Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, the provisions relating to access to a lawyer, so far as they replicate those in Schedule 7, which I understand they are intended to do, should be seen against the background of three matters.

First, the maximum period under both schedules is six hours’ detention, which was reduced from nine hours a few years ago and from much longer periods during the Troubles, when, as now, these controls could be applied to travellers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain—a long-standing example of a border down the Irish Sea. Secondly, some of these seaports and airports are remote, and stops, let alone detentions, are so unusual that it would be quite impracticable always to have a panel of lawyers on tap. Thirdly, a fact long considered obvious by the courts, and now enshrined in Clause 16, is that answers given under these compulsory powers may not be used in subsequent criminal proceedings save in the special circumstances outlined for Schedule 7 by the Supreme Court in Beghal and echoed in the Bill.

The last of those factors caused Mr Justice Collins, in the case of CC, in 2012, to doubt whether there was any value at all in the presence of a lawyer during Schedule 7 questioning, since no responsible lawyer could advise their client to break the law by remaining silent. That view was rejected by the Divisional Court in the case of Elosta, which held that:

“The solicitor does have a useful, if limited, role to play”.


The fact remains that there are differences between an examination under Schedule 3 or Schedule 7, on the one hand, and a classic police interview under caution, on the other. It is perhaps also relevant to have in mind that, unless I am mistaken—I am sure I will be corrected if I am—these equivalent powers appear not only under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act but under Schedule 8, where detention for much longer periods, of up to 14 days, is contemplated.

Before the Minister thinks I have become too tame, let me please make this point. The operation of any powers to delay or impose limitations on access to legal advice, if they are to continue and to be extended, must be subject to effective independent review. This will only be possible if the reasons are recorded, as is correctly provided for in Schedule 3, and if the number of occasions on which they have been used is published, so that concerned citizens are aware and the independent reviewer can investigate individual cases or draw attention to and explore the reasons for any increasing trend in the use of the powers.

The number of occasions on which access to a solicitor has been delayed for those detained under Schedule 8 is logged meticulously in Northern Ireland and published by the NIO in its annual statistics on terrorism legislation. The latest figures tell us that between 2001 and March 2018, only five persons in Northern Ireland were refused immediate access to a solicitor. However, effective review requires the equivalent figures to be available for the whole country.

I was given to understand four years ago by the Home Office—not for the first time—that this was work in progress, at least where Schedule 8 was concerned. Will the Minister undertake that the statistics relating to delayed and conditional access to a solicitor on the part of those detained under the Terrorism Act and the new hostile state activity powers will be published across the country; and will she tell us whether there is anything she can do to speed things up a bit?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on these amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I hope that by the end of my remarks, your Lordships will be more satisfied about the progress of the Bill in this area.

The amendments in this group raise the important issue of a detainee’s right to access a solicitor when detained under the ports powers in Schedule 3 to the Bill or Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. These amendments seek to ensure that where an individual has been detained under these schedules, the examining officer must postpone questioning until the examinee has consulted a solicitor in private.

I am aware that the right to access a solicitor under these ports powers was the subject of much debate as this Bill was scrutinised in the House of Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out. The good speeches at Second Reading in this House served as a fitting reminder that, as new threats emerge, we must continue to be steadfast in our commitment to the principles that our laws and practices are founded on.

The powers under these schedules would afford any person formally detained the right to consult a solicitor, privately, if they request to do so. In the vast majority of cases where an individual has been detained under these powers, there will be no reason to interfere with that right. In exceptional circumstances, however, there may be a need for a more senior police officer to restrict that right where the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that allowing the detainee to exercise his or her right to consult a solicitor privately will have certain serious consequences—for example, interference with evidence or the gathering of information; injury to another person; alerting others that they are suspected of an indictable offence; or hindering the recovery of property obtained by an indictable offence.

I have listened carefully to the debate; it is clear that there are particular concerns about the restrictions under these schedules that would allow an assistant chief constable to require the detainee to consult their solicitor within the sight and hearing of another police officer. Let me explain that the intention behind this restriction is to disrupt a detainee who seeks to exploit their right to consult a solicitor by using the solicitor as a conduit to pass on instructions to a third party, either through intimidation, willing collusion or the use of a coded message, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out. Reasonable grounds for belief might develop where prior intelligence indicates that the individual may seek to obstruct an examination, either because they have a history of doing so or they have been trained to evade, frustrate or subvert police examinations. The officer might also witness interactions between the individual and their solicitor that alerts them to the possibility that the detainee is intimidating their solicitor.

Amendments 85, 86 and 88 and the equivalents in the new clause proposed by Amendment 63 would see these restrictions removed from Schedules 3 and 7 in their entirety. I understand the rationale for these amendments and recognise the force of the arguments that have been made in defence of the principle of lawyer-client confidentiality. At the same time, we are all here because we recognise the threat that we face from hostile state actors and terrorists and the risk of leaving loopholes to be exploited.

As alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, during the debate on similar amendments on Report in the House of Commons, the Security Minister undertook to consider the proposal of the Opposition Front Bench to allow a senior officer, in such circumstances, to direct that the detainee use a solicitor from an approved panel—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who reiterated this same proposition in today’s debate. Such an approach may offer an acceptable way through this issue and I can undertake to give sympathetic consideration to his amendment in advance of Report.

However, I cannot be so accommodating about Amendment 84 because it would remove the power under Schedule 3 to delay a consultation between the detainee and their solicitor where a senior officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the exercise of this right will result in the consequences I have previously described. Powers for an officer to delay the communication of the fact of a person’s detention to a named person and to delay that detainee’s access to a solicitor have been enshrined in PACE for many years. These powers are therefore not novel but are familiar in the wider policing context and allow the police to delay contact with a third party or consultation with a solicitor where there are reasonably founded concerns that knowledge of the person’s detention may result in serious consequences. Removing this power of delay would undermine the ability to mitigate these risks.

I have already addressed part of Amendment 63 but let me now respond to the proposed changes to the other powers that allow an examining officer to restrict a Schedule 7 detainee’s access to a solicitor. These restrictions under Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act currently allow an examining officer to question a detainee without a consultation having first taken place with a solicitor in person. However, I must point out that this does not preclude the detainee from consulting a solicitor via another means—for example, by telephone.

These powers can be exercised only where the officer reasonably believes that to wait for the solicitor to arrive in person would prejudice the determination of the relevant matters. Amendment 63, however, would limit the availability of these restrictions to a situation where waiting for the solicitor to arrive in person could create an immediate risk of physical injury to any person. This is contrary to the intention of the powers, which were designed to mitigate the risk of a detainee using their right to consult a solicitor to obstruct and frustrate the examination and run down the short detention clock. As noble Lords will be aware and as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out, the maximum period of examination is limited to six hours. It would not take a trained terrorist or hostile actor to work out that if they were to insist on speaking to a solicitor, in person, who happens to be located many miles away from the port where they are being examined, they have a means of significantly delaying their examination.

The current powers under Schedule 8 provide a practical solution to mitigate that risk by allowing the person to consult that solicitor over the phone. If the person refuses that alternative, or the solicitor is unavailable, the officer can continue questioning the person while they wait for the solicitor to arrive. Any decision by the officer to apply these restrictions must be clearly recorded.

Before using these restrictions, the examining officer will exhaust all other means to ensure that the detainee has been able to consult a solicitor in private, including directing them to a solicitor of the duty solicitor scheme. The changes proposed in Amendment 63 would resurrect the risks that I have described and undermine key powers for countering terrorism.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked about recording when restrictions are used in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We will consider with our operational partners which statistics it would be appropriate to publish with regard to Schedule 3. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that response and I will keep him updated.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

The noble Baroness has asked whether I am satisfied with the response. As the independent reviewer, I was told four years ago that this was happening, and it was not the first time that I had been told it was happening, in relation to Schedule 8. I am sure that the Minister did not mean to backtrack on that commitment, but I would be very grateful if she felt able to give someone a bit of a push.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was going to use the word “shove”, but I will give them a push instead, which is probably more in keeping with your Lordships’ House.

Perhaps I may move on finally to Amendments 83 and 87. I draw the attention of the Committee to the draft Schedule 3 code of practice, which I have already circulated to noble Lords. Like its equivalent for Schedule 7, the draft code is clear that a person detained under either power must be provided with a notice of detention that clarifies their rights and obligations. The examining officer must also explain these rights and obligations to the detainee before continuing with the examination. In addition, at each periodic review of the detention, the examining officer must remind the detainee of any rights that they have not yet exercised.

The Government are in complete agreement that any person detained under Schedule 3 should be informed of their rights before any further questioning takes place. It has always been the case through the exercise of Schedule 7 powers and it is why we have made it explicit in the equivalent draft code of practice for Schedule 3. While the Government are clear that the intention behind these amendments has already been satisfied through the provision of the draft code, I am now ready to consider further the merits of writing such a requirement into Schedule 3 and Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act.

With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as has been said, the Bill provides for a person to be questioned and detained under Schedule 3 powers and makes it an offence to refuse to answer questions in examinations. The draft code of guidance, which we have now seen, recognises that there may be a preliminary stage of questioning during which people may be screened before an officer chooses to officially question them under the schedule. During screening, a person is not required to answer a question they do not want to and the code of practice states that a person must be told when the screening ends and an official examination begins. The purpose of this amendment is simply to put the screening process, the right of a person not to answer questions and, equally importantly, the right of a person to be told when screening ends and questioning begins on to the face of the Bill.

The screening does not appear to be an insignificant process. The draft code of practice, which we have sought to enshrine in the amendment, sets out the kinds of questions that can be asked and the issues that can be raised during the screening process. It states that there is no requirement for officers to keep a record of a screening interaction unless the person is subsequently selected for a Schedule 3 examination. There will be circumstances in which there is a requirement to make a record of a screening interaction. Indeed, it also says that while the screening of persons should take only a few minutes—I do not know what “a few minutes” is in this context—it states:

“If it appears that this period will take significantly longer, the examining officer must conclude the screening process and either commence a Schedule 3 examination or notify the person that they have no further questions”.


Again, in a situation where they run out of time and decide to commence a Schedule 3 examination, a record of the screening interaction must be made.

It is not clear to us at the moment why no reference to this process has appeared in the Bill. One purpose of the amendment is to get an answer to that question since it would appear to be a part of the process under Schedule 3, which we have been discussing. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, for every person who is subject to a Schedule 7 examination, as I often used to report, some 10 to 20 others are asked light-touch screening questions on a consensual basis, as a result of which it is determined that a Schedule 7 examination is not necessary. The prevalence of screening questions may explain the discrepancy between the low and rapidly declining incidence of Schedule 7 examinations, on the one hand—I think they are running at around a quarter of the level they were when the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, handed over the post of independent reviewer to me—and, on the other hand, the perception of some people that they are stopped on a routine basis when they travel abroad. I reported in 2016 the example of a security-cleared government lawyer with a Muslim-sounding name who had been stopped by police on each of the last five occasions that he had left the country and on the majority of occasions when he re-entered it. On each occasion, as he acknowledged, he was stopped for screening questions only. Because screening questions are not recorded, there was of course no way of alerting ports officers of the previous fruitless stops.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the parameters applicable to screening questions need to be clearly set out under Schedule 3 to the Bill, as under Schedule 7. The draft code of practice, which I thank the Minister for providing well in advance, goes a long way towards doing that, although I am not sure that it cracks all the old chestnuts, one of them being how, if at all, one can administer screening questions to a coachload of people who are on their way to a possibly troubled part of the world.

As to whether screening questions should go into statute, the noble Lord is not alone in his provisional view. Senior ports officers have said to me—as I have recorded in the past—that if screening questions appeared in Schedule 7, we would all know where we stood. Against that, one thinks of the provisions in PACE Code C relating to “voluntary interviews”, which are not enshrined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, no doubt because of the moral and social duty, as it has been described by the courts, that every citizen has to give voluntary assistance to the police. I approach this issue with an open mind and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. In particular, can she tell us whether she has consulted the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is to have oversight of Schedule 3 and, if so, what he had to say, because I suspect that his view may help to inform mine?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Anderson tempts me to say a few words on this matter. He is absolutely right that the number of Schedule 7 stops declined dramatically over the years, and there was a very good reason for it. When I became Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, a phrase commonly used with me was “copper’s nose”. I was extremely concerned, because—if the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will forgive me—coppers do not always have the same-sized noses nor the same air throughput into them. Some officers started to develop them for themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is no longer here, but some officers in Scotland Yard with what is now called SO16 demonstrated to me how they had refined copper’s nose into a series of behavioural analyses that led them to decide whether and how to ask screening questions. A whole behavioural science has built up around this; it is called behavioural analysis. It emanated from America, but it has been well used by police officers here—I have been to a number of lectures about it.

I regret that the formalisation of screening questions, as suggested in the amendment, is completely impractical. My noble friend Lord Anderson referred to a coachload of passengers. One place that I used to visit quite regularly was Dover port, where buses come through at speed. Officers go on to them and ask questions such as, “Where are you going?” or “When did you come to this country?”, usually based on a reason that they have derived from the methodology they use for the people they are questioning. Formalising this process would make it very slow and more oppressive in the minds of those asked simple screening questions. They do not mind being asked a simple question or two, but they would mind if it were done in a way that suggested that it was part of a formal police process.

The police generally do this very well. They should be left to do it as they do it. We should not over-formalise something which has evolved to a point where the people who are stopped, asked a series of questions and detained for a time, and whose attention is demanded for a time, are usually those of whom there are good reasons to ask more detailed questions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

66: Schedule 3, page 38, line 41, leave out “hostile act” and insert “serious crime”

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, this amendment goes to the purposes for which the Schedule 3 power can be used. It raises what I believe is an important point of principle, to which there may, however, be a pragmatic solution. Schedule 3, like Schedule 7, contains perhaps the most extensive police powers anywhere in the statute book, extending to questioning, with no right to silence, detention, the taking of fingerprints and DNA samples, and the downloading of mobile devices and the long-term retention of their content, all without the need for any objective or even subjective suspicion of wrongdoing. Those powers are already used under Schedule 7 by police of all ranks, at very short notice, in seaports and airports both large and small, and anywhere within a mile of the Northern Irish border. Their extraordinary strength makes it all the more important that the purpose for which the powers can be used is clearly defined and understood.

Schedule 7 is limited to the purpose of determining whether someone is a terrorist. Having learned from intelligence reports that it was in practice being extensively used also for the purpose of determining whether people were involved in proliferation or espionage, I suggested some years ago, as independent reviewer, that the reach of the power could usefully be extended to these other purposes. This would have put practice in accordance with the law, and it would have avoided the absurdity of having to pretend that David Miranda, stopped under Schedule 7 when carrying documents through Heathrow Airport stolen by Edward Snowden, might have been a terrorist, when more obvious explanations, falling outside the scope of Schedule 7, suggested themselves.

After the Salisbury incident, this suggestion found favour with the Government. Schedule 3 powers, it is proposed, may be used for counterproliferation and counterespionage, and to determine whether persons crossing the border are involved in other forms of hostile activity, such as assassination, whether or not with biological weapons. For myself, I entirely support that objective. Where I part company with the Bill is in the suggestion that these very extensive powers, memorably described by my noble friend Lord Carlile in his regular talks to the police as a Ming vase—precious and to be treated with very great care—should be used in order to determine whether a traveller has been engaged in activity which is perfectly lawful.

That is the consequence of paragraphs 1(6)(a) and 1(6)(b) of Schedule 3. National security, as is well known, is nowhere defined in legislation, or even in the draft code of practice. The concept of threats to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom is more nebulous still and as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, it is not even linked in Schedule 3, as it is in other contexts, to the concept of national security, let alone to a concept as specific as the critical national infra- structure, to which the Minister referred earlier. Acts falling into these categories need not be crimes. Indeed, they need not even be carried out for or on behalf of a foreign state; it is enough that they are judged by the officer on duty to be in the interests of such a state.

It is quite true that MI5 is tasked by Section 1 of the Security Service Act 1989 with the functions of protecting national security and safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom from foreign threats. No one would quarrel with that. My unease stems from the proposal that the police be given new and very strong coercive powers, powers that intrude into civil liberties and that are not allowed to our intelligence agencies, for the purpose of determining whether persons may have acted in ways that are not contrary to the law.

I am concerned by that. The police are entrusted with executive powers for the purpose of detecting crime and enforcing the criminal law. We have a wide range of offences relating to CBRN materials, espionage, sabotage and other types of hostile state activity. If that range is insufficient, or if the sentences are too short, as the Minister indicated she thought might have been the case with some of the lesser offences under the Official Secrets Act 1989, it is open to the Government to seek change. They could change the law on official secrets or change their own definition of serious crime for the purposes of the Bill, as they apparently had no difficulty in doing in the Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations. I see the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, nodding ruefully: those regulations were considered only very recently by the House. I think that in that case the definition was reduced to 12 months, so if the issue is the sentences of only two years for lesser offences under the Official Secrets Act 1989, that is worth thinking about.

The Bill as it stands would allow these strong coercive powers to be used by any police officer for the purpose of defining whether people have acted in undefined ways that the Government may not like but have not chosen to make unlawful. I am not sure that I can think of any precedent for this, and I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me if she knows of any. In their human rights memorandum, the Government rely heavily, in relation to Schedule 3, on the majority decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Beghal on Schedule 7, but in Schedule 7 the scope of non-consensual police powers is strictly defined and limited to the detection of serious criminal activity. That is certainly not the case here.

My noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller, who I know cannot be in her place at the moment, thought that the current version of the schedule could perhaps be swallowed as a temporary patch—perhaps pending the amendment of the Official Secrets Act or a change to the definition of serious crime. I am not very reassured by that. Temporary patches sometimes have a way of turning into slippery slopes. I shall listen carefully to the Minister, but I wanted to signal by this amendment that I am troubled.

[Lord Judge]

I support this amendment, as I have supported every one of my noble friend Lord Anderson’s amendments to the Bill. Every time he has spoken during our debates and said things that are agreeable to the Government, he is wise and elegant—I cannot think of all the many complimentary adjectives that have rightly been paid to him. When he raises a point with which the Government do not agree, can they please reflect that he is wise, elegant and so on and so forth, so that his submissions to the Government are taken with the seriousness they merit? I entirely support the noble Lord’s expressions of anxiety about the breadth of this provision. If I may say so, we could make life much easier for everybody who has to administer it, not least the examining officer, if we just reflected on a way of amending it slightly.

I added my name to the noble Lord’s amendment. I support it. But I have listened to the debate this afternoon and I see that there are problems with it, in particular the problem raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who, as has just been said, is not now in her place. But we really could turn sub- paragraphs (6) and (7) into a much simpler piece of legislation by saying that an act is a hostile act if it is an act of serious crime and then at sub-paragraph (7)(d) defining serious crime—I know it is defined differently in different parts of terrorism legislation, but this is a new power, in effect producing a new scheme and a new way of administering it—if on conviction the offender would be liable to a term of imprisonment of two years. That, I think, would cover all the various matters raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and it might make life much easier for everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge: the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is indeed wise and elegant in his words. As the noble Lord has explained, this group of amendments deals with the definition of “hostile act” in Schedule 3.

It is important to emphasise that the design of any new power should be specific to the threat it is seeking to mitigate. The scope of this power has been designed to do just that; namely, to mitigate the known threats from hostile state activity. The danger of these amendments, therefore, is that they will limit the scope of the power, thereby limiting the range of threats that it has been designed to combat.

For the benefit of the Committee, the ports powers under Schedule 3 will be used by examining officers at UK ports or the border area,

“for the purpose of determining whether the person appears to be a person who is, or has been, engaged in hostile activity”.

A person is engaged in hostile activity if they are,

“concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of a hostile act that is or may be … carried out for, or on behalf of, a State other than the United Kingdom, or … otherwise in the interests of a State other than the United Kingdom”.

Under this schedule, a hostile act is defined as an act that,

“threatens national security … threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, or … is an act of serious crime”.

By replacing “hostile act” with “serious crime”, these amendments would significantly narrow the range of hostile activity that these powers are designed to counter. It would undoubtedly limit the ability of our ports officers to detect, disrupt and deter hostile actors. Serious crime is defined in the Bill as being an offence which could reasonably be expected to result in,

“imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more, or … the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose”.

Some of the activities which I believe noble Lords would expect to be captured through these new powers would not fall within the scope of the truncated definition of hostile activity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, explained earlier, some offences under the Official Secrets Act 1989 attract a maximum penalty of only two years’ imprisonment and may not involve the use of violence, result in financial gain or involve a large number of people acting in pursuit of a common purpose. Consequently, an examining officer would not be able to exercise Schedule 3 powers for the purpose of detecting, disrupting or deterring this type of hostile activity even if the activity threatens national security or could be prosecuted for offences under the Official Secrets Act. This is simply not acceptable.

There may even be occasions when we have intelligence to suggest that a person linked to hostile state activity is travelling to the UK for a hostile purpose but the intelligence we have is incomplete and the nature of the hostile purpose cannot be determined; therefore, we cannot assess whether the purpose is linked to a serious crime. In this circumstance, it would be very important to have a power to stop and examine them at the port to establish the nature of the hostile act.

As noble Lords will know, following the appalling acts in Salisbury, the Government are undertaking a review of legislation to combat hostile state activity. Hostile activity, by its very nature, is often covert and undertaken by foreign intelligence officers or their agents seeking to acquire sensitive information to gain an advantage over the United Kingdom and undermine our national security. On occasions this activity may not be considered criminal under the law as it stands; for example, if a foreign intelligence officer intended to travel to the UK to maintain or build a relationship with employees contracted to work on UK defence projects with the aim of acquiring sensitive information, this may not be a crime but it would be imperative to detect and disrupt this activity at the earliest opportunity, before irreversible damage to our national security occurred.

It is entirely plausible that a hostile actor should want to visit the UK in order to collect classified documents from an agent who had committed acts of espionage on their behalf. It is not a crime for the hostile actor to receive these documents and leave the country but, although the individual has not committed a crime, a Schedule 3 examination would enable an examining officer to make a determination as to whether they have been engaged in a hostile act. An examination would also allow the examining officer to remove the classified documents from the hostile actor, preventing the disclosure of potentially damaging information.

Even though the purpose of a Schedule 3 examination is to make a determination as to whether the actor has been engaged in a hostile act, exercise of the power may provide a number of secondary benefits. In instances such as the example I have just talked about, it would provide the first leads into an investigation to detect who the agent is—if we did not already know—and prevent the documents from ever being disclosed. These investigations may or may not lead to future prosecutions. It is therefore right to give the police the power to investigate hostile state activity, even at a preliminary stage before we have reasonable suspicion that a foreign intelligence officer has committed an offence. I know that noble Lords do not really think that the police should not have the power to stop someone who is from, or acting on behalf of, a foreign intelligence service as they enter or leave the United Kingdom.

If we were to accept these amendments, traditional behaviours undertaken by hostile states which have the potential to have such a detrimental effect would fall out of scope of the power and we would not be able to detect, disrupt or deter them. I put it to noble Lords that such activity should not go unchallenged. The definition of “hostile act” is necessarily broad to ensure that the powers capture the full range of activities which hostile actors engage in. We recognise the concerns that have been raised and I reassure the Committee that these were considered in the drafting of Schedule 3. This is why we have explicitly restricted the definition to an act that is carried out for, or on behalf of, or otherwise in the interests of, a state other than the United Kingdom.

I also recognise the concerns about the term,

“economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.

As has been pointed out, there may be instances where an act undertaken by a hostile state actor threatens that economic well-being yet does not threaten our national security; it is also true for acts of serious crime. Economic well-being, like national security, is a term already used in UK legislation. The intention of this limb of the definition is to ensure that these powers can be used to mitigate hostile acts which could damage the country’s critical infrastructure or disrupt energy supplies to the UK. For example, if an employee in the banking sector of the City of London discovered a serious vulnerability in computer networks and shared this information with a hostile state, it would drastically undermine confidence in the City of London and cost the UK economy millions, if not billions.

I hope that with these explanations, the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who made her remarks earlier.

I asked the Minister whether she could give another example of the police being given strong, coercive powers for the purpose of determining whether people are acting in a way which may be undesirable but which is perfectly lawful under the law of the land. I do not think that I had an answer and, if there is no answer, I would suggest that the Bill as written constitutes a new and very dangerous departure. That is the point of principle behind this amendment and, with great respect to the Minister, she did not address it in her reply. I hope that the Minister will consider this carefully because my concerns, as she has heard, are shared by lawyers far more distinguished than I—and not only by lawyers.

As to the pragmatic solution, the Minister has heard suggestions as to how the scope of this power could be reduced in a way that achieves its objectives in a manner more consistent with the principle of legality. I hope that she will deliberate further on those suggestions. I would be more than happy to discuss them with her but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 66 withdrawn.