If the hon. Gentleman persists with such simplistic soundbites, he will misunderstand the nature of the terrorist threat to Britain, and also the nature of the Bill that he is supporting, because this Bill represents a complete reversal of the promises he and his party made during the election, and does not abolish the control orders regime but simply renames it with a few minor amendments.
We on the Opposition Benches do not have access to the latest security assessments from the experts. We believe it is important to support the Government on counter-terrorism issues where we can, but in order to do so we will need more reassurances from the Home Secretary, and also some changes. The first duty of any Government is the protection of the people and the safeguarding of national security, yet the Home Secretary's changes currently make it harder for the police and security services to limit the actions of a small number of dangerous people. We therefore need more reassurances on that.
Ideally, we would not have control orders because, ideally, we would not need them, but the Labour Government introduced them because we recognised that we needed to deal with a very small number of difficult cases, where prosecution was not possible for a range of reasons and where the public still needed to be protected from terrorist activity. In opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives condemned control orders, but now they are in government they have changed their minds. Indeed, the Home Secretary has introduced six new control orders since she came to office, and renewed eight more, but rather than admit that, she is desperate to maintain the fiction that control orders need to be replaced by something fundamentally different and that this Bill does the trick.
Most of the Bill is a fudge, drawn up to meet promises made to the Deputy Prime Minister that control orders would be abolished. Clause 1 does exactly that, but clauses 2 to 27 just reinstate most of the elements of control orders. The Bill does not therefore meet the Liberal Democrats' manifesto promise to scrap orders that use evidence in closed sessions of court, nor does it meet the Conservative pledge of"““eliminating the control order regime.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 2010; Vol. 717, c. 1530.]"
It certainly does not meet the grand claims of the Deputy Prime Minister in January, when The Sunday Times was briefed that he had"““won his Cabinet fight to scrap control orders””,"
that suspects will no longer have to wear electronic tags or have a home curfew, and that they"““will also be allowed to travel wherever they want in Britain””."
As all Members now know, the Bill allows for tags, home curfews and restrictions on travel around Britain. Where control orders use closed proceedings and special advocates, so too do TPIMs. Where control orders are instigated by the Home Secretary with the permission of the High Court, so too are TPIMs. Where control orders are used when prosecution is not possible, so too are TPIMs. Where control orders can restrict people's movements, communication, association, travel and bank accounts, so too can TPIMs.
Let me read out some extracts from the Government's own explanatory notes to the Bill. Clause 1 abolishes control orders, and clauses 2 to 4 introduce TPIMs. On clauses 6 to 9 and schedule 2, the notes say:"““This replicates the position in relation to control orders””."
On clause 10, they say:"““The clause maintains all the existing requirements contained in the 2005 Act.””"
On clauses 12 to 15 and schedule 3, they say:"““The clauses make provision—equivalent to that in the 2005 Act in relation to control orders””."
On clauses 16 to 18 and schedule 4, they say:"““This provides similar rights of appeal to those that exist in relation to control orders.””"
They say that clauses 19 to 20"““place requirements—equivalent to those contained in the 2005 Act in relation to control orders””."
On clause 21, they say that"““this effectively recreates the main offence of the 2005 Act of contravening an obligation imposed under a control order””—"
and they then add, in brackets—"““(including the same maximum penalty)””."
This Bill is one big set of square brackets which reads: insert control orders here.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Yvette Cooper
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 June 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
529 c74-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:15:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_746622
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_746622
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_746622