My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the SIs and for the statement he made. As he said, we have three statutory instruments before us: two relate to the National Security Act 2023, and one relates to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. We fully support these instruments and the consequences they will have on the threats posed by hostile activities and for the national security of our country. I join the Minister in thanking our intelligence services and those who work so hard to keep us safe.

As always, there are many questions that can be asked of the detail. Oversight of the new legislation is vital to ensure the various safeguards and protections outlined in the code are fully respected. Of course, this requires a careful balance, with the need for those using these powers to properly protect us from potential and real threats. To that end, can the Minister update us on the appointment of the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, as laid out in Paragraph 14.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 (Port Examination Code of Practice) Regulations 2023? I can find the advert for that post, but I cannot find whether there has been any appointment. Can he update us on where that has got to? I note that the job advert came to an end a few weeks ago, if I have read it correctly. Can he outline the interaction between the new reviewer, as proposed by the National Security Act and outlined in these regulations, and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation? Indeed, as the memorandum lays out, there is a close connection between those two, and it would be helpful if the Minister has anything to say about the interaction between them.

If someone is to be examined under Schedule 3, there is, first of all, as I understand it, a maximum detention of one hour, which can be extended to six hours. Can the Minister explain when the hour actually starts? Does it start from the moment that an examining officer stops someone, or is there a process at which this hour starts? You can see the point I am making, because if it does not start until a couple of hours after they have stopped someone, that is three hours. The further period can be up to six hours. Is this another six, is it five plus one to make six, or is it six plus one to make seven? Again, these are the sorts of things that are quite important for us to know. That detail is important.

An examining officer does not need suspicion to select someone for questioning. Just so I am clear, I support and understand that. Again, as explained in the Explanatory Memorandum, will the Minister agree with me that training therefore becomes vital in ensuring that protected characteristics are not inappropriately used to influence the choice that is made? That is a point that is made in the detail that has come with the Bill, but it is a really important one for the Minister to put on the record. Can he assure us that proper account will be taken of the needs of children, whether as persons being questioned or being connected to someone who is being questioned? Again, this is a question of detail which is quite important.

An examining officer questioning someone is not required to be in uniform to conduct these processes, even in the situation of a search where reasonable force can be used. How do we ensure that a non-uniformed officer can be identified, should an individual wish to do so, for example, if a complaint were to be made? There is reference in there to the requirement for the ID number to be given if an examining officer is not in uniform, but how is that actually going to be made known to somebody who is being examined, and how will we ensure that this process is properly undertaken? Will the Minister also say something about the need, as you can imagine, for people with language skills to be available to explain these various rights and the importance of that?

The Minister will know that what I have just said about identification of officers is extremely important, because the code of conduct allows strip-searching, including the strip-searching of children. Again, one understands the need for these requirements, but the oversight of them becomes particularly important.

There are many other pieces of clarity needed, but the final piece of clarity in reading this was to do with legal representation and the ability to inform others of what is happening. I appreciate the difficulty of this in a practical environment, but fair process is crucial, even as we seek to ensure national security.

We agree with the video recording of interviews undertaken under Schedule 3 and about the voice being recorded. The video recording of those interviews will help the examining officer and the person being examined. The various protections, however important, have been carefully written but will require proper monitoring, so the appointment of the new state threats legislation reviewer is extremely important, as paragraph 14.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the National Security Act 2023 (Video Recording with Sound of Interviews and Associated Code of Practice) Regulations 2023 makes clear. I will quote from that, as it is extremely important:

“Part 3 of the NS Act creates the role of the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation (IRSTL). The IRSTL will assess the operation of UK state threats legislation including its fairness, effectiveness and proportionality. As part of this, the IRSTL will consider the exercise of powers including the arrest and detention powers within the NS Act and the related guidance. The reviewer will report their findings and recommendations to Parliament in order to inform parliamentary and public debate on state threats law and civil liberties”.

The Minister will understand why the appointment of that reviewer becomes particularly important, to enable Parliament to have oversight of the operation of this legislation.

We support these SIs, but some clarity would be helpful, if the Minister can respond to those questions as fully as he can.