This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6057814.stm

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Tories urge terror suspect update Blair hits back on control orders
(about 1 hour later)
The home secretary is under pressure to make a statement about the UK's use of control orders after it emerged two terror suspects had gone on the run. Prime Minister Tony Blair has said control orders are flawed, following the escape of two terrorism suspects.
Shadow home secretary David Davis says John Reid should explain to MPs how the pair could have escaped, in what he described as "a piece of incompetence". Mr Blair was responding to the Tories' criticism that the men absconded - one through the window of a mental health unit - due to "incompetence".
The suspects include a British man who fled through a window of a mental health unit two weeks ago. He said he would have preferred tougher terrorism laws, but had been blocked by opponents in Parliament and the courts.
Minister Tony McNulty says a stronger version of the orders may be necessary. "Control orders were never going to be as effective as detention," he said at his monthly media conference.
'A farce' "But of course, we've got to make sure that if someone breaches their control order, then they're properly sought-after and we will do that and that's a job for the police," he added.
Control orders are used on terrorism suspects when there is not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution - they can be tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others.
It's more than an embarrassment - these are people they describe as being a danger to the public David DavisShadow home secretary Control orders explained
A major police investigation is ongoing after the men's disappearance, and it is understood ports and airports have been notified.A major police investigation is ongoing after the men's disappearance, and it is understood ports and airports have been notified.
The British suspect, who is of Pakistani descent, is accused by the authorities of wanting to go to Iraq to fight. He had been subject to a control order since March. The British suspect, who is of Pakistani descent, is accused of wanting to go to Iraq to fight. He had been subject to a control order since March.
What they should do now is be a little bit more candid about what happened in these two cases, have a proper review of what led to this failure David DavisShadow home secretary Control orders explained
The second man, an Iraqi, is thought to have been missing for some months.The second man, an Iraqi, is thought to have been missing for some months.
Civil liberties campaigners have called the orders, which restrict a suspect's movements, "unfair" and "a farce". Shadow home secretary David Davis has described the escapes as "extraordinary".
But Mr Davis denounced the episode as "extraordinary" and "essentially another failure in the Home Office". 'Danger to public'
He said the government had been warned about "weaknesses" in the operation of the orders and he was "really rather surprised that we weren't told about this". He said the government had been warned about "weaknesses" in the operation of the orders adding: "It's more than an embarrassment. These are people they describe as being a danger to the public. "
"It's incredibly serious," he told the BBC. "It's more than an embarrassment. These are people they describe as being a danger to the public. Meanwhile Nick Clegg, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "The danger of control orders is that they short-circuit due process and keep suspects in a state of limbo."
"It was almost certainly a piece of incompetence that these people got away." But the prime minister hit back on Tuesday, highlighting the history of the control orders, which were brought in to replace detention without charge or trial of terrorism suspects after the Law Lords ruled it illegal.
Public danger? "We wanted far tougher laws against terrorism, we were prevented by the opposition in Parliament and then by the courts in ensuring that was done," he said.
He added: "What they should do now is be a little bit more candid about what happened in these two cases, have a proper review of what led to this failure - not leap to conclusions before they've done their review. HAVE YOUR SAY If it is broke, then fix it. But let's not again have a knee-jerk reaction to this problem Charles Brindley, Brigg href="http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4312&start=0&edition=1&ttl=20061017094714" class="">Send us your comments
"I would like a proper Commons statement." "Some of the self-same people who are criticising us on control orders today were leading the charge against the legislation that would have allowed us to detain these people," he said.
HAVE YOUR SAY If it is broke, then fix it. But let's not again have a knee-jerk reaction to this problem Charles Brindley, Brigg href="http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4312&start=0&edition=1&ttl=20061017094714" class="">Send us your comments Meanwhile, Mr McNulty, a Home Office minister, said there may be a need for a stronger version of control orders which would depart from the European Convention on Human Rights. Tony McNulty, a Home Office minister, said there may be a need for a stronger version of control orders which would depart from the European Convention on Human Rights.
He told BBC Two's Newsnight: "We'll keep this under review. We have provision in the law for a different form of control orders and at this stage we don't rule either in or out." Andrew Dismore, chairman of the Commons and Lords committee on human rights, said government efforts should be targeted now at "trying to improve its efforts to prosecute those involved".
Asked why the Home Office had not told the public earlier about the suspects' escapes, he said: "I can say very clearly and assure people that the people who needed to know in both cases have known."
In response to suggestions the two suspects could carry out an attack at any time, Mr McNulty said: "On balance, I don't think that's the case at all."
Appeal
Control orders were brought in for cases where people are suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activity, but there is not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution.
They were introduced last year after Law Lords ruled it was illegal for the government to hold terror suspects indefinitely in jail without charge or trial.
When placed under a control order, suspects can be tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others.
They are said to be reserved for dangerous terror suspects.
The family of the British suspect say they are concerned for his safety and are appealing for his return to fight the allegations against him.The family of the British suspect say they are concerned for his safety and are appealing for his return to fight the allegations against him.
'State of mind'
The suspect maintains that he was arrested during a recent visit to Pakistan, held for seven months and tortured by the intelligence services.
His brother told BBC News: "We don't know what to think. We don't know what sort of mind he might be in."
The Iraqi suspect managed to get his curfew conditions relaxed earlier this year before disappearing.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said control orders did not work.Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said control orders did not work.
"This confirms our worst fears about the farce that is the control orders regime. They are both unsafe and fundamentally unfair," she said.
"If someone is truly a dangerous terror suspect, why would you leave them at large?"If someone is truly a dangerous terror suspect, why would you leave them at large?
"On the other hand it is completely cruel and unfair to label someone a terrorist and to subject them to a range of punishments for years on end without ever charging them or putting them on trial.""On the other hand it is completely cruel and unfair to label someone a terrorist and to subject them to a range of punishments for years on end without ever charging them or putting them on trial."
Nick Clegg, for the Liberal Democrats, said the case was a "huge embarrassment" for ministers.
He said: "The danger of control orders is that they short-circuit due process and keep suspects in a state of limbo."