MPs vote to continue use of Control Orders for another year…
Yesterdays parliamentary debate and vote resulted in the immoral, illegal and utterly indefensible continuation of the use of control orders for another year.
It’s notable that most of the MPs who voted on this issue were Labour or LibDem, it is, perhapse, not surprising that Conservatives kept away from this issue given their partys’ recent policy flip-flop from stated opposition to quiet support.
I wrote to my own (Conservative) MP, David Lidington in January to seek his position and urge him to vote against the orders but after receiving the following reply I heard nothing. Surprise, surprise, he didn’t vote on the issue =OC
“Thank you for your email to Mr Lidington dated 28th January. The points that you raise are being looked into and Mr Lidington will be back in touch as soon as possible. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Lidington if you feel that he can be of assistance.”
Below are some of the arguments against the orders which came out of the debate but in the end the measure was voted through by a majority of MPs who for the most part didn’t even bother to attend… (Click HERE to see how MPs voted)
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the atmosphere in which we vote and the information that we do or do not have. However, I am sure that he recognises that a fundamental objection to what is proposed under the control orders is that they bypass an independent judiciary. In effect, they hand Executive powers to Ministers to bypass a normal independent judicial system. (Jeremy Corbyn)
This is our fifth debate on control order renewal. There is a risk of temporary measures becoming permanent, and that is one of my main concerns about how control orders have developed. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, accepts that there is a positive obligation on the state to protect us all against terrorism, but it is becoming increasingly clear, year on year, that the system is unfair, not compliant with the European convention on human rights, counter-productive, and now, in our view, unsustainable. For years I have set out my Committee’s reservations about the lack of procedural justice, and have on various occasions proposed amendments to counter-terrorism legislation. However, I shall start on a slightly different tack tonight. (Andrew Dismore)
I do not think that the Lord President of the UK Supreme Court could have put it more succinctly: “A trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him.” (John McDonnell)
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate and put on the record my opposition to control orders. There have been many excellent speeches, and I cannot add to them, but I should say that, when the Government rammed through control orders in the face of the fiercest resistance from both Houses, they seemed to think that, by making them a temporary order for renewal, they could convince the unworldly and innocent that we would have a chance to review the whole measure. However, they were talking about what is happening tonight: a debate that is far too short, coupled with their earnest hope that the measure will just be nodded through. Unfortunately for them, some of us are not prepared to nod it through; we thought that it was wrong then, and we think that it is wrong now. Ministers talk piously and at length about all the evidence that some of us have not seen, and the evidence that they cannot take to court. However, they are really talking about intercept evidence, as other Members have said, and over and over again people have presented practical solutions whereby Ministers could use such evidence and prosecute people. I repeat that nobody is saying that people on whom the Government have evidence should not go before the courts; we object to keeping people in an indeterminate limbo. (Diana Abbott)
I give the Government a warning: this policy is having ramifications across communities. We said that it would be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism, and I believe that it is a recruiting sergeant for those who are anxious about what is happening to their communities as a result of this illiberal legislation. It is completely counter-productive, and regrettably, we are rehearsing the same arguments five years on. Again tonight, hon. Members who are not even present for the debate will vote the order through, and it will have a direct, detrimental impact on all our communities. (John McDonnell)