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

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

There are situations in which the woman in that case, under the Abortion Act, can seek help. I would expect that she would, but there are situations in which she may not. I simply ask the Government how they expect it to happen. Doctors administer these drugs. Doctors look after us in childbirth. We do not do it ourselves.

I move to Amendment 461. A considerable danger associated with Clause 191 is the activities of abusers and exploiters. The shield, which would be reimposed if telemedicine were stopped, is a requirement for all women considering abortion. It is not possible on the telephone to ensure a woman’s privacy and that she is not being coerced, or to verify that the person seeking the medication is the person who will actually take it, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, child abuse and trafficking. It is important that the medication is not taken by a woman whose pregnancy exceeds 10 weeks. The NHS reported in July 2025 that, since 2020, 54,000 women have been admitted to hospital in England for complications from birth pills. Last year alone, there were 12,000.

In removing the criminal status of abortion, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, says, we perversely incentivise abusers to pressure vulnerable women into dangerous, isolated and self-administered late-term abortions. My Amendment 461 is a safeguard against that, which I hope noble Lords will be minded to support. It would create a provision analogous to that found in Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961—a special offence of encouraging or assisting an abortion which is unlawful under the terms of the Abortion Act.

The amendment would not chill medical advice or online information. It requires intent, which is a distinct threshold. Ordinary clinical counselling or neutral provision of information would not meet the test. The amendment does not engage with or change what is lawful under the Abortion Act. It concerns only unlawful terminations and intentional encouragement or assistance. If an abortion is lawful, the offence does not arise. Perhaps most importantly, its desired effect is safeguarding vulnerable women.

Under the current wording of Clause 191, there is a risk, if self-administering an abortion is no longer a crime, that the woman can be pressurised. By legislating expressly where safeguarding is paramount and creating a clear specific offence, we would send a strong protective signal for women. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and to talk to clinicians, et cetera. It is a measured, reasonable and necessary response. I urge noble Lords to support it.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise with a certain level of trepidation and fear to convey a contribution during this debate, as I am not a mother. I have never enjoyed motherhood; therefore, I do not have the experiences of many women right across this Chamber. But I rise to support Amendment 460, to which I am pleased to be a signatory and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has already spoken, and the clause stand part notice on Clause 191 from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton.

I support Amendment 460 because the health risks of obtaining abortion pills without adequate prior in-person checks are now well documented. I feel that if they are to be available—if that is the way you support—you need an ultrasound and a full investigation.

I simply add one further example to those which have already been cited. The Irish Medical Journal published an article in March 2024 explaining how a woman in Ireland nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy after taking abortion pills. The article reported that the case

“could have been prevented by an ultrasound”.

If women once again had mandatory in-person scans, it would protect them, allowing ectopic pregnancies and other possible health risks to be picked up more reliably.

However, as has been noted, the woman is not our only consideration. I agree that there is a need to protect the woman but also the unborn child. By allowing Clause 191 to stand, we would remove the legal safeguards that exist to protect an unborn baby after the point of viability, when a baby could survive outside the womb. I contend that this is a radical and unpopular proposal. Indeed, this is an issue that should unite those of us who are pro-life and those of us who are pro-choice. In an article for the Times entitled “I’ve always been pro-choice but this is too far”, the well-known pro-choice commentator Janice Turner wrote

“I find it discomforting that a woman could abort a full-term baby and face no sanctions”.

She is not alone. Polling in 2024 found that only 1% of women support abortion up to birth, while just 16% of the public support removing a legal deterrent after the 24-week limit. In fact, 70% of women would like to see a reduction in our abortion time limits, not permitting women to induce their own abortions up to birth, as would de facto become the case under Clause 191.

As a Northern Irish Peer, I echo the earlier comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, regarding Northern Ireland. I was concerned to hear suggestions in the other place, during the truncated Report debate on this clause, that there are considerations about whether to introduce pills by post in Northern Ireland. I am deeply worried about this possibility. If supporters of Clause 191 really wish to bring England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, as they claim, I make a simple suggestion that they ought to support Amendment 460 and reintroduce the in-person appointments that we rightly continue to have in Northern Ireland.

I finish by quoting the Times leading article, published two days after Clause 191 passed in the other place:

“Even the most ardent advocate of a woman’s right to choose must see that this change risks a host of unintended consequences. While women considering ultra-late termination must”—


I support them in this—“be regarded” and supported

“with the greatest understanding and sympathy”,

as well as with compassion and humanity,

“the possibility of a viable child being killed shortly before its birth is not a prospect to be treated lightly”.

I know there are different views on that issue right across the Chamber, but I hold my view, and I respect the views of others who take a different viewpoint. There has been no great public clamour, I believe, for this change. I very much hope that Clause 191 will not remain part of the Bill, and I also support Amendment 460 to which I am a signatory.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 459 and in support of other amendments that have been tabled in this group, in particular the clause stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, and Amendment 460 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

Clause 191, were it to become law, would open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. Although these consequences may be unintended, they are not unforeseen. After all, many of us warned about exactly what would happen if the pills by post scheme was introduced. Indeed, the only reason we are having this debate is because, tragically, those warnings proved to be accurate, and the supporters of pills by post now wish to decriminalise late-term, self-induced abortions as a result of and, dare I say, to conceal the results of this reckless scheme for which they lobbied.

Those consequences were foreseeable, and if Clause 191 makes it on to the statute book we can foresee what its consequences would be too. Although women ending the lives of their unborn children after the 24-week limit may be spared prosecution under the clause, I fear they will not be spared the grave resulting dangers to their physical health and the lasting trauma that would accompany such abortions. It is for this reason, and many of the others that have already been set out, that I wholeheartedly support Clause 191 not standing part of the Bill, and Amendment 460, which would reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional before abortion pills can be obtained, should be approved.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

First, I thank the noble Baroness for the work she has done with Kenova; it is a truly sobering piece of work and an incredibly important addition.

When any agent—active, living or otherwise—is publicly identified by the state, it calls into question the whole premise of the Government’s “neither confirm nor deny” policy, which is vital for national security. On Operation Kenova’s request to the Government to name Stakeknife, the Northern Ireland Secretary has set out in a letter to Sir Iain Livingstone, which is available in the Library, that the Government will issue a substantive and final response to that request after the Supreme Court has issued its judgment in the Thompson case, which is relevant to NCND policy.

I want to make it clear that the alleged behaviour revealed in this report is deeply disturbing, and such activities would simply not be tolerated today.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to thank Jon Boutcher and Sir Iain Livingstone for the report they have brought forward. The Kenova report contains very disturbing findings. In view of this, can my noble friend the Minister highlight the Government’s intentions to address those very serious findings, including the fact that MI5 tried to restrict the investigation and conceal the truth of IRA crimes it knew all about?

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

My noble friend is right that this report contains a range of recommendations; some are outside its original terms of reference, which were in the interim report published last March. Noble Lords will appreciate that many of the issues touched upon are subject to ongoing litigation, so there is only so far I can go in terms of their actions.

I say to my noble friend that the director-general of MI5 again apologised to Kenova for the late discovery of the material in 2024. The House will also note that MI5 itself has initiated an internal review of what happened, and there are the findings of the Helen Ball review, in which she raised a number of points. There is always more to learn, but as I said before, the legislative framework in which these alleged activities happened is not the same as the one that operates today.

Wales: Further Devolution

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am a member of the Labour Party because of our ongoing commitment to try to tackle child poverty. The child poverty strategy will be coming forward in due course. We will continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that every child has the opportunities they deserve.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of the devolution settlement, the Northern Ireland Executive already have revenue-raising powers. Will my noble friend the Minister tell us what position the Government would adopt if the Northern Ireland Executive were to seek new, additional fiscal powers in order to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland in the areas of health, education and infrastructure?

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

I thank my noble friend for her question. She is very aware that, under the recent spending review, Stormont was awarded £19.2 billion—its largest ever financial settlement. As for additional tax-raising mechanisms, they exist, if Stormont wishes to use them. That is a matter for Stormont. We would support it in whichever endeavours it wants to do to access the powers already available to it.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Lord. There will be an open process, and the person appointed will be appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no commitment or expectation that the person will be from the Republic of Ireland, and I would be surprised if they were.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement this evening. I also thank her for the engagement we have had over the last few weeks and for the letter I received today in response to the representations I had made. I totally condemn all that violence and terrorism, and the murder of innocent people over all those long years. For those of us who lived in Northern Ireland and grew up during that period of violence, it was very difficult. I have two questions, one of which has already been referred to.

First, will the new legacy body be independent of the Secretary of State? That was one of the issues that was raised with the previous legacy legislation. Secondly, will the Government ensure that a victim-centred process is pivotal to all of the legislation? I welcome the fact that there is a joint British and Irish Government approach because the problem with the previous legislation was that there had been no consultation with the Irish Government. Therefore, what further consultation will take place on a formal and informal basis with political parties and all the victims’ groups in Northern Ireland?

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

One of the most important things about the additional powers we are giving to the legacy commission is the new governance structures, which I hope will give a level of confidence about its independence. That is not to say the Secretary of State will be completely isolated; we are talking about some issues relating to national security and there will be some responsibilities for the Secretary of State, all of which are outlined in the legislation. However, we are putting in an independent governance structure where we can make it very clear about who is responsible for what when, and so that people can have confidence that this is independent of the British state where necessary.

On a victims-centred process, let us remember why we are doing this: it is about victims, their families and people. Candidly, it is not about most of us in your Lordships’ House—though there are notable exceptions to that. This is about making sure that everyone has the answers they need. Every family I have talked to needs a different set of answers and is looking for different things from the commission; we need to ensure that what they want and need is at the heart of it.

Of course we will continue engagement. Legislation has now started in the other place and will come to us. All political parties will be engaged, both inside and outside the Chamber. We will continue to actively engage with all victims’ groups.

Casement Park: Spending Review

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

The noble Baroness raises what is at the heart of this: in 2011 the last Government allocated £14.7 million of funding for the redevelopment of Ravenhill rugby stadium, £25.2 million for the redevelopment of Windsor Park, £61.5 million for Casement and £36 million for subregional stadia funds. All the projects have been delivered except Casement; the money was not spent. This is delivering on the promises that were made. We have been very clear that we have put forward £50 million. The current projected cost of the redevelopment is £170 million. It is now a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring together partners to deliver the rest of the money.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I convey my sympathies to the people of Maguiresbridge in Fermanagh and to the families of the victims this morning. On behalf of the GAA, and on my own behalf, I thank the Government for the £50 million contribution towards the construction of Casement Park. It is long awaited and I hope it will be built. What discussions have taken place, or what ongoing discussions are taking place, with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Communities Minister, who I understand is preparing a paper on Casement Park to take to the Executive that, I hope, will be productive and positive and result in the full allocation of funding to enable the building of Casement Park for provincial Gaelic games in the province of Ulster?

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

I thank my noble friend. I am very aware of her personal support for the GAA and the sport. To reassure her, there is now an official-level working group between the NIO and the Northern Ireland Executive to try to deliver on Casement Park. The Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for the delivery of this project. We are working very closely with Minister Lyons to give him the support that he needs. It is now a matter of bringing together and delivering the project while it still can be delivered.

Fujitsu: Government Contracts

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Fujitsu’s suitability to hold government contracts.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests.

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

My Lords, the impact of the Horizon scandal on postmasters and their families has been horrendous. The Government are determined to hold those responsible to account and will continue to seek to make rapid progress on compensation and redress. Fujitsu’s role in Horizon is one of the issues currently being reviewed by Sir Wyn Williams’s statutory inquiry. In January 2024, Fujitsu committed to withdraw from bidding for contracts with new government customers until the Post Office Horizon inquiry concludes. It will bid for work with existing government customers only where it already has a contract with them or where there is an agreed need for Fujitsu’s skills and capabilities. The Government are carefully considering volume 1 of the report, published yesterday, which is limited in scope. Once the inquiry has established the full facts, we will review its final report and consider any further action, where appropriate.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. Given yesterday’s results from the official inquiry into the Post Office scandal, and the human tragedies which unfolded as a result of wrongful convictions of postmasters, what additional due diligence measures have the Government implemented or will the Government implement to ensure that contractors with a history of significant failures or legal issues can demonstrate that they have addressed these concerns before being awarded new contracts? In this, I am mindful of the bid by Fujitsu for the controversial trader support scheme in Northern Ireland.

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

My noble friend makes the most important of points, which is about the impact on people, and the victims of the Horizon scandal, a lot of which we heard yet again yesterday. It broke my heart and other people’s hearts.

On my noble friend’s specific question, the Procurement Act, which was passed by Your Lordships’ House in 2023, provides buyers with more scope to exclude suppliers who have performed poorly on previous relevant contracts. Previously, exclusion was possible only if poor performance had led to termination of a contract, damages or comparable sanctions. Due diligence on such failures is also more straightforward as the Act now provides for the sharing of information on poorly performing suppliers. This information is publicly available via notices published on the central digital platform.

With regards to the Trader Support Service contract, HMRC is currently undertaking a competitive procurement process for the renewal of that scheme, and it would therefore be inappropriate of me to comment further.

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

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I have two principal reasons for speaking to this instrument. The first is that I currently chair the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee of this House, and therefore am very sensitive to issues that affect the communities in Northern Ireland. One of the issues that is absolutely of the greatest importance is the way in which the justice system operates.

My second, more particular reason is that I was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Independent Reviewer of National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland in 2007. I prepared a report that led to the amendment of what were, at that stage, called the Diplock courts—and often still are—in 2007. I recommended that the system should have some instrumental changes made to it but that, in principle, the courts should continue. Critics rather wryly called them the “I can’t believe it’s not Diplock” courts after I made my recommendations. I have been following those courts, which have held non-jury-trials ever since, for the past 18 years, in some detail. I have spoken to lawyers practising in those courts and to some judges who have worked in them, and obviously I have tried to form my own judgments.

I absolutely agree with the Minister that, unfortunately, at the present time, it is not yet possible to say that there should be only jury trials for offences involving sectarian issues and aspects of terrorism or paramilitary activity. However, that is not to say that I believe that this system should continue indefinitely into the future; happily, the Minister has not suggested that today. It is notable that the number of non-jury trials has been reduced in recent years. I had hoped that that would happen; it has taken rather longer than I had hoped, but I am pleased to see that that has now occurred.

There have been some recent disturbances in Northern Ireland, which reaffirm my belief that there are still difficult sectarian issues, including bullying within communities and intimidation in some parts of them. That said—it will not surprise your Lordships to hear this from someone who has been at the Bar for over 50 years doing criminal cases—I believe that part of what is sometimes called the holy grail of our criminal justice system is jury trial. There may be changes in the jury trial system in England and Wales shortly; we await the Leveson report. I am sure that many of us lawyers in your Lordships’ House will view them with all of our critical faculties—but, of course, objectively at all times.

In this situation, it is right to extend these courts on the basis of need. Therefore, I empirically support what is proposed by the Government this afternoon.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the chairman of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thank my noble friend the Minister for her presentation of this statutory instrument. I should indicate that I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships’ House.

Following on from the noble Lord, I also renounce and reject violence from all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. It is wrong now as it was wrong over all the years of the Troubles; that point cannot be overemphasised. The murder and terrorism were wrong. They took the lives of innocent civilians in many instances and robbed families of loved ones. Those scars remain—that is a fact of life.

However, 27 years after the Good Friday agreement of 1998, 19 years after the St Andrews agreement of October 2006 when the decision was taken to devolve policing and justice—I well remember being there—and 15 years after when, in 2010, the legislative position on policing and justice was enacted and the first Minister for Justice was appointed, I get a sense of déjà vu. We debated this issue back in 2021. When will actual normalisation take place so that we no longer require non-jury trials? As a democrat, I do not feel happy about or sit comfortably on non-jury trials. I was brought up and reared in Northern Ireland and come from the democratic Irish nationalist community. There were many rigours in all such jury systems. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether, from the Government’s research, they can provide a guesstimate of when we can move to normalisation?

I note, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, that such trials are not in total use any more in Northern Ireland. There were 12 non-jury trials in the Crown Court in 2023, in comparison to a total of 1,423, so they are not used readily. However, I am conscious of the fact that there is still evidence of paramilitarism; this was clearly demonstrated some weeks ago when people in certain communities were bullied by paramilitarism and paramilitaries, because you could translate sectarianism in this instance into racism. Several people involved in that were, it was suggested, also involved in other acts of terrorism, threats and intimidation.

I ask my noble friend the Minister: when is normalisation likely? This is all related to the legacy issue. Currently, the Secretary of State is considering the repeal of the legacy Act. When will the new legacy legislation come forward? I know that that is circumscribed by certain legal instruments in certain courts because, yesterday, I had the opportunity here to meet two daughters of Sean Brown, who was brutally murdered in March 1997 in Bellaghy. There is a need for a full investigation and inquiry because there are lots of twists in the tale of why he was murdered. His family need to know that; they need truth and justice.

With that, I understand the reasons for the extension. It is not something that I sit happily beside, but I hope that we are moving to full normalisation and that we will not see an extension for another two years in two years’ time.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I support this draft order extending the provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which will, for a further two years until 31 July 2027, enable criminal trials to continue to be concluded without a jury in Northern Ireland if certain conditions are met. The provisions are there to protect potential jurors from intimidation and offer defendants protection from potentially biased jurors in specific cases. The extension is also informed by the security situation in Northern Ireland, including the fact that the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorists has remained at “substantial” since March 2024.

As we know, non-jury trials take place only in exceptional circumstances. Under the old Diplock scheme, the default was a non-jury trial for certain offences. I entirely understand the Government’s reasons for wanting to extend the measures, given the circumstances in Northern Ireland; those have already been touched on. We know that, in the past weeks, we have witnessed serious violence across Northern Ireland. Police officers were seriously injured, property was attacked and were people attacked in their own homes. Let me say this clearly: the violence that we have witnessed on our streets in recent days cannot be justified and must be condemned. We have people in Northern Ireland who want to take us back to those days but we, as democrats, must resist that.

The other issue I want to raise—the Minister will be aware of it—is the resourcing and funding of the PSNI. It has continued to fall over a number of years. In fact, the current budget is simply inadequate and the pressures on the service are unsustainable, certainly in the long term. The PSNI is currently running at an estimated deficit of £34 million, which is a huge amount of money, and the force requires significant financial investment over the next number of years. We know that the chief constable has touched on this issue many times because, at this moment in time, we have 3,300 police officers in Northern Ireland; the chief constable is saying that, for the police in Northern Ireland to do the job that they need to do, that figure needs to be raised to over 7,000. This can be done only by the proper resourcing of policing in Northern Ireland but that has not been the case. I appeal to the Minister and this Labour Government: if they seriously want good, effective policing across Northern Ireland, it is important that the PSNI is properly resourced.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord also asked about the current number of PSNI police officers. As of 23 June, there are 6,191 police officers. I appreciate that Jon Boutcher has made it very clear that more need to come, which is why the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive have put forward a plan for additional officers. I am pleased to have seen the reports and detail of the PSNI workforce recovery and the additional £200 million that has been allocated. There is a challenge for us with PSNI funding and we have discussed it on many occasions in the Chamber and Grand Committee—

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My noble friend will recall that I and others discussed with her in the last few weeks trying to ring-fence funding in the Cabinet Office and Downing Street specifically for policing in Northern Ireland and to transfer it to the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that it is used not by other government departments but simply for policing. Has there been any progress on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

I believe it is still waiting to be approved by the Executive. But in terms of the block grant, one of the things that we have been able to reassure the Executive on is what their funding is going to be over the next three years, and that gives them a level of confidence to move forward.

I have received another clever bit of paper. Yesterday’s June monitoring round announcement confirmed that the Executive have agreed to give the Northern Ireland Department of Justice first call on up to £7 million in future monitoring rounds in the current financial year, towards the first year of the PSNI workforce recovery business case. That is the £7 million, not the £200 million. But I want to reassure noble Lords before I sit down or give way that this is a devolved matter, and how they are allocating their money is a matter for colleagues in Belfast.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, I say that the Minister will appreciate that that sort of commitment from the June monitoring process is not really a commitment because I know personally that these sorts of commitments were made to me as Housing Minister and they never necessarily materialised. I ask whether it is possible for her, as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, to impress upon the Northern Ireland Executive the importance of the definite allocation of funding for policing because the chief constable needs it in order to deal with current policing pressures in advance of dealing with those issues to do with legacy that are pre devolution.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore]

Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, there is confusion about this £200 million, where it has gone, who is allocating it and so on. We need clarification around the allocation of future funding for police.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Northern Ireland

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Lilley, I offer my condolences to the family and colleagues of Lord Cormack. Patrick Cormack was an outstanding political figure, serving as a parliamentarian in both Houses of this Parliament for many years. Before he left the House of Commons, he was chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I remember a visit that he made to Downpatrick around St Patrick’s Day. He read the lesson at the service in Down Cathedral, reflecting on the work of St Patrick that belongs to all traditions. That is the important thing—Lord Cormack was a unifying figure.

I welcome the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, so I welcome that aspect of the humble Address. There are other bits which I also welcome, including the adherence to the Good Friday agreement. Naturally, as a democratic Irish nationalist I believe in the unity of people on the island of Ireland. That is my aspiration; that is my identity; that is where I come from. However, there is a need, and it can happen, for peaceful coexistence between unionists, nationalists and others. That is embodied in the Good Friday agreement because it allows you to be British, Irish or both. It is important that this is totally reflected.

It is important that the institutions that we all voted for back in 1998 have been restored. They have been down more often than they have been operational, but the fact of their welcome was a feature that came out some weeks ago in the poll by LucidTalk and Queen’s University, Belfast, of February 2024. Why? It was because the public were crying out for the resumption of the institutions and for local delivery by local people elected by all of us for delivery and decisions on local services, whether health, education, economy or infrastructure.

That is not something that I view as a celebration. The institutions should never have been collapsed in February 2022 or in January 2017. The fact that the institutions can be collapsed by either of the big parties necessitates the need to look at reform of the institutions to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to prevent this from happening again. The bottom line is that the people of Northern Ireland want stable political institutions in place for the purposes of good governance and for delivering for the people, and they want the people who have been elected to govern and for the opposition—my colleagues in the SDLP—to do their job as well.

I said two weeks ago that I would not be content with the Command Paper because it was a deviation from a previous position, since it represented a unilateral decision-making process between the DUP and the UK Government—although listening here tonight you would not think that it was agreement between the UK Government and the DUP. The message must be clear: “Please cherish all traditions equally”, as required by the Good Friday agreement, which has been the hallmark for negotiations in Northern Ireland for nearly 38 years.

The current UK Government’s approach represents a departure from the GFA and from the Downing Street declaration. I say, not gently but very forcefully, that we all need to revert to the factory settings of the Good Friday agreement—to those principles of consent, inclusion and equality. Northern Ireland is a divided society, with unionists, nationalists and others. That is why it is important to underscore and ensure the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement through the operation of all the institutions in all the strands—the Assembly, the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. That is why I want a renewed commitment from the current British Government to that bipartisan approach with the Irish Government, and I will ask the Irish Government the same. That means a true reflection of parity of esteem, partnership, power sharing, respect for political difference and the consent principle.

When will the next meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference take place to discuss that range of economic, trade, joint working on health and cross-border and, importantly, east-west issues? When will the next meeting of the British-Irish Council on east-west issues take place? When will the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council and the full operation of the implementation bodies take place? I believe in that reset of the principles of the GFA where equality, human rights, equality of citizenship and protection of identity all, within a spirit of partnership, must be reflected.

That type of approach will enable the full benefits of the Windsor Framework to be realised. We have heard so much this evening about the negative side to the Windsor Framework. I have talked to many people in Northern Ireland. One of the results of the LucidTalk/Queen’s University poll showed that the majority opinion on the Windsor Framework is generally accepting or supportive of the arrangements established for Northern Ireland. Why? Because people want to move on. They want economic benefit. They want economic opportunity for their families and associates. We need access to that EU single market and the UK internal market. With the full realisation of the economic opportunities, with stability and political progress, we achieve a more balanced, peaceful reconciliation and shared society.

However, for our region to succeed, we need a significant budget to address the needs of our population. The challenges of health waiting lists, the crumbling fabric of our roads and schools, public sector reform and transformation are all required. People need access to services such as health waiting lists in a more expeditious manner without having to meet countless impediments. Assembly Members and Ministers must face these challenges and implement difficult decisions. While £3.3 billion on a conditional basis was a significant allocation, it presents dangers because some of that is recycled money, the Executive have significant overspends from previous years, and the public sector money, while very welcome, is not current expenditure and that money has to be found for future financial years out of the budget. Money that was earmarked for 10 new integrated schools in the fresh start agreement of 2015 seems to have disappeared and other money is no longer present either because a significant amount is now required for the full education budget. Where is the levelling-up money for Northern Ireland?

I also welcome the €800 million shared island funding from the Irish Government for cross-border infrastructure projects such as the A5, the Narrow Water bridge, Casement Park and the Boyne heritage centre. That demonstrates a clear commitment by the Irish Government to deliver north-south projects and the much-needed bipartisan approach. Maybe in his wind-up, the Minister could advise us on the reform of the institutions. What discussions will the Government have with the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and what analytical work has that committee commenced about the review of such institutions?

I do not support the amendment. I support that part of the Motion that deals with the restoration of the institutions. Much work needs to happen to create that economic opportunity, and that is why it is vitally important that we ensure that the full benefits of the Windsor Framework and the work of the institutions are realised for the people of Northern Ireland.

For me, this debate is about including everything, and the Good Friday agreement with its three-stranded approach, representing the three sets of relationships, affords us the opportunity to deal with that without fear of exclusion, marginalisation or triumphalism. The Good Friday agreement must be our lodestar—our guiding light. Bipartisanship and partnership, with parity of esteem, must be central to all our discussions. That must be the way forward. I defer to my noble friend Lord Murphy on the Front Bench, who was a significant negotiator in the Good Friday agreement and helped to bring forward—along with my colleagues in the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and the Irish Government—that agreement, which was based on that duality of approach, partnership and parity of esteem. That is where we need to be to achieve progress and benefit for all the people, because I firmly believe that both Governments and all parties must work together, committed to bipartisanship, partnership and delivering for all. That is the way forward.

Reference has been made in the other place to the fact that there is no all-Ireland economy. One has to look only at the single electricity market, the agri-food industry which operates on a cross-border north-south basis, the Coca-Cola Company, and animal health, and the island of Ireland is considered a single epidemiological unit. It is a mistruth to say that that does not exist. We must face what are the political realities and the fact that there are many people in Northern Ireland, and all those political identities must be recognised and accommodated. The best way to do that is through the mechanisms and three-stranded approach that already exists in the Good Friday agreement.