News from the New Party

Control orders

The introduction of control orders was regarded at the time as a draconian response to what was, admittedly, a real problem, though one of limited scope.  The Law Lords' decision in 2005 that the policy of detaining foreign national terrorism suspects who could not be deported against their will was in breach of the Human Rights Act led directly to the introduction of control orders by the government as a fall-back position that allowed for individuals suspected of terrorist involvement to be placed under close supervision somewhat akin to house arrest. 

The news that three more terror suspects under control orders have absconded rather begs the question, why did the government bother?  Since only 17 control orders are currently in force, the number of absconders represents a huge proportion of the total, bearing in mind the potential danger posed by the individuals concerned.  So if it is so easy to avoid the supervision and monitoring which a control order implies, why do we need them?  For all the good they do we may as well use ASBOs.

The introduction of control orders represented a huge potential increase in the power of the state to exercise control over people who have committed no crime, and who are, therefore, innocent in the eyes of the law.  Naturally, when control orders were introduced the government claimed that these powers would be used sparingly, and in this respect the government has been true to its word.  Large numbers of people have not been affected by this move, although there is no reason in principle why a future government should not make much greater use of these powers for less urgent reasons. 

If the powers of control orders are overly draconian, it is hardly reasonable to object to the failure to enforce them.  On the other hand, individuals who may pose a serious threat to national security are currently on the loose because the system of control orders is not working.  It is reasonable to demand that if control orders are necessary, they should be adequately enforced.  It would be much more effective, however,  and a lesser restriction on freedom generally, to revert to the previous policy of detaining foreign nationals who pose a serious risk to national security if they decline to be deported.  The failure to enforce control orders effectively makes a mockery of national security and human rights.  This is just one of many reasons why the Human Rights Act, which is the root cause of this problem, needs to be scrapped.