Terrorism Bill

I caution against the amendment. The wording of the clause is such that the inclusion of the word ““relevant”” is not necessary. Its only purpose is as something on which to hang the subsequent amendment, which defines aspects of relevant conduct. However, that list could be so extensive that the Government could not possibly envisage what its future terms might be—whether catching a bus, buying a battery or a cell phone; the list could go on for ever. The fact that the provision would be implemented through secondary legislation does not satisfy me. That would mean that the Government were always chasing the terrorists. An event would occur that was not within the scope of the legislation, so they would have to release the person from custody while they brought in new legislation or updated the law to take the new conditions into account. The proposal is fraught with difficulties and I much prefer the language in the Bill.