Cameron’s anti-terror laws have not been used ONCE
A MAJOR anti-terror power introduced by David Cameron to prevent British jihadis from returning to the country after fighting with Islamic State has never been used.
Mr Cameron announced Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs) two years ago amid mounting concerns about the number of UK extremists coming back from the Syrian war zone.
But the measures – dismissed at the time as a Downing Street ‘PR stunt’ by experts – have not been used once.
Mr Cameron acted amid fears that battle-hardened terrorists with British passports were heading home intending to bring blood- shed to the streets. Initially, the then Prime Minister wanted to ban them from returning. But the plan was watered down after being savaged by MPs and legal experts for being unlawful, as it would effectively leave British citizens stateless. Instead, he introduced the exclusion orders, which last a maximum of two years.
A TEO, which is approved by a judge before being issued by the Home Secretary, makes it illegal for a fanatic to return to the UK without informing the authorities and agreeing to be monitored. It is supported by cancelling their passport and adding their names to terrorist and criminal watchlists against which every person arriving in Britain is checked.
Introduced in February 2015, it addressed a gap in the powers which meant British jihadis could not be prevented from coming home under international law after fighting overseas.
There were already measures to block foreign or dual nationals from travelling to the UK after joining terror groups.
Labour MP Yvette Cooper, chairman of the Commons’ home affairs select committee in the last Parliament, said: ‘The first priority right now is to back the police and Gov- ernment in the immediate action to stop this evil terror network and keep people safe.
‘Once the urgent action to catch these dangerous extremists is complete, there will be practical questions to answer about why none of the exclusion orders that ministers said were so crucial have been used in practice.’
Shashank Joshi, senior research fellow at security think-tank the Royal United Services Institute, said: ‘It may have been easier to rely on existing mechanisms to monitor and influence returnees.
‘Indeed, the threat of applying a TEO may have helped to influence potential returnees, along the lines of “co-operate with us, or we will impose a TEO”.’
After Mr Cameron announced the policy, the then independent reviewer of terror laws, David Anderson, condemned TEOs as ‘not well thought through, well worked out or well prepared.’
Professor Emeritus Clive Walker QC, an adviser to Mr Anderson when he was the laws watchdog, said in a report this year: ‘The main policy objection to TEOs is that they represent a disincentive to return and thereby encourage the adoption of terrorism as a way of life.’
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘It is right that use of this power is considered on a case-by-case basis. The power continues to be one of a number of tools available to law enforcement and security agencies to manage the threat posed by individuals suspected of terrorismrelated activities overseas, and we remain ready to use it.’
‘They encourage terrorism’