The Government say that amendments such as these are not necessary, because of the complex legal web of proportionality and the Human Rights Act. That argument might carry more weight if the Government were not constantly fighting a culture war against human rights lawyers. However, one does not need to be a human rights lawyer to understand that rape, murder and torture are never justified, so these restrictions have to be in the Bill.

My Lords, the amendments in this group pose the important question of when and why the Government should allow people to commit a crime and grant them full legal immunity for it. The Government need to justify granting such a broad legal immunity. They are calling it wrong. I understand why they are doing this: there is a court case at the moment that will influence the outcome of this particular manoeuvre, and there is the inquiry, which I hope will have some tough recommendations when it comes to an end. Personally, I would rather that the granting of immunity was restricted to serious crimes only, as set out in the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Paddick, because that would strike a more reasonable balance between the risks inherent in this criminal authorisation and the types of crime it is being used to fight. When you look at past mistakes, you have to ask, what was the crime the Lawrence family was suspected of committing or being about to commit? What was the point of that? Can that happen again? 

Yes, of course it can, and it can happen to innocent people. We need to be aware of that when we pass the Bill, as we no doubt will.

Then there is the issue of preventing disorder, which my Amendment 24 seeks to address. This is something I care about a lot, because I go on a lot of demonstrations, protests and campaigns. I am out there, on the streets, and you could argue that I am creating disorder. When I was arrested a few years ago – the only time I ever have been – you could argue that I was creating disorder. What I was actually doing was trying to get between the police and the protestors. I was saying things like, “Could we all calm down?” That is what I said when the senior police officer lost his temper and said, “Nick ’em all.” I feel that preventing disorder is an honourable thing to do, so we should think carefully about what disorder is. It is the Government’s duty to make sure that that is clear. “Preventing disorder” is far too broad a category for authorising criminal conduct.

If the disorder is so bad as to be criminal, it will already be captured in the prevention or detection of crime, but if it is not criminal, we are moving into the territory of peaceful protest and other legitimate gatherings. What is the justification for the state authorising people to commit criminal offences and giving full legal immunity in these cases?

Based on 2019 figures, at the moment in the UK there are more than 500 people who can authorise this sort of immunity for criminal conduct: 312 chief superintendents and 212 chief officers of other ranks. With 500 or so people who can authorise a crime and give immunity, you have to ask yourself: how many mistakes will those people make? And they will; they are going to make mistakes. I see some considerable scope for error in that. I really do not think that the words “preventing disorder” should be in the Bill. If the disorder is a crime then people can be arrested for it; if it is not, why on earth would we let someone else commit a crime to stop something that is not a crime? Perhaps the Minister can explain that to me.

My Lords, my name is down to speak on this group of amendments by mistake, but I will take the opportunity to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to point out to the Minister that part of the reason we keep arguing back when she gives us information is that her text rewrites history.

Many of us were there 20 years ago when, to give just one example, we challenged the police about police officers sleeping with—almost exclusively—women to infiltrate campaign groups. I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority for 12 years and challenged successive Met commissioners to say to us that that was not lawful and not something that police officers were encouraged to do. They could not do it because all the police who have leaked and whistleblown about doing that sort of thing have said that they were encouraged to do it. It was implicitly and explicitly seen as one of the perks of the job.

So, if we do not listen, it is not because we do not have a lot of respect for the Minister; it is that we know that what she says is rewriting history. It is not true that police officers were told that it was not lawful to sleep with women on campaigns. I cannot emphasise that enough. I challenged the noble Lords, Lord Stevens, Lord Blair and Lord Hogan-Howe, and Commissioner Stephenson on this very issue and none of them could reply. I hate to attack civil servants but the Minister is getting a rewriting of history from them. That is why we argue back: because we know that it is just not true.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, gave a very graceful explanation of his previous intervention. Perhaps I should do the same and at the same time apologise to civil servants. If we accept what the Minister has said —that such actions as sleeping with campaigners to infiltrate those campaigns was illegal then and is illegal now—that still means that four Met commissioners sat in front of the body holding them to account and refused to commit to that. What does that say about our senior officers? We always have to bear this in mind, and I have been involved in this struggle for the past 20 years.

It was possibly 15 or 16 years ago that some members of my family were at a festival and they said, “We think there’s some police spies among us.” I laughed at them and said, “I look at the Met police budget on a monthly basis – I know there’s no money for that sort of nonsense.” But you know what? There was. Somehow, while they were closing police stations and getting rid of sergeants, they still found time for the police spies, and that is outrageous. For us, there is a depth and colour to this legislation that I feel is lacking for others who have not experienced the other side of this police behaviour.

The amendments offer special categories—for example, political, trade union and of course blacklisting, which was a horrendous thing to have happened. I am not so sure that it is not still happening. I have tabled Amendment 82, which asks the Government to hold off on this Bill until the “spy cops” police inquiry is over. I realise that that is a bit too hard-line and will not happen, but my point is that it is a bit daft to bring this in when we do not have the experience of that inquiry to draw on. In many ways this is quite heavy-handed. I hear, “Well, all the bad stuff happened in the past and it couldn’t possibly happen again.” I am afraid that my experience suggests otherwise. It would be useful to know by what formula the Government are going to respond to the undercover policing inquiry, because many of us have been following that for decades.

I turn to the other amendments. The trade union blacklisting was an appalling practice. Men – mostly men – lost their livelihoods, their houses and sometimes their families when they were banned from working because the police were passing information around. Is that not happening any more? I would really like to know. I think it probably is. It has to be illegal and the people involved should be prosecuted; there is no doubt about that.

Then there is the excellent Amendment 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Clark of Kilwinning, who made a very good speech. I wish I had that sort of calm manner in your Lordships’ Chamber. There are times when I think to myself, “What on earth am I doing here?”, and I am sure there are lots of other people who think the same. The fact is that I am here because I care. I do not have to do this; I could go back to Dorset and look after my leeks – actually, they are my partners’ leeks; raspberries are what I do – and think about the garden. This Bill gets to the heart of what I care about in politics, which is justice, fairness and delivering on a society where people can express themselves without being closed down by other forces.

I shall go back to my speech, if I can find my place. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 29 refers to “legitimate political activity”, and there is lots of that. This is legitimate political activity, however heated it gets. For example, there is the question of economic well-being. I do not want a police officer to decide if my Green Party view of economic well-being is against the interests of society. I think the Conservative Party’s view of economic well-being is extremely damaging not just for us but for our whole planet. It is going to affect us very deeply as a country for decades to come, but I still do not want police going around committing crimes because of that.

I feel that there are issues here that we will have to come back to on Report. I had intended to sign Amendment 29, and I will do so if it can be brought back on Report.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whose amendment I have signed. It is a very important amendment about putting limits on what can be authorised, excluding rape, torture and murder. Quite honestly, it is astonishing that this even has to be debated; we really ought to be free of that sort of threat to ordinary people, quite often.

The Government say that amendments such as these are not necessary, because of the complex legal web of proportionality and the Human Rights Act. That argument might carry more weight if the Government were not constantly fighting a culture war against human rights lawyers. However, one does not need to be a human rights lawyer to understand that rape, murder and torture are never justified, so these restrictions have to be in the Bill.

Then there is the Government’s circular argument that we must not ban specific crimes from being authorised, because undercover agents would be tested by the criminals to prove themselves by doing prohibited acts. The circularity of that argument is that if the Human Rights Act already prohibits something, they can already be tested. I would like that cleared up if possible.

Finally, we have to think about the victims of these crimes – the survivors. Women have been raped by undercover police officers, and the Bill would prevent future victims getting any compensation or legal redress for those crimes.

I have also signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I support all the amendments, but especially those by the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Massey of Darwen, which are superb. I hope we will come back to this on Report. There is the extra element of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on not authorising children to be undercover agents. We will revisit that later this evening; I will say more about it then.