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

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Weir of Ballyholme

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.

Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Weir of Ballyholme

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to be able to participate in this debate and I support the statutory instrument coming from the Government, which is one of many statutory instruments that we have already addressed in relation to the Windsor Framework. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, there will be many more coming down the path to greet us in this Chamber which will already have been examined by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

It is important to point out that, as a supporter of the Windsor Framework, I feel that the new incoming Government, working with the Northern Ireland Executive, need to ensure that the ability provided by the Windsor Framework in terms of trade within the UK internal market and access to the EU single market is fully availed of, and that Northern Ireland businesses are enhanced as a result of it. That area needs to be examined with the Northern Ireland Executive.

On this particular statutory instrument, it is worth pointing out that the Government intend to introduce similar measures to those taking effect in Northern Ireland

“as soon as parliamentary time allows”,

which could allow regulatory divergence between GB and Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister can advise on that.

I would also like to see accelerated progress on the development of the one-stop-shop by the Cabinet Office to support services for business, including the role of AI in the operation of this one-stop-shop and the UK-EU dynamic database of applicable and future regulation to areas that were proposed by our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee in our first report, and also by my noble friend Lord Murphy in his review of the operation of the Windsor Framework. I look forward to answers from the Minister in relation to those issues.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I am not going to deliver a speech, but the noble Baroness and the Minister have spoken about certainty. Does the noble Baroness not agree that certainty would be a lot more enhanced—and I look forward to the Minister’s reply—if we got some form of timescale for whatever is going to be proposed for Great Britain, to bring it back into alignment with Northern Ireland? Also, certainty is massively undermined by the fact that there has not been any level of financial impact assessment on this. We are left with phrases such as “limited impact” and “not particularly practical impact”, but those things are very vague, and we know from previous experience that there was actually a much greater impact than had previously been highlighted.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I agree that there needs to be absolute certainty in relation to the framework, but I come at this as somebody who supports the Windsor Framework and feels that the Government need to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that access to both markets is fully captured, and it is ensured that businesses can avail of them.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Weir of Ballyholme

Report stage
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the amendments in this group about making the Bill more victim-centred. Undoubtedly, the most important people in all this are the victims. Many of them have passed on and their families—some of whom have passed on, through the passage of time—have not seen justice and truth: the very things they were looking for. I acknowledge what both the Minister and my noble friend Lord Murphy said, on the summer solstice, the longest day of the year, which is the day that victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland are remembered.

In relation to Amendment 2, can the Minister, in his wind-up, explain the practical application of the amendment on the operation of the ICRIR. How will the amendment really promote reconciliation in the exercise of those functions, given that the Bill has been opposed by legal representatives, such as the European Council of Ministers, political representatives from the Irish Government and all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and the victims and survivors—a wide spectrum?

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, first, my colleagues and I associate ourselves with the earlier remarks noting and indeed supporting real victims of the Troubles. It is important that they are at the forefront of our mind as we debate all these amendments today.

I acknowledge that the amendments before us in this group all represent very small steps forward. They are small ameliorations and small improvements. It is difficult to quibble with their exact wording; there is nothing that we would seek to divide on in this group of amendments. However, by their very nature, they are symptomatic of the wider problems with this Bill. Whatever small improvements are made, they cannot turn the irreconcilable and the unacceptable into something that is acceptable and worthy of legislation. They omit some of the most important aspects. Indeed, part of the problem with these amendments is that they have sins of omission, rather than sins of commission. What do I mean by that? If we first take Amendment 2, we see that it introduces the concept of reconciliation, which is on the face of the Bill, directly into the work of the commission, but there is a danger of that being seen as tokenistic. At no stage does the Bill actually define what the objectives of reconciliation are. There is a danger that this has been thrown in simply so that there can be a direct reference to reconciliation, but with no meat put on the substance.

The other, more fundamental, issue regarding reconciliation is that many victims will see this legislation as being entirely unacceptable, taking away from them any prospect at all of justice and granting immunity to those who carried out some of the most heinous crimes during the Troubles. Therefore, the idea of reconciliation being at the heart of the Bill while immunity from prosecution remains is a central paradox of the Bill that is not properly addressed by Amendment 2.

On Amendment 3, the weakness is in the reference to the

“general interests of persons affected”

by the Troubles. Having a victim-centred is something that no one would disagree with but, in this wording, no distinction is drawn, for example, between a perpetrator and a victim. Someone who, for example, could have suffered injuries or death as a result of their own terrorist actions is put on the same plain as those innocent victims. I think that, again, there has been a problem of successive Governments failing to tackle this particular problem.

Finally, on Amendment 85 and 86, the involvement of victim statements is generally welcomed but, again, this belies the flaws within this process as a whole. Victim statements are commonplace within the criminal law and give an opportunity for those who have suffered directly to have their views taken into account. However, with that, the norm is that a victim impact assessment is taken into account by the courts to establish, for example, whether a tariff should be greater or less than would otherwise be imposed. The views of the victims can genuinely be taken into account. In this case, however, while it is welcome that those views will be published, it will have no impact whatever on the potential immunity. Therefore, the question for many victims will be: what is the point if whatever they say has no impact whatever?

We do not oppose these amendments and will not be dividing on them, but they fundamentally do not change the flawed nature of this Bill.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Weir of Ballyholme

Committee stage
Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a powerful debate because, irrespective of their party-political affiliation, where they come from in Northern Ireland or whether they reside here in Britain, all noble Lords have a deep aversion to the proposition in this Bill to eradicate, in many ways, civil actions and to provide immunity. That is very much anathema to victims and survivors.

The Minister probably finds this Bill particularly challenging. In his previous positions over many years, he will have dealt directly with many victims and survivors in discussing the various iterations of how the Government, along with others, intend to deal with the legacy issues, because that is one of the outstanding matters of the Troubles era. However, having listened to the people from SEFF yesterday evening and to other victims over the past few weeks and months, many of whom I know personally, I know that they find that part of the Bill particularly difficult. They say that this Bill is irredeemable—a word that was used last week and has been used this week.

Looking at this group of amendments, I agree that Clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill. I also agree with Amendments 120 and 121, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, which probe the Government’s general definition of immunity from prosecution. Will the Minister say a few words about that? Clause 18 should definitely not stand part.

All these amendments deal with the immunity process, which, along with the denial of access to justice measures at the heart of the Bill, is very troubling for victims. What they want is the truth about what happened to their loved ones. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, recounted the story of Pam Morrison. She told me last night about her three brothers and sister, who were heinously murdered in such a summary fashion. I know the Minister will be aware of the incidents in Loughinisland, where I have neighbours and indirect relations who were murdered, or executed, in a very summary fashion. These people were never involved in politics or anything like that. The way they were murdered impacts on the lives of their loved ones, because those people are no longer there; it is about the way that people decided to take them out of society.

I ask the Minister to talk to his colleagues in government, particularly the Secretary of State for Defence, who was in Belfast, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to, only a couple of weeks ago. He seemed to be very gung-ho about this legislation, with little cognisance of the needs of victims and survivors. The Bill provides for the granting of immunity from prosecution for gross violations of human rights on the basis of participation in the review process, through telling recollections. It does not specify whether those recollections have to be detailed or whether they can be scarce in their content. To many observers, including me, this legislation and this section on immunity are incompatible with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights. This has already been referred to by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has just written to our protocol committee about this issue.

There is no doubt that the threshold for this immunity set out in the Bill is low, with a requirement that information provided is true only to the best of the person’s knowledge or belief, and no requirement objectively to test that information against evidence. Can the Minister elaborate on this? To me, there is something inherently wrong in that. It shows a terrible fault line in this legislation and the need for the legislation not to be pursued.

Finally, the government amendments, including on penalties for lying, do not in any way attempt to make changes to this part of the Bill; I come back to the issue that there remain incredibly limited mechanisms for testing the veracity of accounts. The bottom line is that the government amendments would make no change to the immunity provisions. I ask the Minister to look at this matter, because the issue of immunity and the denial of access to civil action and inquests are causing grave concern to victims and survivors who thought they would be able to get truth recovery and justice—the very things they are looking for.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, in dealing with this group of amendments, as we have to, it is undoubtedly the case, as has been said on all sides of this Committee, that we cannot get away from the elephant in the room: no matter how good an amendment is put forward—I include the amendments I have added my name to—it cannot turn what is an unacceptable Bill into an acceptable Bill. I urge the Minister and his government colleagues to listen to the clarion voices from all sides of the Committee, from all sections of society within Northern Ireland and from all groups connected with victims that this is not the right way forward. At the heart of it is the completely unacceptable anathema of the immunity that the Bill proposes. I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and her call for Clause 18 not to stand part of the Bill.

However ultimately unamendable the Bill is in terms of its scope, we have no choice at this stage but to look at these amendments. It is a duty on all of us to make whatever improvements we can, however small, and at least try to take any step forward that we can, so I will touch on them briefly.

I welcome Amendments 120 and 121 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie. Along with others, I met representatives of SEFF and have spoken to other victims’ groups as well. There is undoubtedly a deep sense of hurt and betrayal among victims. It is obviously not their biggest concern, but one of the concerns that adds to their hurt is a level of confusion and anxiety over the definitions of general and specific immunity. There is a lack of clarity around that. While this will not get to the heart of the issue, at the very least, can the Minister give us some clarity around that today? I would welcome these probing amendments if they can draw out that information.

I also welcome Amendments 112 and 124, brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others. To move from a position in which immunity is effectively compulsory to one which gives a much greater level of discretion to the commission is a sensible step forward. I think the scope of Amendment 124 has been accepted and government Amendments 139 and 140, dealing specifically with the issues around withholding information, move in a way that was not the case a while ago: at least there has been an acceptance that, if immunity is to be granted, it cannot simply be a one-off gift and that, where there are breaches, it can be revoked. That is an important principle as well.

We believe our Amendment 114 to be complementary with the provisions on the withholding of information or the giving of wrong information, because it gives a clear pathway for those prosecutions which the offence created in Amendment 139 can progress. The giving of false information or the withholding of information are of importance for two reasons. First, if we are to be stuck with this inequity of immunity, it should not be some form of tick-box exercise that anybody can qualify for no matter what information they give. Also, if there is anything to be gained from this at all in terms of truth—I very much share the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that this whole process will be entirely counterproductive rather than helpful—one of the things that will aggravate victims is if the information provided is false, if they are given false hope and wrong information about the deaths of their loved ones.