Conduct of Undercover Policing and Surveillance Operatives Bill [HL]

Lord Paddick Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as a non-executive director of the Metropolitan Police, but at no time during my service as a police officer did I have responsibility for undercover officers and I have no professional expertise in this area.

I congratulate my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on her Private Member’s Bill. I absolutely agree in principle, as other speakers have, with what she is trying to achieve: undercover officers should be prohibited from engaging in intimate sexual relationships with those who they are deployed to infiltrate and target, or encounter during their deployment, and that such activity should be unlawful and subject to criminal prosecution and sanction if it does occur. I believe that Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act is too broad, as suggested in the Bill, as prohibition should be limited to physical intimate sexual activity; non-physical intimacy may be necessary and proportionate.

Rather than the Bill as drafted, under Section 29B(10) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Secretary of State may, by order,

“prohibit the authorisation … of any such conduct as may be described in the order”.

I believe that the Home Secretary should prohibit the authorisation of intimate physical sexual activity between an undercover officer and those he is deployed against, or encounters in the course of such deployment. I am told that authorising officers would never, nowadays, pre-authorise such activity, but this change would also prohibit retrospective authorisation. This would not require primary legislation. I believe that it should also be enshrined in primary legislation that those deceived as to the identity of the person they had engaged in physical intimate sexual activity with cannot be said to have given informed consent to such activity, whether the person is an undercover officer or not, to address the points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has just made.

Taken together, these two changes would mean that an undercover officer who deceived someone as to their true identity could be found guilty of indecent assault or rape, for example, and, if found guilty, could be subject to the relevant penalty for that offence. The police may say that this could put undercover officers in danger—for example, knowing the law had changed, those targeted could test a suspected undercover officer by forcing them to have sex. However, undercover officers are now closely monitored, often in real time, and their handlers should be able to withdraw the officer before the situation gets to the stage where physical intimate sexual activity takes place. Undercover officers are regularly supervised, to ensure that they are not being drawn into inappropriate relationships. I believe that the greatest threat to women from police officers no longer lies with undercover officers, who are now among the most closely supervised and monitored of all police officers.

However, if an officer does end up engaging in such sexual activity—for example, because his life or the lives of others would otherwise be endangered—a statutory defence should be available to an undercover officer charged with an offence to prove that life was in danger if he had not engaged in such activity. It would then be a matter for a jury to decide. Instances of undercover officers engaging in such activity today should be exceptionally rare, but, if they do happen, officers should be prepared to defend themselves in the criminal courts. That is the four-minute summary. A full version is available on request.