---

Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers) (Revision) Order 2009

From these Benches we welcome the update of the code. However, it would have been useful—no doubt the Minister will tell me whether this was procedurally possible—for this to have been an amendment to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill. Obviously, it has only just come to the Government, but did they consider that route? The revised code could have been debated in context, especially the issue of training, which is a key to the implementation of the code. On 28 April, the order was debated in the other place. Referring to training, the Minister said that, ""this is difficult. It is not easy".—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 28/4/09; col. 13.]" The noble Lord will remember that these Benches put down amendments to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill to explore training much more fully. That would have enabled discussion about a combined police force, its merits and so on. Effectively, this order represents that effort to further streamline the way in which various officials work and, in this case, take on extra powers of the police. When the other place debates that Bill, it will have the benefit of looking at the debates in its own Committee and in our House and will no doubt reflect on some of the points that were made. The code has profited much from the scrutiny of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. As he has underlined throughout his report, it is critical to be fair and to be seen to be fair. That is the key. I know that the Minister is concerned with this. He has made the point before that in the context of the counterterrorism plan, CONTEST, the Government have referred to the necessity to be as open as possible so that certain groups do not feel unfairly singled out. Being as open and transparent as possible feeds through to how well we can scrutinise the implementation of the code, a matter to which I shall return in my concluding remarks on statistics. I know that the Conservative Front-Benchers share our concern that Section 44 of the Terrorism Act should be given the same scrutiny and treatment that we are giving to this code. I must say to the Minister how disappointed we are that the Home Office will not even say where the designated areas are in which you can be stopped and searched under that Act. I gather that that information is simply unavailable, even when applied for under the Freedom of Information Act, so it is hard for the public to know when they have been stopped reasonably under the PACE code and when they have been stopped unreasonably under the Terrorism Act. That is not good practice. Perhaps we could take a leaf out of the book of the New York police authority. It may not always be in the forefront of good practice, but it has just introduced a new code, "Stop, Frisk and Explain", and is retraining its officers in the absolute importance of explanation. When the PACE code was drawn up, the feeling was that it should be very clear why someone was being stopped. We welcome the move towards a much more targeted and less random approach. The Government suggest that there will be less room for intuitive stops. I recognise that these are difficult questions, but will the Minister say what part intuition will be able to play now and what proof we have had that it is ineffectual? Intelligence-led action is bound to reflect intuition, so the new code needs to be clear about exactly the part that intuition can play and when it is reasonable. That comes back to the training particularly of senior staff, because it is a difficult balance. We are pleased that the code will cover the relevance of the questions asked of the people who are stopped. It is extremely important that people are asked relevant questions, not irrelevant ones. However, we are disappointed to note that the numbers of local stops at different airports and ports are not collated centrally. This brings me back to my point that it is difficult for us, and for senior management and Ministers, to judge on the basis of the statistical evidence just how well the code is operating. Do we know how many people overall have been stopped and how many of those stops and examinations have led to arrests, deportations or refused entries? Perhaps the Minister will tell me that those statistics are available, but I have not been able to find them. I gather that the rate of stops and examinations is in the order of 1,200 per annum, but is that figure going up or down? It is essential to know these figures. Surely the local stops can simply be fed into a spreadsheet that adds up the total number of examinations. This is not rocket science, so I am surprised that it is not done. We certainly share the worries expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, about the fingerprints of innocent people being retained. When those fingerprints are taken and retained, what conventions now govern sending them off to other countries, for example? What agreements do we have to do that, or is it never done? If it is done, in what circumstances is it done? Overall, we welcome the updating of the code; it is certainly a move in the right direction. However, in order to have a really good idea of how it is operating, some of these basic questions about numbers need to be answered, as do the more ephemeral ones about the role of intuition.