“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Lord Caine Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, as part of the small team that helped my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton draft his apology for Bloody Sunday, I stand by every word in that Statement. But in the case of soldier F, 15 years after the 12-year Saville inquiry, the judge was clear that the evidence presented fell well short of the standard required for a conviction. Meanwhile, last month, a different judge in Belfast dismissed the challenge against another former soldier, after four years of investigation, as being “utterly divorced from reality”. Does this not reinforce what we have consistently said about the chances of successful prosecutions at this distance from the Troubles being vanishingly small? Given that, will the Government now think again about the provisions in their Troubles Bill that will leave the terrorists largely untouched but mean elderly veterans once again facing lengthy investigations and being dragged back before the courts?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his work with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in response to Bloody Sunday. We need to remember at this point, as at all points, that we are talking about people and their experiences. With regard to the substantive point that he raised, I remind your Lordships’ House that the current legacy Act did not halt the prosecution of soldier F. Unfortunate false promises, as it turns out, were made to the veterans community about immunity, but they would never have been able to be applied.

I remind noble Lords that we have drafted our forthcoming Troubles legislation, which we will have many opportunities to discuss in your Lordships’ House, with veterans at its heart, to make sure that the provisions that veterans community organisations have asked for are reflected in it, along with the protection of our veterans. During this week of remembrance, it is incredibly important that we put on record every day our thanks to those who are currently serving, those who have served and those who served in Operation Banner.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Lord Caine Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. At the outset, it is right that in approaching this issue, first and foremost in our thoughts are the victims and survivors of the Troubles. Over 3,500 lives were lost, tens of thousands more were maimed and injured, families were broken, and communities and livelihoods were destroyed, overwhelmingly at the hands of terrorists right here in this United Kingdom.

We also recall with pride those who stood in the front line against terrorism to protect the community, to uphold democracy and to maintain the rule of law. As the Statement acknowledges, and I welcome this, the vast majority of the more than 250,000 people who served during Operation Banner did so with the utmost courage, total professionalism, even-handedness and restraint in the face of often the most fierce provocation. Without their efforts, there would have been no peace process and no Belfast agreement, and we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Unfortunately, our concern over the proposals now being brought forward is that, in honouring that debt, they sadly fall short.

I do not need reminding at all how difficult, sensitive and emotional these matters are. Finding consensus, often even within communities or the same groups, has eluded successive Governments, including, I admit, my own. Yet the previous Government’s legislation, while never perfect—as I often made clear—sought to establish a route towards providing victims and survivors with more information about what happened to their loved ones, while at the same time providing protections to those who served. While acknowledging the legal challenges, the current Government could have pursued the appeals that we had lodged. Instead, they took the political decision to abandon them, and today, however much they seek to dress this up, we have a set of proposals that will see elderly veterans hauled before the coroners’ courts to account for the events of decades ago—or, worse still, face the possibility of criminal prosecutions at a time when we all know that the chances of former paramilitaries facing the courts will be vanishingly small.

The Government will of course point to the package of six so-called protections that they will introduce, but can the noble Baroness confirm that a number of them, such as anonymity or appearing remotely, are already at the discretion of the court? The Statement says that the protections will apply to other groups, such as police officers, yet inexplicably it omits to mention whether they apply to former paramilitaries, presumably a drafting oversight by the Northern Ireland Office. In September, when asked to clarify whether the protections were for everybody who came forward, including paramilitaries, the Prime Minister said, “No, it’s for veterans”, but we know that this is not the case. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong and that five of the six so-called protections for veterans will apply equally to former paramilitaries?

On inquests, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many will now resume and how many will be referred to the Solicitor-General? Will the resumed inquests include Loughgall, where the SAS prevented a murderous IRA attack on a police station in 1987? On those referred to the Solicitor-General—not, we note, the Attorney-General—what criteria will be applied to determine whether they are allowed to proceed or whether they will be taken on by the legacy commission?

At the point at which they were stopped, more than 700 civil cases had been lodged with the courts in Belfast. Can the Minister therefore tell us what additional resource will be provided to the courts service to deal with this backlog and the inevitable new wave of cases, presumably mostly directed against the state, that the Government’s proposals will unleash? Do they intend to provide extra support to the PSNI for the additional burdens placed on it by reopening inquest and civil cases, in addition to the £250 million committed to legacy by the previous Government?

On Gerry Adams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government’s proposals will prevent him and others receiving a single penny of compensation, not least since Mr Adams has already announced his intention to challenge this?

On the role of the Irish Government, we welcome their new-found enthusiasm to address legacy matters, when there has not been a single prosecution for a Troubles-related incident within their jurisdiction since 1998. Can the Minister tell us what “fullest co-operation” means in practice when exactly the same words were used in respect of the Omagh public inquiry, yet the Omagh families remain highly critical of the role of the Irish Government?

Finally, is it not an unbelievable approach to negotiation that the Government would agree to a joint framework with Ireland while it maintains an interstate case against the United Kingdom in Strasbourg? They criticised our legislation for lacking consensus, yet is it not a fact that the only consensus they have achieved is with an Irish Government who hold a threat over them that they will not drop this case until they are satisfied by legislation passed in this United Kingdom Parliament relating to a part of our own country?

I look forward to the Minister’s detailed replies. If she is unable to give the detail needed at the Dispatch Box today—I appreciate that she has quite a long day—will she commit to write to me?

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in the House of Commons last week. Dealing with the past is a highly complex subject that inevitably provokes strong emotions. It is not surprising but is, I believe, highly regrettable that when the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed 27 years ago, legacy issues were left for the most part unresolved. Time may have passed but the pain and anger felt by so many victims, survivors and their families remain very real and deeply painful.

From the nearly 10 years that I have been covering Northern Ireland from these Benches, I observe that it is relatively easy to criticise the Government of the day in their response to dealing with legacy issues, but it is rather harder to come up with concrete proposals once in government. It is extremely difficult to have proposals, as the Statement says, that are acceptable to all, but it has to be a question of fairness, balance and proportionality. Most of all, we need an approach that helps to rebuild trust in the process through transparent institutions capable of delivering reconciliation based on truth, justice and closure.

I do not doubt the sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, with all his experience, is criticising many of the Government’s revised legacy proposals and has asked so many questions, but we should, none the less, recall that the legacy Act from the previous Conservative Government was almost unique in recent times in its achievement of uniting all Northern Ireland political parties, as well as the victims’ groups, against it. It was also challenged in the courts, proved not to be compliant with our international human rights obligations and was unworkable in practice, so the current Government were duty-bound to reverse many of the elements in that Act, notably the section on immunity.

I welcome that the Government are once again attempting to square the circle and move us forward on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. In particular, I welcome the commitment to ensuring that the legislation is ECHR-compliant. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that she now expects the interstate case against the UK by the Republic of Ireland to be dropped once this legislation has been passed—and, I sincerely hope, even sooner?

We will have lots of time to examine this Bill in great detail during its passage through your Lordships’ House and to press the Government on how many of its proposals will work in practice, but since the Bill’s publication last week it is clear that the greatest area of concern has been that regarding the rights of veterans. As my colleague Al Pinkerton MP has so rightly put it, veterans

“need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/25; col. 257.]

I know that the Minister is an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and cares very deeply about these issues, but can she confirm that she personally has been consulting with veteran groups? Will she say a little more about how veterans will be protected from vexatious cases following this legislation? I understand from the discussions in the House of Commons last week that it is proposed that the Ministry of Defence will act as a point of initial contact, but can she say a little more about how she sees this operating in practice?

In conclusion, from these Benches we look forward to engaging constructively with the Government on this Bill and to finding ways to ensure that it keeps victims right at the heart of this process, while ensuring fairness and proportionality for veterans.

Casement Park: Spending Review

Lord Caine Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I absolutely do agree with the noble Lord. Sport is incredibly important to each and every one of us—in different ways with different sports—but we need to make sure that delivery of both funding and our commitment to sport is based on the sport and people’s engagement with it.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, having attended a GAA match at Celtic Park in the Bogside in Londonderry last April, I am fully aware of the importance of Gaelic games for large numbers in the community in Northern Ireland. I also understand the strong emotions generated by Casement Park for others, not least given what happened there in March 1988. Further to the question by my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, on this side we share the dismay expressed about the naming of GAA stadiums, stands and even competitions after terrorists such as Joe Cahill, an IRA godfather of many decades who was convicted for murder and who undoubtedly oversaw the murder of many others. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that this has on community relations across Northern Ireland and on impressionable young children? Does the Minister agree that if Northern Ireland is to have a genuinely shared future in which all parts of the community have a stake, this kind of thing really has to stop?

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

The noble Lord makes a genuinely important point about how sport should be used as a vehicle for bringing people together. There is a responsibility for the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, and all local politicians and local community activists to make sure that is true.

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025

Lord Caine Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her presentation. I am pleased to support the order. We all have a responsibility to ensure that peace, stability and justice are protected and long-lasting. It is important to acknowledge that good progress regarding the security situation in Northern Ireland has been made and that the threat to jurors has, in some instances, been reduced.

However, recently collected evidence confirms that there remains concern about the potential for jury intimidation and bias, particularly in cases with paramilitary connections. Although, as we have heard, there are only a small number of cases where a non-jury trial is necessary, it remains my view that the current provision, though far from perfect, should continue to serve Northern Ireland as a necessary function in supporting the effective delivery of the criminal justice process. Naturally, there is a certain reluctance to renew such exceptional provisions—like others, I wish that such measures were a thing of the past—but, given Northern Ireland’s exceptional security complexity and the spectre of the threat of intimidation from dissident paramilitaries and other criminal elements, the renewal of the non-jury provisions is necessary.

Of course, it is important that we have safeguards. These are built into this, in that decisions for non-jury trials are made on a case-by-case basis. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland must suspect that one or more of the four safeguard conditions are met. Another protection is that any person convicted before a non-jury court has the right of appeal against sentence or conviction without leave and has the opportunity to have the judgment against them explained; of course, that is not available if they are convicted by a jury.

It is my hope that the day will come when measures such as those before us today are unnecessary, but, unfortunately, the consultation and evidence clearly show that that stage has not been reached. The onus is on all of us to continue to work maturely in order to work out practical ways forward towards achieving a more normalised society in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we will not be back here in two years’ time to renew this order.

One point of concern that I have regarding non-jury trials is that it appears that they are sometimes subject to considerable delay. I believe that this should be investigated. Of course, jury trials in Northern Ireland are also delayed sometimes, which is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Finally, almost 26 years after the signing of the Belfast agreement, we still have the curse of paramilitary organisations operating across Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that it is time that these paramilitary organisations left the stage without being offered more financial incentives?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to the instrument before the Committee, as this is a Northern Ireland debate and it is 1 July, I want to take a moment to reflect that today marks the 109th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. We remember the heroic sacrifice of the men of the 36th (Ulster) Division at Thiepval on that day in 1916 and, later in September, that of the 16th (Irish) Division at Guillemont and Ginchy. I had the honour of representing His Majesty’s Government at the Somme on a number of occasions, including in my last official engagement as a Minister on this day last year; there was never a more solemn, moving or poignant duty.

I turn to the instrument before the Committee. The Opposition support the ninth extension, under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, for a further two years of non-jury trials in a small number of cases. As the Minister who extended these measures in your Lordships’ House in 2023, I could probably repeat almost word for word what I said a little over two years ago; I am sure that the Committee will be relieved if I do not do so.

As has been pointed out, a non-jury trial may be permitted if the defendant is associated with a proscribed organisation or if the offence being tried is in connection with religious or political hostility. Such cases are high-profile and continue to provoke strong opinion across the community in Northern Ireland. In such circumstances, the risks of jury intimidation and juror bias remain very real probabilities. As such, I agree with the Minister that these measures are both necessary and proportionate.

With that said, it is also worth considering the very real progress that has been made. As the Minister pointed out, and as was recognised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the number of non-jury trials is now around 0.7% of the total number of trials in Northern Ireland and has been at that level for the past few years. To put that into further perspective, that is a total of 10 cases out of some 1,500 in the Crown Court in 2024; this compares to around 300 a year during the peak of the old Diplock system in the 1980s.

I noted with interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is a distinguished former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, now, the chair of the scrutiny committee. I, probably like him, have lost count of the number of times I have sat in rooms in Washington and New York and had to explain to Irish-American audiences the difference between the old Diplock system and the system that we have had since 2007. We all look forward to the day when all trials will be conducted in front of juries and these measures can lapse, but we remain some way from that today.

The fact that these measures are required reminds us that, although life in Northern Ireland has in many respects been transformed over the past 30 years since the ceasefires and the subsequent Belfast agreement of 1998, there remains a potent terrorist threat. Although the threat level went down from “severe” to “substantial” in March 2024, there can be absolutely no room for complacency. I am always conscious that the difference between those two threat levels of “substantial” and “severe” is one word—“highly”—because “substantial” means that an attack is likely while “severe” means that an attack is highly likely. So we cannot be complacent.

There persist in Northern Ireland small numbers of people determined to pursue their political agenda through acts of terrorism. Although their actions will always ultimately fail in their objectives, they retain both lethal intent and capability. However, they will never succeed because the future of Northern Ireland will only ever be decided by democracy and consent—never by violence. That has been the determination of successive Governments over many years, including the ones in which I served, and I believe that it is the determination of His Majesty’s current Government today.

The reason why there are not more successful—if I can use that word—national security attacks in Northern Ireland is down to the skill, professionalism and bravery of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and our other security agencies, which do so much to thwart them. Like the Minister, I place on the record once again our unstinting support for them, along with our admiration and thanks; we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for the superb job that they do.

In that context, I genuinely welcome the additional security funding for the PSNI that was announced by the Government in the recent spending review. The need for that additional security funding was recognised and delivered by the then coalition Government in 2010 and continued by its Conservative successors. I am pleased that it has been maintained by the current Government; it is of huge importance for the PSNI in its efforts to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure.

In conclusion, the extension of these measures, though regrettable, remains necessary in certain cases to ensure that the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland continues to function. I was struck by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, on the delays in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It seems that it can take an interminable time for cases to come to trial; every effort really does need to be made to try to speed up the process.

I agree with the Minister that no Government in the United Kingdom treat this issue of the dispensing of juries in criminal trials lightly. We all share the hope that, sooner rather than later, the day will come when we can dispense with these measures. Until that day comes, however, we have a duty to extend them; the Opposition therefore support the order before the Committee today.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the noble Lord for his correction. He did worry me a little that something had happened within the PSNI that I had missed. I have my own slight correction to make, which is more of a technicality: the £200 million I announced for police recruitment has been approved by the Department of Finance but needs executive approval, which it is yet to receive. I wanted to clarify that before I got myself in trouble.

Regarding the very genuine question from my noble friend and many others on the ring-fencing of the PSNI grant, I understand why this is such an issue. We increased the budget during the SR to £19.3 billion, which is the highest amount on record. However, we must be clear on what devolution is and is not. The money has been sent to Northern Ireland; it is there, and it is now up to the politicians in Northern Ireland to prioritise funding. However, as noble Lords will be aware, we have ensured that there is ring-fencing for the additional security fund, and we continue to work daily with the Executive to secure additional funding.

On the delay in trials raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, while the Justice Minister for England is here and definitely heard that request, I will clarify for the record that the issue of delays in the projection of non-jury trials was raised by two respondents to the consultation on how long this was taking. One respondent who objected to the extension of the provisions in particular raised the concern that a judge sitting alone could adjourn the case for a longer period of time than would be possible if a jury had been sitting. However, this should be seen against the backdrop of the wider criminal justice system being subject to delay.

The justice system is devolved, and it is for the Department of Justice to lead. It has work under way to address some of the causes, including work to reform committal processes. PSNI is also progressing work to improve the timeliness of case file submissions to tackle delay. In March 2025, the devolved Minister of Justice welcomed the allocation of additional funding to progress reforms within the justice system, and £20.45 million has been allocated to help speed up and transform the criminal justice system.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I do not wish to detain the Committee for much longer. The noble Baroness rightly said that the criminal justice system is devolved in Northern Ireland, but these are cases that involve national security issues, which are, of course, a responsibility of His Majesty’s Government and the Secretary of State. In former times it was very common practice for the Secretary of State and the Justice Minister to have frequent meetings at which they would discuss these matters. Could she assure me that these are continuing and that the Secretary of State regularly engages with the Justice Minister to try to speed up these delays in the criminal justice system?

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

Like magic, a piece of paper has arrived that confirms that the Secretary of State—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Your officials are brilliant.

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

My officials are absolutely brilliant. It confirms that the Secretary of State engages with the Justice Minister regularly on issues of shared interest and concern, and this obviously includes issues pertaining to national security and will continue to do so. I will endeavour to get an update on anything else that is going on and write to the noble Lord.

I think I have answered most of the substantive points, but there are a couple of others that I want to touch on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his previous work on counterterrorism and the work that he is doing with the Northern Ireland committee. That is a step towards normalisation, which has been a theme as we talk about some of these issues. Making sure that normalisation happens, in terms of both counterterrorism and the operation of our communities, is key because we are democrats. Making sure that we are being held to account is key.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked when legacy legislation will come forward. She knows me well as a Whip, and I am adamant and clear that we will definitely bring forward such legislation when parliamentary time allows. All noble Lords will be aware that this was a manifesto commitment and was in the King’s Speech, and I expect to spend many hours in Committee debating it with all of you.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I appreciate that she cannot give a time commitment on the introduction of legislation, but can she confirm whether the Government intend to set out the next steps on legacy before the Summer Recess?

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

I can assure the noble Lord that he and I are likely to be in correspondence before Summer Recess.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Lord Caine Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ireland about their approach to addressing the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland since April 1998.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)]

My Lords, at the last two British-Irish Intergovernmental Conferences, the Secretary of State and I pressed the Irish Government to co-operate fully with both the Omagh inquiry and the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to provide information for victims and families who desire it. The Secretary of State also wrote to the Tánaiste in January, challenging the Irish Government’s own approach to addressing legacy issues, including the number of Troubles-related prosecutions brought in Ireland since April 1998.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, are we not entitled to expect that the Irish Republic, which we have always sought to treat in a spirit of good neighbourliness, should take some steps to acknowledge that many terrorist atrocities during the Troubles in Ulster were assisted by the planning that took place in its territory and the refuge it provided to some involved in the most dreadful crimes? How vividly I remember the despair at the constant refusal of extradition requests brought to Airey Neave, as Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland, long ago when I worked for him. Are we not also entitled to take strong exception to the Irish Government’s decision to bring a case against us in the European Court of Human Rights? Granted that the independent commission to deal with issues arising from the legacy of the Troubles became fully operational on 1 May, under the chairmanship of a most distinguished retired judge, does my noble friend agree that the Irish Government should drop their interstate case and focus on co-operating fully with the new legacy body, setting aside the controversies that surrounded its origins?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has vast experience of Northern Ireland matters. He makes a number of extremely important points regarding the role of successive Irish Governments during the Troubles. On the interstate case, the Government profoundly regret the decision of the Irish Government to bring this unnecessary and unhelpful case against the UK, particularly when these matters are likely to be dealt with by the domestic courts long before the case ever reaches Strasbourg. For many families, effective information recovery will require the co-operation of the Irish authorities, and the Government therefore encourage the Irish Government to co-operate fully with the new commission to help provide information to families who want it.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree about the importance of adherence to the rule of law, and that the legacy Act is considered by many to violate the principle of the rule of law? In view of the various legacy cases, judgments and pending cases, what action will the Government take to ensure that victims and survivors are protected through the repeal of this legislation, in particular the immunity provisions, which have caused immense consternation throughout the wider community in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, while I completely respect the views of the noble Baroness, I do not share her characterisation of the legislation. She will be aware that the High Court in Belfast, in its recent judgment, found that the new legacy body, the independent commission, would be able to operate independently of government, and would be able to carry out fully effective Article 2-compliant investigations. It also found that the disclosure obligations on the state meant that the new body is likely to be more effective than the current mechanisms in providing information and answers to victims and survivors.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, the Omagh bomb was the single biggest terrorist attack in the Troubles, costing 29 people their lives, including a woman pregnant with twins. It was also a cross-border incursion, with terrorists coming from the Irish Republic, where they returned after the bombing. I simply ask the Minister why he believes the Irish Government are still refusing to hold their own inquiry into the bombing. What can they possibly be hiding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his question. We all remember vividly where we were when we heard the news of that awful atrocity in August 1998, and I pay tribute to Michael Gallagher and the other Omagh families who have pursued their case with great dignity and tenacity. As I said in my opening Answer, I raised this directly with the Irish Foreign Minister and Tánaiste at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference last Monday, and I am pleased that he committed to full Irish Government co-operation with the Omagh bombing inquiry. The Government’s focus is on ensuring that the inquiry has every chance of success, and the Irish Government’s role in that is crucial.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not just the Irish Government who were opposed to the very controversial legacy legislation. Every single Northern Ireland political party opposed it. The Minister knows that you can move in Northern Ireland, eventually, only by consensus. It seems to me that there has to be more discussion with the Irish Government, who are a joint guarantor of the Good Friday agreement after all. Now that the Assembly is up and running, surely it is time to engage every party in that Assembly to have a consensus on the way forward on what is very vexed legislation.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, what is really important, now that the independent commission is operational as of last Wednesday, is that we give it the time and space to carry out investigations and do its work in delivering answers for victims and survivors. I must point out that I read the interview with the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Irish News last week, and what was clear, once I managed to decipher the complete muddle in that interview, was that the party opposite has no coherent plan for dealing with legacy matters whatever, other than taking us back to square one.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the legacies of the Troubles is the high level of trauma and PTSD suffered by victims? The answers to the questions on the legacy Act did not include the Minister informing the House that major provisions of that Act have now been held by the High Court in Belfast to be in breach of national and international law. In those circumstances, can the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have to provide support to those who have been further traumatised by the passing of this Act and the consequential termination of normal processes, such as inquests, many of which could not proceed because of the refusal of the Northern Ireland Office and MI5 to grant disclosure of materials, even in the form of gists prepared by the PSNI? What support will be available to families who have attended up to 40 hearings trying to get that information and whose inquests are now closed?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I said in an earlier answer, the High Court in Belfast found that the legislation is compatible with human rights law in respect of independence and the ability to carry out effective investigations. To take her point about disclosure, the disclosure provisions offer the prospect of better outcomes than current mechanisms.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the ongoing uncertainty caused by the Government’s appeal against the High Court ruling on immunity is merely prolonging the pain and uncertainty for victims and their families who have already waited so long for justice?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree. The commission, as she knows, became fully operational last week and is now proceeding with its work under the distinguished leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Peter Sheridan, a former senior police officer.

[Lord Godson (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister reflect on the remarks of Michael McDowell TD, a former Irish Attorney-General and Minister for Justice between 1999 and 2007, as quoted in the Irish Times last November, when he reminded us that the Republic’s approach to legacy has always been based on the indemnities presently being condemned by some noble Lords in this House? Will he also add something: that the approach of the Belfast agreement was to honour and care for innocent victims and to support their right to remember as well as to move on and contribute to a changed society? Does my noble friend the Minister therefore agree that the UK’s current policy is consistent with the Belfast agreement in all its aspects?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend that the legislation is absolutely consistent with the Belfast agreement, to which we remain resolutely committed as a Government. It is worth recalling that both the UK and Irish Governments have previously decided to make compromises on established criminal justice processes in the hope of moving the process forward, including decommissioning, prisoner releases and the search for the location of victims’ remains. As my noble friend made clear, the Irish Government’s position is hard to reconcile in relation to the positions they have adopted on these matters in the past and, indeed, their own record of dealing with Troubles-related cases within their own jurisdiction, where, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single prosecution since April 1998.

Northern Ireland

Lord Caine Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Caine]

That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty welcoming the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, re-affirming the importance of upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in all its strands, acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts, and recognising that, consistent with section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)]

My Lords, before I start, I put on record my personal tribute to the late Lord Cormack, who died suddenly over the weekend. Many noble Lords will know that Patrick was a very distinguished chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place and took a huge and highly informed interest in Northern Ireland affairs. He was hugely supportive of me, both as a new Member in this place in 2016 and subsequently as a Minister, even when we disagreed on certain issues. His contributions to our debates on Northern Ireland will be sorely missed.

The humble Address welcomes the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland; re-affirms the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement 1998 in all its strands; acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts; recognises that, consistent with Section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,

“executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in”


His Majesty; and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.

We have now seen the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, following the publication last month of the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union. I know I speak for most noble Lords in welcoming these extremely positive developments, after Northern Ireland had been without a devolved Government for two years. Indeed, Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government for some five of the past seven years. We have already seen what can be done when the political parties are back in government, working together to deliver for those who elect them. Aided by the £3.3 billion of funding provided by the UK Government, the Executive have already decided to allocate over £685 million to allow conversations to commence between employers and trade unions in relation to public sector pay.

The Government’s significant, fair and generous spending settlement will also allow the Northern Ireland Executive to stabilise public services, better manage public finances, increase opportunities for improved infrastructure and investment and pave the way for the transformation of public services. We now look forward to working with the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister and all their ministerial colleagues in the Executive to deliver these shared objectives, and eagerly await a sustainability plan for Northern Ireland’s finances, including proposals for revenue raising, following the discussions that took place between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the political parties on these issues at Hillsborough Castle prior to Christmas.

I move this humble Address today to welcome the return of devolution and honour the Government’s commitment in the Command Paper to provide a mechanism for Parliament to affirm its support for the Acts of Union, and outline that there is no basis in the Belfast agreement for joint authority arrangements with the Government of Ireland. The UK Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement in its totality is unwavering. As I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, the agreement is the bedrock of all the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland during the past 26 years. Part of the genius of the agreement, for me, is that it accommodates different aspirations while allowing people to work together for the good of the whole community—something I hope we will now see on a sustainable, long-term basis.

The restoration of the strand 1 institutions is therefore welcome news, and I am hopeful that we will soon see the North/South Ministerial Council and other strand 2 implementation bodies return to full operation, alongside the meetings of the British-Irish Council and British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference that are already scheduled to take place in the coming months. It is this three-stranded approach—this delicate, careful, interdependent balance —that will honour the spirit and letter of the agreement, providing a fitting tribute to those who, some 26 years ago, helped deliver the agreement that is, as I have just said, the foundation of so much peace and stability in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for his contribution and role in delivering that agreement in 1998.

To be clear, this Government will always uphold the long-established three-stranded approach to Northern Ireland affairs, meaning that internal arrangements for the governance of Northern Ireland, including any potential reforms to the institutions, are for the Northern Ireland parties and the UK Government to decide. This humble Address also rightly acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts. The Government are clear that the new arrangements committed to in the Command Paper, including the UK internal market system, ensure the smooth flow of trade across the UK. Our determination to ensure that that happens was demonstrated when we enshrined the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK internal market.

The final part of this humble Address relates to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are explicit that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would require the consent of a majority of its people. The UK Government are absolutely clear that there is no basis to suggest that, at present, a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. Our position is therefore straight- forward: Northern Ireland has a bright and prosperous future within the union for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it. As a Conservative and Unionist Government, that is something we warmly welcome.

What we cannot countenance and will not consider is what some have described as “joint authority”—a vague and frankly ill-defined concept that would see the UK and Irish Governments somehow exercise joint sovereignty over a part of the United Kingdom. That will not happen, either de facto or de jure. The agreement sets out two constitutional futures: Northern Ireland as fully part of the United Kingdom or wholly part of a sovereign, independent united Ireland. There is no third way. The UK Government are absolutely clear that the consent principle of the Belfast agreement governs the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We will not countenance any arrangements that are inconsistent with that. It follows, therefore, that Northern Ireland is not some kind of hybrid state. It is, under the consent principle, clearly and unequivocally an integral part of the United Kingdom.

My central motivation is to make Northern Ireland work and flourish, and to do so for everyone, regardless of their community background or ultimate political aspirations. That requires fully functioning devolved power-sharing institutions, with locally elected politicians taking decisions over local matters, accountable to a local Assembly. I once again welcome the decision of the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, to return his party to Stormont, backed by the legislation that has now been passed in both Houses of Parliament. As local representatives work again in the interests of the people who elected them, we remain committed to building a brighter, stronger and more prosperous future for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and that is what this humble Address affirms and delivers. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to close the debate on this humble Address and thank all those who have participated in it. I am grateful to noble Lords who have directed kind words to me as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, particularly my noble friend Lord Godson and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, whom it is always a huge pleasure to hear speak on Northern Ireland affairs.

At some point during the discussions this evening, I was reminded of the late Willie Whitelaw’s quip about déjà vu all over again. We have gone over quite a lot of this territory as recently as a fortnight ago, when we debated statutory instruments, so with the leave of the House I might not refer to every single issue that has been raised; otherwise, we risk being here until midnight. There were a number of references to Bushmills. Duties or not, I look forward to enjoying one in about half an hour.

As I said in my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House some years ago, and as my noble friend Lord Lexden knows all too well, I am, and remain, an unapologetic unionist, steadfast in my belief that the best future for Northern Ireland will always be as an integral part of a strong and prosperous United Kingdom. We are, as a number of noble Lords reminded us, the most successful political and economic union in the world—something on which most noble Lords in this House will agree. I strongly endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, my noble friend Lord Lilley and many others about the importance and value of the union of the United Kingdom.

I also want to very briefly address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Of course, we recognise that there are people in Northern Ireland who hold a different view and desire a different constitutional outcome, and the agreement is very clear in respect of the rights of everybody in Northern Ireland to parity of esteem and equity of treatment, no matter their political aspiration. We believe strongly in upholding that.

The debate this evening has reiterated our unwavering support for the union. We have reaffirmed the importance of upholding the Belfast agreement in all its strands. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was right to remind us of—as I said in my opening speech—the interlocking nature and interdependence of those three strands.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked me about future meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is due to meet in the spring and work is in progress in that respect. The British-Irish Council is, I think, due to meet later in the summer—normally around June or July. The North/South Ministerial Council is a Strand Two matter, not one for the UK Government, but I hope it will meet very shortly.

We have acknowledged in the debate the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article VI of those Acts. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bew, I have not yet consulted the speeches of Pitt the Younger during the passage of the Acts, but he has inspired me to maybe look more closely at some of the aspirations that he and Castlereagh set out at the time.

We have also, importantly, recognised that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments. The noble Lord reminded us of the New Ireland Forum. I will not necessarily repeat the words used by Mrs Thatcher at the time but I have strong sympathy with them, just as I do the views on the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Lexden.

The regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, which was supported by some noble Lords behind me, pertains to the requirements for passing a consent vote on the application of the Windsor Framework and its purported effect on the Acts of Union more generally. I note that the noble Baroness’s amendment is very similar to a manuscript amendment she moved in Committee on the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill, long before the changes set out in the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper.

The noble Baroness followed quite closely a number of the arguments that were made in the court cases that took place on these issues. I gently and politely remind her that the applicants lost on all three counts in every court in the land, which she seems to have omitted during her comments.

In our view, very clearly there is no trade border, by any reasonable or sensible comparison with any other trade border in the world, for goods moving within the UK internal market. That will become clearer with the introduction of checks coming from the EU, including Ireland. I welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lilley on these matters; as I say, we are confident that the changes that we have made to the protocol, through the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper, will ensure the smooth passage of trade within the United Kingdom.

Of course, if issues arise over the course of implementation, there are structures in place with the EU to try to address those matters. My noble friend will know that my views on the original protocol are almost identical to the ones set out by my noble friend Lord Lexden. I regard the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper as significant improvements on what was a particularly disappointing outcome back in the autumn of 2019. Obviously, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but we are confident that the new arrangements will work to ensure the smooth passage of trade throughout the United Kingdom and the internal market.

In the Government’s view, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, overlooks the reality of the changes we have made. In addition, we believe that the law is now crystal clear that the Windsor Framework is without prejudice to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. The provision we made in law through the instrument that became law last week includes the Acts of Union; we are clear that the Windsor Framework fully respects that. Our position on these matters is set out very clearly in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, as I have said before. In summary, the Government believe that those Acts of Union continue to have effect today and have not been undermined.

The changes we have made now mean that the law contains important new statutory protections for any independent review of the framework to be taken forward. Those protections will ensure that a review is taken forward within one month, responded to within a set period, and that its recommendations are given proper reflection, if a consent vote is not passed on a cross-community basis. These changes we have made reflect the Government’s commitment to seeking agreement that is as broad as possible in Northern Ireland, and to ensuring that action is taken, if that agreement is not forthcoming. I reiterate that commitment once again to all noble Lords.

The Government must therefore disagree with the regret amendment, which does not reflect the reality of the statute book today or the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper, which ensure the smooth flow of trade across the United Kingdom. In the coming weeks and months, the Government will continue to deliver commitments made under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, and continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly Members to improve the lives of people living in Northern Ireland.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jay, whose committee I had the privilege of serving on for a period of time, my noble friend Lord Lexden, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others, asked about implementation. I cannot give precise timetables, but I commit, where possible, to keeping the House updated on some of the new bodies that are proposed. A reference was made, I think by my noble friend Lord Lexden, to the Sports Minister; I can confirm that that visit is taking place imminently. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made reference to trying to involve Northern Ireland in the evolution of new EU laws; there are UK-EU joint bodies established, which will enable Northern Ireland’s views to be fed in at an early stage. I hope that reassures him.

My noble friend Lord Lexden, in a characteristically wise and scholarly speech, referred to one aspect not included in the humble Address, which is the contribution of His Majesty and members of the Royal Family to life in Northern Ireland. I want to put on record my complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend.

I will pick out just one moment. I was present in the Lyric Theatre in 2012 when the late Queen shook the hand of Martin McGuinness. During the same visit, she also crossed the road in Enniskillen from the Anglican cathedral to the Catholic chapel. These both demonstrated her amazing ability to bring people together. I know that this commitment is shared by His Majesty the King, who is hugely devoted to Northern Ireland.

The hour is late. We have heard a number of impassioned speeches, not least from the Benches behind me, but also from right across the House. They echoed points made in this Chamber on a number of occasions in recent weeks. I do not for one second doubt the sincerity with which a number of noble Lords have expressed their concerns—in some cases, their opposition to the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper and, in certain cases, the decision of their party leader to return to devolved government. They are, of course, entitled to their view, which I entirely respect. However, I do not believe that this view represents a majority either within unionism or across Northern Ireland as a whole. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to some polling that has taken place on these matters. It is not a view shared by this Conservative and Unionist Government—or, I should add, by this staunchly Conservative and Unionist Minister, who believes that we now have the right basis for moving Northern Ireland forward.

I very much agree that now is the time to move on, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and others pointed out. We must look forward. In this respect, I commend the speech by the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in the other place yesterday evening. As Sir Jeffrey made clear, the Northern Ireland of today is vastly different even from when the Belfast agreement was reached 26 years ago. Unionism can no longer rely on the electoral map being coloured orange and green and on its in-built majority. The Northern Ireland of today is, as has been pointed out, one of competing minorities in which the task for those, like me, who cherish the union and want to see it thrive is to reach out and win friends across traditional divides and across generations.

I will be expressly clear once again: Northern Ireland’s position is based on consent, as many noble Lords have pointed out. The task for those of us who want to see the union prosper is to consider how we broaden support for Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the world as it is today, not as it might have been in the past. I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. Central to all this is making Northern Ireland a stable, peaceful and prosperous place for everyone who lives there, regardless of their community background or political aspirations. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, pointed out, I very much hope that we are now entering a new era of stability in Northern Ireland.

In moving this Motion on the humble Address, His Majesty’s Government firmly believe that, with the arrangements now in place, along with the restoration of devolved government and the generous £3.3 billion financial package for the Executive, together with other financial contributions such as the Peace Plus £700 million-plus, we have an opportunity to make that vision for Northern Ireland a reality and to move Northern Ireland forward. In so doing, we guarantee Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of this great United Kingdom.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Caine Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Caine]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 10 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 26 February.

Motions agreed.

Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Caine Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Caine]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

Motion agreed.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Caine Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Caine]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)]

This statutory instrument, and the Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, were laid before your Lordships House on 10 January. They flow from the Elections Act 2022 and deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to stop “postal vote harvesting”: the dubious practice of collecting large numbers of postal votes to be returned by someone other than the voter to whom the ballot paper is issued. One instrument applies these measures to parliamentary and Northern Ireland Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, and the second to local elections. The equivalent measures for Great Britain have, of course, already been passed by this Parliament.

These statutory instruments will set a limit on how many postal votes any one individual can directly “hand in” to the returning officer, and complement other Elections Act provisions protecting the integrity of the absent vote process. These include banning political campaigners handling postal votes issued to another person, and ensuring the secrecy of absent voting. One of the instruments also contains some technical amendments relating to the changes to EU voting and candidacy rights, which I will touch upon later.

I will set out the measures related to limiting handing in postal votes in more detail. Currently, there are no restrictions on who may hand in postal votes and how many may be handed in by any single person, and no record of who has done so. This is not acceptable because it creates opportunities for unscrupulous individuals to undermine the integrity of postal voting. For example, voters could be coerced into handing over their unmarked ballot paper, or completed ballots could be tampered with out of sight of the voter before being returned. Even if they are acting legitimately, where individuals are seen to be handing in significant numbers of postal votes in one go, it can easily create the perception and suspicion of impropriety, which can be damaging to confidence in the electoral system. Retaining public confidence in the democratic systems of our country is, of course, critically important.

We are therefore intent on striking the right balance between being mindful of security, keeping the electoral process accessible and ensuring that confidence in our electoral systems is reinforced. Under these regulations, a person, in addition to their own postal vote, will be able to hand in the postal votes of up to five other electors, including any for whom they are acting as proxy. We consider this a reasonable limit that will support the integrity of postal voting.

In Northern Ireland, postal votes can be handed in at the electoral office. Unlike in Great Britain, where postal votes may be returned to the polling station, in Northern Ireland handing in postal votes at polling stations has never been permitted. This prohibition will not change as a result of these measures. A person handing in postal votes will be required to complete a form setting out basic information. Where the forms are not completed, those, and those in excess of the limit, apart from the person’s own, will be rejected. Any postal votes that have been left behind in the electoral office without an accompanying form, including those posted through or pushed under the front door, will not be counted as they will not have been returned in accordance with these requirements.

The new forms make these changes clear to the voter. In addition, the rules will be published as widely as possible by both the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer. After the poll, the chief electoral officer will, where possible, write to the persons whose postal votes have been rejected under these requirements to notify them that their vote was rejected, and the reasons for that.

The regulations before us today also make some small changes in relation to EU voting and candidacy rights. The Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 implemented changes to the previously automatic right of EU citizens to vote and stand in elections. These regulations amend those 2023 regulations, so that where the eligibility of EU citizens to remain on the register has been reviewed, duplicate notices do not have to be issued.

Additionally, where an election is originally scheduled to take place before the franchise changes come into force, but following the death of a candidate the poll is rescheduled for a date after the changes, these measures will ensure that candidates and registered EU citizens remain eligible to stand and hold office at that poll.

I hope noble Lords agree that these measures are sensible safeguards against the potential abuse of absent voting and will reduce the opportunity for individuals to exploit the process. I hope that, following my setting out the details of these statutory instruments, the Committee will appreciate their careful and considered design for supporting absent voters. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation of the facts concerning both statutory instruments. I declare an interest in two respects: first, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House; and secondly, as a participant in elections in Northern Ireland for the past 43 years, either as a candidate or as a party worker. In all those elections, I was well aware that postal votes provided the elderly, the infirm, students and those on holiday with the opportunity to vote by post or by proxy. I welcome legislative efforts to protect postal and postal proxy voting arrangements, because there was no doubt that there was actual fraud, as I saw for myself. I saw it in the last election in which I was a participant, and whenever I failed to get re-elected as the MP for South Down. There is no doubt that electoral fraud took place in the polling place and through postal votes, through a large degree of postal vote harvesting. We saw people going into the electoral office with hundreds of completed ballot papers in the prescribed envelopes, duly certified by a family member.

I have always been afraid that there might be those who seek to steal postal votes, particularly from the infirm, in order to seek electoral advantage. We have heard many examples of that, so I am pleased that legislative action is being taken. However, what legislative action will the Government take to protect the polling place itself at parliamentary, Assembly and local government elections in Northern Ireland, in order to protect voters and prevent vote stealing? People who had perhaps not voted in previous elections, and who turned up to vote in the 2017 parliamentary election and were definitely on the register, discovered at 6 or 7 o’clock that evening that their votes had already been cast by somebody else.

There needs to be some legislative means to protect the polling place, both inside and outside, because in some places voters are subject to constant haranguing by party workers; indeed, we have all been victims of that. What can be done to ensure that photographic identities are protected and cannot be copied or photoshopped, as must have been the case in the instance to which I referred?

I would also like to know from the Minister whether discussions took place with the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission before these instruments were made. If they did, what was the view of both organisations? In addition, are the Government confident that there will be full access to the franchise through this legislative means for those who are elderly, those on holiday, and for students, and that there will not be any denial of the franchise or any means of obviating these new legislative measures? We have seen examples of that.

Whenever the ballots are open to party political workers some few days before the actual polling place is open, will those workers have an opportunity to be informed of the number of postal votes issued, the number delivered, and the number rejected because they did not have the proper accompanying identification with them?

In any event, and in conclusion, I welcome the instruments as they stand and as they relate to the protection of the franchise in council and Assembly elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs, which put in place new rules on the handing in of postal votes in local, parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, as provided for by the Elections Act 2022. An equivalent SI for Great Britain has already gone through both Houses, with noble Lords participating in the recent debate here in January.

The Act established that it was an offence for a “political campaigner” to handle postal votes other than in very select circumstances. These instruments set out the new rules for members of the general public, which will sit alongside the other measures that the Act brought in. We on these Benches will not oppose the SIs but we want to probe the Minister on their impact. It is always worth noting that, long before the 2022 Act, the Labour Party had for years been signed up to the Electoral Commission’s code of conduct for campaigners, which bans campaigners from handling completed postal ballots.

We seek clarity on who is covered by which provisions. Colleagues in the Commons, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, raised the issue of the need for good understanding and communication on who is covered by the definition of a political campaigner, so people have absolute clarity on which set of rules applies to them. If a person puts a party poster in their window during an election, are they a political campaigner? How will electoral officers be supported to adjudicate on whether someone is a political campaigner or not?

We would like to see more clarity for voters, so that votes are not lost by mistake. Can the Minister give more detail on how the regulations will be made clear to voters, in order to avoid any votes being lost due to people being unaware or unsure of the new requirements?

Finally, I want to pick up on support for electoral officers, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and other noble Lords. Without a doubt, these changes will place some administrative burdens on our electoral administrators. The pressure on local authorities is significant; electoral administrators up and down the country are stretched and are getting their heads around the changes the Government are making, as we pointed out several times during the passage of the Elections Bill. In the light of the numerous SIs that have come before us, these changes will create an unprecedented level of work for electoral administrators. Will electoral officers be further resourced in Northern Ireland? Will they be strengthened to deal with the impacts and changes outlined? My noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick spoke about the consultation, which is referred to in the Explanatory Notes, but can the Minister tell us about the nature of the feedback from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission? I look forward to his response.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I shall try to respond to a number of the points that have been made. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who have extensive experience of elections in Northern Ireland, in both fighting them and campaigning as candidates. I have participated directly in only one election in Northern Ireland, in 2010—without a great deal of conspicuous success, I am afraid to say.

I am grateful to noble Lords. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, spoke about protecting polling stations. Of course, we will keep that under close review. Any question of a police presence at polling stations would be a matter not for the Government but for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in consultation with the Chief Electoral Office. Of course, we keep the issue constantly under review and take it very seriously. That said, notwithstanding some of the comments that have been made, my understanding is that the police and the chief electoral officer are clear that organised electoral fraud at polling stations or polling places is not currently a significant issue. However, I take on board the noble Baroness’s comments and will look closely at the issue.

On engagement with the chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission, I assure noble Lords that extensive and significant consultation took place. I refer specifically to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. These issues were discussed at length, and I can confirm that the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer were fully supportive of the changes the Government are setting out in these regulations.

Concerns were raised about the potential denial of the franchise. The Government are satisfied, through our consultations with the Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission, that these regulations are a fair and proportionate measure which will help to protect the integrity of the election system in Northern Ireland and the postal vote system.

The noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, referred to the definition of a political campaigner. He will be aware that this is set out in the legislation. For the record, it is worth setting it out for the Committee. A political campaigner is a candidate, election agent or sub-agent; somebody employed or engaged by a candidate for the purpose of assisting the candidate’s activities; a member of a registered political party who conducts activity designed to promote a particular outcome at the election; someone employed or engaged by a registered political party in connection with the party’s political activities; or a person employed or engaged by a person within any of the previous categories to promote a particular outcome at the election, which further applies to anyone employed or engaged by such a person to help promote a particular outcome at the election.

Of course, with any new system, we will need to see how this beds in, and we will keep it under review. If changes are necessary, we will come back to Parliament with them.

We are clear that the changes will be communicated directly to electors via forms, including declaration of identity and polling cards. The Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer will also use all avenues open to them to publicise the changes, including their websites. Both the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer are seized of the importance of this and of making sure that the changes are clearly and widely understood by voters.

In conclusion, I know that all noble Lords believe that preserving our democratic processes is paramount. I hope the Committee will agree that these instruments enable us to ensure the integrity of the electoral system and maintain confidence in it by introducing, where we can, what I regard as sensible safeguards against the potential abuse of absent voting. I am therefore pleased to be able to introduce these measures.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, can he tell the Committee about extra support and resources for electoral officers? Perhaps I missed what he said about that.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Of course; I apologise to the noble Lord. In Northern Ireland, all electoral delivery is the responsibility of the chief electoral officer and his staff. Local authorities in Northern Ireland are not involved in that at all. I can assure the noble Lord that we are working closely with the chief electoral officer to identify the specific impact of each of these measures and that any additional resource will be kept under review in that context.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I asked about the reconciliation of postal votes, which happens about three days before polling day in electoral offices. One party-political worker from each party goes along to that and the postal ballots are opened. Will there be a register showing how many postal ballots were submitted, and those that were rejected and accepted?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

That is my understanding. As I outlined in my speech, where votes have been rejected, the electoral officer will write to the individuals concerned to let them know why, where possible.

That probably covers most of what was raised in the discussion. I commend these instruments to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Windsor Framework (UK Internal Market and Unfettered Access) Regulations 2024

Lord Caine Excerpts

Tuesday 13th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Caine]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved.

Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument

Motion agreed.