It is important that evidence given to the Committee, which I read out verbatim from the transcript, is put before the House when we are debating the amendment on 365 days. The hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly put his point on the record.
Evidence was also given by Lord Carlile, and he talked about the cost of the new surveillance techniques that would have to be employed. He said that the costs would be between £11 million and £18 million per person per year, and he also mentioned that as far as he was aware the cost of a control order was £1.8 million per person. So a huge amount of money will need to be invested in ensuring that these new surveillance techniques are properly available.
Given the evidence put before the Committee and in the other place, we know that some senior police officers still have concerns about the readiness—[Interruption.] Well, in recent weeks there have been reports that senior police officers are not satisfied. I understand what the Minister said, and I shall ask him to address the point in a moment, but while we welcome the Government's move from 28 days to 42 days—and I understand what the Minister says about that being appropriate during the holiday period—it is sensible to reconsider where we are at this stage. Given that some senior police officers feel that we are not prepared enough, that the Mayor of London has made his views clear and asked the Government to think again on this issue and that the Olympics, Paralympics and diamond jubilee celebrations are ahead of us, it is appropriate for the Minister to reflect on what the provision will mean. We have a two-week extension. Would it not be sensible to give the police and the security services more time and some flexibility to ensure that we have the resources, the people and the training in place? Is it not better to legislate now to keep control orders for that flexible period until we are absolutely certain and confident that surveillance is fully in place and all systems are operational?
I acknowledge the difficulty that the Minister is in in dealing with these matters, which are very sensitive, and information has to be kept confidential, so I ask him, first, to make available to the independent reviewer all details about what resources have been allocated to the new TPIMs regime, the budget allocation, the personnel recruitment figures and the training that has been provided. Secondly, can the independent reviewer have all progress reports on the preparation that has been undertaken to date? Thirdly, will the independent reviewer have the opportunity to look at all the cases, decisions and information that is made available about what to do with the current controlees? Fourthly, will the Minister seek from the police and security services their views about the readiness to deal with the changes that the new regime brings in? Fifthly, will he consider the costings for the new measures and whether sufficient resources have been set aside?
Given that the coming year is so important, that getting the transitional proposals correct is vital and that we all have a commitment to national security, I would like to press our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 11 to a Division to test the opinion of the House. I know other Members wish to speak so I will conclude my remarks.
Terrorism prevention and investigation measures bill
Proceeding contribution from
Diana Johnson
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 29 November 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
536 c862-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:22:44 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_789704
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_789704
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_789704