Conduct of Undercover Policing and Surveillance Operatives Bill [HL]

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

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.