Control order replacement could strengthen terror resolve, warns watchdog He said Tpims were a "different animal from control orders" but added: "Knowledge that the restrictions can (absent fresh evidence) last for only two years has the potential to strengthen the resolve of a terrorist who - confronted with an order of potentially indefinite length - might have proved more willing to compromise." However, he said that when the relocation powers were removed and TPims restricted to two years, "significant extra resources for covert investigative techniques, including human and technical surveillance, were allocated to police and MI5." His report revealed six individuals who had been relocated under the old regime could now return to their previous homes, including some to London just months ahead of the Olympics. Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the report "confirms that the Government has seriously weakened the protection available to the public." "Theresa May should heed this serious report and urgently change the counter terror regime, otherwise she will be increasing the risks in Olympic year and making it much harder to deal with Abu Qatada too," she said. The report shows that six terror suspects who were previously relocated, with a number kept out of London, are now allowed to return under the new powers even though they are believed to be a continued threat. And David Anderson has now confirmed that there were 'sound national security reasons' for the police and the security services to have the power to relocate terror suspects, notably away from London especially in Olympic year. In his final report for parliament on the previous regime, Mr Anderson said control orders, lasting between a few months and four-and-a-half years, had been made against 52 men suspected of involvement in Islamist terrorism. He concluded they were an "effective means of protecting the public from a small number of suspected terrorists who presented a substantial risk to national security." But he added that "while some compromise of fairness may be justifiable in the interests of national security, it is essential that the use of this and similar powers should be kept to an absolute minimum." As of the end of last month, nine men, all British, were subject to TPims, figures published by Home Secretary Theresa May showed. All had been under control orders. Robin Simcox, a research fellow with the Henry Jackson Society think-tank, said the report showed "just how important control orders were in managing the variety of threats the UK faced from al Qaeda and its supporters." "Control orders were subject of fierce criticism, yet this report should vindicate those who argued their application was both necessary and proportionate," he said. But Sophie Farthing, a policy officer for civil rights group Liberty, said describing TPims as less effective than control orders was "baffling." A Home Office spokesman said: "Our first priority is to protect national security and the TPIM regime provides effective powers to deal with terror suspects who we cannot yet prosecute or deport. We have also provided extra funding for covert surveillance to help manage the risk such individuals pose and to maximise the opportunities to put them on criminal trial in open court.