Cameron terror powers said to trample law

David Cameron was accused of trampling on international and British law as he announced new plans on Monday to tackle the flow of Islamic extremists between the UK and the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as Isis.

Mr Cameron announced proposals to prevent extremists from travelling to the Middle East war zone and sketchy plans to stop British nationals from returning to Britain after fighting in the region.

The prime minister was also accused of reintroducing the previous government's policy of control orders by the back door, as he laid out new powers allowing the home secretary to send Islamic extremists into "internal exile" in Britain away from their local communities.

Mr Cameron set out his package of measures to MPs returning to Westminster after their summer recess, claiming they would help to protect Britain from "the poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism".

He left open the possibility of Britain using "military measures" to contain Isis. Although aides say there has been no request from Washington for the UK to take part in air strikes he did not rule them out.

He said that if it was necessary to act quickly "in the national interest" he would do so without first seeking authorisation from parliament. He has ruled out "putting boots on the ground".

Mr Cameron's proposals to tackle extremism were criticised by lawyers who claimed that they would be challenged in the courts. Liberty, the civil rights group, said the measures were ill-defined and amounted to "sabre-rattling".

There was cross-party backing for Mr Cameron's plans to tighten requirements on airlines to share passenger data and to give police the power to confiscate a passport of someone thought to be planning to fight for Islamic State.

But there was criticism of Mr Cameron's most contentious plan to legislate for a temporary power to stop British nationals fighting for Islamic State returning to the UK, a proposal which lawyers have warned could leave UK citizens stateless.

Dominic Grieve, former Tory attorney-general, said the policy appeared to violate international law as well as offending "the basic principles of our common law as well".

Mr Cameron admitted more work needed to be done on the scheme - the subject of fierce wrangling with his Liberal Democrat coalition partners - and gave no timetable for introducing the new restriction. His admission that the plan was still in gestation drew groans from the Labour benches.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, told the BBC on Tuesday that the government would not break the law. "At the moment it's not obvious what we can do that's consistent with our legal obligations", he said when asked about plans to seize passports from British nationals while they are overseas.

He said the government was working more closely with airlines to prevent people boarding flights to the UK or arresting them "the moment they arrive on British soil if they've been involved in terrorist activity elsewhere in the world".

Mohammed Ayub, founder and senior partner at Bradford-based Chambers Solicitors, said: "It could all end up in huge challenges in the courts", he said.

"If someone is prevented from coming back to Britain from Iraq, how are they to challenge this decision in the courts if they are stuck at an airport or a port and have no access to legal advice or legal aid?"

Adrian Berry, chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association and a barrister at Garden Court Chambers, said the idea of excluding British nationals from Britain would worry other countries.

"If these proposals are implemented you might expect countries like Turkey to be concerned about it if Britons are left stranded there," he said.

There was also criticism of Mr Cameron's plans to strengthen Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (Tpims) by giving the home secretary power to relocate an individual away from their home to another part of the country. The Lib Dems say they have not agreed to this new power.

Mr Clegg tried to play down the rift, saying: "There's no debate or dispute about the central observation that Tpims need to do more to disrupt the patterns of association that people have."

But he cautioned: "Moving people against their will when you can't prosecute them is a big step."

Labour pointed out that these relocation powers were at the heart of the system of control orders, abolished by the coalition. Downing St said that since Tpims had a time limit of two years and control orders were open-ended, the two systems were different.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said of the package of measures: "Why demand that the police seize passports on a discriminatory, dangerous basis rather than arrest those intent on committing murder and terror overseas?" she said.

Additional reporting by John Aglionby

© The Financial Times Limited 2014. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation