This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/01/anti-terror-policy-legal-political-opposition-jihadis-uk

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Plan to halt jihadis from returning to UK faces political and legal opposition David Cameron shelves move to ban British jihadis returning to UK
(about 3 hours later)
Sweeping plans to block UK citizens fighting in Syria or northern Iraq from returning to Britain are to be delayed, and probably shelved, in the face of Liberal Democrat opposition, legal objections and doubts in the security services. David Cameron's plan to fight the terrorist threat posed by Islamic State got off to a stuttering start when he was forced to shelve key proposals amid legal uncertainty, Liberal Democrat objections, and even doubts within the security services.
Announcing a package of anti-terror measures in the Commons, David Cameron repeated a warning that as many as 500 UK citizens have travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Islamist groups fighting government forces. The prime minister unveiled a package of anti-terror measures in the Commons on Monday but was not able to include a widely trailed proposal to prevent British-born citizens returning to the country from Syria or Iraq if they were suspected of being involved in acts of terror.
But the prime minister was not able to announce a previously trailed measure that the UK would take powers to exclude British-born suspected jihadis from returning to the country from Syria, Iran or elsewhere in the region following talks within the coalition. Acknowledging the legal difficulties in preventing British citizens returning to the UK, admitting that it might render them stateless, the prime minister said new measures were still needed to prevent British jihadis returning.
Lib Dem sources said the area was legally highly complex and it was not clear the security services would be able to keep a watch on potential radicalised UK returnees as effectively if they were on the Syrian or Iraqi border than if they were in the UK. He told MPs: "It is abhorrent that people who declare their allegiance elsewhere can return to the United Kingdom and pose a threat to our national security. We are clear in principle that what we need is a targeted, discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK."
Instead Cameron said: "We are clear in principle that what we need is a targeted, discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK and we will work up proposals on this basis with our agencies, in line with our international obligations, and discuss the details on a cross-party basis." But the prime minister's clear statement of intent was not backed by any proposals to match the rhetoric of Friday, when he used a Downing Street press conference to warn of the dangers of the "generational struggle" posed by the emergence of Islamic State (Isis).
But Cameron added he did not want to introduce "sweeping new powers", insisting the security services wanted a targeted approach reflecting a "forensic focus" on the threats. The difficulties facing Cameron were underlined by the former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve, who warned that removing passports from UK-born citizens returning home would breach international law and UK common law. Grieve said "even taking such powers on a temporary basis is likely to be a non starter".
Some had warned that excluding people would mean that UK nationals would be rendered stateless, though Cameron said he was not seeking to shift the burden of proof from those seeking to return or tear up existing international obligations. It is thought Grieve gave this advice privately as attorney general last year when ministers agreed to take powers to remove passports from naturalised UK citizens that had the prospect of being a citizen of another state. He said the best course was to prosecute suspected terrorists in the UK courts.
But Cameron did win Nick Clegg's agreement in principle to reintroduce powers to force suspected UK terrorists to relocate within the UK – the central aspect of the old control order regime that was repealed at the outset of the coalition government. Clegg felt he had a duty to look at relocation powers in the face of a recommendation from the chief reviewer of terrorist legislation, David Anderson. Cameron said as many as 500 UK citizens were fighting in Syria or northern Iraq, representing the single greatest threat to the UK. "It absolutely sticks in the craw that someone can go from this country to Syria, declare jihad, make all sorts of plans to start doing us damage and then contemplate returning to Britain having declared their allegiance to another state." With the US launching air attacks against Islamic State recently, Cameron refused to give any firm commitment on UK involvement, saying no such requests had been received – a formula being used by ministers until a clearer strategy emerges from Washington or is agreed at the Nato summit this week in Wales.
David Cameron also told MPs he planned to give border police new powers, currently confined to the home secretary under the royal prerogative, to take passports away for 30 days from UK citizens planning to leave to fight jihad. The withdrawal will be subject to judicial oversight with the Lib Dems stressing "individual border guards will not be able to take away a passport at a whim". But he signalled some flexibility, when, Cameron said in reference to air strikes that "we should ask ourselves how we best help those people on the ground who are doing vital work in countering [Islamic State]." He added that, as in Libya, "the British government must reserve the right to act immediately and inform the House of Commons afterwards".
Airlines will also be required for the first time to cooperate with intelligence agencies on passenger information on a statutory basis. Some foreign airlines have not been providing information in a timely or complete fashion. Cameron was even unable to win unambiguous backing from his Lib Dem partners for plans to give police powers to force suspected terrorists to relocate within the UK, amid criticism they amounted to a watered-down version of the controversial control orders introduced by Labour but dropped by the coalition.
Cameron tried to keep alive the central plank – to take away the right of terror suspects to return to the UK – by saying the proposals would be explored on an all-party basis, including Labour. There will also be further discussions with the security services. Lib Dem sources said they had not definitely signed up to the plans for relocation, but said they felt a duty to look at the proposal after it had been recently recommended by the government independent reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson.
The decision to exclude the measure from the immediate package was welcomed by the former Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell and by the former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve, who said the proposal could well be in breach of international law and UK common law since it would render UK citizens stateless. Cameron said he would go ahead with plans to give UK police the power to revoke a passport from a UK citizen – a power currently confined to the home secretary under the royal prerogative. However, the power to revoke will last 30 days and be subject to judicial review. "It will not be possible for a UK policemen to withdraw a passport at the border on a whim," a Lib Dem source stressed.
The UK has already taken powers to exclude foreign nationals from the UK, as well as anyone that has naturalised UK citizenship. All international airlines operating in the UK will also be required by statute to hand over information on passengers travelling from the UK. The American-style powers are seen as necessary as some airlines have been failing to provide information early enough for British intelligence agencies to prevent a passenger from travelling.
The Lib Dems said such UK citizens might instead be arrested and subject to tighter TPims [terrorism prevention and investigation measures] that would include for the first time the right to relocate a potential terrorist from their normal place of residence in the UK on a temporary basis. Cameron added that the government's Challenge programme would be put on a statutory footing so anyone suspected of being radicalised will be required to go on a government re-education programme, removing any voluntary element.
The Lib Dems insisted they were not involved in a political U-turn by allowing the blanket restoration of control orders, saying the proposals had not yet been agreed, and would anyway only allow a suspected terrorist to be relocated on a temporary basis rather than indefinitely. Overall, the package announced to MPs by Cameron appeared at best incomplete and certainly less dramatic than suggested when he called a rare Downing Street press conference on Friday to announce the terror threat was being raised from substantial to severe for the first time in three years. He also rejected proposals from the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to criminalise travel to certain individual countries or to change the criminal standard of proof. He said: "The government are clear that it would be wrong to deal with the gap by fundamentally changing core principles of our criminal justice system."
Talks between Clegg and Cameron on the package, outlined by the PM at a news conference on Friday, continued right up to Monday's Commons statement. But there were also no signs of a coalition split on the issue, with neither Liberal Democrat nor Conservative sources eager to turn any disagreements over civil liberties into a political clash, aware good will is needed to reach agreement on what they both regard as a new national security threat.