Concerns have been raised around the history of our approach to security towards certain communities. Similar concerns have been raised about the potential to lower the bar for what criminal behaviour is and whether this is a credible barometer for a threat of terrorism. To give an example, there is a new section 8, which relates to providing material support in the form of collecting, using, or distributing funds. The Justice Committee have made changes to make it quite clear as to what activities this material support would include, but we've used words that aren't defined for this context, such as "reckless". It's used throughout section 8 and subsections (1) through to (2B), where, in paragraph (d) of each, the bill speaks of "intending that the [funds or] material support be used, or knowing that, or being reckless about whether, [they] will be used". The word "reckless" is one that should cause some concern, because the case law around its use differs depending on where it was used, and therefore there is no defining case law, as it changes depending on its context. I would have liked us to explore this a bit more. It may actually be OK, but I feel we haven't made it clear for the courts to interpret.