Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — New Clause 3 — Role of Courts in Banning Terrorism Suspects from Returning to the UK — 6 Jan 2015 at 15:30

The majority of MPs voted against enabling a court to determine if an order banning someone suspected of terrorism-related activity outside the UK from returning to the UK ought be made.

MPs were considering the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill^[1].

The rejected clause^[2] related to the process of the Secretary of State imposing a "temporary exclusion order" (TEO)^[3] banning an individual suspected of terrorism-related activity outside the UK from returning to the UK for up to two years.

The rejected clause would have enabled the Secretary of State to apply to a court which would then determine if the Secretary of State's decisions in relation to a proposed TEO were "obviously flawed". The court would also then decide if to give permission to issue the TEO and would have the power to give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual.

A separate amendment, new clause one^[4], which would have required the prior permission of a court for imposing a TEO had been debated and withdrawn prior to this vote. It appears the original intent was for the withdrawn clause to operate in conjunction with the clause rejected in this vote.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
• [2] Text of proposed new clause rejected in this vote, Official Record, House of Commons, 6 January 2015
• [3] Chapter 2 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill titled "Temporary exclusion from the United Kingdom"
• [4] Proposed new clause one , Official Record, House of Commons, 6 January 2015

Debate in Parliament | Source |