North Belfast: Violent Attack

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments with regard to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I think that anyone who has watched the news in the last 36 hours can only be in awe of and very grateful to the chief constable, Jon Boutcher, and the brave men and women who are serving in all our emergency services, but especially the PSNI. I put on record the thanks of the whole House to those extraordinarily brave bystanders who chose not to look the other way but intervened very bravely to save a member of their community.

With regard to the specific question that the noble Lord raises on common travel area, he will be as aware as I am that the common travel area has been in operation for a century and is regularly a matter of conversation for both the British and Irish Governments; that continues to be the case and has been so this week. I think it is helpful for Members of your Lordships’ House to know that, in the last 12 months, 1,500 enforcement operations took place in relation to illegal immigration in Northern Ireland, with more than 1,200 arrests. This is something that this Government take very seriously.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too deeply deplore Monday’s violent attack and condemn in the strongest possible terms those who seek to weaponise pain and suffering. In particular, I condemn those inciting violence from abroad, including Tommy Robinson from Moscow yesterday evening. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to the bystanders and emergency services, whose bravery was truly outstanding. Does the Minister agree that the priority must be to help the community recover from this appalling violence, and will she say what the Government are doing to support the people of Belfast and bring communities back together through the difficult weeks ahead?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for the tone that she has taken. I agree with every word that she said, not least about the appalling comments of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—someone who I, in a previous incarnation, campaigned against for decades. For all of us, Stephen Ogilvie should be in our prayers, and we hope and wish for him to have as speedy a recovery as possible. In terms of working with the community, after the disorder in Ballymena last year, I went there and met the community leaders, the extraordinary women who stood in between those violent perpetrators and the community, and I am very grateful for them. It will take months for the community to heal from what is happening. I reiterate what the leader of the DUP has said in recent hours: protests and politics are British values; that is the way we engage; violence is not.

Supreme Court Dillon Judgment

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making herself available today to take this Statement and answer questions on the important Supreme Court judgment; I appreciate that she has a very busy portfolio, so I am grateful.

Can the Minister tell the House what the urgency was that required the Secretary of State to make his Statement in the other place last Thursday when many of Northern Ireland’s MPs, along with members of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, were attending the Balmoral agricultural show? One can only speculate as to what would motivate the Government to make a Statement on a day when they would have known that a significant number of interested MPs would be unable to attend.

Turning to the judgment, the Opposition welcome that the court found in favour of the Government in respect of article 2 of the Windsor Framework. I remind the House that this relates to measures introduced by the previous Government, of which I was a member. The appeal in this area is a continuation of the one we lodged following the High Court judgment of February 2024. We were always very clear that the human rights protections in the Windsor Framework were intended to cover those specific to Northern Ireland, as set out in the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity section of the Belfast agreement 1998. It was never our intention that article 2 of the framework should apply more broadly than that and enable the courts to disapply primary legislation where they believe it engages provisions of EU law that no longer apply in Northern Ireland.

However, as the Statement points out, the judgments in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had implications for the effective implementation of government legislation on a UK-wide basis, not just in areas of national security as the Statement refers to but also, for example, in tackling illegal migration. We are naturally pleased, therefore, that the position we took has now been vindicated.

Turning to the issue of conditional immunity, I regret that the Statement continues the current Government’s wilful mischaracterisation of what is contained in the 2023 Act. There was never a general immunity—to which I would emphatically have never agreed—but a conditional scheme in relation to specific cases where an individual co-operates fully with the commission, with tough sanctions including revocation, fines and possible prosecution where somebody knowingly sought to mislead or hide the truth. The effects would have been to facilitate information recovery, helping to provide answers to victims and survivors while ensuring that individuals, including veterans, could speak freely without fear of further consequences.

Notwithstanding what it says about ECHR compatibility, which is more nuanced than the Statement implies, the court’s judgment is also clear that the immunity provisions in the 2023 Act do not breach article 2 of the Windsor Framework and therefore do not need to be disapplied. Can the Minister confirm this is the case and that, as the law currently stands, any veteran engaging fully with the commission could apply for conditional immunity and this could be granted? Does it not also follow that the decision by the Government to use the Human Rights Act to remove these provisions is a political choice, rather than a legal requirement, and one that will once again lead to the prospect of investigations and prosecutions? It is a political choice that will not be lost on so many of those who served to keep people safe and secure from terrorism during 30 years of Operation Banner.

The court also ruled that the current commission can carry out investigations to an article 2 and 3 standard and can operate independently of the Secretary of State—not least in part thanks to the amendments passed in your Lordships’ House. Does this not render the sweeping changes in the Government’s own Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place as far back as November and has not yet had its Committee stage, almost completely unnecessary? We all know that the reason for the delay has been an impasse between the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence over additional protections for veterans after the ones announced last September were shown to be wholly inadequate, with all but one applying in equal measure to paramilitaries. Can the Minister tell the House whether these new protections have now been agreed and, if so, when they will be published? Have they been backed by the Dublin Government, who have been seen by many as driving this process, over which they have effectively given themselves a veto?

The commission that was established in 2024 has, from a standing start, so far received requests from 290 individuals from all parts of the community. It is conducting 123 live investigations, involving approximately 200 deaths, with its first reports expected imminently. Rather than burdening this House with yet more unnecessary legislation, the Government should get behind the commission and ensure that it has the tools to do its job. Instead, they have made the political choice to embark on a course that will once again leave veterans exposed, facilitate the republican rewrite of history and, regrettably, only delay the provision of answers for so many victims and survivors of the Troubles.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for dealing with questions following last Thursday’s Statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The judgment is undoubtedly a complex one, but we believe it firmly vindicates the many concerns that were raised during the passage of the previous Conservative Government’s Bill in your Lordships’ House, as well as elsewhere, about the immunity provisions contained in the 2023 Act.

From these Benches, we consistently opposed the unacceptable equivalence that the immunity provisions made between terrorists and those who had served the Crown in Northern Ireland. It was this position of equivalence that led to all political parties in Northern Ireland—we should not forget—victims and survivors’ groups, as well as many veterans in Northern Ireland, opposing it. Although those provisions never came into force and were not before the Supreme Court in this case, I know that the Minister is all too aware that there remain many concerns about both the remedial order and the Troubles Bill among veterans’ organisations. The Supreme Court’s ruling makes getting those protections right more urgent, not less.

The court confirmed that the ICRIR’s design is not fatally flawed in principle, but only by deferring key questions to be resolved case by case. That approach creates precisely the uncertainty that veterans fear most of all, particularly given the inherent evidential disadvantage they face. Dillon has not resolved these questions; it has simply postponed them. We believe that that makes it even more important that the protections built into the Troubles Bill are robust and clearly defined from the outset.

Last week, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that protections for veterans

“will be published in advance of Committee”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/5/26; col. 146.]

in the House of Commons. Can the Minister confirm that these provisions to protect our veterans will also be shared with noble Lords, and that our views and concerns will also be taken into consideration? Can the Minister also confirm that these will be real and substantial protections that recognise that there is not, and never should be, equivalence between those who serve our country and those who have committed terrorist atrocities? The judgment clearly has consequences beyond this case alone. Can the Minister say what she believes the wider implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on article 2 of the Windsor Framework will be for both Northern Ireland and the Government’s ability to legislate going forward?

Finally, does the Minister agree that, in all the heat and fury surrounding these issues, it is vital not to forget the families, victims and survivors, who simply want to know the truth of what happened to their loved ones and to have some prospect of justice? I had the privilege of visiting the Wave Trauma Centre in Belfast recently. Speaking to a small group of victims and survivors was deeply moving. They just want to have hope that, after all these years of waiting, they might have answers and some sense of closure. Does the Minister also agree that it is equally important that this process does not lose sight of the objective of long-term reconciliation, including measures to promote genuine cross-country understanding, such as measures to advance integrated education?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their contributions. I will attempt to address their questions and concerns, considering both the time available to us and the complex nature of this judgment, which I am sure that both noble and noble and learned Lords will be taking time to digest. I will also reflect on Hansard and, if I have missed any of the specific questions raised, I will write.

I start with the final comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, about the victims. The noble Lord, Lord Caine, advised me when I took on this role that, every time I speak at the Dispatch Box, I should check the anniversary dates. That should remind all of us of the actual consequences of what we are dealing with and why we are doing this work. On 17 May 1973, five British soldiers were killed by the Provisional IRA in Omagh. On 17 May 1974, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings by the UVF occurred, and 33 people were killed. On 15 May 1977, Captain Robert Nairac, known to Members of your Lordships’ House, was disappeared. On 19 May 1981, five British soldiers were killed at Bessbrook by the Provisional IRA. On 18 May 1984, three soldiers were murdered at Enniskillen and two soldiers were murdered at Camlough by the Provisional IRA. On 20 May 1985, four members of the RUC were murdered near Killeen by the IRA. This is within a week in the history of the Troubles.

However, there is always hope: on 22 May 1998, we had the referendum on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, in which 71.2% of the residents of Northern Ireland voted for peace to take us forward. Everything we do has to be within the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and of the Stormont House agreement to take us from where we were to where we are. There are Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House who lived and breathed the reality of the Troubles and, for every murder I have just referenced, dozens of people were hurt and still live with the consequences today. So, as we talk about these issues, people are still grieving every single day and do not have answers. I have been privileged in my role to meet many of the families, victims and veterans’ groups who served and are still dealing with the consequences.

I turn to some of the specific questions. I commend, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did, the families who brought the case against the legacy Act. They were utterly opposed to the Act and, most notably, to the provision it made for a conditional immunity scheme, which would have offered immunity to terrorists who perpetuated horrific acts of violence against our service personnel, as well as our service personnel—an immunity that has never been put into law. The action they took resulted in the conditional immunity scheme and several other provisions of the legacy Act being found by the High Court, and then again by the Court of Appeal, to be incompatible with our obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This Government have and are opposed to the immunity scheme. It was wrong in principle and had no support in Northern Ireland, which is why we dropped the appeal on immunity.

On the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, although I am not as noble and learned as my mother had always wished I might be, there was one key paragraph in the finding:

“In our view it cannot be said that the Strasbourg court has established a principle in its case law that there is a reconciliation exception to the general ban on amnesties for grave breaches of fundamental rights or that the question has not come before that court. Absent such a ruling, there is nothing to which the mirror principle can be applied by the United Kingdom courts through incremental development to the circumstances in Northern Ireland”.


As I said, I am definitely not learned, unfortunately, but my understanding, and my briefing, is that that is clear, in legal language, that amnesty would not be found to be legal.

I turn to the remedial order. This point is particularly important to note. I know that some in this House have shared the view that the Government did not have the grounds on which to bring forward the remedial order, which would finally strike the immunity provisions from the statute book. As noble Lords will be well aware, the conditions for laying an RO under the Human Rights Act are that

“an appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned”.

The Supreme Court recognised this, and therefore immunity was not an issue before it. However, it stated very clearly that no exemptions in case law exist to justify the granting of immunity for breaches of Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR. As such, the Government will move forward with the remedial order as soon as parliamentary time allows, and I look forward to discussing the detail of the remedial order with Members of your Lordships’ House at that point, in what I am sure will be an interesting discussion.

I turn to Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. The Supreme Court has provided important clarity on how this should be interpreted and applied in future. It has confirmed the Government’s long-standing position that the rights protected by Article 2 of the Windsor Framework are those concerned with the cessation of the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, and that specifically. While reaffirming the Government’s position on this, the Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the legacy Act should not have been disapplied by Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. For absolute clarity, this does not equate to endorsement of the immunity scheme, as has been suggested by some.

I turn to the Troubles Bill that is before the other place. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set out, the Troubles Bill is now the only viable way to generate confidence across communities, enable information sharing by the Irish authorities and put in place the necessary safeguards for our future service personnel. We have been listening to victims, families and our brave veterans and service personnel in developing this legislation. I have met numerous victims and veterans’ groups and have heard first hand of the violence—the Troubles continue to impact their lives today. It is for them we are seeking to act. This is why the Government are committed to progressing this legislation as soon as possible, while balancing that against the need to get this right.

The Government will be tabling a series of amendments to the Bill in due course, which we hope will give all communities confidence in legacy processes and ensure that our veterans are treated fairly and with the respect and dignity they deserve. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, yes, absolutely, I am more than happy to share them with Members of your Lordships’ House. As and when the legislation gets to our end of the building, however, I am convinced that we will be discussing specifically those parts of the legislation for many hours.

One of the other issues, and why we need the legislation to come forward, is tackling interim custody orders. That was not referenced by either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, but we do need to deal with this issue, and we will do so within the legislation as it comes forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, also touched on immigration. He is absolutely right that there are impacts of this judgment across Whitehall as well as across Northern Ireland departments. It is a very complicated judgment, so we are reflecting on what it means in the round, but the Government were successful in our appeal, so we look forward to moving forward.

On the other issues, I put on record my support for WAVE. It is an extraordinary organisation, and it is not the only one. We work closely with many others across the piece, whether they are smaller groups such as MAPS or SEFF—which is not a small group at all—or WAVE. Noble Lords who have been touched by this issue will be aware that veterans in Northern Ireland require different types of support than other members of the community do. It would it be impossible for a member of the unionist community to access certain services if they did not know who would be there too, and vice versa, so making sure that there is a range of organisations is key, and it is my privilege to get to work with them.

Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant and Animal Health) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The regulations referenced in this evening’s Motion do not deal with the imposition of the large swathes of EU law which impinge on Northern Ireland’s economy. The regulations before us are intended to expand the range of goods—namely, Thai and Chinese poultry, and cut flowers from the rest of the world—that are eligible to be supplied to Northern Ireland from Great Britain under the retail movement scheme. These regulations are not a solution to the long-term problems born of the protocol. In imposing on Great Britain EU standards that already apply to Northern Ireland, these regulations evidence a desire to use that fact to seek to undermine Brexit in the rest of the country.

It is a strange anomaly that although EU regulation 2023/1231 was made after the UK left the European Union, it relates only to the governance of the United Kingdom and not the European Union. The United Kingdom Government have not scrutinised this legislation and have no power to alter it. Is it really acceptable that laws which apply only in the United Kingdom should be made by a foreign entity of which we are not a part?

Far from removing the barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom created by the protocol, the Windsor Framework has entrenched many of these and will impose heavy costs on Northern Ireland/Great Britain trade and damage living standards in Northern Ireland. I know that my time is brief, so I will consider just a few points.

It has been argued that the restrictions on state aid set out in the protocol have been significantly eased by the de minimis regulations introduced on 1 January 2024. Unfortunately, this is clearly not the case, since the United Kingdom Government’s capacity to provide financial support to Northern Ireland’s large businesses remains severely limited. This may have made it impossible for the last Government to provide the necessary funds to prevent the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast going into administration. Can the Minister clarify the position regarding the future operation of the Belfast shipyard, in particular the building of naval ships?

The negative consequences of the United Kingdom fulfilling its commitment to extend the requirement for “not for EU” labelling to products consumed in Britain should not be overlooked. This will cause the isolation of the Northern Ireland market, since the increased cost of providing a small product line with different labelling for Northern Ireland will inevitably disincentivise many British traders from supplying goods to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister explain why the Government have reneged on their commitment to introduce this legislation throughout the United Kingdom?

I warmly welcome the arrival of the mutual enforcement Bill, which I see has now been propelled to Second Reading in another place. Unlike the regulations before us today, the Bill provides a sensible solution. It replaces the Irish Sea border—which violates the Belfast agreement in disfranchising the people of Northern Ireland—with mutual enforcement, which disfranchises no one and restores the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom without requiring border infrastructure on the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border.

Finally, we were informed that the protocol would bring prosperity and untold opportunities for business. To date, I believe that there is very little evidence to show this. I support the Motion.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a characteristically impassioned debate and, with the notable exception of the very pertinent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, it has perhaps been rather less about the substance of the regulations before us and more about concerns of identity; but as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said in his very thoughtful speech setting out the historical context, we are where we are. From these Benches, we welcome the Government stating that they are fully committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK’s internal market. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pushes her fatal Motion to a vote this evening, we will not be supporting her.

On the substance of these regulations, I can be extremely brief. These changes, which are fairly limited in scope, impact Scotland, Wales and England and are necessary, we believe, to make the Windsor Framework work in practice. It is welcome that the Government consulted with the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales and have received legislative consent from both. But, turning to some of the wider issues that these regulations raise following the change of government, this can be seen to be the beginning of a wider debate about our general approach to alignment with or divergence from the EU. We are going to have to debate whether we want divergence for divergence’s sake, which I would argue is the logical consequence of some of the speeches we have heard this evening, or whether we wish to align whenever possible with our European partners where it makes sense to do so. If we wish to align with EU legislative changes as they happen, this inevitably raises questions about the democratic deficit and being a rule taker.

As someone who was very much against leaving the European Union, I think it is worth recalling from time to time that prior to Brexit we had MEPs, a commissioner, Commission officials and Ministers who were all in a position to debate these issues in Brussels before, during and after the legislation was developed by the EU. Now we have to decide whether or not to follow these changes without having any say—but that was the decision taken in 2016. Ultimately, this is about managing divergence with our biggest market and keeping up with changes as they take place within the European Union. The business community, in particular, is keen to have clarity on this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I would be very grateful if the Minister could say a little more about what discussions are taking place with the business community on the possible consequences of divergence.

Turning to the democratic deficit, it is welcome that the Liaison Committee of this House is considering establishing a Northern Ireland scrutiny committee. Such a committee could replace the very important work previously carried out by the Northern Ireland protocol committee. But it is also important that we continue to debate many of these issues as fully as possible, including in this Chamber. In that regard, it would be very useful to have a debate in government time on the future approach to the Windsor Framework as well as the wider government approach to EU trade. Can the Minister in her concluding remarks give a brief update on where we are with practical re-engagement with the EU? In particular, can she say a little more about where we are regarding agreements on SPS and on veterinary matters?

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming and land management interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing this Motion and for raising the key issues for people living in Northern Ireland. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate with such passion and energy and who have candidly shared their deep frustrations.

From the outset, I would like to confirm my personal commitment and that of my noble friends on this side of the House: we are all dedicated unionists. We also remain strongly supportive of the importance of implementing the Windsor Framework agreement, securing the application of British standards for goods which move to and stay in Northern Ireland, and ensuring that the same goods are available for consumers in all parts of the UK. It upholds Northern Ireland’s access to the rest of the UK internal market and safeguards Northern Ireland’s privileged access to the EU single market, which has been a clear demand from businesses in order to protect livelihoods.

Following the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, earlier in this debate, I too hope that the Minister can restate the Government’s manifesto commitment:

“Labour is committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market”.


I also ask the Minister to confirm that this instrument is consistent with the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, published in January 2024. In line with the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that we have heard today from my noble friend Lady Lawlor and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I would also like to press the Minister to explain to the House the extent of the consultation undertaken. What is the nature of the parties that have been consulted? How many have been consulted and on what questions? Is it possible to publish the anonymised consultee responses? Has the policy been adjusted or impacted by any of that consultation to arrive at the position we see it in today? If so, whose responses carried the most weight?

In addition, how would the Minister respond to concerns expressed by many noble Lords that this instrument appears to be intent on aligning with EU law and thus has constitutional significance? As is the custom in this House, we on these Benches will not be supporting the fatal Motion on an instrument such as this, but I hope the Minister will listen carefully to noble Lords’ concerns.

Electoral System (Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Committee Report)

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Suttie]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Committee An electoral system fit for today? More to be done (Session 2019–21, HL Paper 83).

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, it should have been Lord Shutt of Greetland standing here today. As noble Lords will know, my noble friend, David Shutt, very sadly died in October 2020. As the other Liberal Democrat member of the Electoral Registration Act 2013 post-legislative scrutiny committee, I have been asked to present the findings of our committee to your Lordships’ House today. I know Lord Shutt would have wanted me to begin by warmly thanking the committee staff: Simon Keal, Katie Barraclough and Breda Twomey, as well as the specialist advisers, Professor Maria Sobolewska and Professor Stuart Wilks-Heeg, for all their hard work and dedication during the inquiry and in drawing up report.

Simon Keal, the committee clerk, told me:

“Lord Shutt was exceptionally good to work with. An extremely dedicated and professional Chair, with a real commitment and passion for the subject matter and determination for the Committee to make a difference.”


In looking again at the various obituaries for Lord Shutt in preparing for today’s debate, I was struck by the frequent use of “straight talking” and “decent” to describe him. But he also had a wonderful twinkle in his eye. He liked to tell it as it was. He enjoyed a bit of gossip over a cup of tea but was always extremely kind.

As director and later chairman of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, Lord Shutt was able to promote political reform and help community projects, particularly for young people. It is telling that his very last political act in Parliament was to promote the rights of young people to vote, and indeed he won the support of your Lordships’ House, through an amendment on automatically adding young attainers, 16 and 17 year-olds, to the electoral register. This was a subject that he felt extremely strongly about and which he was able to explore in more depth during the work on this committee inquiry.

As I am sure the other noble Lords present today who were members of the committee will testify, Lord Shutt chaired the committee in his own inimitable style, allowing people to have their say but, as ever, telling it as he saw it as he summed up a discussion. He continues to be very greatly missed.

The timing of this committee inquiry against the backdrop of the Covid pandemic, the 2019 general election and the early—and ultimately reversed—Prorogation was deeply challenging in terms of planning and continuity of the committee work for staff and Members alike. The committee inquiry ran from May 2019 to July 2020, held 16 evidence sessions and received a total of 42 written-evidence submissions. The committee also held seminars with electoral registration officers, including in the aftermath of the 2019 election, and visited the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to speak to election officials and politicians regarding the operation of the registration system there. As well as looking at the Act itself and its implementation, we took the opportunity to assess wider issues around electoral administration, including measures to tackle fraud.

Some of the committee’s recommendations have now been passed by events in the 20 months since it was published, not least as a result of the Elections Bill, but today I shall highlight a few issues raised by the report that I believe are still highly relevant. The first is the question of resources. Implementing electoral reforms requires administrators to be properly trained and resourced. We heard during the course of the inquiry that when it comes to resourcing this is certainly not always the case.

Our report found that intolerable burdens are often placed on administrators during times of multiple elections, such as we saw from 2015 to 2019, with three general elections and the EU referendum in fairly rapid succession. We believed that the Government should consider a scheme of financial support or compensation for election-related registration activity because of the very high volume of online applications to go on the register being received in the run-up to those elections. These applications were on a scale that the 2011 reforms did not really anticipate. In their response, the Government stated that the Cabinet Office has “launched a project” to identify and put in place measures to mitigate impacts on electoral administrators. Can the Minister say a little more today about how that project is going?

The second area of particular concern raised during the inquiry was the completeness and accuracy of the registers. This was an area of particular concern to Lord Shutt. The committee was keen to explore ways of improving the registration levels of underrepresented groups and to study best international practice on these matters. Canada was seen as a particularly positive example in this regard. I believe that there has been no further general study of accuracy and completeness of registers since the committee published its report. What action have the Government taken since the publication of this report to improve the completeness and accuracy of the registers? What evidence do they have, if any, that completeness and accuracy are improving?

A third area examined during our inquiry was the simplification of the registration process. Anecdotally, I should mention that it was only because of my membership of this committee that I learned that making an application online, just to be sure that I am correctly registered, actually results in staff having to check online applications for duplicate entries and therefore takes up a considerable amount of staff time that could be usefully used elsewhere. That is why the report calls on the Government to explore the options for an online checking tool, which I believe could save time and money in the long run, even though there would initially be cost implications. I believe that this is a very important recommendation of our report. An online checking tool would also make it easier for electoral administrators to identify whether people were registered in two different locations—sometimes legitimately, sometimes not—and make it easier to transfer an elector from one district or constituency to another if they move house.

In their response, the Government stated that they are

“sympathetic to the potential benefits”

of an online registration checking tool but stated that issues around security, cost and implementation

“would need to be analysed”.

They indicated that they were “prioritising other interventions” to modernise the system that they believe will be more useful and other interventions to reduce the burden of duplicate applications. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand a little on these “other interventions” in his response.

The Government noted in their response the long-term nature of the process for consolidating and simplifying electoral law. However, as the House of Lords Constitution Committee, of which I am currently a member, noted in its report on the Elections Bill:

“The consolidation of electoral law is necessary and overdue, but it would be a significant undertaking. We recommend that the Government takes steps to consolidate electoral law before the next general election.”


In reality, the Elections Bill is yet another Bill containing a range of miscellaneous election provisions.

I will not say much about the issue of voter ID, as I am sure that issue will be much debated in the Elections Bill in the weeks to come, but our report called for voter ID not to be first introduced at a general election, instead suggesting that it should be rolled out first at a local election and a full evaluation conducted afterwards.

I have two final points in conclusion. First, our committee was set up in particular to assess the implementation of IER, which faced a multitude of electoral tests shortly after its introduction. While the implementation of IER proceeded successfully, thanks in no small part to the dedication of the administrators, it has not resolved some of the wider concerns relating to the electoral registration system. There remain particular concerns regarding the completeness and accuracy of registers, and about multiple registrations and the rules surrounding these. There also remain concerns about the negative impacts of this Act on, for example, student and attainer registration as well as those from other underrepresented groups. To date, the Government have not yet indicated that they are minded to tackle any of these issues as a matter of priority.

Secondly, I stress the importance of post-legislative scrutiny itself. I have had the privilege of working in many developing parliaments throughout the world, including four years ago in the Verkhovna Rada in Kyiv. In that work, we have regularly promoted the use of effective post-legislative scrutiny. It is a very positive feature of the Westminster model that we use post-legislative scrutiny to examine the impact of legislation in reality through speaking to experts and practitioners on the ground several years after the legislation has been passed. However, for post-legislative scrutiny to be truly effective it requires the Government to listen. It also requires them to acknowledge the findings of inquiries like ours and be prepared to make changes. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extremely detailed response and his kind words about my noble friend, the late Lord Shutt. However, I urge him to think again about several points in the report, not least the merits of an online checking tool. Although incurring an expense in the short term, it would save money in the medium and longer term.

I thank all noble Lords and noble friends who have contributed to this short but none the less important debate. It may seem like a highly technical subject, but making sure that our processes for electoral registration work effectively and that the register is as complete and accurate as possible is an extremely important element of our democracy. I am sure that many of the issues raised today will be returned to in the course of the Elections Bill.

Finally, I thank all noble Lords and noble friends for their warm words of tribute to Lord Shutt. Working with my colleague Humphrey Amos in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, we shall make sure that Lord Shutt’s family is informed about the tributes made during the debate.

Motion agreed.

Northern Ireland: Supply of Medicines

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the grace period formally expires at the end of this year, but we are also in a standstill agreed between the two sides in July that keeps current arrangements running. It is our expectation that the current grace period arrangements will continue beyond the end of the year as long as we are in constructive discussions with the EU. The existence of the grace period has meant that some of the supply difficulties that we had earlier in the year have changed, but obviously we need to find a permanent solution to this problem.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, surely it is vital to give certainty to the people of Northern Ireland on healthcare. Does the Minister agree that, in taking his decision tomorrow during the negotiations, now is the time to put pragmatism before ideology?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, we would love to find an agreement if one were available. We think that the proposal that we made to take medicines out of the protocol entirely would be the simplest way of solving this problem, but we continue to look at the proposals that the EU has put on the table. At the moment, we do not have the necessary detail or understanding of the texts to enable us to accept these proposals, but we continue to talk.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: EU Negotiations

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, we have always said that there will need to be a treaty arrangement between this country and the European Union to deal with the special features of Northern Ireland and to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I think it is common ground that there will need to be some such special arrangements. That is not the same as saying that Northern Ireland should remain some sort of shadow member of the European Union for certain purposes. In some ways, that is the situation that we have in certain aspects of policy, and that is what we need to change. But it is of course important to respect the balance, and that is why we talk about trying to find a new balance—the right balance—between all the different interests in Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister say whether a possible decision to invoke Article 16 is more likely to be influenced by an analysis of changes to trade flows resulting from the Northern Ireland protocol or by political factors? Will he undertake to inform this House of the criteria used to take any such decision?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that there are a number of conditions referred to in Article 16 for its use—economic and social disruption, trade diversion and so on—and, although they are conceptually separate, they all sort of feed into each other and create the conditions that might require the use of safeguards. I repeat what I said earlier: obviously we will be transparent and clear and set out our approach to Article 16 and the justification, if and when it comes to that point.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Impact on UK Internal Market

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, to be honest, what I have just said cannot be described as equivocating. I have tried to make my position 100% clear on these negotiations and on Article 16, and it has not changed. It is that if we can find a negotiated solution, that is better. If we cannot find one, then the safeguards are legitimate.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, Belfast Queen’s University’s most recent survey found that 52% of those who responded think that on balance, the Northern Ireland protocol is a good thing. Does the Minister agree that, rather than threatening to invoke Article 16, 52% is a sufficient mandate to get these practical changes done and to make the protocol work for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I have indeed looked at the polling conducted by Queen’s University, where I had a good meeting yesterday, by the way. There is a lot of other polling around on this subject, and the conclusion I draw from it is that there is significant and stark division of opinion in Northern Ireland. Different polls have slightly different numbers but there is a clear division about the benefits of the protocol or its difficulties. In those circumstances, it is difficult to implement and that is why we are in the situation in which we find ourselves.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Power-sharing

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

The noble Lord is correct, of course, that the issue of involving political opinion and institutions in Northern Ireland is for the UK Government. We do that, and the Northern Ireland Executive attend the joint committee when the Irish Government attend on the EU side, which is always the case. I think the EU should exercise caution in suggesting that Northern Ireland parties or political opinion should take part in the EU’s own institutions and decision-making procedures in this area: I do not think that would be consistent with the sort of arrangement we want in the future. The protocol is a treaty between two parties, the UK and the EU, and supporting arrangements need to be consistent with that.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, does the Minister now regret signing up to the Northern Ireland protocol without prior consultation of the political parties in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, as I think is well known, there was at the time in 2019 quite a degree of consultation as we developed our negotiating position but, unfortunately, the outcome of that process and the positions taken by different parties are well known. We did the right thing for the country in putting in place an agreement that delivered a full and fair Brexit but, unfortunately, that agreement has not been implemented in the way we hoped it would, and that is why it needs to change.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (EUC Report)

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too congratulate both the European Union Committee and the new Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland on producing two excellent, balanced and detailed reports. I also add my thanks to the staff, not least Christopher Johnson and Stuart Stoner, for the work they continually do on these committees.

I had the privilege of serving on the EU Committee for four years with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and, indeed, went on an excellent fact-finding visit to Dublin, Belfast and Derry/Londonderry shortly after the referendum. The European Affairs Committee and its sub-committees do an extremely important job and have produced some excellent and highly detailed reports since Brexit. It is perhaps a shame that the Government do not always pay quite as much attention to their findings as I believe they should. It is also testimony to the finely tuned diplomatic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that he has managed to produce such a balanced report from what we might call a diverse membership with such a wide cross-section of views.

Back in December 2016, the House of Lords European Union Committee published a report on UK-Irish relations following Brexit, highlighting the potential issues that would be faced politically and economically by the people on both sides of the border on the island of Ireland. That report also regretted that there was not a more honest debate about these issues during the referendum campaign.

In debating the current post-Brexit situation in Northern Ireland, it is hard not to repeat the simple fact that the Government promised three fundamentally incompatible things: no north-south border, no east-west border and their insistence on their red line that we had to leave both the single market and the customs union. It is also worth recalling that the Northern Ireland protocol we are debating today is the Government’s own policy and that it was their choice to sign up to it in order to “get Brexit done”. However, to coin a phrase, we are where we are. It is equally important to try to find a way to move the debate forward.

As other noble Lords have already indicated, quite a lot has happened since both the committee reports we are debating today were published—not least the publication in July of the Government’s own Command Paper on the protocol. At the end of last week, we also had Commission Vice-President Šefčovič’s visit to Northern Ireland, where there were some very welcome changes of tone.

I will concentrate my remarks this afternoon on three areas raised by the sub-committee’s introductory report. The first point is the very urgent need to reach agreement on a UK-EU SPS/veterinary agreement. As paragraph 246 of the introductory report states,

“an SPS/veterinary agreement of any form is manifestly in the interests of Northern Ireland”.

Does the Minister agree with the report that not to reach such an agreement, when it would make such a positive difference to the lives of people in Northern Ireland, would indicate that the Government consider regulatory sovereignty a higher priority than political and economic stability in Northern Ireland? Can he further say whether there are areas he may be willing to compromise on to reach such an agreement?

The second theme that I would like to highlight from the report—already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jay—is trust. Paragraphs 317 and 318 highlight the importance of the dialogue and political leadership over several Governments and many years that helped bring about the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. That dialogue, trust and constructive leadership have sadly been lacking in the last five years since Brexit.

There was a welcome change of tone, as I have referred to already, from the European Commission Vice-President last week, when Mr Šefčovič ended his visit by saying that the EU was not looking for a political victory in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will adopt a similar tone. The business community and the majority of the wider community in Northern Ireland want certainty and solutions rather than dialled-up rhetoric. For there to be trust, there has to be a level of openness and transparency that has been very much lacking up until now.

In an extremely thoughtful article in response to the publication of the Government’s Command Paper in July, Professor Katy Hayward from Queen’s University highlighted some of the political consequences in the months ahead—in particular, that the protocol will inevitably feature heavily in next year’s Assembly elections. In their dialogue and negotiations over the next few months, I hope the Government will factor in the potential impact of these negotiations, as well as their tone, on the forthcoming Assembly elections. The Government’s July Command Paper highlights that the lack of unionist and loyalist buy-in has brought tension into the Executive and Assembly, but the Government never publicly acknowledge that there is a parallel lack of buy-in to the whole Brexit process from the majority of Northern Ireland voters.

My third and final point follows on from this: that is, the need for enhanced political dialogue and inclusion at all levels. As paragraph 205 rightly states:

“There is a widespread perception that the Protocol was imposed on Northern Ireland without meaningful engagement with its communities, and without a full and transparent explanation of the impact it would have.”


There has also been extremely little done to sell the potential positive benefits of the protocol for Northern Ireland, with its unique access to both EU and British markets. Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to provide an information campaign on these potential benefits and how they plan to improve dialogue with all sectors in Northern Ireland, including civil society? As we approach the next stages of negotiations ahead of the end of the various grace periods in the weeks and months ahead, will the Minister give very serious consideration to the proposals contained in paragraph 269, which sets down some very constructive suggestions for strengthening Northern Ireland’s influence within both the UK and the EU?

National Insurance Numbers: Electoral Register

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Government do not support automatic registration, but we certainly wish to see everyone register and exercise the right to vote, for which so many people have made sacrifices for so long. Our Register to Vote website is used by many young people, with almost 10.8 million online applications having been submitted by 16 to 24 year-olds since the service was introduced. I remind noble Lords that the number of people who have voted in recent elections has continued to grow, and that is hugely welcome.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, the Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which was excellently chaired by my noble friend and much missed colleague, the late Lord Shutt of Greetland, called for the piloting of automatic registration for attainers. Further to his previous answer, would the Minister consider having such a pilot? Does he further acknowledge that removing barriers to registration would be a positive step forward in encouraging more young people to vote?

[Lord True (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we have spoken often about the great service of the late Lord Shutt. We are determined to see people exercise their right to vote, but there are numerous important practical reasons to oppose automatic registration, and that is the position of the Government. Automatic registration would likely require a single national electoral register and/or a centralised database, and the Government have no plans to move in that direction.