The Minister is shaking his head. It would be interesting to hear his views about the resources available to carry out surveillance and what additional resources might be needed for the relocation power proposed in the Bill.
I want to turn to the practical issues involved when someone is subject to a TPIM, and where they would actually live. Clause 12 allows for the Secretary of State to provide a residence, but there is no requirement. Presumably, the Home Secretary would find somewhere for an individual to live if they did not have a place to stay. What would be a local authority’s responsibilities if there was a power of relocation several miles away from where the individual usually resides? Would local councils have a responsibility to provide accommodation? What standard of accommodation would the Minister expect to be provided to somebody subject to a TPIM relocation order? What type of accommodation would it be? Would the Home Secretary consider a prison to be a suitable place to accommodate an individual? If the individual lives in the private rented sector, who would meet the costs of that accommodation? Would the individual be able to make a claim for and obtain housing benefit? Concerns have also been raised in the past about immediate close family members, including children, young children, husbands and wives. Would accommodation be provided for them?
1.15 pm
Our amendment 4 seeks to probe the 200-mile limit on the Home Secretary’s ability to relocate people. Why has the Minister chosen 200 miles, which is an arbitrary figure? What if the person subject to a TPIM order lived in Newcastle and the suitable accommodation that the Home Office had available was in Cornwall, which is more than 200 miles away? What does the Minister think about the practicalities of a 200-mile limit?
There is no requirement for the Home Secretary to agree a locality, but the courts may determine whether the Home Secretary has acted proportionately if the individual requests a locality and the Home Secretary disregards it. That locality agreement is not in the Bill, so will the Minister explain why not? Will he also address the issue of compensation, which has been raised in one of Liberty’s briefings? It is concerned that where a relocation order may be quashed, a compensation claim could be payable. Does the Minister believe that to be correct, and could it actually happen?
Clause 13(1) and (2) amend section 2 of the TPIMs Act to provide that the Secretary of State must publish factors that he or she considers are appropriate to take into account when deciding whether to impose restrictions under paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the TPIMs Act. Factors could include proximity to airports, prohibited associates and other TPIM subjects, and the variety and number of services within the restricted area. Clause 13(3) and (4) amend section 23 of the TPIMs Act, which makes it an offence, without reasonable excuse, to contravene a measure. Clause 13(3) provides that an individual subject to a travel measure under paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the TPIMs Act who leaves or travels outside the United Kingdom will not be able to rely upon a defence of “reasonable excuse”.
Why has the Minister decided to remove the defence of “reasonable excuse” at this point? It seems that that should have been done some time ago, as it is very hard
to leave the country without meaning to do so. Will the Minister explain why that was not in the original legislation before everyone started to abscond? I hope I am correct in thinking that the ability to claim “reasonable excuse” still applies for a person who has to travel within the UK if, for example, there is a family emergency, such as a child being taken seriously ill. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.
Clause 13(4) increases the custodial penalty on conviction on indictment of contravening the travel measure from a term not exceeding five years’ imprisonment to one not exceeding 10 years. Liberty said in its briefing:
“Criminalisation of those that breach an Executive imposed civil sanction turns our justice system on its head.”
Will the Minister respond to that point?
Clause 13(5) amends paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the TPIMs Act. Under the travel measure in the Act, the Secretary of State may impose restrictions on a person to prevent them from leaving a specified area, which could be Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. That change allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on an individual to prevent them from leaving a specified area, which may be either the United Kingdom or any area within the United Kingdom, in which the individual’s place of residence is located. The restrictions imposed may include a requirement not to leave a specified area without receiving permission from or, as the case may be, giving notice to the Secretary of State.
We accept that the travel restriction seems sensible, but there is no point in moving someone from east London to Norwich or Ipswich if they can return to east London every day, so it is important that the Bill state how specific an area the provision will apply to. Will the Minister explain how the restriction will work? What size and type of travel restriction will be used? Will the restriction be on leaving an area as small as a village, or will it be a bigger geographical area, such as a town or even a county?
Clause 14 allows the Secretary of State to impose on an individual subject to a TPIM notice prohibitions on making an application for a firearm or shotgun certificate, or on possessing an imitation firearm, offensive weapons or explosives. That all seems sensible, and many people will be surprised to find that that has to be set out in the Bill. They would be concerned because it seems strange for those subject to TPIMs to be able to apply to their local police force for firearms and shotgun licences.
In its brief, Liberty states:
“It is entirely sensible that people the authorities suspect of involvement in terrorism do not have access to firearms but it is also a revealing indictment of the internal chaos of the regime and lack of monitoring that the Home Secretary fears a firearms certificate may be granted by police.”
Will the Minister share with the Committee why that issue has arisen? Have people subject to TPIMs been trying to obtain firearms licences from police forces up and down the land? It would be helpful if the Committee understood what information police forces have access to. Does a firearms licensing officer know whether someone applying for a licence is subject to a TPIM? Is that information on the police national computer? How does a police officer or firearms licensing officer find out about that person’s background?
I assumed that it was an offence to possess explosives and offensive weapons, so I wonder why that has to be spelled out in this part of the Bill. Is a person subject to a TPIM who has access to kitchen knives in their residence—a kitchen knife that someone takes out of a residence and carries around could be seen as an offensive weapon—in breach of their TPIM under the clause? I want to be clear about that because the provision may be confusing and worrying for members of the public.
Our amendment 7 relates to activities that can be undertaken by a person subject to a TPIM. The Minister is likely to say that the change on firearms has to be spelled out because it is being added to an exhaustive list. The amendment would give the Home Secretary another power on the exhaustive list to prevent a person subject to a TPIM from having access to children, young people or vulnerable adults by making such access a regulated activity.
The Disclosure and Barring Service makes sure that people who are a threat or a concern to the authorities cannot have access to children, young people or vulnerable adults in a school setting or a regulated activity. Does the Minister think it appropriate for a TPIM suspect to apply to be a school governor, and should the DBS have a view about that? Equally, is it appropriate for a TPIM suspect to volunteer at a youth club, youth centre or school? Should the DBS have access to information about whether someone is subject to a TPIM? Exactly what information about a TPIM is flagged up to the DBS: is it given that specific information, or is it referred to an officer in one of the counter-terrorism units around the country?
People will be interested in that matter, especially whether those on TPIMs can have access to schools and youth clubs. In fact, should schools and youth clubs be made aware that such a person should not volunteer or work with young people? That all relates to amendment 7, which is a probing amendment.