---

UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 21: 21: Clause 7, page 5, line 23, leave out ““In particular,”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 21 arose from discussions I had with the Refugee Children’s Consortium. I was looking at some of its amendments. Peculiarity struck me—I suppose one could say—when looking at Clause 7. My amendment would remove the words ““in particular””. I am trying to get an idea of why that phrase is required. Clause 7 makes provision for the effect of non-compliance by those who fail to comply with the biometric registration rules. The Bill gives an initial list of those punishments that may be applied by regulations. Officials would be empowered to do the following: refuse an application for a biometric immigration document; refuse an application or claim in connection with immigration; cancel the variation of leave to enter or remain in the UK; require the Secretary of State to consider whether she should give a notice under Section 9; and provide for the consequence of a failure to be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The clause is drafted so that these are the punishments that may be applied. I am trying to see whether that list covers every eventuality. It seems to—especially that last part. My amendment has been tabled to ask the Minister to explain what other punishments the Government consider they might need to add by regulations in the future that could not adequately already be covered by that list of examples. Subsection (2) is introduced by the words, "““In particular, the regulations may””" do all this. If that is the particular, what else we be added on? Could it be something so controversial that it really would not be appropriate for it to be added by regulations? I want to try to get a feel at this stage for what else the Government might seek to do in the future. The issue was not addressed in another place. I beg to move.