It is strange that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, picked the two states that I mentioned: Burma and Zimbabwe. As the Minister acknowledged when she replied to the previous amendment, there are many other states that may not be quite as bad as Burma and Zimbabwe to which we would not want to disclose information. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made a very good point. There are other ways in which one could define a law-based and democratic state. For example, one might say that it was any state in compliance with its obligations to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. That such a formulation is necessary to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to transfer such information to foreign law enforcement agencies has been confirmed by both debates. It would not be satisfactory for the Committee simply to leave it that the Minister has given us an assurance that the information would not be transferred in a way we would not like. We need something more precise than that. I hope the noble Baroness will acknowledge that even if the wording proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is not correct, we need some limitation on this power.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 17 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005-06.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c220GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:38:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_291945
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_291945
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_291945