Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

I am sorry that I did not give the noble and learned Lord leave of this question. I am entirely in sympathy with what he said in moving the amendment, but can he tell the House what happens if, as his amendment says, the court rather than the Secretary of State may, "““impose specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures””," and if the court has to consider whether conditions A to C are met? Condition A reads that, "““the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity””." Does that then mean that the court has to make the order, but it has to consider whether the Secretary of State reasonably believes—or should there ideally be a removal of ““Secretary of State”” in Clause 3(1) and replacement by ““the court””? I hope that I have made myself reasonably clear.