Draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The usual rules apply: no tea, no coffee and, if anyone wishes to remove their jackets, they may do so.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. This statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 9 July, brings forward revised codes of practice for the exercise of powers under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. Those powers are vital tools in our national security framework. They allow a counter-terrorism police officer to stop, question, search and detain a person at a port or the border area in Northern Ireland to determine whether the person is or has been involved in terrorism or hostile activity, respectively.
The changes we are debating today follow a public consultation held earlier this year that ran from 17 March to 27 April. The consultation invited views from a wide range of stakeholders, including legal experts, civil liberties organisations, operational partners and members of the public. It focused on proposed updates to the codes of practice to ensure that they remain clear, proportionate and fit for purpose. The Government’s response was published on 23 June. Let me take the opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who engaged with the consultation. The feedback received has helped to shape the final versions of the codes, which now provide greater clarity on how these powers are to be exercised and therefore strengthen safeguards for individuals subject to examination.
I will briefly summarise the key changes that will be made by this instrument. First, a minor element of how examining officers can use the powers in the border area of Northern Ireland will be clarified. The updated guidance makes clear that officers can ask someone why they are in the border area to help them decide whether the person falls within scope of the powers before any formal examination begins.
Secondly, the distinction between counter-terrorism and public order policing will be reinforced. Schedule 7 powers are designed to help police to identify individuals who may be involved in terrorism. They are not meant to be used for managing protests or public order. However, in rare cases, someone’s protest activity might cross a line, for example if it involves serious violence to promote a political cause and could meet the legal definition of terrorism. In such situations, officers may use schedule 7 powers to assess whether the person is involved in terrorism.
Thirdly, consular access guidance will be improved. Individuals detained under these powers have the right to contact their embassy, high commission or consulate. The codes now clarify that questioning may proceed once a request for consular notification has been acted on, even if the consulate is not yet available. That ensures that detained individuals understand their rights and that officers act promptly.
Fourthly, notification safeguards will be enhanced. Officers must inform individuals when an examination begins. That is a key safeguard to ensure that people understand their rights and responsibilities. The updated codes confirm that this notice can be given verbally or in writing, which is especially helpful where language or communication barriers exist. That will make the process clearer and more accessible.
These changes are designed to strengthen public confidence, support operational effectiveness and ensure compliance with human rights obligations. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the Minister on maintaining his role during what some have described as the purge of the Home Office. It is therefore appropriate to thank him for his remarks about the legislation, and pay tribute to his staying power.
Turning to the draft regulations, the periodic updating of codes of practice is a regular occurrence for Governments. With the codes last altered in 2023, it has been deemed necessary to provide further clarification. The regulations we are debating today appear to present proportionate clarification to the existing system, while maintaining the powers necessary to question individuals. As the Government have stated in their documentation, the changes should not alter the original intention of the legislation. Furthermore, steps appear to have been taken to ensure that the powers within the Acts remain usable under the new guidance. The response of the independent Office for Police Conduct illustrates the broad agreement that these powers will continue to be used appropriately by the authorities.
On the broader point, measures that ensure transparency and improve communication—for example, ensuring clear notification—should be welcomed, provided the powers remain effective. The steps on examinations appear proportionate. However, they will also make the process more effective and quicker. I recognise that the clarification relating to public order policing is somewhat limited. However, I note that the amendment to the code explains that the examples of changes provided are illustrative, not exhaustive. Given some of the recent debate around the relationship between protests and terrorism, I ask whether the Minister has had conversations with the police to ensure that those using this power have a sufficient understanding of the changes, so that officers can accurately identify those who may be involved in the instigation of acts of terrorism, and avoid incidents such as those in the past that have prompted these changes.
I am aware that many of the changes are in line with recommendations from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. On that point, I would like to ask the Minister about the changes to the code of practice concerning schedule 7 and Northern Ireland. Given the ongoing challenges with terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s code of practice set out the continuing use of the 2000 Act. However, that appears to contradict the recommendation of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who proposed abolishing the power under schedule 7 on the basis of its lack of use. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could outline how he envisages the power being used in future, and whether it still has a role to play in stopping the heinous acts of terrorism that we unfortunately continue to see in Northern Ireland.
Stopping terrorism is a responsibility of the Government, which Members across the House take with the utmost seriousness. It is therefore right that we support measures that improve the system.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This statutory instrument is a technical change to the existing legislation. It makes changes to the safeguarding around counter-terrorism practices and follows advice by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Providing police and our security services with the appropriate powers to guard against terrorism is essential; however, civil liberties concerns remain. The powers under the counter-terrorism legislation allow people to be stopped, questioned and detained without reasonable suspicion, raising concerns about potential overreach, disproportionate use and risks of profiling.
In addition, although the revised code says that schedule 7 cannot be used for public order policing, it still permits stops where protest activity may meet the definition of terrorism, which could have a chilling effect on legitimate protests. There are clear parallels to the overreaction to Palestine Action and the civil disobedience we are seeing in response. I ask the Minister and the Government to proceed with caution and restraint and with appropriate protections of civil liberties.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the hon. Members for Reigate and for Sutton and Cheam for the constructive and reasonable comments that they have made. Let me seek to respond to them as best I can. First, let me take the opportunity to reiterate the importance of these powers. Both schedule 7 and schedule 3 are essential tools in our counter-terrorism and counter-state threat networks. They allow officers to act swiftly and decisively at the border to detect and disrupt those who pose a threat to our national security.
I thank the hon. Member for Reigate for her kind words. It is indeed a privilege and a pleasure to continue to serve, not only in the Home Office but also now in the Cabinet Office. I have been in touch with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), to seek to talk to him about the nature of the changes that we have made across Government. I think there will be very significant benefits in terms of our ability to co-ordinate national security activity across Government, and I very much hope that will have the support of Members right across the House.
The hon. Lady will know, I hope, that we have always approached matters relating to national security not on a party political basis. These are matters of the most profound importance. My approach as Security Minister will always be to work closely with Members across the House, and certainly with Opposition Members, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments.
The hon. Lady asked an entirely reasonable question, seeking assurances about conversations that we have had with the police. I can give her the reassurance that she seeks. We have worked incredibly carefully with the police. Of course, I am always required to make the point that the police are operationally independent of Government, as she knows, but we work to ensure that any changes, whether to codes of practice or, obviously, to more weighty matters relating to legislation, are worked through very closely with police forces, both nationally and locally. We value the work that our police officers do, we recognise the challenges that they face, and this Government—as I am sure the last Government did as well—will always work as closely as we can with them.
The hon. Lady made an entirely reasonable point about the observations of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall. Let me say something about him as an individual, because his name often gets raised in these kinds of forums. He is someone who speaks with great credibility and authority on these matters, and I think has widespread respect throughout the House. Having worked closely with him in opposition and in government, I know that there is a diligence and an authority as well as an independence to the work he does, and the Government always listen very carefully to his recommendations.
The hon. Lady specifically asked about Northern Ireland. I am conscious that with us is a distinguished former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, so I shall choose my words carefully, not least because he may take the opportunity to intervene on me. Specifically regarding the use of powers in the Northern Ireland border area, I can tell the hon. Lady that the Government do recognise the sensitivities. The codes now provide greater clarity on the preparatory powers available to officers, and explicitly address concerns raised by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in his report, which I think dates back to 2022. The changes that we have made ensure that the powers will be used only for national security purposes.
It is also worth making the point that, on public order policing, the Government have accepted the independent reviewer’s recommendation that schedule 7 should not be used to manage protest activity. I can reassure the hon. Lady that we work very closely with the independent reviewer and we look very closely that the recommendations that he has made.
I now turn to the points that were very reasonably made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I understand the concerns that he and his colleagues, including the leader of his party, have raised on matters of proscription. His Front Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, has had a number of briefs on Privy Council terms on these matters, but should the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady require further information from this Government, we stand ready to provide it.
The hon. Gentleman knows the Government’s position with regard to the proscription of Palestine Action. The Government believe that the decision to proscribe was necessary and proportionate, and we have sought to explain that as well as we are able to, given some of the limitations that are imposed upon us—not least ongoing police investigations and ongoing court proceedings. However, I do recognise the concerns that the hon. Member and others have raised about the process of proscription, and I can say to him, as I have said to the House previously, that these are matters that the previous Home Secretary, the current Home Secretary and I take incredibly seriously. We were satisfied, based on the advice that we received, that the decision that was taken was both proportionate and necessary. I understand that he will not agree with that, but I hope that he understands the reasons why we took the decision.
Let me say a word before seeking to conclude, because I am grateful for the attention of Committee members but I do not intend to detain them further. I again offer thanks to Opposition Members for their contributions, and I finish by emphasising that public safety and national security are priorities of the utmost importance for this Government. In discharging those critical responsibilities we are fiercely committed to transparency, accountability and the rule of law, and it is in that spirit that we brought forward these draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee once more.
Question put and agreed to.