Control orders allowed for indefinite house arrest and a
raft of restrictions for people suspected of terrorism. Under a control order
you might never have known the accusation against you and never have had the chance
to clear your name. Exactly the same will happen under the new regime of
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs).
Many MPs and Peers spoke out against the control order regime. This is what
they said. Liberty
is continuing to campaign against TPIMs and have the right to fair trial restored.
Visit our Unsafe Unfair page to email your MP and let them know what you think about TPIMs.
Conservatives (House of Commons)
Kenneth Clarke MP
House of Commons Hansard, 22 February 2005 (First Reading)
Column 162
"He (Home Secretary) has made no case at all to explain why he comes here seeking greater powers than any Home Secretary in modern times has had over British citizens and greater powers than were ever sought by his predecessor, his Government or any other Government in modern times?"
Dominic Grieve MP
House of Commons Hansard, 23 February 2005 (Second Reading)
Column 368
“I accept that one may have to swallow the extremely unpalatable, but every hon. Member should be concerned about the principle of control orders. It is a departure from our established principles and threatens our liberties greatly.”
Patrick Mercer MP
House of Commons Hansard, Renewal debate, 22 February 2007
Column 440
"I saw the effects of internment. I saw the effects of men and women who were released after months in detention without charge and the damaging influence that they had on the counter-terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland. One of my objections to control orders, among many others, is that they impose a sort of terrorist ASBO status on the individual. Those individuals cannot help but become iconic in the communities to which they return."
Patrick Mercer MP
House of Commons Hansard, Renewal debate, 21 February 2008
Column 580
"If the orders
are an important tool, why are they
so inefficient? Why do they not produce the results we want? Why are individuals
allowed to abscond? Why have the orders
been compared to antisocial behaviour orders?"
David Davis MP
House of Commons Hansard, 22 February 2005 (First Reading)
Column 156
"…under these proposals, for the first time in modern British history, a politician will be able by order to restrain the liberties of a British subject. He will do that on the basis either of balance of probabilities or even of simple suspicion. He will do it for reasons, and on evidence, that may not even be known to the British subject whose liberty is lost.”
Boris Johnson MP
House of Commons Hansard, 23 February 2005 (Second Reading),
Column 387
“We do not have that right by virtue simply of this European convention; we have it by virtue of 800 years of history and it is enshrined in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. In order to take it away, the House must genuinely believe that there is a threat to our way of life—in other words, that we are at war. I accept what has been said from both sides of the House about the qualitative difference posed by the threat of al-Qaeda, but I do not believe that that threat is so extreme as to justify such an extension of the power of the state.”
Douglas Hogg MP
House of Commons Hansard, 23 February 2005 (Second Reading)
Column 402
“In one sense, this is an extraordinary debate. To start off with, the House proposes to give Ministers the power of administrative detention, which we have condemned in every other country where it is exercised: for example, Zimbabwe, Burma and Israel. We are proposing to abandon principles that have governed our constitution and legal practices at least since the days of the Stuart kings. We propose to do so in a debate that will last two days.”
Crispin Blunt MP
House of Commons Hansard, Renewal debate, 1 March 2010
Column 730
"We are asked to conclude that although control orders are flawed, practically highly problematic, potentially damaging to community relations, extortionately expensive and legally doubtful, they remain necessary. Like the Minister, I am sure that this evening we will hear again the powerful arguments against control orders in principle-indeed, we have already heard some of them in the interventions on the Minister and me.
I want to make clear from the outset my party's position on control orders. We believe that the control order regime-I use English understatement here-is practically problematic and unjust, and we want to replace the system in a manner consistent with protecting the security of our citizens from both the immediate threat and the long-term threat, which will be shaped by how we manage today's threat."
Conservatives (House of Lords)
Baroness Anelay
House of Lords Hansard, 1 March 2005
Column 126
“We know that there are no easy answers but, as I made clear last week, we believe that the Home Secretary has settled on the wrong answers, which may sacrifice essential and long-standing British principles of liberty and justice in a way that is unlikely materially to enhance the security of our people.”
Baroness Neville-Jones
House of Lords Hansard, 3 March 2010
Column 1529
"...on
these Benches we want to
see at least significant reform of
the arrangements surrounding control orders
and, at best, the replacement of the regime itself. If we are elected to office
that will be an early aim… it will be with the aim, if we possibly can, of
eliminating the control order
regime."
Liberal Democrats (House of Commons)
Nick Clegg MP
In an exclusive interview with the Muslim News dated 26 Mar 2010
“We’re the only party who voted last week against control orders; we think that control orders are wrong. We think it’s wrong that the Government can take your freedom away and basically impose house arrest upon you and not tell you why… We have by far the strongest track record in British politics, by far, in saying that the Government has used anti-terror powers in a way which diminish all of our freedoms and has a disproportionately worrying effect on those Muslim communities who feel they are being the object of those measures.”
Nick Clegg MP
House of Commons Hansard, Renewal debate, 22 February 2007
Column 447
"It is not unreasonable then to conclude that the persistence of the current control order regime is proving increasingly difficult to sustain in the courts and increasingly flawed in practice. It removes, or appears to remove, the pressure to charge and prosecute the criminals whom we all want to see apprehended. It diverts energy and attention away from other important innovations that we should be examining to strengthen our criminal justice system, and it infringes the most fundamental principles of due process and human rights."
Chris Huhne MP
House of Commons Hansard, Renewal Debate, 3 March 2009
Column 750
"My argument is that control orders are not an appropriate instrument for a free society under the rule of law. They are unfair; they breach key rights to a fair hearing; and they get perilously close to reversing a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system, which is that we are innocent until we are proven guilty. Moreover, they are ineffective. We have heard that seven of the 38 people who have been made subject to control orders have absconded. The guilty are more likely to abscond, so the innocent are more likely to be detained. Criminal trials and custodial sentences would be a far more effective way of proceeding and protecting the public."
Chris Huhne MP
House of Commons Hansard, Renewal debate, 1 March 2010
Column 740-741
"The Liberal party's position on control orders is well known, and it has not changed over the past year. They are a violation of fundamental rights and an expensive failure to boot.
Control orders are one of the worst examples of the Government's determination to use any excuse to sacrifice hard-won and traditional safeguards for our freedoms. They are hugely illiberal, involving Ministers making decisions on whom to hold, they fly in the face of the assumption that all people are innocent until proven guilty, and they are imposed on people without any reason or evidence for justification being given."
Mark Oaten MP
House of Commons Hansard, 22 February 2005 (First Reading)
Column 160
“These judgments are all about the balance between the principles of justice and maintaining security. The proposals that the Government have outlined today get that balance wrong and that is why we cannot support them."
Simon Hughes MP
House of Commons Hansard, 23 February 2005 (Second Reading)
Column 367
“For the past four years, while we have been arguing collectively with the Government, we have consistently said that there is an alternative to detention without trial and have consistently proposed constructive alternatives. The Government have put themselves in this position by refusing to listen during those four years."
Liberal Democrats (House of Lords)
Lord Thomas of Gresford
House of Lords Hansard, 1 March 2005,
Column 132
“I summarise the basic principles: where it is impossible to prove guilt by due process, we on these Benches say that Article 5 should be maintained - its integrity should be maintained. There should be no deprivation of liberty, whether by court order or executive order. Restrictions on liberty not amounting to full deprivation may be imposed by a judge on the application of the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances must be proved to the satisfaction of the court in a contested hearing which is consistent with a fair trial. In particular, the suspect must know the nature of the allegations that he faces, and be provided with at least a summary of the evidence, as redacted under the guidance of the court. Disclosure of exculpatory material is essential."