Asked by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb To ask Her Majesty’s
Government what communications they have had, over the last 30
years, with police forces regarding the tactic of undercover police
officers forming sexual relationships to develop their cover
stories. The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of
Trafford) (Con) My Lords, as...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what communications they
have had, over the last 30 years, with police forces
regarding the tactic of undercover police officers forming
sexual relationships to develop their cover stories.
-
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of
Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as part of its terms of reference the undercover
policing inquiry is investigating the state of awareness of
undercover police operations of Her Majesty’s Government
since 1968. The Home Office is a core participant in that
inquiry and is in the process of making disclosure to the
inquiry of material relevant to the terms of reference. The
inquiry will report its findings once all the evidence has
been reviewed.
-
(GP)
I thank the noble Baroness for her response, which of
course was not an answer to my Question. Is she aware that,
over a period of 24 years from 1985 to 2009, almost every
single year there was a state-sponsored sexual relationship
between a police officer and a woman who at no point was
accused of doing anything illegal—not arrested, not
accused? I just do not understand how the Minister can
think that this is all right. This strikes at the heart of
the ethics and integrity of our police forces and our
security services. I stress that the cases we know about
are only the ones we have heard about: those are the only
police names in the public realm. Until we know all the
names of the undercover police we will not know how many
victims there were. I am also concerned about the inquiry.
The Minister may know that there was a walkout today by the
whole legal team of the women involved and the women
themselves. How will the Government restore the credibility
of that inquiry?
-
The noble Baroness says “state-sponsored”. I refer her to
the terms of reference of the inquiry, which state that it
will,
“ascertain the state of awareness of undercover police
operations in Her Majesty’s Government”.
That is precisely what the inquiry was set up to do. As for
the walkout today, I have been made aware of that and I am
aware that the hearings are still ongoing. I encourage all
core participants—indeed, anyone impacted by undercover
policing—to participate fully in the inquiry so that we can
learn the lessons and get to the truth.
-
(Lab
Co-op)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is a very
serious matter? Notwithstanding anything that comes out of
the inquiry and the recommendations that follow, can she
confirm that she is absolutely confident that robust
procedures are now in place and that it can never happen
again?
-
My Lords, I would love to stand at the Dispatch Box and say
that certain things could never happen again, but nobody
can legislate for the odd rogue undertaking or the
malicious intent of people. Therefore, one cannot be
absolutely certain that it could never happen again. What
one can do is put measures in place to ensure, as far as
possible, that it never happens again.
-
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that undercover policing
is an essential tool in the fight against terrorism and
crime and that, provided it is properly regulated and
standards are adhered to, we should not judge the majority
of very brave police officers who go undercover by the
misdeeds of a few?
-
I completely concur with the noble Lord. He is absolutely
right; much crime has been unearthed by the use of
undercover policing. As I say, there are now strict rules
in place to prevent unacceptable behaviour going on and I
could not agree more with him.
-
(LD)
My Lords, we know that this inquiry has already taken three
years, and it is expected that it will take another year
before the victims get answers—campaigners walking out in
protest today notwithstanding. We also know that the
Special Demonstration Squad has been disbanded. But it
would be naive to think that all embedded undercover work
has ceased. What assurances can the Minister give that the
culture, practice, instructions to and supervision of
undercover officers have already changed to ensure that, as
far as is humanly possible, no man or woman will ever be
subjected to these practices again?
-
The noble Baroness makes a very helpful point, because the
policing Code of Ethics makes it clear that police officers
should not use their professional position to,
“establish or pursue an improper sexual or emotional
relationship with a person with whom you come into contact
in the course of your work”.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides
the legal framework for the lawful deployment of undercover
officers as covert human intelligence sources. We also have
the 2014 CHIS codes of practice.
In relation to the length of time that the inquiry has
taken, the slight extension to that is purely due to the
sheer number of pieces of information it has to look at.
-
(Con)
My Lords, I understand that the walkout from the inquiry
was because of a sense that it was important that the
individual police officers were identified by name. Will
the Minister confirm that, by definition, undercover police
officers have a cover name, and that, whatever the
importance of getting to the bottom of what went on in this
inquiry, it is important that they retain anonymity,
because that is a pre-eminent part of what they do?
-
My noble friend is absolutely right—of course, it protects
the safety of those people as well.
-
(Lab)
Will the Minister also confirm that this is not just a
matter of rules and regulations? If it went on for so long,
there must have been a serious management failure, because
the relationship between a senior officer and the person
doing the job is crucial in terms of keeping a check on
their behaviour. That seems to me—as an outsider—not to
have happened, and it is what we ought to focus on.
-
I would not like to speak for the chair of the inquiry, but
I am sure that some of the institutional failures that
happened way back in the day will be looked at.
-
(LD)
My Lords, in the walkout today, the leading QC representing
the victims said that it was due to the legal teams not being
able to participate in a meaningful way. How have we got to a
position where this has been going on for three years and
cost £9 million but senior QCs feel they cannot participate
in a meaningful way?
-
My Lords, the people who walked out will have their reasons
for walking out, but I know that the Home Secretary has full
confidence in the chairman to carry out the inquiry in a way
that gets to the truth of what happened.
|