Lords Grand Committee

Monday 14th September 2026

(began 1 week, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:45
15:45
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

I beg to move that the Grand Committee do consider the draft armed forces, Servants Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions Amendment Regulations 2026. My Lords, these regulations were laid before both houses on the 29th 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'll refer to these as the 2015 regulations.

The draft regulations here introduce two principle 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 existing cases continue smoothly when the changes come into force.

Second, the regulations amend the list of matters which may not be the subject of a service complaint. Specifically, they provide the decisions relating to 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 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 service personnel's rights.

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 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 service Personnel's rights 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.
15:48
15:50
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

My Lords, may I also take the opportunity to welcome the noble Minister to the despatch box? I look forward to having many constructive exchanges with her, my Lords. The crux of the matter under consideration. These regulations, as already mentioned, is the substitution of the term appropriate officer with appropriate person. In the 2015 Service Complaints Regulations. Noble lords present today may well remember that this was an issue first raised during our debates on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill last year, and 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 noble Lord, the minister and his officials, the government clarified that the amendments to section 340 B and 340 N 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 to also make a referral to the newly established Armed Forces Commissioner. After receiving that assurance, my noble friend Lady Goldie was content to withdraw her opposition to those amendments.

These regulations are consequential to the changes made by the Armed Forces Commission Act, 2025, and simply translate the changes made to that service complaints process into the relevant secondary legislation. And as such, and given the insurance we received last year, we do not oppose these regulations.
15:51
16:06
16:06
16:06
16:06
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

We have. My Lords, I welcome this, and I'm 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, and this is a vital process. The core of the winter framework is to introduce more suppleness in facing up to a very difficult question of Brexit. And it's very it doesn't it's not perfect.

There are many, many imperfections. But I do think, and this might not be a bad day to say it. Following the meeting of the First Minister of Northern Ireland and a First Minister of Wales and Scotland at Cardiff, I do think there is a danger within Northern Ireland of not coming to terms with the fact that Windsor Faber has actually affected positive changes, and this is part of the process. A long time ago the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, will remember there was a thing called the Task Force report following the 1985 Hillsborough agreement on Margaret Thatcher, far more threatening and destabilising in its impact in Northern Ireland than anything in the Windsor framework, or indeed the initial withdrawal agreement and the.

The Task Force report represented a conclusion involving the two main Unionist parties. After some period of rather sterile activism against the United Kingdom government. And it says it says there was no sense security or sanity in the junior partner in the United Kingdom being permanently estranged from the senior partner. Now, the period since Brexit has opened up a similar period of estrangement. It is time that this came to an end.

The crucial thing, and it's underlined by the minister's remarks today. Crucial thing about the Windsor framework is that it moves away from the very problematic commitment in the Withdrawal Act that the British government foster an island economy. How you would do it, by the way, I'm never quite sure an all island economy, because the economy is based on a model condemned by a Klugman, Stiglitz, all Nobel Prize winners in economics, which is basically of low tax for American incoming firms.

But anyway, very difficult to do anyway. But the point is, the Windsor framework unhooks the British government commitment to further the island economy. And in that sense, that was problematic. Access royal agreement. Many difficulties remain, many flaws remain. But I welcome it when the minister comes today and essentially refreshes certain aspects of the Windsor framework. I'm very grateful to the Minister for her introduction.
16:09
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

My Lords, I'm deeply grateful for permission and to take part in this particular debate. I welcome these regulations, as I also have welcomed on many occasions, the Windsor framework, because it deals with those special arrangements that have to deal in the island of Ireland to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland. I don't want to see borders anywhere in between the UK and Ireland and between Northern Ireland and Britain.

So therefore, it is important that those challenges and those impediments that are presented by the Windsor framework are ironed out and hence the appointment 18 months ago by the then Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, of our noble Lord and Lord Murphy, to deal with particular issues regarding the implementation. And he was fairly circumscribed in what he could do. But some of those recommendations looked at democratic scrutiny. They looked at the issue of democratic deficit, and they.

He also proposed that Assembly members who remember , who are on that committee will have a greater level of time to do scrutiny, and in a committee that I am a member of, also of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, and we have met the Democratic Scrutiny Committee on several occasions, and they raised that particular issue with us. The lack of time that they were given to do scrutiny. So I was very pleased whenever Lord Murphy proposed that instrument would extend, and by five days, the time in which that Democratic scrutiny committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly must vote on whether to hold an inquiry.

That recommendation was accepted by the government and now we are given legal effect to that. So that is something that I welcome, and I would also like to ask my noble friend the Minister, our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and Lord Murphy also proposed in the hub. And I note that I'm sitting beside my noble friend and Baroness Anderson, who has met me on that specific issue of. In the hub, and to seek an update in relation to the hub.

How far is it progressing and work? Has it already done, and when will there be possibly a report to the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and to your Lordships Chamber on what progress has been made? But in summary, I support these this instrument and the regulations that it seeks to introduce as it will bring greater accountability in terms of the work to be carried out by the Democratic Scrutiny Committee.
16:12
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

My Lords, it will come. I suppose it's no surprise to say that I have a different opinion as regards the Windsor framework, because rather than being the answer to many of the problems, it is also created many problems between Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland businesses and the impact upon Northern Ireland businesses and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am fed up receiving when I ordering something from the mainland to be told it cannot be pushed to your address and of course, because of the.

And that is countless number of times now that would not be accepted in any other part of the United Kingdom. Why are we supposed to be thankful to be looked upon as the poor relation within the United Kingdom? And as regards the theatrics of what happened today, as regards Michelle O'Neill, I would just remind everyone that the First Minister has no power whatsoever to sign any memorandum of understanding as the First Minister, she can do so as the deputy leader of the Sinn Fein party, but she has absolutely no authority to sign anything on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly or the elected representatives in Northern Ireland from Stormont.

Now, in particular, I want to look at this and this particular, as I. And I do notice it is right that it flows from the Murphy Review. Lord Murphy, the noble Lord, that we have great respect personally for. But nevertheless it was to strengthen the place of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Now. But there is one aspect that in this that has been deleted, and I draw your attention.

I believe it has already been from a. Members of the other place that the deletion of S15C of the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2018. Now, if you visit the explanatory notes for the 2020 bill , which inserted the S15C into the Withdrawal Agreement Act, it makes it clear that the decision for it to be inserted was to provide a dedicated section of the 2018 act for the purposes addressed by 15 C, clause 35 in the 2020 Bill was to provide a safeguard and the explanatory notes of the 2020 Bill set out the purpose of clause 35, and I quote it says the provision precludes a Minister of the Crown as UK co-chair using the written procedure.

Annex eight, rule nine 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 that there is full ministerial accountability, including to Parliament, for all decisions made in the Joint Committee. Now it was put in for that specific purpose, the purpose to ensure that there is full ministerial accountability.

Why then has it been taken out? Because if that was in to ensure that there's accountability, full accountability, including by minister to Parliament, made to the Joint committee, then I would suggest that if there's going to be confidence that there is full accountability, then that should have remained. I'd be interested also if the noble lady, the minister, would outline or give to us or even send in writing to me the full, the full and complete list of EU laws that we are now subject to, because many of them have been quietly slipped in and applied by means of dynamic alignment , without even Northern Ireland or their representatives knowing anything about it.

And under 15 C, there's the opportunity to ensure that recommendations and decisions can be tracked before a joint committee meeting. Dates are announced well in advance, and one can monitor any public document in relation to that. And so therefore, I would ask the noble lady, the Minister, to tell us why and to justify why that has been removed, because it's it was its purpose being put in was to give full accountability. Then its removal.

It's the opposite. And I thought that what Lord Murphy was suggesting that was to strengthen the place of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, it would indeed strengthen and should be wanting to strengthen the democratic accountability. That, to me, is something which is a serious matter of the removal and the deletion of F-15c of the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2015. Thank you.
16:18
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

My Lords. I thank the noble lady, 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 Lord Murphy's very important report, which we very much supported as the noble lady. The Minister will be aware, there remain a very great many concerns about the Windsor framework in Northern Ireland, as the Lord McCrea has just has just illustrated very well, although from these benches we have always recognised that it is a pragmatic solution to a very far from optimum situation stemming from the hard Brexit approach adopted by the previous conservative governments.

Two quick questions to the minister. My Lord, can can the minister say whether there is a timetable for implementing the rest of the recommendations contained in Lord Murphy's important report? And can the Minister, following on from Lord McRae's speech, can she say whether there are plans for a wider strategy on how to ensure parliamentary oversight here in Westminster for secondary legislation stemming from the Westminster, 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 from regret motions on regulations relating to the Windsor framework. Indeed, I believe there's another one tomorrow evening from Lord McCrea, and she will be aware that even more will results from the EU Bill, and therefore, it would be very useful for us to understand the government's thinking about Westminster's oversight role, both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. In this regard.
16:20
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

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 is of the strong opinion that the government must explain why it is removing the safeguards that were introduced by the last government, prohibiting the use of written procedure in the Joint Committee, meant to ensure full ministerial accountability for its decisions.

This instrument removes section 15 C of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, and the explanatory memorandum to this instrument said this provision was being made, I quote, to facilitate decision making between the co-chairs on time sensitive issues during the period in between formal meetings, and noted 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 15 C into the 2018 act, stated that the prohibition on the use of written procedure in the Joint Committee by the UK s co-chair, who was to ensure that decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a minister in person.

The explanatory note said that this was to ensure full ministerial accountability for all decisions made in the Joint Committee, which was so 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. So, in line with the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, we have one very important question, and that is Will the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain in more detail the rationale for allowing the written procedure? Is there a risk? As has already been discussed, this would allow changes to slip through inadvertently, without even the minimal scrutiny currently in operation.
16:23
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

My Lords, I'm 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 demonstrates that we continue to take action to ensure the framework works for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, which is this government's intention for them to do so. Just in relation to a couple of the points that came up in the in the course of the debate, the noble Lord.

Lord, you raised a really important point. And I just want to say I fully agree with the noble Lord in his point that Northern Ireland's dual market access is a unique opportunity which has potential to drive real growth for Northern Ireland. The government is 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.

With relation to the points raised by my noble friend Baroness Ritchie, I'm very happy to meet to discuss the progress on the hub and in . With regard to the point raised by Lord McCrea, the robust parliamentary oversight frameworks already in place remain entirely unchanged, so I hope that provides a noble Lord with some reassurance. The written procedure simply ensures that when that. When interests. When the UK's interests depend on swift action between the scheduled meetings.

Bear in mind that they might only take place once or twice a year. We can take that action and Parliament will continue to be provided with explanatory memoranda on decisions made at the Joint Committee. I would like to just clarify that in our view, this doesn't weaken the accountability of government. At the Joint Committee. The scrutiny process for joint committee decisions proposed made by the government is not changed by the PSI, and that includes the role for Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly are set down in law and writing, which is very important.
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:26
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

We do think that there is sufficient safeguards in place, but I'm very happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this further, if he'd find that helpful. Sorry, just in relation to my final concluding remarks on the C, this isn't the only action that government is taking in this space in terms of protecting the internal market. We've announced 16.6 million to strengthen the UK internal market, help Northern Ireland boost trade with Great Britain.

This includes a comprehensive one stop shop regulatory support service beyond what is available on gov.uk currently. This will help businesses trade across UK and EU markets and benefit for Northern Ireland's unique dual market access. We've also established a triage process to support coordination between the Government and Northern Ireland departments on relevant EU legislation. This government is 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 own internal market prevent, in our view, a hard border on the island of Ireland and deliver certainty to businesses on the basis of the agreement with the EU.

I do recognise the respect that noble Lords may have different views on how we arrived at this place, from Brexit to where we are now and its merits and otherwise. However, I should be very clear on behalf of the government that our focus must remain on what we do next to ensure our relationship with the EU works best for all parts of the EU. I would like to finish by saying we are focused on looking forward to a new strategic partnership with the EU, which stands to benefit Northern Ireland, and I assure the committee that we'll also remain focused on smoothing flows of goods.

Northern Ireland, where we can, with the arrangements that apply now with an eye to the new and beneficial arrangements that we're seeking to obtain in future. I'm not sure I've managed to answer all noble Lords questions. I'm very happy and I'll ask my office to write out to all noble Lords who've taken part in today's debate, to have a continued conversation about these very important matters. But I do beg to move.
16:28
16:28
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Content.
16:28
16:29
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Oh Lib Dems.
16:29
16:29
16:29
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Thank you. I beg to move that the committee consider the Boiler Upgrade Scheme amendment to the Energy Act 2008, etc. regulations 2026, which were laid in draft before Parliament on 13th July 2026. The Boiler Upgrade Scheme is the government's flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small domestic 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 the 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 its intention to support heat batteries through the scheme. Once appropriate standards are in place.

The amendments made by these regulations are an important step towards implementing that decision. The government is supporting the future inclusion of heat batteries within 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 a 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 only be established in relation to the listed sources of energies and technologies. These regulations and thermal energy storage systems to the list add thermal 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 intends to bring forward a statutory instrument to amend the Boiler Upgrade Scheme Regulation 2022 and enable support for eligible heat batteries through the scheme.

The regulations also amend regulation 22 of the Boiler Upgrade Scheme Regulations 2022. This is a technical amendment which clarifies the powers available to the scheme administrator. When an installer has received an eligible 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 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 commitment to support heat batteries through the scheme to increase consumer choice and help more homeowners across England and Wales decarbonise their properties. I beg to move.
16:33
16:33
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

My Lord, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument today. I think the passage of time points to the boiler upgrade scheme's own record, and regrettably, there have been years of missed installation targets an additional 600,000 a year by 2028 goal. That's still barely a 10th met. And it is now self-evident that by expanding the scheme's budget and eligibility in 2026 escalates spend on a mechanism that has structurally underperformed without any intention to reform it coming from the government, nor the Liberal Democrat benches, if I may, at this point, I will share my interests as chairman of Buckthorn Actaeon and am now.

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 which the think tank onward, arguing UK electricity prices are too high and that cheap power itself, achieved partly by using more gas and cutting green levies, would do more to drive heat pump and EV uptake than continued subsidy, and mandates its 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 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. What is more, my colleagues in another place have consistently pressed ministers about the strong evidence that costs associated with the wider decarbonisation of heat agenda, including mechanisms like the clean heat market mechanisms boiler tax on manufacturers are being passed through to consumers via higher gas boiler prices.

In other words, the current approach taxes conventional boiler households to subsidise heat pump adopters. And this, my Lords, is regressive. And there are a number of specific points, and I'm very grateful to the Minister for having raised them. And the first one was actually a constitutional process. Concern this as I. Men's primary legislation via secondary legislation, not unusual, but because this C touches section 100 of the Energy Act 2008, it requires the affirmative procedure and regulation two modifying the list of sources of energy and technology is set out in section 100, section four of the act to include thermal energy storage systems and by virtue of section 153 A and three B, these regulations attract the affirmative procedure instruments that amend an Act of Parliament , rather than just delegated.

Regulations routinely draw scrutiny from committees like the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee or GSI over the appropriateness of using Henry VII's style power for what is a fairly narrow technical expansion now. Related. 2026 BS Amendment Instrument SI2026 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. Not this specific s I, but it illustrates the drafting quality concerns.

Members of Parliament and another place and committees have been raising about the pace of boiler upgrade scheme related legislation. The second point relates to, and I'm very grateful again to the Minister for raising this question of heat, batteries, thermal storage. These came out clearly in the government's own consultation on the bus eligibility expansion, which took place in November of last year, and which underpins this s I now, I'd be very grateful if the minister in in responding, could just update the committee on whether any product standards yet exist currently, as I understand it.

But things may have moved on since November. There were no product standards for thermal energy storage performance of heat packages, so these technologies would become eligible for scheme funding only once the relevant standards have come into force, meaning the law will permit funding for a technology category that can't actually be certified or verified yet. And then there's the efficiency and running costs. Doubts some respondents raised concerns about direct electric heating as 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 heat battery category altogether, arguing funding should stay focused on technologies with proven carbon savings rather than diluting the budget across less tested electric heating options.

And then the minister rightly pointed out the importance of the regulation 22 payment offset amendment, which is a much, much more mundane change. It is a fairly straightforward change, clarifying that the administrator may take one or a combination of the actions available to recover payments, provided the total doesn't exceed the sum of payments due. It hasn't, as I understand it, attracted any public objections, but it is worth flagging, and I'm grateful the minister did as a tidying up clause that gives Ofgem somewhat broader discretion in recovering overpayments and clawbacks appoint a scrutiny committee, sometimes probe for whether it expands administrative power beyond what was originally debated.

But I think that the minister has said in her opening remarks that that would not be the case on this occasion. My Lords, I believe that the government should stop increasing the cost of gas boilers for families through its boiler tax and stop wasting money forcing people into buying heat pumps. 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 it truly wants families to adopt electric heating technologies, instead of simply forcing people into changing the way they live their lives to meet its self-imposed, unachievable net zero targets.

That is why we have called to scrap the boiler upgrade scheme, along with the Clean Heat market mechanism, which places an obligation on gas and oil Boiler oil boiler manufacturers to install a minimum number of heat pumps at a cost of an estimated £340 million in its 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, providing financial support for families to install heat pumps to replace fossil fuel boilers.

The minister said this instrument amends that act to extend financial support , eligibility to heat batteries, electric heating tech and thermal energy storage systems. My Lords, many of us on this side of the House have studied this. Consider this to be a case of excessive government intervention and cost to ease the effects of other government intervention. Energy prices are not high. Not high, 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.

And similarly, I 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 which have led to the increase in energy bills, which are now the highest of any IEA member country, both including and excluding taxes for both industrial and domestic bills.

The government should not be subsidising the cost of renewables, promoting higher bills for some instead of bringing them down for all through more systemic changes, which my Lords will be the subject we will return to, no doubt on the long overdue introduction of the supremely misnamed Energy Independence Bill, which would increase energy dependence on imports, not decrease them. That said, on a personal note, I very much welcome the Minister to the despatch box for this s I and look forward to further debates and discussions with her.

Thank.
16:42
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Thank you very much for that contribution. And on that very note, can I welcome my my the noble Lords remarks? We've already debated some of these issues in my very first outing at the despatch box on the floor of the House, and I guess I think we're going to be debating some of this to some of the fundamental points that he makes about the direction of energy policy, and I think he is right to context this within that wider debate about energy policy.

And I would argue it is perhaps one of the great debates of our time and and will dominate our thinking and our discussions in the time ahead. And I am tempted to go into a very long discussion about that. And and I'm sure we'll have lively debates going forward, just to say he will know that, as I said on the floor of the House, that the onward report did face some criticism, and there were some arguments from the sector with the premises of that report.

But I will leave that because I am sure that we will return to that. At the end of my contribution today, I will make some comment on the general policy of our approach, but if I may, I will address the boiler upgrade scheme. But I genuinely want to put on the record that I recognise and respect his detailed points about it, and will pay great attention to the arguments that he is putting forward. It's an argument that this government wants to win and we believe we can win, but I think we only do that by paying attention to the the substance of what he has got to say, and I recognise its substance.

So I will go through the points that the my noble Lord has raised. I will not repeat again that the Boiler Upgrade scheme remains a government's flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales. Because we do see, of course, decarbonisation as fundamental to the challenges facing the country and offer solutions to some of the issues that we see in the great issues of climate change and the consequences of that.

But I will return to that. What I would want to do, if I may, chair, is focus on the points raised by my noble Lord. The detail of what he said. I think he did acknowledge in his contribution that the boiler upgrade scheme is directly funded by the Exchequer. It does not put any direct costs on consumables. 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 of that 50% of Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant recipients reported that their total energy bills decreased when replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump, compared to just 15% who reported an increase.

Eligible low carbon heating installations are currently benefiting, as he acknowledged, from 0.0 VAT, which is further reducing costs for consumers. It is also worth highlighting that consumer satisfaction rates are extremely high, with the boiler upgrade scheme, around 90 to 95% of property owners that received a Boiler upgrade Scheme grant are satisfied with their heating system. To date, the boiler upscaling scheme has. The scheme has delivered over 90,000 low carbon heating installations and issued over £600 million in grant funding, and our polling from the Department indicate that the broad population support this move and do see these technologies as something that they welcome and want to invite more into their own usage with regards to the clean heat market mechanism.

And I would say that it is a key part of the Warm Homes plan, providing industry with the confidence to invest in the transition to a low carbon heating and is and is welcomed alongside the boiler upgrade scheme. It sets achievable targets to help 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.

And I actually think, contrary to his argument, adds to consumer choice, which is something that I think is to be welcomed and helps people in different, different settings within their housing arrangements. It may be helpful if I say just a few more words about why the government is seeking to support heat batteries through through the scheme, whilst heat pumps, as I say, will remain the best solution for the majority of homes, the government do recognise that and I would have to say, I think is recognised broadly that there is no single low carbon heating technology which 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 a heat pump installation may not be practical. The government consulted on support for electric heating technologies, as was recognised in April 2025, and the government response was published in November 2025. As has been stated, there was broad support for expanding support through the scheme for alternative electric technologies, with heat batteries being the most frequently cited example.

And 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 be more challenging. They therefore have the potential to
16:47
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

To offer a low carbon heating option. In circumstances where a heat pump installation may not be suitable. Turning to the purpose of these regulations, they establish the necessary legislative powers by amending section 100 of the Energy Act 2008. And without this amendment, the Secretary of State would not have the statutory basis to include heat pumps and heat batteries within the Boiler Upgrade Scheme framework and future subject to Parliament approving these changes, the government intends to bring forward further amendments to the Boiler Upgrade Scheme regulations to support eligible heat batteries through the scheme.

However, the government has been clear that support for heat batteries will only be introduced 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 the new MCs design and installation standard alongside new product standards. And again, progress has been made on that as these standards are still under development.

It is not yet possible to begin supporting heat batteries through the scheme. Ensuring that. But we will ensure that robust standards are in place before support is introduced and it will help consumers with. To support high quality installations. In. Let me say a few words about the grant level, which I would like to draw a noble Lords attention to in the government response to the 2025 consultation.

The government stated its intention to support the batteries with a grant value of 2500 pounds. 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. And I would argue that this is value for money from the government to encourage this investment to help decarbonisation and is recognised, is valued by consumers and is welcomed by the broad public as an option for consumer choice to help them deal with the big challenges that we face as a country and move forward in decarbonisation.

As with other technological 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. Where 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 the potential suitability for homes where heat pumps may be may not be appropriate.

Following consideration of those responses, the government confirmed its intention to support heat batteries and those regulations are specifically intended to facilitate that future support. Let me also briefly address the amendment to regulation 22. And you have recognised the technical, administrative and and just helps address a fundamental issue that was necessary more broadly. And and I do look forward to our debates in the 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 is 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 ensure consumers can access a wider range of low carbon heating options. And let me conclude by reiterating that these regulations are an enabling measure.

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. I think it is quite proper to have a robust debate about these schemes.
16:51
16:53
16:54
16:54
16:55
16:55
16:55
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

My Lords, the committee considers the voter identification amendment of list of specified documents. Northern Ireland Regulations 2026, 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. The statutory instrument make specific 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 limit 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 the UK.

Parliamentary 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 one, the words on him section have been amended to on him by section 84 of the Northern Ireland Act. This section allows Northern Ireland's local election rules to be amended by ordering council and him refers to His Majesty the King.

In this context, I'd have thought slightly more polite than him. I now 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, the proof of age standards card, the Armed Forces Veterans Card and the Blue Badge from the Disabled Persons 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 ID will support participation in elections for a range of people in Northern Ireland. The Chief Elections officer for Northern Ireland and the Election Commission are . Both. 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 well understood an 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 IDs 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 the important security measures.

We now set out the measure in the third instrument relating to uprating local election candidate expenditure in more detail. The draft order will uprate the spending limits for candidates in Northern Ireland local elections. The limit will increase from five from £600 plus five per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area, in which they are standing, to £960 plus £0.08 per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area. This will bring the spending limit in Northern Ireland into line with the spending limit 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 when compared with those contesting parliamentary and assembly elections in Northern Ireland. They are also at a disadvantage compared to 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 retail spending on their campaign, which impacts on their ability to communicate with voters, with voters. The Electoral Commission has been consulted on these changes, in line with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland statutory duty, and is supportive of the new measures. In conclusion, my Lords, these measures, 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 ID is an important step in updating electoral processes to reflect the modern electorate in Northern Ireland. What. Also 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 spending limits remain aligned in real terms, with the original limits set by Parliament. I hope that following my setting out these details of the statutory instruments, the Committee will support them.

I beg to.
17:00
17:00
17:00
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

That are before us.
17:00
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

Today, and obviously, as the Minister has indicated, they fall into two categories one, dealing with the weighting of accessibility in terms of voter ID and the second aspect, dealing with the expense limits. And I say down the years that the use of voter identification has been something which has been positive in terms of preserving our democracy. Now, that is not to say that there have not been other problems in terms of electoral fraud within Northern Ireland.

One thinks of a particular example which probably be most familiar to Lord Elliot , of a polling station that was kept open beyond its hours, which actually had a material impact on the course of that electoral result. One looks at the situation, particularly with regard to postal votes. There is still been elements of electoral fraud done in relation to that, so we are not dealing with a perfect situation. However, broadly speaking, I would say that the electoral ID side of it is something which has been beneficial for democracy in Northern Ireland.

It is not always watertight. To give perhaps one example, I remember a number of years ago, during an election calling at the house of an elderly lady who had requested a lift to the polling station, and obviously wanting to make sure that this was not a wasted journey. I said, just before we we leave, have you got your photo identification with you? At which point you said, hold on a moment, and disappeared into the back room of her house and emerged about five minutes later with a small photograph of herself, nothing else on it, but just a photograph of herself and said, look, son, you can see it's me in that photograph.

So it's not absolutely watertight in that regard, but in most cases it has worked well. And I think that the changes that are being proposed today do seem to make a level of sense in terms of accessibility. The four aspects in particular, I welcome, I think, the veterans card, and we know that the. While there are other forms of identification, there will be some veterans who are a little bit always anxious about what identification they have with them.

So I think that this is something which is of a positive benefit. If I can maybe ask one question in relation to this, of the minister may be asking something which is not to hand, but in terms of each of the four elements, all of which I would be supportive of. Does the Minister of any breakdown of the number of those that are used in Northern Ireland in each of those, and very specifically, is there any indication of the number of people for whom these would be the sole element of identification, i.e., how much are we guaranteeing sort of widening accessibility? And it would be useful to have that that information, if not now, perhaps in writing.

The second aspect is obviously the level of election expenditure. And when we're dealing with local government elections, I've come from the chamber where there are major issues over financial support from outside of the United Kingdom, where there is talk of crypto, millions, etc., when dealing with local government elections, the kind of money that we're talking about is an awful lot less. But where we have the limits of present are causing real difficulties because they've not been updated for a number of years.

And I know going back, for example, to the 2023 election, where I think for the vast bulk of candidates, their only expenditure will be on perhaps a piece of canvas material, something that will be then given also to the to the post office for a the postal drop and maybe some posters. So we're not talking about sort of high tech extravagant costs, but particularly as costs in terms of printing have accelerated, I believe, at a rate beyond that simply of inflation.

I know that in the last local government elections, a number of candidates found themselves that they were unable even to do all of those aspects, particularly some candidates in Belfast, where the electorate tends to be of a larger nature per DEA than other areas. And they simply had to say, well, actually, as regards a postal drop, we cannot afford the printing for this and remaining within limits. And I think that that is a particular problem, not simply because it reduces the level of of democracy where people are not in a position to obtain that information, but it also creates a thing for some unscrupulous candidates that they then falsify the expense that they go to.

And if you like, try to get in their material at an artificially reduced level to remain within that. So I think that these are very sensible proposals as regards that level of expenditure. It does bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of those levels. And I think it is something which, from the point of view of candidates from whichever party or indeed independence, puts it within a realistic level for next year's local government election.

So I'd be very supportive of the proposals that have been put forward.
17:06
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. We are in relation to this particular issue. Firstly, I would like to welcome my noble friend Baroness Anderson to the despatch box representing an a NIO and. And this is my first occasion in which I've had an opportunity to take part in a debate with you in terms of Northern Ireland. Obviously I support these essays because they are underpinning and trust in the electoral system.

They're underpinning the principle of democratic accessibility and ensuring that people have that access to the franchise and that access to exercise their vote. Now, I welcome the fact that the number of identification documents have been increased, and I welcome the one for the blue badge, because many people have blue badges. But up until now in Northern Ireland, they couldn't use them for electoral identification purposes. And I do recall whenever electoral identification and was introduced back in 1985, and I think Lord Dodds and myself would have encountered it in the local government election, one in Belfast, myself and down .

When electoral identification was introduced, we were just told a few weeks before the election took place, that they were going to be subject to electoral identification and documents, and at that stage it was medical cards, and then it moved on to be the ability to use allowance, child benefit, pension books. And then the photographic ID came into play. And as the minister outlined about 20 odd years ago. So it is important that perhaps we were in the vanguard for identification, for eligibility to vote.

But obviously there were very good reasons for that. Political parties , in the main, on the constitutional side, demanded that level of. Shall we say, support for those who wanted to exercise their mandate. But I do recall, and I agree with, Lord, we're in relation to this issue of electoral fraud. I do know that some, shall we say, agents are particularly adept at undertaking electoral fraud.

And in my own case, when I was a candidate in 2007, 17 people told me they went to vote for me using a photographic ID and could not vote for me because their votes were already used. So obviously some mechanism was used to deliberately falsify their identity. And I would like to think, as I'm sure other noble lords would like to ascertain, that means have been found to address those particular issues and ensure that that level of electoral fraud does not happen again.

Now, I welcome the one in relation to spending limits for local government. And there is also another aspect. Many candidates in both the Assembly and local government elections will use videos and social media, and as a means of conveying their message. Because, as we know, many young people today use social media in terms of elections, and that's what they gain their information. So to ensure that those spending limits will cover that form of communication.

So with those few comments and the query on electoral fraud to which I've already alerted my noble friend the minister, I support these essays and look forward to the minister's response.
17:10
None Portrait Speaker 16
-

I just want to raise very briefly to welcome these statutory instruments to welcome broadly in line with, for the reasons that the noble Lord Weir and Baroness Ritchie have outlined. I just have a couple of queries which I'd be grateful if the Minister could respond to. First, on the issue of the identity documents that are now able to be used in local government elections, were there any other documents or materials considered and not accepted by the Northern Ireland Office? I wonder, could the Minister outline whether other means of identity were considered but rejected, and if so, why? And secondly, on the issue of the costs, the increase is quite substantial.

It's well over 50% as the base figure and then some 25 nearly, I think, 33% per individual elector. So those were quite substantial increases. So I wonder, could the noble Baroness, the Minister, indicate when was the last time these figures were uprated? And why has there been such a delay in bringing these figures up to an acceptable level, given that they've had to be increased by such a substantial amount in one fell swoop? I do remember in the last elections for local councils, candidates and parties of all persuasions complaining bitterly about the about the restrictions on spending compared to elections elsewhere in the UK.

So I'm grateful for that information. Also, the the noble Baroness, the Minister has mentioned that part of this is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK, or to align Northern Ireland with the rest of the UK. And in that regard I want to raise an issue which I've raised before in relation to postal ballots, and this is. This arises from the issue that pertains to Northern Ireland but doesn't pertain in the rest of the UK, whereby if someone does not receive a postal ballot that they have applied for and been accepted that it is legitimate or and it's lost in the post, it doesn't reach them in England and Wales, it's possible to get a replacement issued by the electoral authorities in Northern Ireland that has been refused for decades now.

For some reason, when this has been raised previously, there's been some alluding to the issue of security, but in very vague terms, 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 be sent out to replace a lost ballot would be very small in comparison, and I can't understand why there is some problem with bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK on an issue which has to do with people's right to vote.

I mean, it's no. If somebody applies in good faith for a postal vote and it doesn't arrive and there's still time to get another one, or they contact electoral office or they would go and collect it. It is really difficult for them to understand. And I had 1 or 2 people in touch with me about this. It's very difficult for them to see why they should be denied their vote through no fault of their own, when they've taken steps to actually receive a ballot.

So I'd be grateful if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could reply to that point also. Thank you.
17:14
17:15
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

My Lord, it's always a pleasure to follow the Lord view with his historical perspective. I thank the noble lady, the Minister, for her detailed introduction to these regulations. From these benches. We support all three measures, and I shall therefore be extremely brief. Liberal Democrats have always had significant reservations about the introduction of voter ID at polling stations. We believe it's extremely important that nothing is done that discourages people from voting.

I do, of course, however, understand the very particular circumstances in Northern Ireland have required voter ID to be in place well before voter ID was introduced to the rest of the UK. I'm therefore fully supportive of measures which increase the number of acceptable documents that can be used in polling stations in Northern Ireland, such as the armed forces, veteran cards, proof of age pass cards and disabled persons parking scheme, blue badge. A couple of quick questions for the noble Lady.

The Minister. I understand from the explanatory memorandum that the permitted identity documents are kept under review in consultation with the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer in Northern Ireland. Following on from the question from Lord Dodds, can the Minister say how frequently she expects additional forms of ID to be added, if appropriately, if appropriate? And a slightly beyond the scope of these regulations. Question. But given the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for devolution, I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the government is giving any consideration to reviewing local government in Northern Ireland, both in terms of expanding the powers and budget local authorities, local authorities have in Northern Ireland, and on the wider question of the wider devolution settlement in Northern Ireland.

Obviously, I don't necessarily expect her to reply to that this evening, but perhaps it's something we could discuss in a future debate or in more detail at a later stage.
17:18
None Portrait Speaker 12
-

My Lords.
17:18
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

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

Second, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, Stoke on Trent, to the despatch box. She will recall that when we first faced each other following the general election just over two years ago, I did express some regret that Northern Ireland did not have a full time minister in your lordships House, and I'm very pleased that that has now been rectified and I sincerely congratulate her on her. Her elevation to parliamentary Under-Secretary of state. My Lords, turning to the three regulations we are debating today, they bring Northern Ireland's voter ID and spending rules into line with rules that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, mainly England, and as such we do not oppose these measures.

I do have one question to put to the Minister on the issue of veterans cards. What assessment has 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 veterans card.

They wish to do so, but it would be helpful to know what work the government have done on this, if any. As the noble Baroness, the Minister knows, the representation of the people Bill, which is currently being debated in the chamber, is planning to 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? And I asked this very conscious of the fact that it was a Labour government in the early 2000 2002, I believe, which 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 the updated sensible. But there is a question of coherence. I understand that the. On the 29th of 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. So how does this measure before us today relate to that review? And on votes at 16, which I can assure the noble Baroness I personally regard as completely insane.

If the government is committed to pursuing this madness, what work are they doing to ensure 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 noble Baroness, the minister, say whether the Northern Ireland Office has had an opportunity yet to to study his recommendations? I appreciate their only.

Published in July, but if they agree with them and whether they have a timetable to take them forward. Finally, and with the indulgence of the Committee turning to issues beyond these regulations, this is the first opportunity I've had to ask questions of the noble Baroness since the president of the United States visited Ireland in his usual understated way at the weekend. Can the noble Baroness, the minister, say what is the position of His Majesty's Government on the president's remarks in support of a united Ireland? Do they like my right hon.

Friend the leader of the opposition and me regard those comments as deeply unhelpful and irresponsible. What discussions have ministers had, or do they plan to have with the United States administration following those remarks? Can the noble Baroness, 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 who to determine the constitutional future of Northern Ireland? And 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?
17:23
17:23
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

Never.
17:23
17:24
17:25
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

Absolutely. And it's in terms of take up, but also who's likely to have access to those pieces of IgG? With regards to the issue of 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 is valid. Requiring the digital registration number is a further level of security that does not exist elsewhere, which I hope will be reassuring to both the noble Lord aware and my noble friend Baroness Ritchie.

My noble friend Baroness Ritchie also touched on the noble Lord Dodds and others on the issue on the potential issues 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 that doesn't mean that we should not always be vigilant about current initiatives, and especially as the use of technologies develop about what people can and cannot access.

With regards to the addition of new IDs and the communication. My noble friend Baroness Ritchie was absolutely right about making sure that people have enough time to know what's coming in front of them, so we have to reassure her. The government has been working closely with the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, the Electoral Commission, on these changes. They will publicise the changes in their literature and voter information campaigns. It's why it's so important that we do these Sis now so that people, both voters and future candidates, are aware of the changes that are in front of them.

With regards to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, about any other ID documents being considered, the government has not seen any demand or had requests for any other 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 raised an issue of postal ballots and the 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 Kane, raised two issues well raised more than two issues. But I will come on to the last one right at the end. But with regards to votes for IG for votes at 16, we will consider what measures may need to be updated to the system to ensure 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, the lordships House.

And in terms of bank card, the bank card change for voter ID, let me be clear that there are no plans for that to happen in Northern Ireland, given the wider context of which you are enabled. Lord knows very, very well but that all members of 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. It is well understood and trusted. There were some other issues I'd like to touch on briefly before I get to the really easy question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kay, in terms of. In the cost of where we are, I think many members of your lordships House have stood for election.

It is very easy to underestimate how much printing costs are, especially if, as you. Should you use a trade union printer in order to do it. To ensure that there are appropriate terms and conditions and payments paid to the people actually doing the printing, that has to be reflected in the cost of what we're doing. Also, as noble Lords also raised the issue of videos of social media and the demands that are on all of us.

Some of these things are mitigating election campaigns, especially for those that are standing not as independent. However, it is very clear that inflationary costs need to be considered, and the fact that these and the noble Lord Dodds raised a right issue about how much these costs have gone up and what the and the cost increases in terms of the figures that we are allowing going forward. These costs have not been uprated or the allowances have not been updated since 2005, although this is a significant one off hit.

Actually, it is something that we will need to continue to have under review, but it is important to get the figures done now.
17:30
17:30
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

So it's very easy for me to say yes from this despatch box. I'm going to. But there is an issue about the fact that it hasn't been uprated in this period of time, however, that we have been very clear that in advance of next year's elections, the uprating had to come into effect. So this is the first requirement of this government to be able to make sure that there is a level playing field in terms of elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Bute, raised a very, very important issue about foreign money in elections. He'll know that the Ryecroft review is undertaking has made significant recommendations, all of which the government has accepted. In this space there is always, as with everything else, a Northern Ireland element to it, and I look forward to having discussions with the noble Lord about it as the. As this continues in terms of adding new ID as was raised by the noble Baroness lady.

That is under constant review in terms of any new requests for ID. As I have said earlier, we will review. As circumstances change and actually 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. My Lords, I'd prefer to get through next year's elections first before we talk about what comes next, but I undoubtedly we will continue to.

Given the priorities of the Prime Minister, we will have these conversations about what the devolution in England really means for the rest of the United Kingdom. With regards to the canvas and the Nia response, the noble Lord, Lord Cain, raised a very, very important point. I haven't had time to. I haven't had advice on this yet, but I expect to. And I look forward to discussing that with him, and I will write to him with that view.

And in terms of the constitutional assessment of the status of Northern Ireland and the words of President Trump, let me be very clear that President Trump is entitled to his opinion, as is everybody else, but there is no evidence to suggest a majority of people wish to separate from the United Kingdom. And the Prime Minister is personally committed to the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, as I am, and 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.

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

I beg to move.
17:33
17:33
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

Content.
17:33
17:33
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

beg to move formally.
17:33
17:33
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

Content.
17:33
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page