Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Contrary to the point that the Minister made in his speech, Lord Carlile states in his report that""the use of intercept evidence in a criminal court possibly has the potential for reducing the number of control orders"." It is not enough to say that there are some control orders with which we might not be able to proceed. Doubtless, some people who are subject to control orders are entirely innocent. However, it is simply not good enough to say that, because we could not proceed with some control orders using intercept evidence, we should not introduce it or that it could not be used in other cases. Given that, typically, more than 2,000 warrants for interception are issued each year, it would be surprising if that were not the case. We must remember the example that we set. Any tin-pot dictator is free to argue that the powers that he uses to buttress his regime are simply those that are in force in Britain, the mother of democracies and the mother of Parliaments. Ian Macdonald QC resigned as a special advocate for reasons of conscience, describing the control order policy as""an odious blot on our legal landscape"." If control order-like powers are still needed for a few individuals, they must be granted by a judge, time limited, subject to a higher standard of proof than mere reasonable suspicion, and subject to regular and thorough assessments of the possibility of prosecution. Securing convictions or letting the innocent go free should be the key goals. Ministers said when they introduced the powers that they were only temporary. Surely after four years, the time has come for the House to hold them to their word. We will vote against the order.