---

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

I thank those who have contributed to the debate. The powers that the code supports are significant but the points that have been discussed demonstrate just how important it is that we provide adequate advice to those who carry out this vital role. We have gone a lot further with what we have done now than was the case beforehand. The revised guidance seeks to reflect not only the changes to the terrorist threat since the original code was introduced in 2001 but all the feedback that I talked about that we have received during the consultation process. I shall reply to some of the many questions that I have been asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, asked about the nine hours. This was set out in the Terrorism Act 2000. It was regarded at that time as acceptable to both Houses and was felt to be an appropriate period. I think that it was slightly subjective. After nine hours the examining officer must decide what action to take—either to allow the person to pass through to immigration controls or to take other action as appropriate. The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Jones and Lady Miller, touched on the briefing of officers. Counterterrorism officers are all trained on a specialist training course. This was raised during the BCI Bill and I absolutely accept the fact that training is very important. They are trained on a specialist training course accredited by the National Police Improvement Agency. In addition, officers are not only linked directly to the security services, but there is a national facility to co-ordinate the dissemination of intelligence to ports officers. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, is absolutely right: historically, the linkage—how joined up this has been—has not been that clever. I think that we are getting better at it now, but certainly I remember visiting Gatwick 18 months ago and being slightly shocked by how poor the linkage was. We put in hand various things to make sure that linkage is there so that officers have the data that they require to give them the information to conduct investigations and to see where they should be focusing, so that their investigations are primarily intelligence-based on a whole raft of issues that feed into that intelligence. The police examining officers are generally from the Special Branch, and their main focus is counterterrorism, so they are immersed in this intelligence area. They are always dealing with security and intelligence agencies and, as I say, I think that we have dramatically improved the sharing of information. However, we always have to be extremely careful with this because, as we have debated a number of times on the Floor of the House, when one has these sorts of data, how they are passed backwards and forwards and who has access to them is extremely important. It is extremely dangerous not to handle them very carefully indeed. We have put in hand safety measures to ensure that they are looked after properly and cannot be accessed by the people whom we would not wish to access them. Both noble Baronesses touched on fingerprints. Fingerprints can be taken only by a constable, either with the consent of that person in writing or with the authority of a superintendent at the police station, for the purpose of determining whether the person is, or has been, involved in terrorism or to facilitate ascertaining whether the person’s identity is as they say. The fingerprints may be retained and used only for terrorism investigation, the prevention or detection of a crime, investigation or prosecution. I think that, post the Marper case, the retention period will probably be about 12 years for samples taken from the person detained under Schedule 7. Examining officers are able to conduct searches under the code. At present, this is undertaken only by police examining officers. However, an examining officer can empower another person to conduct the search on his behalf. I am not sure exactly what the criteria are that that person has to fulfil; I shall get back in writing on that. I am assuming that we are talking about those other two types of officer, but it might be broader and I shall get back on that point. If I have not covered all the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, I hope that she will get back to me, as I shall get back in writing on the others. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on the difficult balance to be struck in both applying these powers to defend our borders and treating individuals fairly. It is a difficult issue, as I know from my travels around the UK. I was in Edinburgh recently, where a number of Sikhs feel that they are being targeted unfairly. I am sure that the noble Baroness has come across a number of cases, too. After talking with various groups, we have tried hard to ensure in the guidance that officers have to use the broad range of information available. On the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, I go back to the point that these are counterterrorism officers, who are looped in on the intelligence side. They normally do these things on an intelligence basis. She mentioned the sources, origins and travel patterns of terrorist groups. We talk about intuition, but the distance between intelligence and intuition is sometimes not that great, as officers are so immersed in this area. However, the work is intelligence-based and evidence-based. The new code of practice— Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.