---

Terrorism Bill

I thank my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue, which relates to Section 44. We think that Section 44 is merited and that it does exactly what it was intended to do inasmuch as stop and search under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in the ongoing fight against terrorism. As part of a structured anti-terrorist strategy, the powers help to deter terrorist activity by creating a difficult environment for would-be terrorists to operate in. That deterrent effect means that there is a crucial difference between the powers under Section 44 and the other stop and search powers. An authorisation under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act gives the police the power to stop and search pedestrians, vehicles, drivers and passengers in the area specified in the authorisation. I remind my noble friend that those areas can be very limited indeed and can, if the need arises, be quite precise. An authorisation can be given only if it is considered expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism. Authorisations are made by an officer of ACPO rank and must be confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours to remain valid after that period. The powers can be authorised in particular locations and for a particular period. The justification for authorising the use of the powers is intelligence-led and based on an assessment of the threat against the United Kingdom and how that transfers to potential targets within a force area. My noble friend’s proposal would limit the use of those powers to instances where there is a ““specific threat””. Intelligence rarely allows such a defined threat to be identified. In our respectful submission, the police must be allowed to make informed and evidence-based assessments of where the powers are best utilised according to the information available. In 2004, the Home Office produced guidance for forces which requires any officer making an authorisation to set out in detail the evidence to support the authorisation and how that relates to the assessment of the terrorist threat. The guidance also states:"““Special attention should be given to whether the powers are required across an entire force or whether a designated area, or indeed a number of designated areas, can be identified. Where powers are authorised force wide, the authorising officer should explain the reasons in detail for rejecting the option of a designated area and applying the powers more extensively””." The decision to make an authorisation is an operational one for the chief officer concerned and it is appropriate that that remains the case. The power is, however, subject to considerable scrutiny. As well as requiring authorisation at senior officer level and Secretary of State confirmation for authorisations over 48 hours, any authorisation can be cancelled by the Secretary of State at any time. All authorisations are carefully considered and confirmed only if they are deemed a proportionate response to the threat. This system is entirely appropriate, giving as it does the operational discretion to the police and an executive decision to the Secretary of State, who remains answerable, ultimately, to the electorate. There is no requirement in the Terrorism Act for either the police or the Home Office to publicise authorisations under Section 44. To routinely and proactively identify areas that have such authorisations in place would identify areas where similar powers were not in place. This would assist terrorists in identifying areas where the powers were not in use and assist their planning of attacks in areas they considered more vulnerable. Some information about where the powers have become authorised will become available purely as a consequence of the powers being used. We recognise that communities play a vital role in combating terrorism, and the police will always seek to share as much information as possible with the public. However, a statutory requirement that does not take account of operational sensitivities is not a solution. We are undertaking work with the police to develop more detailed guidance on the circumstances in which Section 44 powers should be used, in order to increase consistency and reassure the public that the powers are used appropriately. It is never appropriate to stop and search a person purely on the basis of personal facts such as ethnicity. That would be both discriminatory and operationally na&-uml;ve. PACE Code A states:"““Officers must take particular care not to discriminate against members of minority ethnic groups in the exercise of these powers. There may be circumstances, however, where it is appropriate for officers to take account of a person’s ethnic origin in selecting persons to be stopped in response to a specific terrorist threat (for example, some international terrorist groups are associated with particular ethnic identities)””." This should be used only—we emphasise, only—as one of a range of factors, which must also be supported by available intelligence; for example, a person’s behaviour, gender, age, and the vulnerability of the location. This is also consistent with the Home Office stop and search manual, which was published in April this year. Countering the terrorist threat and ensuring good community relations and involvement are interdependent. Appropriate consultation should be undertaken in those circumstances. We agree with my noble friend that the sensitivities about this are critical, the need to operate proportionately is essential and the powers must be exercised with integrity. We believe that the procedures we have in place deliver that. Stops and searches under Section 44 are subject to the same recording requirements as other stop and search powers. The joint Home Office, ACPO and APA guidance issued to the police service in April this year points to the role of the following: the police authority, in monitoring police stop and search data on a quarterly basis and providing a bridge with the communities they serve; the chief constable, in setting out a clear policy on the appropriate use of the powers, with an identified ACPO lead responsible for supervision and monitoring. That monitoring goes down the line, ultimately to the first-line supervising sergeants, who are responsible for ensuring that every record of a stop is examined and any anomalies pursued. The Government have also set up a delivery board and a community panel to report to Ministers, analysing the use of stop and search powers in relation to minority ethnic communities. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, for the sterling work he is doing in that regard. For those reasons, we do not believe that this is an appropriate amendment to make. I hope that in that light my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.