UK Parliament / Open data

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Not the hon. Gentleman’s last point. I had the good fortune of making a subsequent speech at RUSI during the same event, but it was more readily on these matters than on the Human Rights Act 1998. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said that the Act was a shield in defence of democracy and against the terrorists—a very important point to make. I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman would, from his own perspective, choose to pick out from the Lord Chancellor’s speech that which would accord with his own argument—I fully accept that; it is entirely fair—but the hon. Gentleman should not hold his breath if he thinks that somehow soon the Human Rights Act is going to fall away from the statute book. There are a number of substantial reasons why that should be the case. The issue clearly underpins much of our deliberations today, but you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is not a debate on the pros and cons of the Human Rights Act, although it has some bearing on the case. No one is pretending, as I said, that control order are 100 per cent. effective. I emphasise the inevitable and real risk, given the unsatisfactory nature of the control order regime, that individuals on control orders will re-engage in terrorism or abscond. Indeed, as the House will know, there have already been three well publicised absconds, but Lord Carlile addresses the point cogently in his report in paragraph 59, where he states that"““the disappearance of a small minority does not necessarily undermine the benefits of the orders in relation to the majority””." More encouragingly, the police, prosecution authorities and the courts take enforcing control orders seriously. In January, the courts sentenced an individual to five months’ imprisonment for breaching his control order. Charges against other individuals are pending.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
457 c436 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top