UK Borders Bill

The noble Lord may not think so but the courts which have to interpret these Acts may find difficulties in doing so unless the terminology is corrected. But that was not my substantive point. I was trying to explain to the noble Lord—and to answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—that the suggested two-year period of imprisonment to be inserted in subsection (2) was not chosen arbitrarily. It was chosen to align it with the provisions of Section 72 of the NIA Act 2002. The noble Lord looks pained, but I do not agree that this is a trivial matter. It would be helpful to the courts and the individuals concerned if, as far as possible, we chose the same definition of a serious criminal in every Act which referred to them, even though the 2002 Act did not mention them by name. If the noble Lord does not think there is anything in that suggestion, I can only say that, in a couple of years’ time when there are problems in differentiating the different kinds of person who come before the courts or immigration authorities, I will remind him of this discussion. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.