---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am not persuaded by the points that he advanced. As has been said by other contributors to this debate, there is a period beyond which—the very word rehabilitation was used—it might be reasonable to ask that rehabilitation be allowed to take place. In his reply, the Minister in his reply bore out the concern that I expressed towards the end of my remarks. He said that he does not matter whether the conviction was two years ago, 10 years ago or 20 years ago. It is not much of a step from that to say that there never was a conviction but that there is a pattern of behaviour that is giving risk. We are going down a very slippery road and I do not believe that this House should be providing a building block for a future Administration to take us to the foot of the slippery slope. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 99DA) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 107. [Amendments Nos. 99DB and 99DC not moved.] Clause 98 [Applications for violent offender orders]: