IRA Terrorism: Compensation for Victims

Lord Caine Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for his kind comments about the public history. He will know that it was certainly my intention that the historians involved would have full access to the papers, and I assume, with the welcome news that this will now go ahead, that that is still the case with the current Administration.

I also express my profound sympathy for all those whose lives were affected by terrorist atrocities during what we somewhat euphemistically refer to as the Troubles between 1966 and 1998. I place on record once again that terrorism in Northern Ireland, from whatever part of the community or political tradition it came, was always wrong and could never be justified. As somebody once put it, there was not a single injustice in Northern Ireland, either perceived or real, that warranted the taking of a single life. I totally agree with that. More than 3,500 people were killed, and we should never forget that, with many thousands more injured and maimed, and that continues to cast a very dark shadow over society today.

I also restate the enormous debt of gratitude that we all owe to those who served in Northern Ireland, be it in the police, the Armed Forces or elsewhere, to ensure that terrorism ultimately did not succeed and that the future of Northern Ireland would only ever be determined by democracy and consent, something that is at the very heart of the 1998 agreement.

Central to the discussion we are having today is the legacy of those terrorist attacks committed by the Provisional IRA as a result of the substantial support that it received from the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi, all of which has been widely documented. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for bringing this debate to the Committee today, as it is very important. Libyan support for the IRA began in the early 1970s, fell away in the late 1970s but resumed in earnest in the early to mid-1980s, as Colonel Gaddafi saw it as a means of striking at Britain, which at that time was, along with our allies in the United States, a staunch opponent of his evil regime. My noble friend Lord Empey touched on the events of 1986, when UK bases were used to launch attacks on Tripoli.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned, the support of Libya for the IRA included millions of dollars of finance, weapons and ammunition, including hundreds of AK-47 rifles, submachine guns and SAM-7 missiles, high explosives, most notably Semtex, and military training. It reached a peak with four direct arms shipments that landed on the coast of Ireland in the mid-1980s, before the interception of the “Eksund”, with its vast arsenal of weaponry, in November 1987. That interception was a pivotal moment in the history of the Troubles. It is something on which I could probably speak for at least the next hour, but in the interests of time, I shall resist.

There is no doubt, therefore, that Libyan support helped to maintain the IRA’s capacity to carry out deadly terrorist attacks across mainly Northern Ireland but also other parts of the United Kingdom, as the noble Baroness again set out, at a time when other sources of weaponry, including the United States, were drying up—that is crucial. That Libyan support came at a crucial time for the Provisional IRA. As my noble friend Lord Empey made clear, it is almost certainly the case that every IRA atrocity, from the mid-1980s up until the second ceasefire in September 1997, had a Libyan connection. It has been estimated that the shipments and support from Libya in the mid-1980s would have enabled the IRA to sustain a campaign for around 20 years—but, thankfully, other factors intervened and a political solution was eventually found.

It is, of course, therefore completely understandable that victims who suffered from the effects of the weapons and financial support for the IRA from the Gaddafi regime over many years want to see compensation. This is an issue with which the Government in which I served as an adviser, and latterly as a Minister, grappled over many years, including by asking Sir William Shawcross to conduct an internal scoping review into the matter in 2019, as has been mentioned. This was subsequently delivered a year or so later.

Without pre-empting what the Minister might say in his reply, I am aware that there are several very important legal issues arising from the use of frozen Libyan assets to compensate victims. As was outlined in a written statement on the Shawcross review in March 2021 by my right honourable friend James Cleverly, under current international law when assets are frozen they continue to belong to the designated individual or entity. He said at the time:

“Frozen assets may not be seized by the UK Government”.


Currently, in implementing financial sanctions, the UK is obliged to comply with relevant UN obligations. This does not mean, however, that there are no avenues available to seek compensation. I shall make two main—hopefully brief—points. First, I agree with my noble friend Lord Empey that the responsibility for providing compensation for the actions of the Gaddafi regime lies with the Libyan state. Can the Minister therefore set out what actions His Majesty’s Government are taking to press the Libyan authorities to address the Libyan state’s historic responsibility for the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA? Will the noble Lord commit to continuing in earnest the previous Government’s efforts to secure this redress, notwithstanding some of the practical difficulties—of which I am all too aware—including where actual authority in Libya might rest?

Secondly, is there not now an opportunity to take a fresh look at the issue of frozen assets, as the noble Baroness made clear? I admit that, when I was in the Northern Ireland Office, I shared the frustration of many at the rigid and perhaps overly legalistic approach adopted by colleagues in the Foreign Office. But I wonder whether the war in Ukraine has not helpfully moved the discussion forward. After all, as the Defence Minister, Luke Pollard, confirmed in March, the UK Government had to date used £2.26 billion of interest from sanctioned Russian sovereign assets to source military capabilities for Ukraine. Meanwhile, on 22 April, the Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey, confirmed that

“whether we can make any further use of the seized Russian … assets is something we are looking closely at”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/25; col. 929.]

Clearly, a good deal of thought is being given within government to the commitment in the Labour manifesto to

“work with our allies to enable the seizure and repurposing”—

I emphasise that word—

“of frozen Russian state assets to support Ukraine”.

I therefore press the Minister for a similar approach to be taken in respect of the £12 billion or so of Libyan frozen assets. If it cannot be, why not?

Of course, no amount of financial compensation can ever make up for the loss of loved ones or alter the changes made to the lives of those affected by these attacks. I do know, however, not least from my own extensive engagement with victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, that recognition of the suffering felt by so many communities is terribly important.

There are, of course, several other schemes that deliver compensation for those affected by the Troubles. Very briefly, these include the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and the Troubles Permanent Disablement Scheme, legislated for by the previous Government in 2019, which since August 2021 has been delivered by the Northern Ireland Executive. Will the Minister say what conversations his Government have had with the Executive on issues of support and compensation, and is he in a position to provide an update on these schemes? If not, perhaps he or one of his colleagues would write to me on that subject.

I want to close by reiterating that it is the victims of terrorism who should always be at forefront of our thoughts. I hope that the Government continue to build on the momentum of this debate, take note of its content and return to us in good time with concrete updates on their work to secure redress for those communities that suffered so badly as a result of the Libyan regime’s support for terrorism. But let us not forget that it is those who pulled the triggers and planted the bombs who bear ultimate responsibility—in this case, the Provisional IRA. I wish the Government well in their efforts.

Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Lord Caine Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I am sure that everyone hearing her words will recognise her sincerity in rightly condemning this. I am not sure that I am the best person to give advice to people who have caused offence. If they do not understand how damaging, offensive and wrong their words are—in the two incidents that have been complained about, and which are being investigated by the police, and in an inadequate so-called apology—then they are not in touch with what is happening in society generally. I cannot give them advice, but an apology is heartfelt and can be seen as heartfelt by those who are being offended. We have not seen that in this case.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, clearly the comments attributed to the band Kneecap go beyond anything that is remotely acceptable in a democratic society. While this is the worst example that has come to light, it is the latest in a line of incidents which, in 2022, saw them commission and unveil a mural of a petrol-bombed police Land Rover. Does the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, as a former Northern Ireland Office Minister, agree that the hatred espoused by Kneecap seeks to undermine the actions of those who strive to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and build a stronger society? Does she agree that not only concert promoters but other platform providers should now take stock and assess whether this is a band with which they want to be associated?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He and I have met people from across the community in Northern Ireland, in many different circumstances. Indeed, I was the Minister responsible for victims for about two years and I saw the effects on people who had suffered enormously throughout what is euphemistically called the Troubles.

We have all seen across the country protest groups which make their point through protest—sometimes very robustly, sometimes in ways that I do not care for—but a line has been crossed here. I struggle with that line. I was not aware of the incident in 2022, but, if that was the case, I therefore do not understand why the grant was awarded; that was a strange decision, given what the noble Lord has just said. There is a level at which we would want all groups to work together. My experience of Northern Ireland is that a number of people and community groups want all that put behind them. They do not want to hear this kind of language and this kind of incitement.

On the noble Lord’s point about promoters of events, I understand that one event has already cancelled their appearance and, in Germany I think a number of appearances have been cancelled. In any case, I am not sure that this is what people want to hear when they go to a concert. My experience of concerts is that they are happy, joyous and inclusive events. I think the promoters of other events will have heard the noble Lord’s words and those of others.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Caine Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I commend the amendment brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lord Morrow, and commend the young people who have helped to provoke this debate. I agree with the previous speaker that we need to focus on the future. Looking to our young people and to what we can do for them is very much at the heart of that.

I support this amendment, but not because I believe that Northern Ireland is the best part of the United Kingdom, nor because I believe that the Peers that come from Northern Ireland bring the greatest level of sagacity to this House. Those two things are self-evidently true, but I support this amendment because it identifies two deficiencies within the Bill. It does not do violence to the Bill but points out two things that we need to consider for the future.

Many unkind critics of the Bill will see the removal of the hereditary Peers by the current Government as a party-political gesture: throwing red meat to the activists within the Labour Party. Perhaps even unkinder people may say that it is used to distract from some of the actions of the Government in the last number of months—over pensioners, the WASPI women, the farmers or, most recently, those on disability benefits. I am sure that the Government would very clearly deny that. However, that denial has a level of credibility only if the actions taken in this Bill move beyond that one simple action of the removal of the hereditary Peers towards a much wider reform of our democracy and of this House.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, does that by starting to look towards the future. What should the composition of this House be in the future? Undoubtedly, in terms of composition, we have a much more diverse House than we had a number of years ago. I recently viewed one of the old episodes of “Yes, Minister”, in which Sir Humphrey was sitting around the table with eight or nine of his Permanent Secretary colleagues, every one of them male, every one of them middle-aged and every one of them middle-class. He concluded a discussion by saying, “Well, I don’t think we could get a more diverse group of individuals than us here”.

Thankfully, we have begun to move away from those days. We have a much more diverse group of people within the House of Lords, from a wide range of backgrounds. But that is not to suggest that we can rest on our laurels. One area where we are still lacking is in a level of regional diversity throughout the United Kingdom. This House should be the voice of all parts of the United Kingdom. When I talk about regional balance, I do not mean between competing boroughs in north London; I mean throughout the entire country. In future, we need to reflect that. The amendment makes specific reference to Northern Ireland, but it could be true of other elements. In debate on one of the earlier amendments, it was mentioned that only one of the hereditary Peers came from Yorkshire, for example. We need to have that wider reflection. Therefore, keeping an observance of the composition of this House as we move forward and recognising that there is widespread representation of the diversity of this country, particularly on a regional basis, is important.

My second reason for commending this amendment, and the second gap that has been identified, is that the supposed driving force behind this amendment was a step towards equality, a step towards greater democracy and a step towards accountability. A case may be made that this is a step in that direction, but it rings hollow when people from my part of the United Kingdom are denied that level of equality, that level of democracy and that level of accountability, because of the current arrangements in place in the post-Brexit situation.

Two things need to happen to rectify that. First, the frictions that are there in terms of the Irish Sea need to be removed completely. We need to see, as the first step, the Government honouring what has been pledged in the past. When the previous Government proposed changes, the current Government, then in opposition, were fully in support of those. Yet we are now a number of months into the new Government and have not seen the speed of action that needs to take place. That is not simply a political point coming from these Benches. Evidence is being given of the daily impact on the ground by retailers, some of the large supermarkets, the haulage companies and the freight companies. That evidence will tell you of the friction that is there. Actions that need to be taken.

Secondly, as has been highlighted, for Northern Ireland a deep democratic deficit has been left, which means that, uniquely, we are left in a situation in which, on a wide range of our laws, we are placed in a different position from the rest of the United Kingdom. Solutions can be pursued. My preferred solution would be mutual enforcement. However, we are told by the Government that they are going to do a reset with Europe. Nobody is quite clear what that means. I suspect that the parameters of any form of reset are probably changing on a relatively daily basis as the world changes. If the Prime Minister is to be genuine in what he means by a broader reset, we need to see a reset which treats all the United Kingdom on an exactly equal basis, with exactly the same rights, responsibilities and restrictions as any other part of the United Kingdom. We need to see a reset not simply with our wider external relations or indeed the internal unity of the United Kingdom. If this Bill and this amendment are to have value, we need to see a reset of our democracy, our sense of equality and our sense of accountability. This amendment has been very useful in provoking that debate.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I can say without fear of contradiction that our former colleague the Countess of Mar would have been incredibly voluble over the past 35 minutes or so.

I rise to make my first contribution to proceedings on this Bill from the Opposition Front Bench. Speaking as somebody whose origins are in the city of Leeds, some 200 miles away from north London, I hasten to add that my origins are about as far removed from the world of hereditary Peers, stately homes and landed estates as it is possible to be. I put on record my strong opposition to the measures contained in this legislation, and indeed the motivations behind it. The Bill, should it go through unamended, will sweep away centuries of unique British heritage and tradition from Parliament and our national life. The House that remains will be a fundamentally different institution, and not for the better.

I intend to pay some lip service to the Standing Orders and actually speak to the terms of the amendment on the Order Paper before the House this evening. However, while preparing to speak to the amendment, I could not help but reflect on the role and representation of Northern Ireland Peers in your Lordships’ House and the contribution that Peers of Ireland over many centuries have made, which continues in a small way to this day. Some of these titles in the Peerage of Ireland predate the Act of Union. My noble friend Lord Courtown and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who was in his place a short while ago, are two examples. Their forebears would have been entitled to sit in the pre-union Irish House of Lords in Dublin. Incidentally, the Chamber of the Irish House of Lords is preserved intact inside the Bank of Ireland, the old Parliament House, opposite Trinity College on College Green, should noble Lords wish to visit it. I would very much recommend that they do; it is well worth it.

After 1801 and the union, the Peers of Ireland, around 100-strong, did not gain the automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Some, such as Lord Palmerston, spent their entire careers in the House of Commons. It might be argued by some that, under the union, when it came to the hereditary peerage, there was an Irish Sea border. Instead of the automatic right, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook reminded us, under Article 4 of the union, a fixed number of 28 Irish representative Peers were elected from among the peerage of Ireland to serve here for life. Some Peers of Ireland were also given peerages of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. This practice continued into the 20th century. For those who think that by-elections to your Lordships’ House are a recent innovation, they actually have a much longer pedigree.

As has been pointed out on a number of occasions during earlier debates on this Bill, the secession of the Irish Free State from the United Kingdom in 1922 did not lead to the ejection of the 28 Irish representative Peers from this House. They were, wisely, allowed to stay, though their numbers were no longer replenished until the last one, the 4th Earl of Kilmorey, died in 1961, thus allowing the Irish representative Peers to disappear from this House gradually with good grace and dignity.

Command Paper Safeguarding the Union

Lord Caine Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, there is some indication of that already by the engagement between Ministers and the EU. We are obviously engaging Northern Ireland on that, given its importance to Northern Ireland. As that proceeds further, we will give updates as and when we can.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s manifesto committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith, but it was silent on the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. Does the noble Baroness acknowledge the enormous effort that went into Safeguarding the Union, which, taken in its entirety, was crucial to the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland in February? Will she commit to implementing Safeguarding the Union in all its parts? In 2021, the then leader of the Opposition stated:

“I … believe in the United Kingdom and … want to make the case for the United Kingdom”.


But in Belfast, days after becoming Prime Minister, he said that he would be an honest broker on the issue. Which is it?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is struggling there to come up with something that does not exist. This party is committed to the union; he knows that. Noble Lords just have to look at the budget for Northern Ireland, which under this Government now has the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution. That is one way in which we show our commitment. There have been 14 ministerial visits to Northern Ireland since the election, with the Prime Minister visiting twice. I do not think that anybody could be in any doubt about our commitment to Northern Ireland’s place in the union.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Lord Caine Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her position and wish her well, but I must say—this is no reflection on her—that Northern Ireland would be better served in this House with a full-time departmental Minister.

The shooting dead of Patrick Finucane at home in front of his family in February 1989 by members of the loyalist terror group the Ulster Defence Association was a heinous act. Like all terrorist atrocities committed during the Troubles, whether loyalist or republican, there could never be any justification for it.

As the Statement makes clear, since 1989 there have been a number of investigations and reviews into the killing of Patrick Finucane—most recently the review by the late Sir Desmond de Silva QC, established by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2011, which reported in December 2012. Sir Desmond, who had full access to the Finucane archive and all relevant state papers, concluded in 2012 that while there was no “over-arching State conspiracy”, there were shocking levels of state collusion.

The Statement acknowledges the unprecedented apology from my noble friend, which I helped to draft, and the Opposition stand by every word of that apology. Any state collusion was, and is, always wrong and should always be condemned, and those responsible should, wherever possible, always face the full force of the law.

The de Silva review sought to establish the facts of what happened in a far shorter timescale than could ever have been achieved by a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I maintain that the review, delivered on time and on budget, was a thorough, substantial piece of work that put far more information into the public domain about the Finucane killing than had ever been made available before. Despite that, as the noble Baroness made clear, after a series of legal challenges the Supreme Court ruled in February 2019 that the de Silva review, along with all previous investigations, was not fully Article 2 compliant, for the reasons the noble Baroness set out in the Statement.

It is worth pointing out that the 2019 judgment did not conclude that a public inquiry was required to remedy the Article 2 deficiency, let alone order such an inquiry. Rather, it said at paragraph 153 that:

“It is for the state to decide … what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement”.


Following further court challenges by the Finucane family, and deadlines set by the Court of Appeal in Belfast, the new Government announced yesterday that they will now establish a public inquiry under the terms of the Inquiries Act—something that, as the Statement points out, had previously been rejected by the Finucane family.

Although we respect the Government’s decision in this case, we believe it to be a mistaken decision and one that, I fear, is likely to be a case of “Grant in haste and repent at leisure”. In our view, a better and more appropriate way forward would have been to refer the case to the newly established Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, ICRIR. This body is now staffed and operational, since 1 May, under the distinguished leadership of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC, who revealed on Monday that the commission has already considered 85 applications, with eight of them now at the information recovery stage.

For all the controversy surrounding the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, and despite the new Government’s pledge to “repeal and replace” the Act, they have now committed to keeping the ICRIR, the establishment of which forms the vast bulk of the Act. Indeed, in the Statement the Secretary of State expressed his confidence in Sir Declan Morgan and the ability of the ICRIR

“to find answers for survivors and families”.

In February this year the High Court found the ICRIR to be capable of conducting effective Article 2-compliant investigations and to be sufficiently independent of government. The Statement acknowledges that the commission has similar powers to compel and secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies to those available to any public inquiry. The commission is able to hold hearings in public under an enhanced inquisitorial process and has the powers to compel witnesses—the main deficiency identified by the court in the de Silva review.

In light of all this, can the noble Baroness set out precisely what a public inquiry can achieve that the ICRIR cannot? Why set up an entirely new process, with all the time and cost involved in that, when we have a body in place that could begin straightaway and deliver the same outcomes?

On timings, can the noble Baroness give any indication of when the Government expect to appoint a judge to chair the inquiry, when we are likely to see the agreed terms of reference, and when the inquiry will begin formal proceedings?

The Secretary of State expressed the expectation that, given previous reviews and investigations, costs can be contained. Does the noble Baroness not agree that, given the thoroughness with which we expect public inquiries to be conducted, and mindful of the history of such inquiries in Northern Ireland, this might turn out to be something of a triumph of hope over expectation? What is the Government’s estimate of the time and the cost?

The Government’s main argument in favour of a public inquiry in this case appears to be its “unique circumstances”, the promises that were made at Weston Park in 2001 and those of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in the other place in 2004. Can the noble Baroness set out what precisely are the unique circumstances of this case that set it apart from other atrocities carried out during the Troubles and that merit different treatment? Have the Government considered the impact of this decision on other victims and survivors of the Troubles? Can she confirm that the challenge to the previous Government’s decision not to proceed with a public inquiry, on the basis that this had been promised by another Government years before, was dismissed by the Supreme Court in February 2019? Can she also say how many other demands for public inquiries the Government are currently considering?

Finally, I welcome the acknowledgement in the Statement of the role of the security forces, the vast majority of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out, carried out their duties with courage, professionalism and dedication to the rule of law, and whom we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to working constructively with her, not least on legacy issues, over the months ahead.

From these Benches we strongly welcome yesterday’s Statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for both its measured tone and its content. We welcome that there is finally to be a public inquiry. The brutal murder of Patrick Finucane was one of the most shocking and controversial incidents that took place in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The Finucane family has had to wait more than 35 years for justice, and we can but hope that this inquiry can begin to result in some closure for them after all these years.

It is extremely important that the public inquiry being established will have the confidence of the public and all the powers necessary to carry out its job in full. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will be able to compel witnesses and secure all relevant documents? Can she say a little more about the likely process, conditions and timetable for appointing the chair of the inquiry?

On wider legacy issues, the Minister will recognise that there are so many other families in Northern Ireland who are still waiting for truth and justice. With the ICRIR in place, and the commitment of the Government to repeal the immunity section of the legacy Act, it is important that we have clarity on these matters as soon as possible, including how the inquiry will relate to the ICRIR. Can she say how and when we are likely to be informed about the process and timing of repealing the immunity section of the legacy Act? In his Statement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was committed to considering measures to “further strengthen” the ICRIR. Can the Minister say how and when she expects this to take place?

Finally, I welcome the response of the Northern Ireland Secretary to my honourable friend James MacCleary MP yesterday that there will be close co-operation with opposition MPs on wider legacy issues. Can the Minister provide reassurances that Members of this House will also be kept fully informed at every stage of this process?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the noble Lord for his incredibly generous comments. We will see whether I live up to them—or not—in due course. Given the noble Lord’s role in the last Labour Government, he will be aware that every penny we can spend on economic development and regeneration itself acts as a bridge to peace and to moving on from the Troubles. However, people still need answers. One of the things we have heard in your Lordships’ House today is that people’s hurt is still tangible. We need to do everything we can to provide closure and to move forward on behalf of all the families and all those touched by the Troubles throughout my lifetime.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, as there are a few seconds left, I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. When she looks at Hansard, she may notice that she missed one or two of my specific questions. I would be very grateful if she could go away with her officials—some of whom I spy out of the corner of my eye—and possibly write to me with some detailed answers to the questions I put.

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

Of course, I apologise if I did not get to all of your Lordships’ questions, and specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Caine. I will check Hansard for the full debate and respond appropriately.

Covid-19: Road Map

Lord Caine Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am sure that my noble friend will agree that the immediate priority was to open schools; we have all agreed to that. This is why the first step is the reopening of schools on 8 March. As I hope I have made clear, we then need to look at the data on what happens and have a further week, which is why the beginnings of outdoor hospitality come after that.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register. I very much welcome the plan for the return of spectators to sporting venues, which is particularly important for my own sport, rugby league, given that the season begins in March and culminates with the Rugby League World Cup in the autumn. Can my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal confirm that it is the Government’s ambition that, well before the beginning of that tournament—I hope by late June—stadiums will be operating at full capacity? Does she agree that delivering a successful Rugby League World Cup, which is a manifesto commitment, will play an important role in post-pandemic economic recovery and levelling up, particularly across the north of England?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his question and continued support of rugby league, which I know is very dear to his heart. As he will know, DCMS and BEIS have been working with representatives from industry and civil society to explore when and how events with larger crowd sizes and less social distancing will be able to return. This is why, over the spring, we will run a scientific events research programme, which will include a series of pilots that will start in April. We will then bring the findings from across different sectors and settings to determine a consistent approach. We hope that the outcome of the work is that we will be able to lift restrictions on these events and sectors, as he said, as part of step 4, which will be on 22 June at the earliest.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Caine Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said, as supply becomes more available, community pharmacies will be involved in the programme as we roll things out, so conversations are certainly ongoing.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the additional financial support for businesses and communities announced by the Government this week. I highlight in particular the extra £729 million that will go to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Does my noble friend agree with me that that further underlines the value of our union and the fact that, during and beyond this pandemic, we are stronger, safer and better off together?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. He is absolutely right about the £729 million that we have provided to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, as we have already discussed, the vaccination programme is a UK-wide effort, and we will all be working together for a common aim within our union.

Covid-19

Lord Caine Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that, in the announcement yesterday, the advice remains that the clinically extremely vulnerable do not need to shield at the moment, although this will be kept under review. Obviously, if things change, packages of support will be looked at. Local directors of public health are also able to offer specific advice for clinically vulnerable residents. Of course, in local lockdown areas there will be different packages of support, so that is absolutely something we will consider as and when the guidance changes. In relation to rents, I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Baroness as I do not have information on that particular issue.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Following on from the comments of my noble friend Lord Hayward, my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will be aware that, in May, the whole rugby league family applauded the Government for the £16 million lifeline that they made available to the sport. That money was, however, predicated on a 12-week lockdown, and yesterday’s announcement on pausing the return of spectators could have a devastating impact on the viability of professional rugby league clubs both large and small. Can my noble friend therefore assure the House that the Government will engage urgently with the Rugby Football League to seek a quick solution to this issue and examine what more can be done to ensure a future for a sport that is so deeply embedded in communities such as mine in Leeds?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. As I said to my noble friend Lord Hayward, the Secretary of State is working on this as we speak. He is well aware of the issues faced. As my noble friend said, we have already worked with the rugby league to help but, as he said, with the new situation unfortunately facing sport, we will certainly work to see what we can do because so many clubs in a range of different sports are absolutely central to their local communities and we want to make sure that they continue to thrive once this crisis is over.

Referendums

Lord Caine Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we are very concerned and absolutely determined to protect the integrity of our democracy and our elections. As I have said, we are doing that by addressing in particular the mechanisms for electoral fraud through the introduction of voter ID and by banning postal vote harvesting. We have already announced a range of measures to strengthen and protect our democratic processes. These include commitments to launch a consultation on electoral integrity and to implement a digital imprint regime for online election material.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I express considerable sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, about referendums. I have long held considerable doubts about using a 50+1 mechanism for bringing about significant constitutional change. I am also incredibly fearful of using that method to bring an end to the union with Northern Ireland and establish a united Ireland; the consequences are likely to be severe. Will my noble friend the Minister look again at thresholds in referendums? There is a precedent in 1979, when the referendum in Scotland required not just a majority of those voting at the ballot box but 40% of the electorate as a whole to back the proposals.

[Earl Howe]

That is true, but we have never gone down that road in any of the subsequent referenda. There would be serious challenges in doing so. First, Parliament would need to decide what level of participation confers legitimacy; I do not think that is a straightforward issue at all. If one had a threshold related to voter turnout, the inflexibility of such an arrangement could easily prove counterproductive and have the paradoxical effect of equating non-participation with no vote, because low levels of participation can void a given result. That could cause a great deal of disquiet among the public.

Brexit: Negotiations

Lord Caine Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Our focus, and what we are aiming for, is a comprehensive, best-in-class free trade agreement. We believe that we can certainly achieve that. I reiterate once again, as I said in answer to the earlier question, that we have an excellent track record in relation to standards. We have made clear at this Dispatch Box time and again that we are not intending to lower standards. I referenced a few examples of where we lead the world or exceed EU minimums, which I can repeat: length of maternity leave, shared parental leave, holiday entitlement and greenhouse gas targets. Of course, once we leave the EU, it will be for this Parliament to make decisions on our standards. The strength of feeling around this House—and the view of the Government—is that we absolutely would not want to lower our standards. In fact, we may want to exceed them, and we will be able to do a lot of other things that we want to do. It is an unfair attack to say that this is about lowering standards. We have been very clear: it absolutely is not.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I return to the issue of democratic consent of the Assembly and Executive in respect of regulatory alignment. A number of noble Lords have raised this issue. It is absolutely crucial that we get this right; the way this is taken forward will have a profound impact on the result, whether it is a majority vote in the Assembly or taken forward by a cross-community vote. In addition, I will share some of the concerns that have been expressed about a vote taking place every four years on this issue. My experience in Northern Ireland, which goes back 30 years, is that this issue will be used every four years as a proxy for a border poll. That would have possibly profound consequences for economic and political stability in Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I can only defer to my noble friend on his knowledge in this area. The concerns that have been expressed across the House are noted. As I have said, the exact mechanisms in this area will be subject to discussions with our Irish colleagues and, obviously, with representatives of the communities within Northern Ireland. As he says, it is critical that we get this right and get it right for both communities in Northern Ireland, so that we can move forward and protect the fantastic achievements that have been made in relation to peace in Northern Ireland. I hope I have been clear that this is paramount and a primary aim for us within these proposals.