---

Control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and based on the risk that that individual poses. Each control order is kept under review to ensure that their continuance and obligations remain necessary and proportionate. Specifically, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, recommended in his February 2006 report on the operation of the control order system, the Home Office has established a review group, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular (quarterly), formal and audited review.

Breaches of control orders could arise from any obligation and could include arriving home after commencement of a curfew period or breaking geographical boundary restrictions on movement. As reported in the additional Statement of 16 January 2007, an individual charged with breach of control order obligations during the period covered by the 11 December 2006 quarterly report was convicted in January of failure to comply with daily reporting requirements and failure to notify the Home Office of a change of residence. He was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. This is the first conviction for an offence under the 2005 Act.

Also as reported on 16 January, another individual has been charged with failure to comply with control order obligations and is on remand in prison. The charges relate to failure to comply with curfew requirements and failure to comply with restrictions on communications. The individual mentioned in the 11 December report as having been charged with failure to comply with a daily reporting requirement but not failure to notify the Home Office of a change of residence has, since 16 January, been charged with additional offences of failure to comply with a daily reporting requirement and failure to notify the Home Office of a change of residence.

As Parliament will be aware, two of the 18 individuals subject to a control order absconded, one in September 2006 and one in January 2007. Details in relation to the January abscondment were given in the Statement of 16 January. Another individual absconded in August 2006 after a control order was made (i.e. signed) against that individual but before the order had been served. This order is therefore not in operation. I have been informed that the individual who absconded in August 2006 is believed to be abroad; the High Court has been notified of this. The individual in question has been excluded from the UK.

On 29 January, the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords confirmed that the House of Lords will hear two appeals against judgments handed down by the Court of Appeal on 1 August 2006 in respect of control orders. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Secretary of State in one case (Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2006] EWCA Civ 1140, an appeal in relation to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the right to a fair trial) and against the Secretary of State in the other case (Secretary of State for the

22 Mar 2007 : Column WS101

Home Department v JJ, KK GG, HH, NN & LL [2006] EWCA Civ 1141, an appeal in relation to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the right to liberty).

Sections 1 to 9 of the 2005 Act are subject to annual renewal by Parliament. The draft renewal

22 Mar 2007 : Column WS102

order for those sections of the Act was debated and approved by the House of Commons on 22 February and the House of Lords on 5 March. The Secretary of State subsequently signed the renewal order, so Sections 1 to 9 of the Act now continue in force until the end of 10 March 2008.

---