Control Orders scandal - will McNulty resign ?
We have made no secret about our abhorrence of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Control Orders scheme.
It people are suspected of terrorism, they should be kept under surveillance until enough evidence can be amassed and so that they can be be arrested, charged and tried fairly.
If there is no such evidence, and these people do not have ready access to lots of money, to weapons, explosives, chemical toxins, biological agents or radioactive material, then they are not a terrorist threat to us here in the UK.
We made the mistake of assuming that the few people who are currently under Control Orders would actually be kept under round the clock surveillance.
According to the BBC, it appears that at least two of the 16 people who are currently under these Control Orders are on the run.
One of them, appears to have been "missing" for "some months" !
Section 14 of the Act provides that, every 3 months, the Secretary of State must
(a) prepare a report about his exercise of the control order powers during that period; and
(b) lay a copy of that report before Parliament.
Such a report was made by Tony McNulty, the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety on the 11th September 2006 i.e. when the Home Office must have known that one of the, supposedly most dangerous people, in the UK was missing.
Surely Tony McNulty should resign for misleading Parliament if he did know, or for utter incompetence if he did not ?
Written Ministerial Statement on Control Order Powers 11th September 2006:
Home Department Control Order PowersThe Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Mr. Tony McNulty): Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
During the period 11 June to 10 September 2006, nine orders were made with the permission of the court under section 3(l)(a) of the 2005 Act—one in respect of a British citizen on 19 June 2006, one in respect of a foreign national on 31 July 2006, six in respect of foreign nationals on 1 August 2006 and one in respect of a British citizen on 5 September 2006.
The Secretary of State has also renewed one control order in accordance with Section 2 (4) (b) of the 2005 Act on 30 August 2006.
There are 15 control orders currently in force, six of which are in respect of British citizens.
During the period two requests to modify a control order obligation were agreed, and seven requests to modify a control order obligation were refused. A right of appeal exists in section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State not to modify an obligation contained in a control order.
According to the BBC:
In response to suggestions the two suspects could carry out an attack tomorrow, Mr McNulty said: "On balance, I don't think that's the case at all."
In which case, one has to ask why these people are being subjected to Control Orders in the first place ?
Why did neither Tony McNulty nor his boss Home Secretary John Reid make a statement to Parliament, instead of spinning to the news media first ?
We suspect that there are insiders within the Home Office etc. who are thinking about contacting the media or even bloggers with more details about this scandal.
If there are, they should read our article : Home Office whistleblowers - hints and tips
Comments
Wednesday's edition of The Guardian has further details:
Resign, McNulty ! Resign !
Posted by: wtwu | October 18, 2006 5:02 AM
There's another wholly unaccountable regime brought in without even an Act of Parliament through the Financial Sanctions Unit (wikipedia)
Keep a close eye on it. The power has been extended with a new terrorism order just last week. It basically says HM Treasury can designate anyone they like to have all assets and benefits frozen. No charge, no right of appeal, no compensation, nothing. Just has to be suspected of connections with a person suspected of terrorism.
Exactly like a control order, although much more widely used and made without Parliamentary approval, unless you think a on e paragraph act from 1946 constitutes Parliamentary approval for this crap.
Posted by: Julian Todd | October 18, 2006 4:15 PM
@ Julian - glad someone else is trying to keep an eye on Gordon Brown's control freakery as well:
See the next blog post:
Chancellor Gordon Brown further extends his financial snooping powers
Posted by: wtwu | October 18, 2006 4:24 PM
Lets face it if any of us did our jobs as badly as Mcnulty we would be sacked.
Control orders are a total black hole.
(In response to suggestions the two suspects could carry out an attack tomorrow, Mr McNulty said: "On balance, I don't think that's the case at all.")
That line is a classic.
Posted by: eyes | October 19, 2006 2:04 AM
Will Tony McNulty somehow manage to survive in Gordon Brown's Cabinet and Ministerial re-shuffle this Wednesday ?
There are now Seven out of Seventeen people under Control Orders who have disappeared , and McNulty is the Home Office Minister directly responsible for them.
Posted by: wtwu | June 24, 2007 9:04 PM
Since issuing an All Institutions letter regarding payday loans on June 29, 1999, the Banking Department has become aware that banks and other companies are ...
quick cash payday loan
Posted by: FupJammavak | August 10, 2007 10:47 PM