Serious Crime Bill [HL]

This may be another example of ““yes but no but yes””, but perhaps it is a yes. I really sought to ask what else, if we have in Clause 1(3)(a) ““prohibitions, restrictions or requirements””, there is that the courts might wish a person to do under an order. The noble Baroness says that the provision in paragraph (b), ““such other terms””, could mean that the courts would impose positive obligations. If one accepts the idea of a serious crime prevention order, a positive obligation could in itself be an appropriate measure. On the other hand, in my thinking a positive obligation is a requirement to do something. This is certainly something that I shall want to think about because I am not sure whether the paragraph adds anything to the Bill. However, if it does no damage, I shall not be concerned. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.