 64, for which Amendment No. 63 is a paving amendment. I can explain the amendments briefly. They point out that subsection (1) (d) is far too widely drawn when it refers to,"““any other foreign law enforcement agency””." Imagine the position of a crew member who may already have refugee status in this country or may be a protected person under the UN convention having his or her personal details disclosed to the authorities in, shall we say, Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, Chechnya, Kazakhstan or other arbitrary and despotic regimes. I therefore propose words to limit the range of states to which chief officers of police can disclose very sensitive personal information. Of course, I accept that the Foreign Office has to deal and negotiate with many quite unsavoury regimes. It may need to disclose personal information about suspects whom we are already holding. However, that kind of disclosure should not be left to the discretion of chief officers of police wanting bilateral relations with their opposite numbers in police states. I beg to move.