#
My Lords, our reaction to rape, to violence against women and girls, to coercive control and to grooming has intensified over recent years, along with greater understanding of what it means to be a target, and the protection of human rights is always topical. This includes the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. All these are what underlie the Bill. It has been known for some time that some undercover police officers entered into intimate sexual relationships with women members of organisations they had infiltrated. It is still not known how many women were deceived into long-term relationships with “boyfriends” who had assumed false names. It seems that there were upwards of 68. In some cases, children were born.
The Bill looks to the future, aiming to learn from the past. These women were activists, not terrorists. They went on protests and they were involved in planning protests. I do not suggest that the activities were insignificant, although I think some were fairly minor. Nor am I arguing that there is no place for undercover surveillance: that is not a matter for today. It would need a psychologist properly to describe the life-changing impact on the women targeted. They were in apparently close, forever relationships, only for their partners suddenly completely to disappear. That caused such anxiety, as it would. You would be distraught. They made huge, extraordinary efforts to find them. Disturbing information started to come to light: true identities, wives and children, and assumed names taken from dead children. It is not difficult to understand why such an experience means it is so hard—for some people, impossible—ever to trust again, including trusting themselves.
In 2015, the then Prime Minister Theresa May—the noble Baroness, Lady May—established an inquiry which, in its 11 years so far, has identified 30 officers who used this technique, although the total is not known. The inquiry has brought together many of those targeted. They found one another and found that their experiences were so similar, as they would be. The spy cops had managers, even regarding them as mentors: a whole structure behind them. Their seniors did not turn a blind eye. On the contrary, there was a so-called “tradecraft manual” in use, so no wonder their stories echo one another.
This is not a matter of a few bad apples, or even a barrel-load. Intimacy, the very closest, has been an instrument of surveillance by the state, not a risk at the margins which could be managed by better safeguards. The women targeted cannot have been seen as human beings capable of being injured. Indeed, some of the officers have blamed the women—something we hear about with regard to domestic violence.
The very system regarded as acceptable is and was simply wrong. The state has recognised this. Apologies have been made and damages paid. In 2015, the Met accepted that the relationships were
“deceitful, manipulative and wrong … a violation of … human rights”.
In 2021, a tribunal said that
“we are driven to the conclusion that either senior officers were quite extraordinarily naïve, totally unquestioning, or chose to turn a blind eye to conduct which was, certainly in the case of”—
a particular officer—
“useful to the operation”.
There was a finding of a violation of human rights and discrimination.
The Bill makes such conduct an offence. It uses the term CHIS, covert human intelligence source, which is defined for the purposes of the Bill. I accept that there are arguments for and against using a term already in use in other legislation. However, an intimate sexual relationship cannot be “organised”, as what would otherwise be law-breaking surveillance can be under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The penalty is the same as that for rape. It is a distinct offence in order to avoid the issue of whether the conduct is rape under existing legislation. Inciting or
“intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence”,
to cover the role of managers handling undercover operatives, is itself an offence. There is provision for a defendant who is in the intelligence services to apply for an anonymity order in proceedings, as I am aware of the issue of identifying intelligence officers. A duty of candour and assistance is included, although that may be overtaken by the Hillsborough Bill, or Act as it will be. Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent under the Sexual Offences Act is not affected: this Bill applies in the narrow situation of undercover surveillance.
Often, when we are passing legislation, noble Lords suggest guidance as a means of addressing a tricky issue. There is guidance. The College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice, published in 2021, says:
“It is never acceptable for a UCO”—
undercover officer—
“to have an intimate sexual relationship with those they are deployed to infiltrate and target or encounter during their deployment. Having an intimate sexual relationship must not be used as a tactic by a UCO”.
So far, so good. But there is a “but”. It continues:
“If a UCO engages in an intimate sexual relationship (for example, they perceive an immediate threat to themselves and/or others if they were not to do so) this activity will be restricted to the minimum conduct necessary to mitigate the threat”.
It goes on to provide procedures to be followed. So, the authorised professional practice is not an absolute bar. I wondered what situation this might be addressed to: a female UCO, perhaps, or a UCO being forced at knifepoint to take part in a gang rape. But would there not be a defence to the charge, namely self-defence?
I am conscious that I have not mentioned the people who seem to have been regarded as collateral damage: the wives and families of the UCOs, and the parents of the dead children whose names were assumed. I am afraid that my Bill is too narrow for that; actually, I feel a bit bad about that.
I am sure that the Minister will tell the House that the Government must await the outcome of the Undercover Policing Inquiry before addressing the situation, and I know that they have announced a consultation on the future of the inquiry. I do not accept that we need the outcome to know that this conduct is wrong. It must be outlawed. Otherwise, the apologies that have been made will seem pretty hollow and the future could hold further distress and damage, and then more apologies. No woman should experience this form of abuse again. These are means which cannot justify the end. I had never thought to use this term, but this was state-sponsored abuse. I beg to move.
#
My Lords, I strongly support the Bill, and I do see it as a Bill dealing with state-sanctioned abuse. The Bill directly responds to the abusive nature of these sexual relationships which were built on deception. The deception that is involved negates a person’s ability to exercise autonomous choice about who they are having sex with, not merely what act they are consenting to, and can be morally equivalent to non-consent. Applied here, the woman cannot be considered to be in a position of consenting to sex with the actual person—the serving police officer or a member of our secret services—because that identity is concealed as a matter of operational necessity. That cannot be a rationale.
Over the years, I have seen and met a number of women directly affected by this. There is no doubt as to the nature of the pain and the emotional and psychological harm that it has done to them: one day, suddenly, this person disappears, and it transpires that they had another wife and children elsewhere. I have met one of the women who had a child by the man, who was using her to access an environmental group. The deception perpetrated by undercover police violated her right—and the other women’s rights—to sexual autonomy and resulted in severe emotional and psychological harm to many of them. They are having to have psychological help for post-traumatic stress disorder. The women say:
“Our ‘consent’ to sexual activity with those men was fraudulently obtained. They knew that we would never have consented to sex with them had we known who they really were. Their deception removed our ability to meaningfully consent—our freedom to make decisions based on our own priorities and values”.
I am sure that the response of the Government will be that we should await the outcome of the inquiry, which is currently taking place and is due to carry on right through the summer. I suspect that it will suggest all manner of protocols that already exist about what is proper behaviour for those who are running informants or who are involved in information-gathering activities. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the Bill should not need to await that outcome.
This is absolutely reprehensible behaviour. It was accepted by senior officers on a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” basis. They knew that the officers were involved in relationships, but they did not know what to ask about the nature of those relationships and they chose not to ask. That, in itself, shows a lack of candour. We have been talking recently about the Hillsborough changes and the need for candour in public services and from all those who might be involved in processes of justice. I strongly urge the House to go forward with the Bill, and I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing it to our attention, because this remains a scar on the lives of many of those women—over 50 women that we know of—and a scar on our system.