The Act abolished control orders but replaced them with "TPIMs". The Committee and its predecessor reported annually on the operation of the control orders regime to inform the annual renewal debate in Parliament.
The TPIMs regime, however, is not subject to a requirement of annual renewal. In the absence of such a requirement, the Committee has decided that it will undertake an assessment of how the new TPIMs regime is functioning in practice, in terms of its human rights implications.
While the Home Secretary makes quarterly reports to Parliament on the exercise of the TPIM powers under the Act, these reports are confined to basic statistics and the identification of any relevant court judgments concerning TPIMs.
As of 30 November 2012 there were 10 TPIM notices in force, 9 of which were in respect of British citizens. There have so far been 6 High Court judgments in which TPIM notices have been challenged but upheld.
The Committee is interested in hearing how the TPIMs Act has been operating in practice and what the evidence is for its continuation. In particular, the Committee would be interested to hear:
- What has been the impact of TPIMs on those who are the subject of the notices?
- What has been the impact of TPIMs on the families of those subject to the notices?
- Are there examples of unfairness in the operation of the statutory procedures for challenging TPIMs?
- Have there been any cases in which the subject of a TPIM has not been given sufficient information about the allegations against them to enable them to give effective instructions in relation to the allegations?
- Is there evidence that the power of relocation, which is not included in the TPIMs legislation, has been needed in practice?
- Has any person the subject of a TPIM subsequently been prosecuted for any offence other than breach of the terms of the TPIM notice?
- What evidence is there that investigative steps have continued following service of a TPIM notice?
- Are there examples of individuals who are subject to TPIM notices wishing to waive their anonymity?
- Since the Act came into force, has there been any change in the nature or frequency of immigration bail granted by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission?
Submissions should reach the Committee by Monday 28 January 2013 and be addressed to Mike Hennessy, Commons Clerk of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Committee Office, House of Commons, SW1P 3JA (email: firstname.lastname@example.org). Electronic submission in Word or Rich Text format is requested, but a signed hard copy should also be sent.
It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. View guidance on giving evidence to Select Committees.
Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
Evidence becomes the property of the Committee, and may be printed, placed on the Internet or circulated by the Committee at any stage. You may publicise or publish your evidence yourself, but in doing so, you must indicate that it was prepared for the Committee. Evidence published other than under the authority of the Committee does not attract parliamentary privilege. If your evidence is not printed, it will in due course be made available to the public in the Parliamentary Archives.