Forum

Latest News
  • Will Croft elected Leader of the Conservative party
  • South Pacific nations agree new alliance to counter China
  • Budget 2016: Chancellor faces global slowdown
  • Ministers embarrassed by ‘Legion’ leak
{"effect":"fade","fontstyle":"normal","autoplay":"true","timer":4000}

Counter-Terrorism Act 2016  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

Eleanor Nerina
(@eleanor-nerina)
Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 71
20/07/2019 5:02 pm  

Presented by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department
Labour MP for Brent North (2005 - )


Quote
Eleanor Nerina
(@eleanor-nerina)
Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 71
20/07/2019 5:03 pm  

Mme Speaker,

I beg to move that this Bill now be read a second time.

In my statement to the House last month I set out that the government would seek to legislate quickly to close some immediate loopholes and address pressing issues as they apply to the fight against Daesh, before returning to longer term and more substantial issues such as surveillance and investigatory powers and the CONTEST strategy, which rightly deserve consultation and consideration to a longer timescale. This Bill fulfils the first promise, and takes a number of important steps to improve our counter-terrorism regime and ensure it keeps pace with developments in how Daesh are operating. And it does so while balancing the need for additional powers to keep us safe and adapt with ensuring we do so in a manner that protects and maintains the very civil rights and liberties that we are fighting to protect.

First and foremost, Mme Speaker, this legislation seeks to address the sad problem of young men and women in Britain leaving our country, having been radicalised and seduced, and often groomed online, to join Daesh. We have many responsibilities here, Mme Speaker: to keep the public safe, to prevent British citizens inflicting harm on others and other countries, and to the individuals themselves, who somewhere along the way have found themselves lost and whom we can only hope we can dissuade before they head down a path from which there is no return. 

This Bill will give the police, border force, and the government new powers to fulfil all three of these responsibilities, which will supplement the existing powers we have - including to rescind passports completely, or the authority-to-carry schemes. 

First, the Bill will give the border authorities and police the ability to seize travel documents - including passports - from individuals who they suspect could be leaving the country to travel to commit terrorist-related acts abroad. This power will be balanced, as is right given the context, and is designed to help in situations where the burden of proof for arrest has not yet been reached or where the Secretary of State is unable to rescind the passport completely.

Second, the Bill will give the government the ability to subject individuals who have left this country to engage in terrorist-related activity to a managed return order, which will allow us to set the time and circumstances of their return to the United Kingdom - with conditions attached, not least an interview with immigration and police services. Where appropriate, all such returners - where there is no criminal prosecution being made - will as a condition of their return be subject to ongoing monitoring and entry into a compulsory deradicalisation programme under CONTEST.

Third, the Bill will establish a new offence of travelling to a designated area to undertake any action in support of terrorist activities. This fulfils our responsibilities to the public here and in the rest of the world, making it clear that British citizens leaving the United Kingdom to commit or support terrorist Acts outside of the United Kingdom is an offence. It also ensures that, where it is necessary, there is legal recourse to suitable punishment when or if these individuals return to the United Kingdom.

These measures together will ensure our border is as secure is possible, while meeting our responsibilities to potential terrorist victims across the world and to the individuals who intend to leave the UK. However, the Bill will make two further changes in order to update terrorism law to adapt to the new global propoganda form of terrorism that Daesh practices.

First, we will extend the existing offences of displaying allegiance or membership of proscribed organisations, including through wearing or displaying uniforms, to images posted online. And second, we will expand the category of offences for which extra-territorial action can be prosecuted and punished in the UK to extend to those and other offences, recognising that in this new age of terror Daesh are committing atrocities and publicising themselves - but the objective of that terror is not just in Iraq and Syria.

These changes, Mme Speaker, are focussed on the fight today. I therefore consider it appropriate that the House considers in two years whether these powers should be renewed, and therefore have included a sunset clause to that effect. As members will know, that is quite often common practice in such circumstances, and in two years should it be clear that these new powers are necessary and are working to prevent such actions, then I have no doubt the House would renew them.

Mme Speaker, in common with all such legislation relating to national security, I am more than happy to work closely with the Opposition constructively on any amendments they should wish to offer, provided that they meet the government’s central aims for the legislation: that is to achieve a proportionate, effective regime that both gives the security services the powers they need to protect the public, while also protecting the liberties and freedoms of the public. I commend this Bill to the House, and bid that it do be read a second time.

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department
Labour MP for Brent North (2005 - )


ReplyQuote
Josh
 Josh
(@michael-kirton)
Canadian AV A-team
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 50
22/07/2019 4:57 pm  

Order! Second reading...

Your friendly neighbourhood Canadian AV


ReplyQuote
Roger Brigham
(@roger-brigham)
Member
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 76
26/07/2019 3:42 pm  

Madam Speaker,

From Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition we celebrate the initiative that the Government had, we always said that terrorism is a threat to our national security that has to be faced through unity, trying to reach consensus between the main parties.

The fight against DAESH and Islamic Radical Terrorism must include different approaches to combat them with more energy and force, to have efficient and effective reasons, what we can’t do is remain as if nothing had happened, politicians have a main responsibility with their constituents, the protection of the British people is not a partisan issue, is a country need and obligation.

Madam Speaker, within the different approaches I mentioned before, our priorities should be the fight against economic capability of terrorists, stop the recruitment of people to join terrorist organizations, fight them directly in their territory and protect our border. This bill is trying another interesting and essential column in the fight against terror, the prevention of British people to go outside our country to join DAESH or similar organizations that will perform terrorist activities in other countries or in the United Kingdom, numbers of young people joining Daesh are alarming and we must face the problem and cu tit, first with bills like this one, and then by dismantling the centres of recruitment of terrorists, whether they are online or physical.

Madam Speaker, fellow Members of Parliament, Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition will vote to support and pass the bill, because terrorism is a national emergency and we can’t delay the solution. It has always been our will to support bills that will benefit the United Kingdom and its people, even if the Government introduces it being conscious that this action could have a negative political impact on us, but for the Opposition, the British people and its interests and needs come first instead of political games. However, in our spirit of unity to get important bills like this one passed by a great majority where all parties have their points to add, we will introduce some amendments to get a wider effectivity of the bill in the fight against terror, therefore, we will introduce the content and explanation of our amendments:

First of all, we believe that in a world like ours, where millions of people take daily different transports to travel across the globe, the bill should cover all of them including sea, air and ground transport, we believed that it was insufficient to only add controls in ports while in airports and air transport there were no mechanisms to guarantee our national security, that’s why we add the amendment, to consider all the forms of transport.

Secondly, the great majority of our amendments put emphasis in one think that for Conservatives is very important, we add a point to consider the taking by a constable of equipment of an individual, equipment that may be considered dangerous according our legal System, this would be a preventive measure waiting the instructions of our judges with the objective to avoid the use of weapons or other tools that could harm people while the individual is being searched or stopped or while is crossing the country.

Finally, our last amendment includes that in the details of the permit that the Secretary of State could issue to any individual who may return, it should be added the reject of terrorist activities and a guarantee of no involvement in them by the people that has been in the past under investigation for suspicious activities, giving more security to permits of return and to our fellow British when this person returns home.

We believe that Government could accept these amendments that will add more security mechanisms to our current System, mechanisms that are necessary in a world whose main threat is terrorism.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are different approaches to combat terrorism, unfortunately this bill only covers one of them and we find the same insufficient to defeat the great challenge that is terrorism. This bill only takes care about people trying to exit the country, but for example it doesn’t care about the ones that enter, remember that the current Government is the one that accepted the entrance of 250.000 refugees with no plan, neither economic nor safety, currently we don’t know who enters to our country and we should be afraid of it, this Opposition introduced a responsible refugee and immigration plan and the Coalition just ignored us, selling the security of Britain.

From the Opposition, we will introduce soon in the next days, new bills and legislative actions that will cover different approaches I mentioned, by I’m aware, we may won’t cover all of them, because the fight against terror requires constant Update and unity from all the parties, let’s learn from the errors of the past and join together.

Roger Brigham
MP for Richmond Park

Parliamentary: Unknown (8)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (6)


ReplyQuote
Roger Brigham
(@roger-brigham)
Member
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 76
26/07/2019 3:44 pm  

Amendments indicated in bold letters. And in the file attached.

Roger Brigham
MP for Richmond Park

Parliamentary: Unknown (8)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (6)


ReplyQuote
Caroline Blakesley
(@caroline-blakesley)
Prime Minister & MP for Hammersmith
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 158
06/08/2019 5:55 pm  

Madam Speaker,

I beg leave to introduce a programming motion for this legislation such that, following carry-over, 72 hours shall be allocated for debate.

Caroline Blakesley
Prime Minister
MP for Hammersmith

Parliamentary: Unknown (13)
Media: Unknown (17)
Policy: Unknown (18)


ReplyQuote
Eleanor Nerina
(@eleanor-nerina)
Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 71
09/08/2019 4:39 pm  

Madam Speaker,

I thank the Shadow Secretary of State for his constructive manner, which lasted at least until the crescendo of his speech.

I have reviewed the amendments put down in his name. For the most part I can see what he is trying to do, but would like to take the opportunity to assure him that the government has sufficient - or in many cases additional - powers than he is proposing.

I am happy to accept his amendment referring to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which was a regrettable omission. However, a "port" in law refers to any port of entry or exit, including airports, helifields, marine ports, and I imagine in the future teleportation pads. So I see no need to accept that amendment.

I see no need to add additional powers for officers to seize equipment from individuals. Police officers and officials at the border already have extremely extensive powers to seize materials that could be dangerous or used in terrorist acts, and at best this Act would then duplicate those powers. At worst, it would introduce a legal ambiguity that would be quite problematic when it comes to cases of appeal, and could expose the police to undue risk of a successful appeal against action they took in pursuit of public safety. Naturally, the powers of seizure here, dealing with the narrow circumstance described and restricted appropriately given the matters at stake, are not as extensive as those that already exist for the seizure of potentially dangerous material.

I also intend to reject the amendment that would add a condition that any individual returning to the country would have a condition attached to the effect of "the reject of terrorist activities and the guarantee of no involvement in similar activities in the future." On a principles basis, Madam Speaker, this somewhat misses the point of the clauses in question, which is to ensure that for individuals who have been involved in a terrorist activity or there is some question they have or have supported it, we only allow them back into the country on our terms - and therefore terms that will allow us to bring them either to justice or to rehabilitation. The former is dealt with by the provisions in the act, and the latter by the evidence-based and world-leading CONTEST strategy. Therefore I think this amendment would, despite its intentions, do more harm than good. Practically, Madam Speaker, I do not know what value I would place in a solemn pledge to not engage in terrorist activity, as I would not expect to meet a terrorist who wouldn't give it.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would hope that my response sets out clearly why it is important we engage with and make policy on counter-terrorism in close concordat with the police, the border force, and security services - as well as expert legal stakeholders on the protection of civil liberties. A plea, therefore, Madam Speaker, for the Shadow Secretary of State to consider very carefully the introduction of any legislation that has not had that thorough examination of consultation that only HM Government can provide. I am more than happy to hear his ideas, and credit him for them even - I am not precious when it comes to good ideas that protect this country. But I will not countenance any legislation on our national security that has not been discussed and agreed with the people on the frontline of implementing it.

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department
Labour MP for Brent North (2005 - )


ReplyQuote
The Speaker
(@the-speaker)
Member Moderator
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 7
12/08/2019 6:32 am  

Division, clear the lobbies!

The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP
Speaker of the House of Commons (2016-Present)
MP for Camberwell and Peckham (1982-Present)


ReplyQuote
General Goose
(@general-goose)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 362
12/08/2019 3:20 pm  

Aye

Graham Adiputera (Lib Dem - Sutton and Cheam)
Deputy Prime Minister
Liberal Democrat Leader
Foreign Secretary
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Climate Change
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Technology

Parliamentary - 36
Media - 53
Policy - 48


ReplyQuote
Caroline Blakesley
(@caroline-blakesley)
Prime Minister & MP for Hammersmith
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 158
12/08/2019 5:04 pm  

Aye

Caroline Blakesley
Prime Minister
MP for Hammersmith

Parliamentary: Unknown (13)
Media: Unknown (17)
Policy: Unknown (18)


ReplyQuote
Eleanor Nerina
(@eleanor-nerina)
Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 71
12/08/2019 8:51 pm  

Aye

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department
Labour MP for Brent North (2005 - )


ReplyQuote
Faye Gallacher
(@faye-gallacher)
Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 247
13/08/2019 4:06 am  

Aye.

"[we] would rather die than leave the Labour Party." - Emily Thornberry.


ReplyQuote
Roger Brigham
(@roger-brigham)
Member
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 76
13/08/2019 3:25 pm  

Aye

Roger Brigham
MP for Richmond Park

Parliamentary: Unknown (8)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (6)


ReplyQuote
Declan
(@declan)
Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 4
13/08/2019 6:14 pm  

Aye

Owen Pierce MP
Conservative MP for Kensington


ReplyQuote
Brown
(@brown)
MP for Clacton
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 38
13/08/2019 6:59 pm  

Aye

Edwin Brown
Conservative MP for Clacton (2014-Present)
Shadow Minister for Business, Infrastructure, and Transport
Parliamentary Experience: Unknown (16)
Media Experience: Unknown (13)
Policy Experience: Unknown(6)
Extended Bio: https://tinyurl.com/y25geeqc


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: