Conditions

I beg to move amendment No. 333, in clause 118, page 79, line 28, at end insert—

‘(2A) Any condition imposed under subsection (2) must not—

(a) be excessively restrictive in all the circumstances;

(b) have a punitive impact upon the designated person;

(c) be intended to prevent the commission of further offences.’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 341, in clause 118, page 79, line 28, at end insert—

‘(2A) Any condition imposed under subsection (2) must not—

(a) be excessively restrictive in all the circumstances; or

(b) have a punitive impact upon the designated person.’.

It is known that I tabled the amendment on behalf of Liberty. Basically, it would mean that any condition that imposes someone’s designation would not be “excessively restrictive” or “have a punitive impact”, bearing it in mind that the measures will bring people to trial or judicial hearing. I shall not go further than that other than to take the opportunity to ask for an assurance, which has been asked for by the JCWI. If the clause is to remain part of the Bill, JCWI wishes to seek an assurance that the measure allowing designation with special immigration status will not in any circumstances be employed against refugees. Using the measure against refugees would extend it beyond the focus on foreign criminals.

Refugees will not be designated. They are one of the groups of people that cannot be designated, so I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for answering that point, which I am sure will go back to the JCWI.

I tabled amendment No. 341; the more assiduous and less myopic Members will have noticed that it bears a marked resemblance to amendment No. 333, with the exception that subsection (c) is missing. I thought that it was worth tabling it to deal with the issues of appropriateness and proportionality without introducing the further complication of whether it is appropriate to provide a pre-emptive condition to prevent further reoffending on the part of a person who has already been defined as an offender under the terms of the Bill.

The amendment will allow us to explore with the Minister whether the concept of proportionality and appropriateness might find favour. Amendment No. 333, tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, is more encompassing—I agree with it, incidentally—but might fall foul on the basis that the Minister is determined that it would be appropriate to have a condition that attempts to prevent the commission of further offences by the person when in this country. Mine is a sort of Cohen-lite amendment, in an attempt to curry favour with the Minister.

I cannot support the amendments. Normally I say that I will consider them, but it is getting late and we are all getting a bit tetchy. On the  face of it they appear reasonable, but they are unnecessary, to some extent undesirable and overall they appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the new status.

Paragraph (a) is unnecessary. Without the amendment, the conditions imposed must be reasonable and cannot be excessively restrictive. That is clear. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome may say that that depends on the circumstances of the case, but those circumstances will be taken into account when imposing the conditions. I do not consider that the limitation that paragraph (a) imposes would necessarily assist in that respect.

Can the Minister show where it is clear that the conditions must be reasonable and not excessively restrictive, and what possibility is there for challenging the view that a condition, when imposed, is excessively restrictive?

The conditions that may be imposed match those which apply to individuals with temporary admissions under the Immigration Act 1971, which have been in operation successfully for over a third of a century. We do not, therefore, believe that it is necessary to alter wording that is already established in immigration law. Also, the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with the convention.

Paragraph (b) of amendment No. 341 suggests a possible confusion about the purposes of designation and conditions. The new status is not an additional punishment, and the purpose of the conditions that might be imposed is not to punish. The condition relating to employment is designed to prevent the designated person establishing firm roots within the UK, as I have already said. The conditions relating to residence and reporting are designed to enable the BIA to maintain contact until such time as the ECHR barrier to removal has passed, so that the removal can be effected. If a condition is considered necessary to achieve those aims, we should not prevent it from being imposed.

Finally, I am happy to make it clear that the purpose of any conditions that may be imposed is not to prevent the commission of further offences. Again, discussion on that has revealed a misunderstanding of the purpose of creating the new status. As it is has been stated, the aim of imposing conditions is not crime prevention or reduction, and that holds good whether or not the clause is amended to state that explicitly. The purpose of conditions is to manage the situation.

I ask the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.