Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

My hon. Friend also has considerable experience in relation to terrorism and the necessary laws. We did our utmost to try to negotiate memorandums of understanding with other countries so that deportation could take place. We were successful in a number of cases, albeit perhaps not with as many countries as we wanted. Equally, however, he must acknowledge that unfortunately we now have the issue of domestic, home-grown terrorists—people who cannot be deported and who were brought up in this country. Therefore, we need laws that provide sufficient security for those circumstances, as well as for where terrorists come from abroad. I want to cite a bit of evidence, because evidence is important, and otherwise this debate is in danger of becoming a politician's polemic. I want to quote again from the evidence that DAC Osborne gave us in Committee. I am beginning to feel slightly sorry for the poor man. I questioned him quite vigorously on relocation, and he said:"““The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult. Where the choice of residence will be and how many people are within an area will affect the complexities, but there are different environments that make policing easier or more difficult. People could choose to live in an area that was difficult to police in normal circumstances, and that would be even more difficult to police in relation to monitoring control order subjects.””" He was then asked a very good question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). She asked whether"““of all the measures available to you, is it fair to say that relocation is the most effective?””" DAC Stuart Osborne, the national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism, replied:"““Overall it probably is, yes.””" That response comes from someone who has been engaged in dealing with suspected terrorists on a day-to-day operational basis. He says that relocation is the most effective measure that he could have to help him to police in these circumstances and to protect the public. That is a very powerful submission indeed. He went on to say of the provisions in the Bill:"““The new freedoms that will be given to individuals will significantly increase the challenges that we have to face””.––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2011; c. 5-6.]" DAC Osborne is a well respected police officer with considerable experience, and his views should be accorded some importance by the Government. We also heard evidence from Lord Howard. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), I would not normally pray him in aid, but he said:"““If you ask me my personal view, however, I would have preferred the relocation provisions to have remained.””––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2011; c. 17.]" Speaking from his experience as Home Secretary, he said that the provisions should be retained. Lord Carlile was the independent reviewer for 10 years; he has not come to the issue recently. He has looked at every single control order and talked to the people who are the subject of the orders. He has gone into immense detail. He told the Committee:"““If an empirical decision has been made that somebody should be relocated and that decision has been upheld by the courts, there is generally a good reason for it. The risk is increased if one person has the relocation condition removed. If nine people have relocation conditions removed and therefore are all able to move closer either to one another, or to their contact to whom they would wish to be close, plainly you are right that there is an increased risk.””––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2011; c. 17.]" There are currently nine control order suspects with a relocation condition. More than half the present suspects who are subject to a control order come from London, and if the legislation goes through we face the possibility that they could return to London before the Olympics. In my view, that is a totally unnecessary risk to take. It places layers of risk upon risk. What better circumstances could al-Qaeda want for a spectacular event than the Olympics, when the world's eyes are upon us? Yet at the very same time, the Bill is proposing to deny the Home Secretary the power of a relocation clause that would ensure that some of those people would remain in other areas of the country—the midlands, Norwich, Leicester or wherever—and not congregate with their associates back in London, where they could resume their plotting and their attack capabilities.