I shall not pursue the wording of the amendment. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary himself said earlier that banning someone from leaving the country is a serious step. For that reason I feel that we should debate that matter during Committee. I am not happy with the substituted wording that I put forward, but we should scrutinise it and consider whether the words ''reasonable cause'' provide an apposite standby. I shall not pursue amendment No. 256, because we shall consider and debate clause 121 later, at which time some general points will be picked up.

Amendment No. 258 deals with something that was picked up by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It refers to clause 24 and would replace the words ''just to do so'' with

''necessary for the purpose of protection''.

The Home Affairs Committee said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights

''has also expressed concern about the criteria for making an interim order, which does not require the court to satisfy itself that 'it is necessary to make such an order for the purpose of protection' ''—

hence the suggestion that those words be included at this stage. The Home Affairs Committee concluded:

''We also believe that the grounds for making an interim RSHO should match more closely the grounds for a full order''.

It suggested that some amendment be made—something along the lines of mine. I moved the amendment in order to hear what the Minister has to say on those two issues.