Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

11:00

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Order was laid before the House on 14 September 2026 and provides for the continuation of the Secretary of State’s powers under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, also known as the TPIM powers. The continuation is for a further five years.

I think all noble Lords accept that it is the first duty of government to protect the public, and central to that mission is to counter the threat we face from terrorism—a threat which, sadly, is enduring and evolving. In response, there is a range of tools, including the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, which I well recall, having dealt with it at the time as shadow Minister for these issues.

The measures ensure that, where prosecution or deportation is not possible, the Secretary of State can impose specified restrictions and requirements on an individual involved in terrorism-related activity, to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. Section 21 of the Act states that the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers will expire at the end of five years from the date the Act was passed. The orders were renewed twice, in 2016 and 2021, and these powers are due to expire at the end of 13 December 2026. As TPIMs remain an important part of the UK’s counter-terrorism toolkit, we seek to renew them today. This position is supported by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director-general of the Security Service.

As noble Lords will know, the Secretary of State can impose a TPIM notice on an individual if the conditions set out in Section 3 of the Act are assessed by the Secretary of State to have been met. These conditions include that the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity, and reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to impose such measures on the individual. In addition, the Secretary of State has powers to extend and vary a TPIM notice that is in force, and to revive a TPIM notice that has been revoked.

It may help noble Lords to know that, since the introduction of the Act in 2011, 33 TPIMs have been imposed. As of the last published set of figures, from June to August 2026, there are four TPIMs currently in force.

These are undoubtedly restrictive measures, which is why it is right that they are used sparingly and only in exceptional cases involving individuals assessed to present the highest levels of terrorism-related risk, where prosecution, deportation or other disruptive measures would be insufficient to protect the public.

There are, however, stringent safeguards. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that all conditions are met and apply to the court for permission to impose the TPIM notice, except in cases of urgency. A TPIM notice is subject to a review hearing at which the court reviews the Secretary of State’s decisions and the conditions were and continue to be met. The Act also provides a right of appeal in relation to specified decisions taken after its imposition.

Having consulted as required by the Act, the Home Secretary has decided to make this statutory instrument to provide for the continuation of TPIM powers for a further five years, the maximum period allowable in the legislation. We take this step because, sadly, we still face significant terrorist threats, and it is necessary to continue upholding the first duty of government: securing the nation and keeping our citizens safe.

The House of Commons has considered this order, and I hope that noble Lords will also support it today. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the Official Opposition support this order. The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 gives the Home Secretary powers that are needed in the small number of cases where the threat is real, but prosecution is not possible. Without this order, those powers would lapse on 13 December this year. Continuing them until December 2031 is the responsible course of action and we will certainly not stand in the way of this.

However, I have a few questions for the Minister. First, he stated that four TPIM notices are currently in force. How has that figure changed since the last renewal of the powers in 2021? I appreciate he may not have those figures to hand. More broadly, is the Minister satisfied that the powers are being used in proportion to the threat rather than falling into disuse?

Secondly, what is the Government’s assessment of compliance and breaches? For instance, how often are TPIM subjects found to have absconded or breached their conditions? Does he believe that the police and security services are properly resourced to monitor them?

With those questions, I reiterate the support of the Official Opposition for this order.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his broad support for TPIMs. They were introduced when the noble Baroness, Lady May, was Home Secretary; I shadowed her at that time, and we had some concerns, some of which were around the issues the noble Lord has mentioned. Absconds and breaches are important issues.

I can give the noble Lord some figures. Since 2017, 16 TPM subjects have been prosecuted, with breaching measures imposed on them, and 12 pleaded guilty. To date, three have been found guilty by a jury. Judges have imposed custodial sentences on individuals who have breached the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which I hope demonstrates to the noble Lord and the Committee the seriousness with which courts take these breaches.

On conclusion of any custodial sentence, the Home Secretary has the power to revive the existing TPIM if it provides a necessary and proportionate response to any threat that the individual may still pose. It is important that I put on record that the breach of a terrorism prevention order is a criminal offence. Every suspected breach is treated seriously and investigated, and we will always work with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to support prosecutions accordingly.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that we currently have four individuals on TPIMs. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured that we provide a quarterly update on the TPIMs figures, and we have had 33 since their instigation. Off the top of my head, I do not have the quarterly figures for before the latest quarter, but there are four existing TPIMs. We will give an update every quarter on the numbers to date.

The Secretary of State takes these powers very seriously. The number one priority is to ensure that a TPIM is proportionate. When the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary in this case—signs off that TPIM, they must have a full submission and a full examination of it, and they will challenge it to ensure it is required and necessary. The appellant can appeal in court against that TPIM, and therefore a robust case is always made. A breach or indeed an abscond is a serious matter, and TPIMs provide significant levels of control over a range of movements and locations. As the noble Lord will know, on a number of occasions we remove people to new locations, so they are broken away from other influences.

I say to the noble Lord that we can rest assured. When I was in his position as a shadow Minister in the House of Commons, I asked about and was concerned about absconds and breaches. Now, as a Minister in government working alongside the Home Secretary, I am confident that we have a regime that is minimising those breaches. As I said to him in relation to the figures, if breaches or absconds occur, we take them extremely seriously, and these cases will potentially result in a custodial sentence. With those remarks, I hope I have assured the Committee that the order is worthy of general support.

Motion agreed.