UK Borders Bill

I realise that the Minister is trying to be helpful. He is trying to say that the drafting of Clause 7(2) is intended to deliver what I want—a closed list and not an open list. The noble Lord agrees with that. The difficulty is that my experience of our discussions on a similar drafting in the context of the Serious Crime Bill earlier this year led me to believe that the words ““in particular”” would result in an open list, not a closed list, and would give the Government the opportunity to extend the list of punishments later by regulation. Will the Minister and Home Office officials look at our consideration of Schedule 6 to the Serious Crime Bill? That gives permission for the Secretary of State to extend the purposes for which data matching may take place. As originally drafted, the Serious Crime Bill gave examples of the purposes which might be added. The Government agreed to my request that the words ““in particular”” should be knocked out because that restricted the list from being one of examples—an open list—to being a closed list. That is where my confusion arises. The Minister is trying to say, ““You’ve got what you want here””, but I am saying, ““I don’t think I have if what we did in the Serious Crime Bill delivered what I required in that instance””. I appreciate that this appears to be semantics, but it is not intended to be. It might be helpful if I talk to the Minister between now and Report. I hope that there will be a way of resolving the matter. We may need to consider the progress of the Serious Crime Bill in another place because the drafting of these Bills needs to be consistent. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.