If the hon. Gentleman is not able to recognise the change in the nature of the threat and the evolving picture taking place in recent months, I am sorry he is blind to it. The Government have a responsibility to respond to it in a fair way. We have to take into consideration the advice we receive from the independent
reviewer of terrorism legislation, and listen to the Security Service and the police, who we have consulted, to ensure we have the right package of measures, challenging ourselves and others, to do all we can in a proportionate and necessary way to ensure that those agencies have the appropriate powers to guard against the changed risk picture, as well as ensuring an appropriate balance between privacy and security. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and learned Friend on the issue of absconds. A point that David Anderson made directly was that the only way in which one could be absolutely certain that someone was unable to abscond was by putting them in a prison cell, which is why my preference always is to seek a prosecution, when the evidence is there. The challenge is that it is not always available.
2pm
On amendment 4 and the 200-mile limit, the Bill seeks to ensure that these powers are used in a balanced and appropriate way, taking into consideration the need for proportionality. We have introduced a restriction, placing a 200-mile limit on the distance an individual may be moved from his own residence when a TPIM notice is imposed. This means that a TPIM subject will be only a few hours’ travel from their family members, but we can still gain the benefits of relocating that individual and disrupting their activity.
Amendment 4, as has been highlighted, would remove the 200-mile limit in clause 12, under the overnight residence measure. The limit provides flexibility as to where a subject can be moved, based on the national security case, but gives a commitment that there will be an appropriate restriction on how this power will be used. The sense of proportionality and necessity has guided us here. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, while disagreeing with the principle, identified that having some boundaries was appropriate. I am sure that moving from London to the beautiful city of Perth, which I have visited on many occasions, would be a wonderful thing but we must look at what restrictions are proportionate and necessary. This was an issue that David Anderson looked at. Following his view that there should be restrictions on the ambit of this power, the distance was decided in consultation with the police and Security Service, taking into account their operational needs. Our judgment is that that is the right balance to strike.
The decision on where an individual should live will be based on a number of different considerations, and will be decided on a case-by-case basis. We do not believe that the power to relocate an individual needs to be unlimited in order to achieve the aim of disrupting the individual's involvement in terrorism-related activity. That is why we have limited the clause in that way.