B1478 – Proscription Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
B1478 – Proscription Bill 2019, TSR Government
A
BILL
TO

implement a tiered strategy to the proscription of organisations

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1(X)Amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000
(1) Sections 3 to 5 inclusive, and Section 10 of the Terrorism Act 2000, where in contradiction to this Bill, shall be repealed.
(2) References to the repealed sections shall reasonably be redirected to the relevant clauses of this Bill.

2(X)Proscription
(1) Any organisation, state, entity or person (OSEP) may be proscribed by order of the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State reasonably believes that a OSEP is:-
(X) (a) directly participating in acts of terrorism;
(X) (b) otherwise preparing for acts of terrorism;
(X) (c) promoting, inciting, encouraging, glorifying or financing acts of terrorism, or
(X) (d) otherwise concerned in terrorism.
(2) An OSEP shall be proscribed if it is referenced or otherwise listed in Schedule 1 of this Bill.
(2A) Proscription shall apply to all pseudonymes, aliases and alternative names adopted or otherwise associated with an OSEP listed in Schedule 1.
(2B) The Secretary of State retains the right to withhold the listing of a pseudonym, alias or alternative name if evidence exists such as to justify the withholding of the name on national security grounds.
(3) In proscribing an OSEP, the Secretary of State may deem it conducive to assign the proscription to a defined tier.

3(X)Proscription: tiering
(1) Proscription tiers shall be as follows:
(X) (a) Tier ‘A’ shall be reserved for organisations, states, entities or people that have committed acts of terrorism in, or otherwise affecting, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or any of its strategic partners; these OSEPs are to have been deemed by the Secretary of State as posing a grave and undeniable threat to the United Kingdom.
(X) (b) Tier ‘B’ shall be reserved for organisations, states, entities or people that have prepared, financed or otherwise attempted to prepare or finance serious acts of terrorism against the United Kingdom.
(X) (c) Tier ‘C’ shall be reserved for organisations, states, entities or people that have prepared, financed or otherwise attempted to prepare or finance acts of terrorism.
(X) (d) Tier ‘D’ shall be reserved for organisations, states, entities or people that have promoted, incited, encouraged or glorified acts of terrorism in the public domain.
(X) (e) Tier ‘E’ shall be reserved for organisations, states, entities or people that have promoted, incited, encouraged or glorified acts of terrorism in the private domain.
(X) (f) Tier ‘F’ shall be reserved for all other organisations, states, entities or people that are otherwise concerned with terrorism.
(2) The Secretary of State may, at his discretion, upgrade the proscription of an OSEP if he believes it is necessary given the evidence provided to him, or if there is a true and genuine threat to the United Kingdom.
(2A) The Secretary of State may, at his discretion, delay the public announcement of a upgrade in proscription for a period upto ninety calendar days on national security grounds.

4(X)Review of proscription
(1) The right for any OSEP to challenge proscription remains unchanged.
(2) A named OSEP may request in writing to the Secretary of State a ‘review of proscription’.
(2A) A request must be received from either:
(X) (a) the leader of the organisation, state or entity;
(X) (b) a public spokesperson for the organisation, state or entity;
(X) (c) a person negatively impacted by the proscription of the OSEP in question.
(3) Upon receipt of the genuine and isolated request or upon credible internal evidence, the Secretary of State:-
(X) (a) must request that the intelligence services make a fresh threat assessment of the organisation, state, entity or person proscribed;
(X) (b) review all listed pseudonymes, aliases and alternative names, and (X) (c) must take note of all other information available to him, including information held by strategic partners.
(4) The Secretary of State must then, by order, reaffirm or alter the proscription of the organisation, state, entity or person in question.
(5) The right for any OSEP to challenge proscription reviews also remains unchanged.
(6) OSEPs may, upon refusal by the Secretary of State to facilitate deproscription or a review of the proscription tier, refer the case to Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission.
(7) An appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission may only occur when it is reasonably suspected that a failing of law or principle has occurred; not a failing of information.
(8) The right for any OSEP to further challenge proscription review also remains unchanged.
(9) The Secretary of State retains the power to re-proscribe any de-proscribed OSEP if circumstances change.
(10) An OSEP shall remain proscribed unless and until a review is successful.

5(X)Immunity
(1) The principle of immunity in respect to the review of proscription process shall no longer apply.
(2) Any evidence submitted as part of proceedings for a review of proscription may, under the direction of the Secretary of State, be utilised as evidence in proceedings for offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.

6(X)Authorised action against proscribed organisations
(1) Tier ‘A’, Tier ‘B’ and Tier ‘C’ OSEPs may be subject to the terms of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 in full.
(1A) References or requirements for warrants in the utilisation of the powers of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and time limitations shall be suspended for Tier ‘A’ or ‘B’ OSEPs; ‘lawful authority’ shall be bestowed unilaterally.
(1B) References or requirements for warrants in the utilisation of the powers of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 shall remain in force for Tier ‘C’ OSEPs, unless and until there is a credible and immediate threat to the United Kingdom.
(1C) Proscribed OSEPs under Tier ‘A’ or ‘B’ shall immediately be subject to asset freezing with all held documentation and assets being immediately turned over to HM Government.
(1D) Proscribed OSEPs under Tier ‘C’ must under the provisions of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 have all assets declared to the Secretary of State who may authorise further action if deemed conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom.
(2) Tier ‘D’, Tier ‘E’ and Tier ‘F’ OSEPs are subject to the terms of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 to a standard extent.
(3) The Secretary of State may restrict the disclosure of information in pursuit of warrants, asset-freezing or the evocation of investigatory powers on national security grounds, the prevention or detection of serious organised crime or in the interests of justice.
(4) Upon presentation at a point of entry/exit, members associated with Tier ‘A’ and ‘B’ OSEPs shall be detained by border officials.
(5) Remaining OSEPs shall be subject to traditional arrangements for detention, if applicable.

7(X)Transition arrangements for proscription
(1) All organisations currently listed under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 shall be transferred to Schedule 1 of this Bill.
(2) Until such a time as the Secretary of State places currently proscribed organisations under a tier as per Section 3 of this Bill, organisations shall reside in Schedule 1 untiered.
(3) In respect to action restricted to specific tiers, the Secretary of State may at his discretion temporarily place an organisation in a tier as to facilitate said action.

8(X)Citation and Commencement:
(1) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(2) This act will come into force upon Royal Assent.
(3) This act may be cited as the Proscription Bill 2019

Notes
We live in a world where the threats we face, on a daily basis, are of a diverse and deep nature. This bill works as to propose a tiered strategy for proscription, enabling tailored and specific action against the deeper threats to our security and democracy, and noting concerns that organisations of varying threat level to the United Kingdom are treated one and the same.

Hence, this Bill:-
- in Section 1, repeals the proscription elements of the Terrorism Act 2000 as to be replaced with this Bill;
- in Section 2, redefines the SoS power to proscribe;
- in Section 3, establishes six tiers of decreasing threat level to the United Kingdom;
- in Section 4, defines the procedure for review of proscription in line with standisered rights;
- in Section 5, revokes the principle for immunity in the review of proscription proceedings;
- in Section 6, establishes unilateral action against the different tiers;
- in Section 7, defines transitional arrangements.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
Let's go for the usual question the government is incapable of answering: why? What is the deficiency in the current system?
1
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Let's go for the usual question the government is incapable of answering: why? What is the deficiency in the current system?
The current system for proscription is binary: proscribed or not.

For example, both National Front and the Islamic State are proscribed - whilst both disgusting organisations, they pose fundamentally different threat levels to the United Kingdom and types of threat - legislation ought to incorporate some aspect of flexibility as to enable tougher unilateral action against those that pose the greatest threat.
1
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
To me this seems like a sensible idea. The Prime Minister stating that the National Front and ISIL are both currently described as terrorist organisation and are being classified on the same levels when clearly they differ in how dangerous they are.

I will currently be voting aye unless someone can persuade me not to.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by ns_2)
The current system for proscription is binary: proscribed or not.

For example, both National Front and the Islamic State are proscribed - whilst both disgusting organisations, they pose fundamentally different threat levels to the United Kingdom and types of threat - legislation ought to incorporate some aspect of flexibility as to enable tougher unilateral action against those that pose the greatest threat.
So what do you see as worse White Supreme or Islamic fundamentalism?
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by Joep95)
So what do you see as worse White Supreme or Islamic fundamentalism?
I am indifferent to their views; both are equally disgusting and wrong.

However, the National Front has not employed taken the lives of innocent young children at a concert, has not driven a cargo truck through a crowd of people, has not downed a jetliner...

They pose fundamentally different types of threats.
0
hoixw
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
This is a good idea. It sets out the powers of the government on terrorist organisations neatly and allows for risks to be grouped - e.g. IS is a much larger risk factor than NA
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by Joep95)
So what do you see as worse White Supreme or Islamic fundamentalism?
The answer to this would be Islamic Fundamentalism. White Supremacist views aren't inherently violent, you can believe blacks are not equal but it doesn't mean violence, only extreme White Supremacism would be that. Islamic Fundamentalism generally means an upheavel of non-Islamist ideals and socities and is inherently in conflict with a Secular or non-Islamist state.
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
I'm not sure if this is entirely necessary. I of course support reform to proscription as anyone who wishes to live in a democratic nation would, but I feel like dividing it into tiers, whilst based in the honourable intention of separating types of terror, is not the most logical move. It is likely to have the opposite effect, where some types of terrorism are mildly excused because "they're only Tier F and pose less of a threat". As such, groups which are currently proscribed, such as National Action, could have ended up without such status and would be free to go around spreading hatred and inciting violence. I would naturally welcome the opportunity to speak with the government and work out ways in which it can defuse this situation, for lack of a better word.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
I like the idea separating terror into different tiers seems reasonable. I agree with the Prime minister statement that National Front are indeed less of a threat than ISIL. Both have different level of threats and not really equal.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
*looks for Schedule 1*
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
*looks for Schedule 1*
Schedule 1 will be created as part of the transition arrangements.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by ns_2)
The current system for proscription is binary: proscribed or not.

For example, both National Front and the Islamic State are proscribed - whilst both disgusting organisations, they pose fundamentally different threat levels to the United Kingdom and types of threat - legislation ought to incorporate some aspect of flexibility as to enable tougher unilateral action against those that pose the greatest threat.
And then the question has to be asked what is the real difference between the tiers, for one as far as I can see there is no real difference between A and B as anything that can be done to A can be done to B meaning the difference in law is trivial, the difference is in how the tiers are defined but not in how they are treated. The threat they pose should be irrelevant really, if they're deemed bad enough to be proscribed in the first place there isn't really a need for being tiered, if something is banned it can't be made more banned, and when it comes to unilateral action the question then comes back round to how the new unilateral powers differ from existing ones (I would wager not at all) and much more importantly there is the matter of accountability, if powers of unilateral action by the government have been increased why should existing checks and balances be removed, especially given that if they're as bad as Tier A or B there should be no problems what so ever getting proscribed via existing channels, which amounts to unilateral action by the government already anyway; there is a clear concern this is clearly open to abuses of power.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by ns_2)
Schedule 1 will be created as part of the transition arrangements.
So the bill relies on something that does not exist and will not exist, another massive flaw then
0
LifeIsFine
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
How will "serious acts of terrorism" and "acts of terrorism" be distinguished?
I agree with the general principle of the bill however other there are other concerns raised by members of the house that need to be suitably addressed for it to have my support.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by LifeIsFine)
How will "serious acts of terrorism" and "acts of terrorism" be distinguished?
I agree with the general principle of the bill however other there are other concerns raised by members of the house that need to be suitably addressed for it to have my support.
A level of discretion is needed - however, this will be clarified in a second reading. In the simplest terms, a serious act of terrorism would entail the use of explosives, vehicles or other such weapons causing multiple casualties arising from their usage.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So the bill relies on something that does not exist and will not exist, another massive flaw then
This will be addressed in a second reading.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And then the question has to be asked what is the real difference between the tiers, for one as far as I can see there is no real difference between A and B as anything that can be done to A can be done to B meaning the difference in law is trivial, the difference is in how the tiers are defined but not in how they are treated. The threat they pose should be irrelevant really, if they're deemed bad enough to be proscribed in the first place there isn't really a need for being tiered, if something is banned it can't be made more banned, and when it comes to unilateral action the question then comes back round to how the new unilateral powers differ from existing ones (I would wager not at all) and much more importantly there is the matter of accountability, if powers of unilateral action by the government have been increased why should existing checks and balances be removed, especially given that if they're as bad as Tier A or B there should be no problems what so ever getting proscribed via existing channels, which amounts to unilateral action by the government already anyway; there is a clear concern this is clearly open to abuses of power
The tiering system whilst the same for certain tiers is such for two primary reasons - which will be clarified further in a second reading.

First, it provides structure to proscriptions which can be expanded or tailored as and when circumstances change in the future. However, in an more immediate sense, a review of proscription will only be able to downgrade an OSEP one tier at a time over certain time periods. This will be included formally.

Surrounding abuses of power, a rolling review process can be included as to 'evaluate' whether the use of the powers are proportionate and justified given circumstances.
0
Samuel J. Booker
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
How does this help us in the long run?
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 days ago
#20
(Original post by Samuel J. Booker)
How does this help us in the long run?
Concerns have been raised in the past surrounding proscription and other bills that base their provisions on proscription: some entities are simply greater risks than others, and must be treated in different ways.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (24)
17.14%
Before I was 12 (52)
37.14%
13 (27)
19.29%
14 (17)
12.14%
15 (10)
7.14%
16 (4)
2.86%
17 (1)
0.71%
18 (2)
1.43%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (3)
2.14%
Over 25 (0)
0%

Watched Threads

View All