Steady on, absolutely.
I also know how important it is to have a practical and workable system in place. We must ensure that those who pose a significant threat to ordinary people's safety can be tracked and prevented from pursuing their plans to cause death and serious harm in pursuit of their warped political ideology.
We all want to achieve consensus where we can, but I have some serious concerns about some of the Bill's proposals, with regard to their effectiveness, their ability to disrupt those who will be subject to TPIMs, as they are so elegantly called, and whether they will provide us with a proper level of security. Lord Carlile is always called in aid in these debates, and I want to place on the record my thanks to him for the fabulous job he has done over the years as the Government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He said just last year:"““In stark terms, the potential cost of losing control orders is that the UK would be more vulnerable to a successful terrorist attack.””"
He does not say such things lightly. He has huge experience in trying to weigh the balance and get the judgment right. He also said:"““Unless control orders were replaced by some equally disruptive and practicable system… the repeal of control orders would create a worryingly higher level of public risk.””"
We ought to have serious and close regard to what Lord Carlile has said and test the Bill against the concerns he has expressed.
In a powerful contribution, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary expressed her concerns about some of those issues, so I will not speak about them at length. The relocation issue is a genuine concern. It may be characterised as internal exile or a soviet-style imposition, but if it is necessary for someone to be located away from the networks that they have established in order to improve the safety of ordinary citizens, I do not think it should simply be ruled out on principle.
We have discussed whether access to mobile phones and computers might enable us to obtain further evidence for prosecution, but I am very doubtful that it will. I am concerned that people will have access not simply to one mobile phone: once they have one, it will be very easy indeed for experienced people not to dupe the security services, as I hope they are not capable of being duped, but to create the sense that it is normal to have access to a computer and a mobile phone. The prospect of a security risk is therefore higher than I would feel comfortable with, so I seek reassurance from the Minister on access to electronic equipment. We know how much terrorist business is done online and with technology. It is a massive issue for us, and this measure could present us with an increased risk.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Hazel Blears
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 June 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
529 c94-5 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:55:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_746660
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_746660
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_746660