Lords Press Ahead on Rights Bills Despite Ministerial Doubts
High-Level Summary
The House of Lords held Second Reading debates on four Private Members’ Bills covering undercover policing, genocide determinations, cohabitation rights and the rights of boat dwellers. Peers agreed that all four Bills should proceed to Committee, while Ministers set out significant reservations and pointed to ongoing inquiries or consultations. On undercover policing, the Government warned of operational risks and drafting flaws; on genocide determinations, Ministers reaffirmed that such findings are for “competent” courts. The Government confirmed a consultation-led, needs‑based approach to cohabitation reform and questioned the statutory fit of proposals on boat dwellers, particularly around enforcement and tenure.
Detailed Summary
Conduct of Undercover Policing and Surveillance Operatives Bill [HL] – Second Reading
Baroness Hamwee introduced a Bill to make it an offence for covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) to engage in intimate sexual relationships with those they target, with penalties aligned to rape and ancillary offences for handlers, plus candour and anonymity provisions (including for intelligence personnel). She cited historic abuses and official findings, including the Metropolitan Police’s admission that relationships were “deceitful, manipulative and wrong … a violation of … human rights”, and a tribunal’s view that some senior officers “chose to turn a blind eye”. She contrasted College of Policing guidance—“It is never acceptable for a UCO … to have an intimate sexual relationship”—with a caveat permitting minimal conduct to mitigate an immediate threat. Supporters urged action without waiting for the inquiry; Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said, “There is no excuse for engaging in sexual relations”. Lord Garnier referenced Monica’s case (R v DPP), noting that deception as to identity did not vitiate consent and that if the law is to be changed, it should be done by Parliament. Baroness Manningham‑Buller criticised the drafting, calling the Bill’s use of CHIS “deeply confusing” and saying, “You cannot just say that, from now on, an elephant is a giraffe”. For the Government, Lord Katz warned the Bill could undermine vital undercover and online operations, citing a case where a paedophile was convicted after engaging with undercover officers, and said it was “likely that the Government will seek to block it when it reaches the other place”. The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Genocide Determination Bill [HL] – Second Reading
Lord Alton’s Bill would allow UK courts to make preliminary determinations of genocide or serious risk, triggering referrals and the UK’s duties under the Genocide Convention. He called genocide the “apex crime” and argued that duties to predict, prevent, protect and punish “are not worth the paper on which they are written”. Supporters highlighted the gap between policy and practice; Baroness Sugg said, “We have a policy that says, ‘Leave it to the courts’, but no legal pathway for our courts to act”, while Baroness Helic said the Bill “gives practical effect to the Government’s long‑standing position” by creating “timely judicial mechanisms”. Sceptics warned against judicialising foreign policy and creating evidential or constitutional problems. Lord Wolfson argued that “Ministers govern” and courts should not make findings with “immediate and profound diplomatic consequences”, cautioning that the Bill would create “a roving international jurisdiction”. The Government reaffirmed that genocide determinations are for a “competent national or international court”, describing a UK preliminary determination as a “novel concept … [with] no settled or solid basis in international law”. Ministers also reiterated support for the ICC—“we very firmly support the ICC”—and outlined actions on Yazidis, Sudan and Gaza export licences. The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Cohabitation Rights Bill [HL] – Second Reading
Lord Marks proposed a scheme—complementing a Government consultation—to provide financial relief and intestacy reforms for separating cohabitants after three years’ cohabitation or where there is a child, with opt‑outs and a two‑year claim window. He stressed it would not equate cohabitation with marriage, aiming instead to remedy unfairness via concepts such as “retained benefit” and “economic disadvantage”. Baroness Butler‑Sloss, citing women in religious‑only marriages, concluded that “regulation is needed”, while Baroness Deech called the Bill “illiberal, intrusive and a bedroom tax—‘share your bedroom and you will pay for it for evermore’”. For the Government, Baroness Levitt confirmed a manifesto commitment to strengthen protections—“we committed in our 2024 manifesto to strengthening the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples”—and outlined related weddings reform, proposing a move to an officiant‑based system. She said the Government “prefer a needs‑based approach to cohabitation reform” rather than compensation and will legislate following consultation. The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Rights of Boat Dwellers Bill [HL] – Second Reading
Baroness Bakewell’s Bill seeks to recognise boats as lawful homes, improve access to public services and provide security of tenure for boat dwellers with and without permanent moorings. She highlighted barriers including enforced movement, lack of addresses and difficulties accessing healthcare and education, noting a ministerial statement that “Those with children who choose to live on a boat without a permanent mooring are responsible for ensuring they have access to education”, and describing problems with temporary GP registration disrupting continuity of care. Supporters argued that the housing crisis makes action urgent; Lord Cashman recalled being told reform was “too difficult to address”. The Government recognised waterways as homes but warned the Bill could constrain enforcement and sits uneasily with existing law. Ministers said that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954’s security‑of‑tenure concept “is not relevant here” and emphasised that patients do not need a fixed address to register with a GP—“there is no regulatory requirement to prove identity, address or an NHS number”. They also noted planning policy already requires councils to assess needs including boat dwellers. The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.