My Lords, we do not feel moved to change our stance on the procedure that is associated with control orders. Therefore, we have a fundamental difference of view with those who have tabled the amendments that we are discussing and, indeed, with all noble Lords bar one who have so far spoken in this debate. The security of our citizens—protecting them from the risk of terrorism of the exceptional kind that we have seen and been under threat from in recent years—is the responsibility of an elected Government through the Home Secretary. It should be a matter for the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament and the electorate, and not the courts, to make an executive decision on whether a TPIM and its associated conditions are needed if she or he reasonably believes, based on the intelligence available, that an individual is involved in terrorist activity that places the security of our citizens at risk. For that reason, we are not able to support these amendments.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rosser
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 November 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
732 c591-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:02:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_785277
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_785277
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_785277