Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Carswell (Crossbench). It was answered on Wednesday, 3 February 2010.

Control Orders

Question: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that in the earlier case, the appeal of MB, which came before the Appellate Committee, the majority of the committee, of whom I was one—I declare that as an interest—favoured an approach that would have admitted some flexibility and the application of the concept of reasonableness in the spirit of the common law; but that a subsequent decision of the European Court of Human Rights directed that a rigid rule be adopted, with the consequence that in the AF case, the Appellate Committee felt compelled, although some had some reluctance, to decide as it did? Have the Government any thoughts about a way around that impasse?

Answer: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that interjection. He is absolutely right. The quote from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, was very interesting. He agreed that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in A v United Kingdom requires these appeals to be allowed, but stated: ""I do so with very considerable regret, because I think that the decision of the ECHR was wrong and that it may well destroy the system of control orders which is a significant part of this country's defences"." Have we been able to think of a way around it? The answer is no. I am constantly meeting the control order team, because I do not like the orders. None of us in our party or in this House likes them; but I believe that they are necessary, and that is why they are there. We are constantly looking for some other way of achieving this.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 717 c195-6
Session: 2009-10
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Subjects: House of Lords Judgements Appellate Committee Anti-terrorism control orders
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk