Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

I am going to make this point. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats said that they wanted to see the complete abolition of control orders because they were an insult to our civil liberties and to democratic society. They made that decision prior to coming into government and certainly without being privy to the available intelligence about these suspects. In fact, in his evidence, Lord Carlile said:"““I have a concern about the genesis of this Bill. It arose from coalition politics—I am aware of the process that occurred—and it is a compromise…it is the sufficient lowest common multiple, and it will do. However, it does not provide as much public protection as control orders, and it would be foolish to ignore that fact.””" He went on to say that"““my party made a serious mistake in committing itself to the abolition of control orders. It made that mistake understandably, however, because it did not have the information at the time.””––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 21-22, Qs 66 and 67.]" What we have seen is political rhetoric and a particular stance being taken by the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition, with the Conservative part finding itself in the unenviable position of trying to accommodate that situation. Because of the use of terms like ““house arrest”” and ““internal exile””, the relocation powers became the centre around which this accommodation has had to be drawn. Let me say to the Minister that the deal that was done will lead us to bad legislation and it will come back to haunt us. I hope and pray that we do not have an incident in which somebody who has not been subjected to relocation is able to resume his contacts with his co-conspirators, to further a plot to attack this country and to execute that plot because there was no power to relocate that person to another part of the country. I hope and pray that that will never be the case. I would certainly not have made the decision to deny a Minister the right to make a relocation order in order to reach a political accommodation. In my view—I hope it is shared across the House and I hope the Minister shares it—national security is far too important to be the subject, as Lord Carlile said, of ““coalition politics””. This should be about a clear-headed analysis of risk and the steps that need to be taken that are proportionate to mitigate that risk. At the forefront of our minds and reflected in every step we take should be the protection of this country's innocent people so that they can walk the streets in safety and security. I do not believe that the decision to deny the power of relocation meets any of those tests. It is illogical. I can only believe that the Bill has no power of relocation because of a political accommodation designed to enable the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition to save face by saying that it had done some kind of deal. That is why the Liberal Democrats are so angry about the prospect of a relocation clause being in the enhanced TPIMs Bill, because that would mean that the principle of a relocation clause had been conceded. I would be interested to know, particularly from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), whether he will support the enhanced TPIMs Bill when it comes up for scrutiny. Perhaps he will tell us now.