Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025.

My Lords, this statutory instrument was laid before the House on 9 July. It 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. I contend to the Committee that the powers are vital tools in our national security framework. They allow a counterterrorism police officer to stop, question, search and detain a person at a port, or in the “border area” of Northern Ireland, to determine whether the person is or has been involved in terrorism or hostile activity.

These changes follow a widespread public consultation held earlier this year, which ran from 17 March to 27 April 2025. The consultation invited a wide range of views from stakeholders including legal experts, civil liberties organisations, operational partners and, indeed, members of the public, who also contributed. 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 this year and I will take this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who engaged with the consultation.

The feedback from the consultation helped us shape the final versions of the codes, which now provide greater clarity on how these powers are to be exercised, thereby strengthening safeguards for individuals subject to examination. I thank, in particular, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, who, in expressing support for the proposed changes in discussions with the Home Office, was also a very strong advocate of this instrument. We are grateful to him for taking the time. I will briefly summarise the key changes the instrument makes.

Firstly, 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 it clear that officers can ask someone why they are in the border area, to help decide whether that person falls within the scope of the powers, before any formal examination begins. That is an important safeguard for an individual.

Secondly, the distinction between counterterrorism and public order policing will be reinforced. Schedule 7 powers are designed to help police 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, which is right and proper, 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. This ensures that detained individuals understand their rights and that officers act promptly.

Fourthly and lastly, notification safeguards will be enhanced. Officers must inform individuals when an examination begins. I hope the Committee will accept that 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. I hope noble Lords will accept that this will make the process clearer and more accessible.

To conclude, these changes, in four main areas, are designed to strengthen public confidence, support operational effectiveness and ensure compliance with human rights obligations. With that, I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise again on behalf of the Official Opposition to speak to these regulations and again offer broad support to the Government for them.

The powers allowing individuals to be stopped, questioned, searched and detained without suspicion are among the most intrusive the state can exercise. As a result, they must be governed by clarity, oversight and restraint. Several changes in the revised codes are sensible: clarification around notification, consular access and the distinguishing of counterterrorism from public order policing are all welcome. But clarity must not be mistaken for accountability.

We particularly welcome the firm statement that Schedule 7 should not be used for public order policing: a point developed by the Minister just now. However, the distinction between protest and terrorism remains finely drawn and places significant judgment in the hands of front-line officers, so can the Minister confirm how updated guidance is being communicated to those officers? Can we have an assurance that previous instances of disproportionate use will not recur?

On the consultation itself, I will raise one concern: only one formal written response was received. While engagement with front-line officers is useful, it is not a substitute for wider consultation with civil society, legal experts and those most affected. Does the Minister agree that more could and should have been done to seek broader perspectives during the consultation?

I will ask about Northern Ireland. The revision clarifies the use of preparatory powers near the border, yet this sits awkwardly with the Independent Reviewer’s recommendation that Schedule 7 powers be abolished in that context. Will the Minister outline the Government’s current view on the necessity and proportionality of Schedule 7 in Northern Ireland and whether any future appeal remains under consideration?

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the broad support he has given to the instrument. He asked a number of legitimate questions that I will try my best to answer.

The guidance that we are issuing and the instrument that amends this guidance is essentially the bible of guidance for those who have to exercise those powers. The purpose of the order is to codify and give strength to the powers that individuals who are exercising those powers have to refer to. As well as something for officers and others to have as their code of practice and guidance, it is also essentially a bible for those who wish to say, “I haven’t been treated well by the officers because they have contravened areas of this code of practice”. Further guidance on the guidance would I think confuse matters. This is the guidance. I appreciate that question but, essentially, I hope that we can judge those who exercise those powers against the guidance and those who feel aggrieved by any exercise of that power can also refer to the guidance.

The noble Lord mentioned the consultation. It was a full consultation. It ran from 17 March to 27 April. We invited views from stakeholders, legal experts, civil liberty organisations and operational partners, and members of the public responded. There was a consultation. Maybe not everybody who wanted to be consulted has responded, but it is a tried and tested method and it was a reasonable consultation. As ever, there are opportunities to submit any further views to Ministers, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and other organisations that are dealing with the code of practice. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that the consultation teased out a number of views and, as I said in my introductory comments, some changes were made as a result of that consultation.

Again, I am very aware of the sensitivities regarding the border area in Northern Ireland and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising them. The Government recognise those sensitivities. The code provides greater clarity on the preparatory powers available to officers and explicitly addresses concerns that were put down by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in his 2022 report. The reviewer is supportive of the changes. They ensure that the powers will be used only for national security purposes.

My Lords, due to the present lack of the next Minister, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until such time as he comes.

Sitting suspended.