Grand Committee

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Monday 14 September 2026

Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:45

Moved by

[Baroness Antrobus]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Antrobus) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 29 June 2026. They make consequential amendments to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, following amendments introduced through the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. For ease of reference, I will refer to them as the 2015 regulations.

These draft regulations introduce two principal amendments. First, they amend the 2015 regulations to replace references to the “appropriate officer” with references to the “appropriate person”. This allows for suitably qualified civilians, as well as military personnel, to carry out specified administrative functions within the service complaints system, including liaising with the Armed Forces Commissioner and providing updates on the progress and outcome of service complaints. The regulations also include a transitional provision to ensure that existing cases continue smoothly when the changes come into force.

Secondly, the regulations amend the list of matters that may not be the subject of a service complaint. Specifically, they provide that decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process. This ensures that the system is not burdened with complaints concerning procedural admissibility decisions, and it supports the efficient operation of the service complaints process.

Overall, the amendments provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the system, while maintaining existing safeguards and preserving the rights of service personnel. The amendment permitting suitably qualified civilians to undertake specified administrative functions within the service complaints system was requested by the single services themselves, to provide greater flexibility in administering the system.

The amendments will be implemented through existing service complaints processes and procedures. Any necessary guidance and administrative instructions will be updated to reflect the changes made by the regulations.

In summary, these regulations make two technical and consequential amendments to the service complaints system. They improve administrative flexibility, support the efficient operation of the service complaints process and ensure consistency between the regulations and the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. Importantly, these amendments do not alter the rights of service personnel or the protections available within the service complaints system. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to welcome the Minister to her place and thank her for introducing this draft statutory instrument so clearly and effectively. We may be aiming for a record in how fast we deal with a statutory instrument, because it appears, on the face of it, to be uncontroversial. Changing the words “appropriate officer” to “appropriate person” is absolutely straightforward.

The one area where I would be interested to hear the Minister’s advice is on the change to the appeals process. In her opening remarks, she said that it would not really make any difference and that it is intended simply to streamline provisions and to make sure that people are not appealing on frivolous grounds. However, could there be any cases where someone who would have been able to find a way to appeal could be somehow knocked back during the appeal process because the person making the decision—it is not clear whether it will be the “appropriate person” deciding who can and cannot appeal—takes a very hard-line approach to whether the appeal is valid? That is the only area of possible concern.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I look forward to having many instructive exchanges with her.

The crux of the matter under consideration in these regulations is, as has already been mentioned, the substitution of “appropriate officer” with “appropriate person” in the 2015 service complaints regulations. Noble Lords present may well remember that this issue was first raised during our debates on the then Armed Forces Commissioner Bill last year. At that time, my noble friend Lady Goldie raised a concern about the removal of the chain of command from the service complaints system. However, after discussions with the Minister and officials, the Government clarified that the amendments to Sections 340B and 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 did not replace the role of the commanding officer but simply supplemented their involvement by permitting a sufficiently qualified civilian also to make a referral to the newly established Armed Forces Commissioner. After receiving that assurance, my noble friend was content to withdraw her opposition to those amendments.

These regulations are consequential to the changes made by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 and simply translate the changes made to the service complaints process into the relevant secondary legislation. As such, given the assurance that we received last year, we do not oppose these regulations.

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions, brief though they were, and for the constructive scrutiny that they have brought to this important issue. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their welcoming words. I am grateful to them and to their colleagues, as I have learned much from their insightful contributions to defence debates in the months since my introduction to this place earlier this year. They have been most instructive, and I look forward to working with them—preferably not against them, where possible. We all agree, I am sure, that the defence of the nation is the primary duty of our Government.

I will address the concerns raised. On the specific concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the amendment is not intended to prevent service personnel making a complaint. Service personnel will continue to be able to raise service complaints. The amendment applies only to decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds. The idea is to make the service complaints system better for those who need it most and ensure it is not clogged up by specific service complaints about a service complaint. The amendment does not affect the substantive right to make a complaint or appeal a complaint decision; it simply clarifies that procedural decisions relating to the validity of an appeal cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process.

As I set out, the regulations make two technical and consequential amendments to the service complaints system. To recap, the first amendment provides greater flexibility by allowing suitably qualified civilians, as well as military personnel, to carry out specified administrative functions within the service complaints system. The second amendment clarifies that decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process, supporting the efficient operation of that system. Importantly, these amendments do not alter the rights of service personnel, the grounds on which a service complaint may be made or the protections available within the service complaints system. With those comments, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

15:54

Sitting suspended.

Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:59

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for the delay to the start of these proceedings. I will begin by setting out the background to this instrument. It concerns the governance arrangements for the Windsor Framework and Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements, and the UK/EU withdrawal agreement.

First and foremost, the instrument takes forward and supports certain commitments the Government made in response to the independent review of the Windsor Framework that was conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen and published at the end of 2024. It does so by providing greater flexibility in the process for the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise regulations that are applicable under the Windsor Framework. It also clarifies the statutory obligations of Northern Ireland departments to support the committee by providing it with responses to reasonable requests for information.

Secondly, the instrument helps facilitate the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee to use written procedure to adopt decisions or recommendations such as those in relation to the Windsor Framework, which is, of course, a crucial element of the withdrawal agreement. This will keep the governance arrangements of the withdrawal agreement working effectively, particularly where we need to keep rules that apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in step.

I will now explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purposes, which are threefold. First, in response to recommendations made by the independent review of the Windsor Framework, the Government committed to providing greater flexibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in examining and considering EU legislation relevant to Northern Ireland. The committee plays a valuable role in scrutinising regulations relevant to Northern Ireland. Its reports and engagement with affected stakeholders inform the work of government, just as they will inform the work of many Members of the Assembly. These changes to Schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly with greater latitude in conducting its work within a two-month window following the publication of relevant EU Acts, if it wishes to use it.

A timeframe for the scrutiny of EU Acts under the Windsor Framework is provided for in law so that everyone is clear—MLAs, businesses and civil society—about how the process works and what the impacts of those enactments are. Currently, the committee has five working days to vote on whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU Act. If an inquiry is held, a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two-month scrutiny period, which begins the day the EU publishes the Act in its Official Journal. This instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to 10 working days and alters the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the scrutiny period. These changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run its inquiries, take evidence and report on them.

Secondly, the instrument takes account of the need to ensure continuing, effective governance arrangements that are fit for the future. This future includes the three new agreements we are seeking to take forward with the EU on SPS, electricity and emissions trading. This change is made by omitting Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This will allow the UK to agree to decisions and recommendations at the joint committee between meetings in a process known as written procedure. In effect, this will revert the arrangements to how they were when the withdrawal agreement was first agreed, as this mechanism has always been contained within the treaty text. It will enhance the UK’s ability to take necessary decisions without having to wait for a meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, which typically happens only once or twice a year.

As with the changes to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee’s procedures that I have already set out, written procedure will be an optional flexibility and will not be utilised for every decision. The effect will be to enable the Government to ensure, where there are EU regulatory obligations applicable in Great Britain, that Northern Ireland can keep pace. This could also, for example, cover urgent measures needed to protect the smooth operation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access and its place within the UK market.

I emphasise that these changes do not amend the process of scrutinising those decisions where the Government maintain obligations to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The process remains as it is today, including where it is provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and in the Government’s EU scrutiny arrangements with the European Affairs Committee and the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. By removing this restriction, the governance of the withdrawal agreement will be aligned with that of the trade and co-operation agreement, which has no similar restriction on the use of written procedure. As with the EU-UK Partnership Council, which was established under the trade and co-operation agreement, the joint committee would still remain the default forum for UK-EU decision-making in relation to the withdrawal agreement and continue to meet, just as the Partnership Council does.

Finally, the instrument provides for and clarifies the responsibilities that Northern Ireland departments and Ministers are already under to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. This is aimed at supporting the work of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the governance arrangements of which it forms part. This instrument clarifies the duty on those authorities to comply with a reasonable request for information from the committee, and that such a request should not be regarded as unreasonable solely on the ground that a Northern Ireland department or Minister lacks primary responsibility for the EU Act in question. This change is made in response to recommendations in the independent review on how Northern Ireland departments should be empowered to provide evidence to and support the committee.

I also note, for completeness, that the instrument makes some technical amendments to existing legislation. Specifically, it amends outdated references within the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, so that these now refer to the Windsor Framework. This minor change provides clarity and aligns UK domestic legislation with the international context.

In conclusion, this instrument demonstrates the Government’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor Framework, to ensure that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements work well, and to take the practical steps necessary as we build a stronger relationship with the EU, from which Northern Ireland will benefit and which will deliver the good growth that we wish to see in every postcode. I beg to move.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this SI and am grateful to the Minister for introducing it so effectively and carefully. It is part of a process in which the Windsor Framework becomes more centre stage and the withdrawal agreement takes a step back. This is a vital process: the core of the Windsor Framework is to introduce more suppleness in facing up to the difficult question of Brexit. It is not perfect and there are many, many imperfections, but I think—this might not be a bad day to say it, following the meeting of the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland in Cardiff—that there is a danger, within Northern Ireland, of not coming to terms with the fact that the Windsor Framework has actually effected positive changes, and that this is part of the process.

A long time ago, there was a taskforce report following the 1985 Hillsborough agreement, signed by Margaret Thatcher—the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, will remember this. That was far more threatening and destabilising in its impact on Northern Ireland than anything in the Windsor Framework or the initial withdrawal agreement. The taskforce report represented a conclusion involving the two main unionist parties, after some period of rather sterile activism against the United Kingdom Government. It said that there was no set security or sanity in the junior partner in the United Kingdom being permanently estranged from the senior partner. The period since Brexit has opened up a similar period of estrangement, and it is time that this came to an end.

The crucial thing about the Windsor Framework, as underlined by the Minister’s remarks, is that it moves away from the very problematic commitment in the withdrawal Act that the British Government would foster an all-Ireland economy. How you would do that I was never quite sure, by the way, because the all-Ireland economy is based on a model condemned by Piketty, Krugman and Stiglitz—all Nobel Prize winners in economics—which is basically one of low tax for incoming American firms. It is difficult to do anyway. The point is that the Windsor Framework unhooks the British Government from a commitment to further the all-Ireland economy. In that sense, given the problematic aspect of the withdrawal agreement, many difficulties and flaws remain, but I welcome the fact that the Minister has come today and, essentially, refreshed certain aspects of the Windsor Framework. I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I am deeply grateful for being given permission to take part in this debate. I welcome these regulations, like I have welcomed the Windsor Framework on many occasions, because it deals with special arrangements to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland. I do not want to see borders anywhere between the UK and Ireland and between Northern Ireland and Britain. Therefore, it is important that the challenges and impediments presented by the Windsor Framework are ironed out—hence the appointment 18 months ago by the then Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to deal with particular issues regarding implementation.

The noble Lord was fairly circumscribed in what he could do, but some of those recommendations looked at democratic scrutiny and the democratic deficit. He also proposed that Assembly Members on the Democratic Scrutiny Committee would have a greater amount of time for scrutiny. A committee that I am a member of, the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, met the Democratic Scrutiny Committee on several occasions and it raised with us the lack of time that it has been given to do scrutiny, so I was very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, proposed that the instrument would extend by five days the time by which that Democratic Scrutiny Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly must vote on whether to hold an inquiry. That recommendation was accepted by the Government and now we are giving it legal effect. I welcome that.

I also ask this of my noble friend the Minister. Our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, proposed a hub. I note that I am sitting beside my noble friend Lady Anderson, who has met me on that specific issue to seek an update on the hub. How far is it progressing and what work has been done already? When will there be a report to the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and to your Lordships’ Chamber on the progress that has been made? In summary, I support this instrument and the changes that it seeks to introduce as they will bring greater accountability from the work carried out by the Democratic Scrutiny Committee.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I suppose it comes as no surprise that I have a different opinion on the Windsor Framework. Rather than it being the answer to many problems, it has also created many problems in its impact on Northern Ireland businesses and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am fed up, when ordering something from the mainland, to be told, “It cannot be posted to your address”. That has happened countless times, but that would not be accepted in any other part of the United Kingdom. Why are we supposed to be thankful, when we are looked upon as the poor relation within the United Kingdom?

As regards the theatrics of what happened today with Michelle O’Neill, I remind everyone that the First Minister has no power whatever to sign any memorandum of understanding as the First Minister. She can do so as the deputy leader of the Sinn Féin party, but she has no authority to sign anything on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly or the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in Stormont.

This SI flows from the Murphy review. We have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. It was to strengthen the place of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, yet one aspect has been deleted. Members of the other place have already drawn attention to this. It is Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

16:15

The Explanatory Notes for the 2020 Bill, which inserted Section 15C into the withdrawal agreement Act, make clear that it was inserted to provide a dedicated section of the 2018 Act for the purposes addressed by Section 15C—Clause 35 in the 2020 Bill—to provide a safeguard. The Explanatory Notes to the 2020 Bill set out the purpose of Clause 35:

“The provision precludes a Minister of the Crown, as the UK’s co-chair, using the written procedure (Annex VIII, Rule 9 of the Withdrawal Agreement) to adopt recommendations or decisions of the Joint Committee. This ensures that decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a Minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee”.

This was put in to ensure that there is full ministerial accountability. Why then is it being taken out? If it was put in to ensure that there is full accountability, including by a Minister to Parliament made to the joint committee, then for confidence that there is full accountability it should have remained. Can the Minister also outline here or in writing the complete list of EU laws that we are now subject to, as many of them have been quietly slipped in and applied by means of dynamic alignment without Northern Ireland or its representatives knowing anything about it?

Under Section 15C there is the opportunity to ensure that recommendations and decisions can be tracked in advance of joint committee meeting dates being announced and that one can monitor any public document in relation to that. Why has this been removed? If it was put in to give full accountability, then its removal does the opposite. I thought that what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, suggested was to strengthen the place of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, it would strengthen, as it should be, democratic accountability. The removal and deletion of Section 15C of the withdrawal agreement Act 2018 is therefore a serious matter.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction to these regulations. From these Benches we welcome them and very much welcome any measures to implement the recommendations contained in the important report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which we very much supported.

As the Minister will be aware, there remain a great many concerns about the Windsor Framework in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has illustrated very well. However, from these Benches we have always recognised that it is a pragmatic solution to a far from optimum situation stemming from the hard Brexit approach adopted by the previous Conservative Governments.

I have two quick questions for the Minister. Can she say whether there is a timetable for implementing the rest of the recommendations contained in the important report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy? Can the Minister, to follow on from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, say whether there plans for a wider strategy on how to ensure parliamentary oversight here in Westminster for secondary legislation stemming from the Windsor Framework and other legislation resulting from dynamic alignment with the European Union?

The Minister will be aware that there are already lots of debates on regret Motions on regulations relating to the Windsor Framework. Indeed, I believe there is another one tomorrow evening from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. She will be aware that even more will result from the EU Bill, so it will be very useful for us to understand the Government’s thinking about Westminster’s oversight role in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords in this regard.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument makes changes to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which scrutinises EU law that is applicable in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, implementing some of the recommendations made by the independent review of the Windsor Framework.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of the strong opinion that the Government must explain why they are removing the safeguards introduced by the previous Government prohibiting the use of written procedure in the joint committee, which were meant to ensure full ministerial accountability for its decisions. This instrument removes Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Explanatory Memorandum to this instrument says that this provision was being made:

“to facilitate decision making between the co-chairs on time-sensitive issues during the period in between formal meetings, noting the bulk of decisions at the Joint Committee relate to the Windsor Framework”.

However, the Explanatory Notes for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which introduced Section 15C into the 2018 Act, stated that the prohibition on the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was to ensure that,

“decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a Minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability … for all decisions made in the Joint Committee”.

That was well highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea.

Introducing the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was not recommended by the independent review. In line with the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, we have one important question: will the Minister explain in more detail the rationale for allowing the written procedure? Is there a risk, as has already been discussed, that it would allow changes to slip through inadvertently without even the minimal scrutiny currently in operation?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. The instrument is a key element of the Government’s commitments made following the independent review, and I hope that it demonstrates that we continue to take action to ensure that the Windsor Framework works for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, which is this Government’s intention for it to do.

In relation to a couple of the points that came up in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised an important point. I fully agree with him that Northern Ireland’s dual market access is a unique opportunity that has potential to drive real growth for Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to taking all necessary steps to protect the internal market while implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith, including having regard to all aspects of the Northern Ireland economy.

In relation to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Ritchie, I am happy to meet to discuss progress on the hub.

With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, the robust parliamentary oversight frameworks already in place remain entirely unchanged. I hope that provides him with some reassurance. The written procedure simply ensures that, when the UK’s interests depend on swift action between the scheduled meetings, bearing in mind that they might take place only once or twice a year, we can take that action and Parliament will continue to be provided with explanatory memoranda on decisions made in the joint committee. I clarify that, in our view, this does not weaken the accountability of the Government at the joint committee. The scrutiny process for joint committee decisions made by the Government is not changed by this SI. That includes the role for Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as set down in law and in writing, which is very important.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

Will the Minister clarify whether the Government are removing Section 15C or not? We cannot have it both ways.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are removing Section 15C.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

The Minister is saying that the protection is there, but Section 15C was inserted by Section 35 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was very clear that the reason for precluding Ministers was simply to ensure that nothing could be slipped through and that there had to be accountability. That is its purpose, so to remove Section 15C is to remove its purpose of providing a safeguard. Removing the safeguard cannot be the same as protecting the safeguard.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We think that there is a sufficient safeguard in place, but I would be happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this further if he would find that helpful.

I return to my concluding remarks on the SI. This is not the only action that the Government are taking to protect the internal market. We have announced £16.6 million to strengthen the UK internal market and help Northern Ireland boost trade with Great Britain. This includes a comprehensive one-stop shop regulatory support service, beyond what is currently available on GOV.UK. This will help businesses trade across UK and EU markets and benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access. We have also established a triage process to support co-ordination between the Government and Northern Ireland departments on relevant EU legislation. This Government are clear that Northern Ireland is and should be a core player in that relationship. Arrangements that necessarily protect Northern Ireland’s place in the union and its internal market prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and deliver certainty to businesses on the basis of the agreement with the EU.

I recognise and respect that noble Lords may have different views on how we arrived where we are now from Brexit, and on its merits and otherwise. However, on behalf of the Government, I should be very clear that our focus must remain on what we do next to ensure that our relationship with the EU works best for all parts of the UK.

We are focused on looking forward to a new strategic partnership with the EU, which stands to benefit Northern Ireland. I assure the Committee that we will also remain focused on smoothing flows of goods to Northern Ireland where we can, with the arrangements that apply now, with an eye to the new and beneficial arrangements that we are seeking to obtain in future.

I am not sure that I have managed to answer all noble Lords’ questions. I will ask my office to write to all those who have taken part in today’s debate as I am happy to have a continued conversation about these very important matters. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:29

Moved by

[Baroness Curran]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026.

[Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before Parliament on 13 July 2026. The boiler upgrade scheme is the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales. The scheme provides grants towards the installation of eligible low-carbon heating technologies, primarily heat pumps, helping households overcome the upfront costs associated with transitioning away from fossil fuel heating systems.

In 2025, the Government consulted on expanding the range of technologies supported through the scheme, including the potential introduction of heat batteries. Heat batteries are a type of thermal energy storage system that can use low-carbon electricity to generate and store heat, and release that energy when required. Following consideration of the consultation responses, the Government confirmed their intention to support heat batteries through the scheme once the appropriate standards are in place. The amendments made by these regulations are an important step towards implementing that decision. The Government are supporting the future inclusion of heat batteries in the boiler upgrade scheme to increase consumer choice, as they have the potential to provide an alternative low-carbon heating solution for consumers in homes where heat pump installation may not be appropriate.

These regulations amend the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish schemes to facilitate and encourage the renewable generation of heat in England and Wales. These schemes can be established only in relation to the listed sources of energy and technologies. These regulations add thermal energy storage systems to the list of those sources of energy and technologies. This amendment provides the necessary statutory basis for thermal energy storage systems to be supported through government schemes that derive their powers from Section 100 of the Energy Act, such as the boiler upgrade scheme. Subject to Parliament approving these regulations, the Government intend to bring forward a statutory instrument to amend the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 and to enable support for eligible heat batteries through the scheme.

The regulations also amend Regulation 22 of the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022. This is a technical amendment that clarifies the powers available to the scheme administrator where an installer has received an ineligible payment. The change will enable the scheme administrator, Ofgem, to recover any amount owed through a combination of repayment and offsetting against future grant payments to that installer, improving the administration of the scheme and the protection of public money.

The changes made by these regulations will ensure that the legislative powers underpinning the boiler upgrade scheme can accommodate heat batteries. In doing so, they deliver an important step towards the Government’s commitments to support heat batteries through the scheme, to increase consumer choice and to help more homeowners across England and Wales decarbonise their properties. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument.

The passage of time points to the boiler upgrade scheme’s own record. Regrettably, there have been years of missed installation targets: the original goal was 600,000 a year by 2028, but barely a tenth of that figure has been met. It is now self-evident that expanding the scheme’s budget and eligibility in 2026 will escalate spend on a mechanism that has structurally underperformed without any intention to reform it coming from either the Government or the Liberal Democrat Benches. At this point, I should declare my interest as the chairman of Buckthorn, Acteon and Amey.

The clearest recent articulation of this comes from the shadow Business Secretary and former shadow Secretary of State for Energy, Claire Coutinho, fronting a report from the think tank Onward. It argued that UK electricity prices are too high and that cheap power itself, achieved partly by using more gas and cutting green levies, will do more to drive heat pump and EV uptake than continued subsidy and mandates.

It is compelling economic sense, and it is the belief on this side of the Committee that this approach would make electrification more attractive, while delivering prosperity and a better environment. In other words, no one is arguing that heat pumps are bad, but we believe that a BUS-style subsidy is now proven to be the wrong lever and that removing green levies from bills would achieve similar ends without state spending.

Moreover, my colleagues in another place have consistently pressed Ministers about the stronger evidence that costs associated with the wider agenda for the decarbonisation of heat, including mechanisms such as the clean heat market mechanism boiler tax on manufacturers, are being passed to consumers via higher gas boiler prices. In other words, the current approach taxes conventional boiler households to subsidise heat pump adopters, and this is regressive.

There are a number of specific points, and I am grateful to the Minister for having raised them. The first was a constitutional process concern. This SI amends primary legislation via secondary legislation. That is not unusual but, because it touches Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008, it requires the affirmative procedure. Regulation 2 modifies the list of sources of energy and technologies as set out in Section 100(4) of the 2008 Act to include “thermal energy storage systems” and, as stated:

“By virtue of section 105(3A) and (3B), these Regulations attract the affirmative procedure”.


Instruments that amend an Act of Parliament rather than just delegated regulations routinely draw scrutiny from committees such as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee or the JCSI over the appropriateness of using a Henry VIII-style power for what is a fairly narrow technical expansion.

A related 2026 BUS amendment instrument, SI 2026/390, had to be reissued because the original published version did not reflect the version signed by the Minister and had to be removed and replaced. That is not this specific SI, but it illustrates the concerns about drafting quality that Members of Parliament in the other place and committees have been raising about the pace of legislation on the boiler upgrade scheme.

My second point—I am grateful again to the Minister for raising this—relates to the question of heat batteries or thermal storage. This came out clearly in the Government’s consultation on the eligibility of expanding the BUS, which took place in November last year and which underpins this SI. I would be grateful if the Minister, in responding, could update the Committee on whether any product standards yet exist. Currently, as I understand it—and things may have moved on since November—there are no product standards for the thermal energy storage performance of heat batteries. These technologies will become eligible for scheme funding only once the relevant standards have come into force, which means that the law will permit funding for a technology category that cannot actually be certified or verified yet.

On efficiency and running costs, some respondents raised concerns about direct electric heating’s lower efficiency relative to a heat pump, its running costs and a lack of evidence on the performance and suitability of the various technologies. Some respondents preferred excluding the heat battery category altogether, arguing that funding should stay focused on technologies with proven carbon savings rather than diluting the budget across less tested electric heating options.

The Minister rightly pointed out the importance of the Regulation 22 payment offset amendment, which is a much more mundane and fairly straightforward change clarifying that the administrator may take one or a combination of the actions available to recover payments, provided that the total does not exceed the sum of payments due. As I understand it, it has not attracted any public objections, but it is worth flagging and I am grateful the Minister did; it is a tidying-up clause that gives Ofgem a somewhat broader discretion to recover overpayments and clawbacks. A point that scrutiny committees sometimes probe is whether it expands administrative power beyond what was originally debated, but, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, that would not be the case on this occasion.

I believe that the Government should stop increasing the cost of gas boilers for families through their boiler tax and stop wasting money forcing people into buying heat pumps that they do not want to make marginal reductions to our already limited contribution to global emissions. The Government must, above all, make electricity cheaper and back consumer choice, if they truly want families to adopt electric heating technologies instead of simply forcing people into changing the way that they live their lives to meet their self-imposed, unachievable net-zero targets.

That is why we have called for the scraping of the boiler upgrade scheme along with the clean heat market mechanism that places an obligation on gas and oil boiler manufacturers to install a minimum number of heat pumps at an estimated cost of £340 million in the first year. This goes far further than the boiler upgrade scheme introduced in 2022 under the Energy Act 2008, which encouraged the use of renewable heat by providing financial support for families to install heat pumps to replace fossil fuel boilers. As the Minister said, this instrument amends that Act to extend financial support eligibility to heat batteries, electric heating tech and thermal energy storage systems.

Many of us on this side of the Committee who have studied this consider it to be a case of excessive government intervention and cost to ease the effects of other government interventions. Energy prices are currently high, not despite our transition to renewable sources and green policies but because of them. The Government have acknowledged the fact that policies are to blame by removing VAT from energy bills. Similarly, their focus on renewables, inextricably linked to firm power—oil and gas—has caused the cost of using gas-fired power plants to rise, as they are forced to operate on an ad hoc basis dependent on the weather and are thus far less efficient and very expensive.

Taxes and renewables are the two core policies that have led to the increase in energy bills, which are now the highest of any IEA member country, both including and excluding taxes, for industrial and domestic bills. The Government should not be subsidising the cost of renewables by promoting higher bills for some instead of bringing them down for all through more systemic changes, which will be a subject we will return to, no doubt, on the long overdue introduction of the supremely misnamed energy independence Bill, which will increase energy dependence on imports and not decrease them. That said, on a personal note, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for this SI and look forward to further debates and discussions with her.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution, and on that very note I welcome his remarks. We debated some of these issues on my very first outing at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House, and I think we will debate some of the fundamental points that he made about the direction of energy policy. He is right to contextualise this within that wider debate about energy policy. It is perhaps one of the great debates of our time and will dominate our thinking and discussions in the time ahead. I am tempted to go into a very long discussion about that; I am sure we will have lively debates going forward. He will know, as I said on the Floor of the House, that the Onward report faced some criticism and there were some arguments from the sector about the report’s premises, but I will leave that because I am sure that we will return to it. At the end of my contribution today, I will comment on the general policy of our approach.

I will now address the boiler upgrade scheme. I put on record that I recognise and respect the noble Lord’s detailed points about it and will pay great attention to the arguments that he is putting forward. It is an argument that this Government want to win, and we believe we can win it, but we will do that only by paying attention to the substance of what he said—and I recognise that substance. I will go through the points that he raised. I will not repeat that the boiler upgrade scheme remains the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales, because we see decarbonisation as fundamental to the challenges facing the country and as offering solutions to some of the great issues around climate change and its consequences. I will return to that.

I shall focus on the points raised by the noble Lord and the detail of what he said. He acknowledged that the boiler upgrade scheme is directly funded by the Exchequer. It does not put any direct costs on consumers’ bills. Furthermore, our scheme evaluation data shows that people who have received grants from the boiler upgrade scheme most commonly find that their energy bills decrease as a result. Some 50% of boiler upgrade scheme grant recipients reported that their total energy bills decreased when replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump, compared with just 15% who reported an increase. As he acknowledged, eligible low-carbon heating installations currently benefit from 0% VAT, which further reduces costs for consumers.

16:45

It is also worth highlighting that consumer satisfaction rates are extremely high with the boiler upgrade scheme. Around 90% to 95% of property owners who received a boiler upgrade scheme grant are satisfied with their heating system. To date, the scheme has delivered over 90,000 low-carbon heating installations and issued over £600 million in grant funding. Our polling from the department also indicates that the broad population support this move and see these technologies as something that they welcome and want to invite more into their own usage.

Regarding the clean heat market mechanism, it is a key part of the Warm Homes Plan, providing industry with the confidence to invest in the transition to low-carbon heating and is welcomed. Alongside the boiler upgrade scheme, it sets achievable targets to make heat pumps more attractive and affordable for consumers. Heat batteries are intended to complement heat pumps, which are expected to remain the primary technology supported through the boiler upgrade scheme. Contrary to the noble Lord’s argument, they add to consumer choice, which is to be welcomed, and they help people in different settings within their housing arrangements.

It may be helpful to say a few more words about why the Government are supporting heat batteries through the scheme. While heat pumps will remain the best solution for the majority of homes, the Government recognise, as I think is recognised broadly, that no single low-carbon heating technology will be suitable in all circumstances. Heat batteries therefore have the potential to provide an alternative low-carbon heating option for some consumers, particularly where installing a heat pump may not be practical.

The Government consulted on support for electric heating technologies in April 2025, as was recognised, and the government response was published in November 2025. There was broad support for expanding support through the scheme to alternative electric technologies, with heat batteries being the most frequently cited example. Unlike heat pumps, heat batteries do not require an external unit and can therefore be suitable for some properties where external space is constrained or where the installation of an outdoor unit may be more challenging. They therefore have the potential to offer a low-carbon heating option in circumstances where a heat pump installation may not be suitable.

These regulations establish the necessary legislative powers by amending Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008. Without this amendment, the Secretary of State would not have the statutory basis on which to include heat batteries within the boiler upgrade scheme framework in future. Subject to Parliament approving these changes, the Government intend to bring forward further amendments to the boiler upgrade scheme regulations to support eligible heat batteries through the scheme.

However, the Government have been clear that support for heat batteries will be introduced only once appropriate product and installation standards are in place—and we are confident that they will be in place in the near future. In the government response, we confirmed that heat battery installations would need to be certified by the microgeneration certification scheme and comply with a new MCS design and installation standard, alongside new product standards. Again, progress has been made on this. As these standards are still under development, it is not yet possible to begin supporting heat batteries through the scheme. However, we will ensure that robust standards are in place before support is introduced and protect consumers in supporting high-quality installations.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the grant level and will say a few words about it. In the government response to the 2025 consultation, we stated our intention to support heat batteries with a grant value of £2,500 once the necessary standards are in place. The proposed grant level is intended to provide meaningful support towards upfront installation costs while ensuring value for money for taxpayers and consistency with the wider objectives of the scheme.

I would argue that it is value for money for the Government to encourage this investment to help decarbonisation; it is recognised, valued by consumers and welcomed by the broader public as an option for consumer choice to help them to deal with the big challenges we face as a country and move forward in decarbonisation. As with other technologies supported through the scheme, grant levels will remain under review, but we judge that the grant is set at the appropriate level in the current context.

The consultation also sought views on a range of electric heating technologies that are not heat pumps. While there was broad support for expanding the scheme, heat batteries emerged as the strongest candidates for support. Respondents highlighted their ability to make use of off-peak electricity and time-of-use tariffs, as well as a potential suitability for homes where heat pumps may not be appropriate. Following consideration of those responses, the Government confirmed their intention to support heat batteries, and these regulations are specifically intended to facilitate that future support.

Let me briefly address the amendment to Regulation 22, which I recognise is technical and administrative; it just helps to address a fundamental issue that was necessary. More broadly—and I look forward to our debates in future—these changes support this Government’s objective of expanding consumer choice in the transition to low-carbon heat, a necessary requirement in the modern age. Decarbonising heat is essential to delivering net zero, and the Government are taking action across the economy to reduce emissions, strengthen energy security and support the transition to clean energy. By enabling future support for heat batteries through the boiler upgrade scheme, these regulations will help to ensure that consumers can access a wider range of low-carbon heating options.

I conclude by reiterating that these regulations are an enabling measure. They represent an important step towards delivering the Government’s commitment to support heat batteries through the boiler upgrade scheme and support the effective administration of the scheme. I welcome our engagement and look forward to a robust debate about these schemes; it is quite proper to have one.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

Can I return to a question that I raised, which the Minister has answered? She seems to be in agreement but it is a real concern. Without product standards for the thermal energy storage performance of heat batteries, these technologies will become eligible for the scheme but the law will permit funding for a technology category that has yet to be certified or verified. I know the Minister said in response that she hoped that it would be done in the near future. I know she would agree that there are significant safety risks associated with this, and consumers and the industry are very worried about it. Recent incidents have highlighted critical gaps in safety standards, indicating that certification alone does not guarantee safety under real-world conditions. That makes the importance of certification and having product standards all the more important for the safety. Can she write to me at the time when the Government are likely to approve these product standards, and therefore introduce into effect what we are considering in the SI today?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, and of course I commit to write to him and always to keep him as informed as I possibly can. He raises an interesting point, which was exactly the point that I asked during my three or four briefings with the team to prepare myself for today’s statutory instrument. I asked specifically about where we were with safety regulations and product standards. I have to say that I was concerned about the timing of it, because I want to make sure we move forward in this, but we also talked in some depth about the safety measures around that. I cannot recall in detail offhand every single step they took me through at the moment, but they explained to me the rigorous process that it goes through, which sometimes means it takes that bit longer. One example they cited was that you have to ensure that, as with a driver’s test, the installer must be observed by a senior person to get their certification. I can assure the noble Lord that we have this in hand, but I will of course write to him and keep him appraised of our process in that regard.

Motion agreed.

Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:55

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, I will speak also to the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026 and the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026. These statutory instruments make certain changes to the electoral system in Northern Ireland. They will make participation in elections more accessible to more people in Northern Ireland, and will bring certain rules governing Northern Ireland elections closer in line with those in Great Britain.

The first instrument updates the list of permissible forms of ID that can be used by voters at polling stations at parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. The second instrument makes identical changes to the list for local elections in Northern Ireland. The third instrument will uprate expenditure limits for candidates standing in local elections in Northern Ireland to reflect rising costs due to inflation; an equivalent uplift in the spending limit for reserved elections in Great Britain and for UK Parliament and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland was approved by Parliament in 2023.

Before I proceed further, I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip for the local elections draft order, which corrects a minor typographical error. In the last paragraph on page 1, the words “on Him section” have been amended to “on Him by section”. This refers to Section 84 of the Northern Ireland Act, which allows Northern Ireland’s local election rules to be amended by Order in Council, and “Him” refers in this context to His Majesty the King—one would have thought that would be slightly more polite than “Him”.

I turn to the specifics of the first and second instruments. The documents being added to the list of acceptable IDs that can be used by voters at polling stations are a Commonwealth passport, a Proof of Age Standards Scheme card, an HM Armed Forces veteran card and a blue badge from the disabled person’s parking scheme in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. These forms of ID are already accepted at polling stations in the rest of Great Britain. Adding to the list of acceptable IDs will support participation in elections for a range of people in Northern Ireland. The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission are both supportive of this change.

It is vital to ensure that those who cast their vote are eligible to do so. Photographic ID is an important step in the process of protecting this important principle of elections and maintaining trust in Northern Ireland’s electoral institutions and processes. Producing photographic ID at polling stations has been a requirement in Northern Ireland elections for more than 20 years. It is a well-understood, established part of voting. The list of acceptable IDs in Northern Ireland has historically been more restrictive than the list in Great Britain and is updated less frequently. Expanding the list of acceptable ID will remove barriers to voting and support more people in Northern Ireland—including some of the most vulnerable in society—to participate in our democracy, while retaining important security measures.

I will now set out in more detail the measure in the third instrument relating to uprating local election candidate expenditure. This draft order will uprate the spending limits for candidates in Northern Ireland’s local elections. The limit will increase from £600 plus 5p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area in which they are standing to £960 plus 8p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area. This will bring the spending limit in Northern Ireland into line with the spending limits for local elections in England. The current spending limits in Northern Ireland have remained unchanged since 2005. Consequently, candidates contesting local elections face a disadvantage as compared with those contesting parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. They are also at a disadvantage as compared with those contesting local elections in England, where spending limits were uprated in 2023.

Democracy relies upon the ability of political parties, candidates and other campaigners to communicate their views, so that voters can make an informed decision. The current limit means that local election candidates in Northern Ireland are restricted by lower real-terms spending on their campaign, which impacts on their ability to communicate with voters. The Electoral Commission has been consulted on these changes, in line with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s statutory duty, and is supportive of the new measures.

In conclusion, these draft instruments are necessary to support more people in Northern Ireland to participate in and engage with our democracy. Expanding the list of acceptable voter IDs is an important step in updating electoral processes to reflect the modern electorate in Northern Ireland, while preserving the additional security features that are essential to maintain trust in Northern Ireland’s electoral system. Uprating local election campaign spending limits will ensure that those limits remain aligned in real terms with the original limits set by Parliament.

I hope that, following my setting out of the details of these statutory instruments, the Committee will support them. I beg to move.

17:00

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I broadly welcome the three SIs before us. As the Minister has indicated, they fall into two categories: one aspect dealing with the widening of accessibility in terms of voter ID, and the second aspect dealing with the expense limits.

I have said down the years that the use of voter identification has been positive in preserving our democracy. That is not to say that there have not been other problems with electoral fraud within Northern Ireland. One thinks of a particular example, which would probably be most familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, where a polling station was kept open beyond its hours, which had a material impact on the course of that electoral result. If one looks at the situation as regards postal votes, there have still been elements of electoral fraud done in relation to them, so we are not dealing with a perfect situation. However, broadly speaking, the electoral ID side of it has been beneficial to democracy in Northern Ireland, but it is not always watertight.

To give perhaps one example, during an election a number of years ago, I remember calling at the house of an elderly lady who had requested a lift to the polling station. Obviously, in wanting to make sure that this was not a wasted journey, I said, “Just before we leave, have you got your photo identification with you?” At which point she said, “Hold on a moment, son”, and disappeared into the back room of her house. She emerged about five minutes later with a small photograph of herself. There was nothing else on it, just a photograph of her, and she said, “Look son, you can see it’s me in that photograph”. So, it is not absolutely watertight in that regard, but in most cases it has worked well.

The changes being proposed today seem to make a level of sense in terms of accessibility. Of the four aspects, I welcome in particular the veteran card. We know that while there are other forms of identification, there will be some veterans who are always a bit anxious about what identification they have with them, so this is something which has a positive benefit.

Perhaps I can ask one question of the Minister in relation to this. I may be asking about something which is not to hand but, while I would be supportive of each of the four elements, does the Minister have any breakdown of the numbers that are used in Northern Ireland for each of those? Specifically, is there any indication of the number of people for whom these would be the sole means of identification, so how much are we guaranteeing widening accessibility? It would be useful to have that information, if not now then perhaps in writing.

The second aspect is, obviously, the level of election expenditure. I have come here from the Chamber, where there are major issues about financial support from outside the United Kingdom and talk of crypto millions, et cetera. When we are dealing with local government elections, the kind of money that we are talking about is an awful lot less, but where we have the limits at present is causing real difficulties because they have not been updated for a number of years.

I know going back, for example, to the 2023 election, for the vast bulk of candidates, their only expenditure was on perhaps a piece of canvass material, something that would be given to the Post Office for a postal drop, and maybe some posters. We are not talking about high-tech, extravagant costs, particularly as costs in terms of printing have accelerated, I believe, at a rate beyond that of inflation. I know that in the last local government elections a number of candidates found themselves unable to do all those aspects, particularly some candidates in Belfast where the electorate tends to be larger per DEA than in other areas. They simply had to say as regards a postal drop that they could not afford the printing and remain within limits. That is a particular problem, not simply because it reduces the level of democracy when people are not in a position to obtain that information, but because some unscrupulous candidates falsify the expense that they go to and try to get their material at an artificially reduced level to remain within the limit.

These are very sensible proposals as regards that level of expenditure. It bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of those levels and, from the point of view of candidates from whichever party, or indeed independents, it puts it within a realistic level for next year’s local government elections—so I support the proposals that have been put forward.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on this issue. First, I welcome my noble friend Lady Anderson to the Dispatch Box representing the NIO. This the first occasion on which I have had an opportunity to take part in a debate with her on Northern Ireland.

I support these SIs because they underpin trust in the electoral system and the principle of democratic accessibility by ensuring that people have access to the franchise to exercise their vote. I welcome the fact that the number of identification documents has been increased, and I welcome the blue badge, because many people have blue badges, but until now in Northern Ireland they could not use them for electoral identification purposes.

I recall that in 1985 when electoral identification was introduced the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I were candidates in the local government elections, him in Belfast, and me in Down, we were told just a few weeks before the election took place that they were going to be subject to electoral identification and documents. At that stage, it was medical cards, then it moved on to allowance, child benefit or pension books—then photographic ID came into play, as the Minister outlined, 20-odd years ago. It is important that we were in the vanguard for identification for eligibility to vote. Obviously, there were very good reasons for that. Political parties, in the main on the constitutional side, demanded that level of support, shall we say, for those who wanted to exercise their mandate.

I recall—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weir, in relation to this issue of electoral fraud—that some agents are particularly adept at undertaking electoral fraud. When I was a candidate in 2017, people told me that they went to vote for me using photographic ID and could not vote because their votes had already been used. Obviously, some mechanism was used deliberately to falsify their identity. I would like to think, as I am sure other noble Lords would like to ascertain, that means have been found to address those issues to ensure that that level of electoral fraud does not happen again.

I welcome the instrument on spending limits in local government. There is another aspect: many candidates in Assembly and local government elections will use videos and social media to convey their messages because, as we know, many young people today use social media to gain information about elections. Therefore, we should ensure that spending limits cover that form of communication. With those few comments and the query on electoral fraud to which I have already alerted the Minister, I support these SIs and look forward to her response.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on these statutory instruments, which I welcome broadly for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Weir and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, outlined. I have a couple of queries on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.

First, on the identity documents that can now be used in local government elections, were any other documents or materials considered and not accepted by the Northern Ireland Office? Will the Minister outline whether other means of identity were considered but rejected and, if so, why?

Secondly, on costs, the increase is quite substantial. The base figure is well over 30% and then it is nearly 33% per individual elector. Those are quite substantial increases, so could the Minister indicate when these figures were last upgraded and why there has been such a delay in bringing them up to an acceptable level, given that they have been increased by a substantial amount in one fell swoop? I remember, at the last local council elections, candidates and parties of all persuasions complaining bitterly about the restrictions on spending compared to elections elsewhere in the UK, so I would be grateful for that information.

The Minister mentioned that part of this is to bring Northern Ireland into line with or align it closer with the rest of the UK. In that regard, I raise an issue that I have raised before—postal ballots. This pertains in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the UK as, if someone does not receive a postal ballot that they have applied for and has been accepted as legitimate, it is possible to get a replacement issued by the electoral authorities in England and Wales but, in Northern Ireland, that has been refused for decades now, for some reason. When this has been raised previously, there has been some allusion to the issue of security, but in very vague terms.

When one considers the amount of postal ballots that are sent out in Northern Ireland and across the country, the amount that would sent to replace lost ballots would be very small in comparison. I cannot understand why there is some problem with bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK on an issue that concerns people’s right to vote. If somebody applies for a postal vote in good faith, and it does not arrive but there is still time to get another one by contacting the electoral office or going to collect it, it is very difficult for them to understand why they should be denied their vote, through no fault of their own where they have taken steps to receive a ballot. One or two people have been in touch with me about this. I would be grateful if the Minister could reply to that point.

17:15

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to thank the Minister for her introduction of these SIs and to support them in both general and specific terms. I add one coda: these SIs come without an impact assessment, which is understandable enough in this context, but I keep thinking that we ought to have one at some future date.

Today’s debate and the more general public debate about foreign money in UK elections are taking place for understandable reasons, but the fact of the matter is that Sinn Féin is easily the richest political party in Ireland. It is also the case that it is easily the most likely to receive money from outside Ireland from the United States of America. It has been my duty, as a professional historian, to read the very interesting memoirs of republicans, whom I knew well. Not one does not boast of an election fixed here or there at some point by the application of superior resources, semi-bullying or whatever. That is why I say that there is a case for a delayed impact assessment. These are good measures that ought, on the whole, to improve the honesty of elections in Northern Ireland and bring them closer to the rest of the United Kingdom, but I have this yearning for a real impact assessment.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, with his historical perspective. I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction to these instruments. We on these Benches support all three measures; I shall, therefore, be extremely brief.

Liberal Democrats have always had significant reservations about the introduction of voter ID at polling stations. We believe that it is extremely important that nothing is done to discourage people from voting. However, I understand that the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland required voter ID to be in place well before voter ID was introduced to the rest of the UK. I am, therefore, fully supportive of measures that increase the number of acceptable documents that can be used in polling stations in Northern Ireland, such as the Armed Forces veteran card, PASS—Proof of Age Standards Scheme—cards and the blue badge for the disabled persons’ parking scheme.

I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. First, I understand from the Explanatory Memorandum that “the permitted identity documents” will be kept

“under review in consultation with the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland”.

Following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, can the Minister say how frequently she expects additional forms of ID to be added, if appropriate?

My second question goes slightly beyond the scope of these SIs. Given the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for devolution, can the Minister say whether the Government are giving any consideration to reviewing local government in Northern Ireland, both in terms of expanding the powers and budget that local authorities in Northern Ireland have and on the wider question of the wider devolution settlement in Northern Ireland? I do not necessarily expect her to reply to that this evening, obviously, but perhaps it is something that we could discuss in a future debate or in more detail at a later stage.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to the measures before us, this is the first opportunity that I have had to pass on publicly my sincere condolences to the family of Stephen Walker, a journalist in Northern Ireland of great professional integrity whom I knew for around 30 years. I commend both of his biographies—one of John Hume and the other of David Trimble. Stephen was only 61 years of age when he died a few days ago; it is very sad indeed.

Secondly, I warmly welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. She will recall that, when we first faced each other, following the general election just over two years ago, I expressed some regret that Northern Ireland did not have a full-time Minister in your Lordships’ House. I am very pleased that that has now been rectified, and I sincerely congratulate her on her elevation to Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

I turn to the three regulations that we are debating today. They bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules into line with the rules that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, mainly England, and as such we do not oppose these measures. I have one question to put to the Minister on the issue of the veteran card. What assessment have the Government made of the possibility that veterans in Northern Ireland may be reticent to carry such a card and use it for voter identification? There has been some reluctance in the past, as Members of the Committee will know, for veterans to identify themselves in such ways. Of course, that reticence is no reason not to grant electors the option to use a veteran cards if they wish to do so, but it would be helpful to know what work, if any, the Government have done on this.

As the Minister knows, the Representation of the People Bill, which is currently being debated in the Chamber, will amend legislation to allow for bank cards—that is, non-photographic ID—to be used as a form of voter ID. Have Ministers made an assessment on the potential risk to electoral fraud in Northern Ireland of using bank cards? I ask this very conscious of the fact that it was a Labour Government in the early 2000s—in 2002, I believe—who legislated to move from paper ID to photo ID for Northern Ireland, given the historic experience of high levels of voter personation there.

On spending limits, we accept that the update is sensible, but there is a question of coherence. I understand that, on 29 August, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a review into candidate spending limits, with the implication that they are too high. How does this measure before us today relate to that review?

I assure the Minister that I personally regard votes at 16 as completely insane. If the Government are committed to pursuing this madness, what work are they doing to ensure that younger voters have access to voter ID?

Slightly more broadly, in July this year, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland published a paper on the future of electoral registration and the canvass, in which he declared the once-a-decade canvass to be no longer fit for purpose. Can the Minister say whether the Northern Ireland Office has had an opportunity yet to study his recommendations? I appreciate that they were published only in July, but do they agree with them and do they have a timetable to take them forward?

Finally, with the indulgence of the Committee, I turn to issues beyond these regulations. This is the first opportunity that I have had to ask questions of the Minister since the President of the United States visited Ireland, in his usual understated way, at the weekend. Can the Minister say what the position is of His Majesty’s Government on the President’s remarks in support of a united Ireland? Do they, like my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition and me, regard those comments as deeply unhelpful and irresponsible? What discussions have Ministers had, or plan to have, with the United States Administration following those remarks? Can the Minister reaffirm the position of the Prime Minister using exactly the same words when he said in Belfast recently that a border poll is off the table? Can she reiterate that it is for the people of Northern Ireland alone to determine the constitutional future of Northern Ireland? Finally, can she confirm that it is the clear wish of His Majesty’s Government, as it is my party, that the people of Northern Ireland will always express their desire to remain part of the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, there was me thinking we were just going to talk about elections in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Never.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I immediately confess that one of my ministerial responsibilities is for elections in Northern Ireland. Given the imminent elections, I think that in part answers some of the questions about the timing and further reviews that we may need to undertake. We have an urgency before us to make sure that there is a level playing field for the elections that are about to happen.

I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful consideration and input today. I want to take this opportunity to provide some further detail on some of the points that have been raised. I start with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on electoral fraud. He asked several questions; I will have to reflect on some of them and come back to him. On the breakdown of veterans’ cards and the number of veterans who likely to use this form of ID as well as wider forms of ID, that information is not published. We are not sure whether it is collected by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, but I shall ask and write to the noble Lord with a follow-up.

The issue of absentee voting was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weir.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

Just to clarify, although I raised the issue in relation to the veteran card, it was in reference all four forms of identification. I appreciate that the Minister probably does not have the figures in relation to those to hand, but perhaps she could write to me on them.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Absolutely; it is about take-up as well as who is likely to have access to those pieces of ID.

On absentee voting, Northern Ireland security checks are among the most stringent in the whole of the UK. As in the rest of the UK, applications are checked to ensure that the name, address and national insurance number of the applicant are valid. Requiring a digital registration number means a further level of security that does not exist elsewhere; I hope that that is reassuring to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, touched on the potential issue of electoral fraud. The Government, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission are all clear that there is no current evidence of organised electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Research commissioned by the Electoral Commission following the 2024 general election suggested that public confidence in the electoral system is growing, but this does not mean that we should not always be vigilant about current initiatives—especially as the use of technologies develops—and about what people can and cannot access.

On the addition of new IDs and communication, my noble friend Lady Ritchie was absolutely right about making sure that people have enough time to know what is coming in front of them. I assure her that the Government have been working closely with the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission on these changes. They will publicise the changes in their literature and voter information campaigns. This is why it is so important that we do these SIs now: so that both voters and future candidates are aware of the changes that are in front of them.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked whether any other ID documents are being considered. The Government have not seen any demands or had any requests for additional pieces of identification, so we have not considered any and dismissed them. However, as and when other forms of ID appear, we will keep electoral legislation under constant review in case there is additional demand.

The noble Lord also mentioned postal ballots and their reissue. Given my ministerial responsibilities, I would very much welcome the opportunity to have a meeting with the noble Lord to discuss what can and cannot be done in that space.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, raised two issues—well, more than two, but I will come on to his last one right at the end. On ID for voters at 16, we will consider what measures in the system may need to be updated to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds are able to vote at polling stations in Northern Ireland as the legislation that is currently being discussed in the Chamber progresses through your Lordships’ House.

On a change to make bank cards eligible voter ID, let me be clear that there are no plans for that to happen in Northern Ireland, given the wider context; the noble Lord will know that context well, and the Committee will be aware of the specific challenges that we have faced in Northern Ireland. There has been a requirement to show photographic ID in Northern Ireland since 2003; this is not the same as the requirement in England. The voter ID system in Northern Ireland is well established, and the Electoral Commission agrees that it is well understood and trusted.

I want briefly to touch on some other issues before I come on to the really easy question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. On the cost of where we are, many Members of your Lordships’ House have, I think, stood for election. It is very easy to underestimate printing costs, especially if you use a trade union printer—as you should—in order to ensure that there are appropriate terms and conditions and that payments are paid to the people actually doing the printing. That has to be reflected in the cost of what we are doing.

Noble Lords raised videos on social media and the demands that are on all of us. Some of these things are mitigating election campaigns, especially for those who are standing not as independents. However, inflationary costs need to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, rightly raised how much these costs have gone up and the cost increases that we are allowing. These allowances have not been uprated since 2005. Although this is a significant one-off hitch, we need to keep this under review. However, it is important to get the figures done now.

17:30

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

That is precisely my point. I do not argue with the need to uprate them, for the reasons that the Minister has set out, but why has it taken so long? Why has it been 21 years since there was any change in these limits, given the massive increase in costs that there has been? Can she give a guarantee that, as with the forms of identity, costs will be kept under periodic review and that we will not go for another 20 years without any change in the spending limits?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

It is very easy for me to say “yes” from this Dispatch Box, so I will. There is an issue about how the limits have not been uprated in that time. However, we have been very clear that, in advance of next year’s elections, the uprating must come into effect. This is the first requirement of this Government to ensure that there is a level playing field for elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised an important issue about foreign money in elections. The Rycroft review has made significant recommendations on this, all of which the Government have accepted. There is always, as with everything else, a Northern Ireland element to it. I look forward to having discussions with the noble Lord about it as this continues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised adding new ID. This is under constant review regarding any new request for ID. We will review as circumstances change and as people use ID in different ways, not least on their phones rather than as physical ID. She also asked an interesting question about the devolution of local government in Northern Ireland. I would prefer to get through next year’s elections before we talk about what comes next but, given the priorities of the Prime Minister, we will undoubtedly have these conversations about what devolution in England means for the rest of the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, raised an important point on the canvass and the NIA response. I have not had advice on this yet but I expect to and I look forward to discussing it with him. I will write to him with that view. On the constitutional settlement of the status of Northern Ireland, President Trump is entitled to his opinion, as is everybody else, but there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is personally committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as am I. The noble Lord will be aware, as we all are, that the only mechanism for a border poll is determined under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

On that easy, cheerful note—I loved the news at the weekend—I know that all noble Lords agree that encouraging participation in our democracy is paramount. I hope that the Committee agree that these instruments enable us to ensure the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland by maintaining the safeguards that are already in place while ensuring that the system adapts and keeps pace with modern practices. I am therefore pleased to be able to introduce these measures.

Motion agreed.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:33

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Motion agreed.

Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:34

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.34 pm.