---

UK Borders Bill

I am grateful to the Minister for that supplementary remark. He said in the first part of his remarks that the Government had clearly defined what they meant by serious criminality. I challenge that definition because the words ““serious criminal”” are used in only one place in the legislation; namely, in the heading of Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Curiously enough, the section does not go on to define a serious criminal but speaks about a person, "““presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime””." When I thought carefully about this section, I could not for the life of me see why it did not define a serious criminal as a person who came within the provisions of subsections (2) to (4). If it did, one would be able to refer to a serious criminal in subsequent legislation. In fact, we are not able to do so because one would not want to use the very convoluted expression defined in subsection (2). But we have two definitions of a foreign criminal; that is, the definition in this Bill and the one in the Bill that I mentioned which is coming down the track. I sought in my amendment to align the definition of a foreign criminal as regards the sentencing with what we have already decided.