The government’s announcement yesterday was grandly called the ‘Counter Terrorism Strategy’. I watched with anticipation, eager for the home secretary to unveil some strategy. It never came. Not even a goal was stated, just a collection of comments about Labour’s law and order agenda, and the coalition’s determination to put things straight.

But politics aside, yesterday was a huge missed opportunity for two reasons.

First, the government failed to show why they were keeping most of the temporary and extraordinary powers which Labour had created to tackle a determined and organised terrorist threat to our country. Explaining the purpose behind a policy, even when it is not your own policy but someone else’s that you have nicked and are tinkering with, is a basic responsibility for all ministers. Especially on issues as important as national security, civil liberties and counter-terrorism where citizens have a right to know what the government is up to and why.

Second, we have now been left with a permanent yet limp solution to the real challenges which the police and security services face when investigating suspected terrorist activity within our own communities. The watered down version of control orders (reducing detention from 28 to 14 days) and the slightly less comprehensive stop-and-search powers (now a senior police officer will have to authorise stop and search) are to be a permanent fixture in our legal system. The government has removed the need for an annual review by parliament of these powers, and by doing so has missed an opportunity to allow further flexibility and adaptations to the measures as our security situation develops.

We know why this has happened: Theresa May doesn’t want to catch sight of this issue any time in the near future. Nor does she want to have to get into justifying the powers which she has just watered down. For the coalition this is a toxic issue and getting to the core principles and then explaining why security services and the police require this kind of legal back-up would provoke substantial splits within the coalition at a time of fairly substantial and ongoing tensions on policy.

The Liberal Democrat peer appointed by Nick Clegg to carry out this review stated at the outset of his work that he wanted to ‘roll back’ the counter-terror legislation enacted by Labour. He also rebuked ministers in the last government for having an ‘ambition’ to drag the state into the private lives of all our citizens. This was a party political exercise from the start which was designed to forge some common ground between the two coalition partners – one large, one small, but both with clear views on the future of control orders and the accompanying measures.

The problem is that national security shouldn’t have to fit around what David Cameron calls ‘an historic document in British politics’ and what we call the coalition agreement. National security and ensuring the safety of our friends, family, neighbours and colleagues is the most important duty of the state.

That doesn’t mean that we should be draconian, and it’s most certainly not an excuse for restricting civil liberties, freedom, individuality, or human rights. But it does mean that decisions taken by politicians about terrorism and security should be done so carefully and considerately. Without the straight jacket of internal coalition squabbles and power plays.

So if control orders #2 are here to stay, what should Labour say about them?

My last column was about Yvette Cooper’s first speech as shadow foreign secretary, and I offered her some tips for future policy direction. Conveniently she has now moved over to home affairs so I’m going to offer her some more unsolicited advice.

Labour should do the work and come up with their own proposals to either amend or replace control orders. We should consult widely with experts, the security services, human rights advocates, party members, and look at international comparisons to understand how other democracies respond to this kind of threat without damaging our basic freedoms.

Labour shouldn’t underestimate the importance of getting this issue right. We lost significant support from our big tent of supporters when we allowed ourselves to be painted as authoritarian and we weren’t able to explain why we supported the introduction of detention without trial for some terrorist suspects. Tony Blair initially wanted 90 day detention, and we certainly didn’t manage to carry our party with us on that. 

Photo: Metropolitan Police