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

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

That is precisely my point. I do not argue with the need to uprate them, for the reasons that the Minister has set out, but why has it taken so long? Why has it been 21 years since there was any change in these limits, given the massive increase in costs that there has been? Can she give a guarantee that, as with the forms of identity, costs will be kept under periodic review and that we will not go for another 20 years without any change in the spending limits?

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

It is very easy for me to say “yes” from this Dispatch Box, so I will. There is an issue about how the limits have not been uprated in that time. However, we have been very clear that, in advance of next year’s elections, the uprating must come into effect. This is the first requirement of this Government to ensure that there is a level playing field for elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised an important issue about foreign money in elections. The Rycroft review has made significant recommendations on this, all of which the Government have accepted. There is always, as with everything else, a Northern Ireland element to it. I look forward to having discussions with the noble Lord about it as this continues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised adding new ID. This is under constant review regarding any new request for ID. We will review as circumstances change and as people use ID in different ways, not least on their phones rather than as physical ID. She also asked an interesting question about the devolution of local government in Northern Ireland. I would prefer to get through next year’s elections before we talk about what comes next but, given the priorities of the Prime Minister, we will undoubtedly have these conversations about what devolution in England means for the rest of the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, raised an important point on the canvass and the NIA response. I have not had advice on this yet but I expect to and I look forward to discussing it with him. I will write to him with that view. On the constitutional settlement of the status of Northern Ireland, President Trump is entitled to his opinion, as is everybody else, but there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is personally committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as am I. The noble Lord will be aware, as we all are, that the only mechanism for a border poll is determined under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

On that easy, cheerful note—I loved the news at the weekend—I know that all noble Lords agree that encouraging participation in our democracy is paramount. I hope that the Committee agree that these instruments enable us to ensure the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland by maintaining the safeguards that are already in place while ensuring that the system adapts and keeps pace with modern practices. I am therefore pleased to be able to introduce these measures.

Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the publication of this report, but the process in these negotiations is very uncertain and it remains to be seen whether the outcome will be in the best interests of the United Kingdom. The report suggests that the Government have made a good start but, for Northern Ireland, that assessment simply does not reflect reality, as the noble Baroness who has just spoken mentioned.

I am very much aware that the committee’s remit was not to discuss Northern Ireland, because there is a separate Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee within your Lordships’ House which looks at that matter. However, in the context of this debate, it is important that we reflect the fact that we have the Windsor Framework/protocol, which impacts not just on Northern Ireland’s trade, politics and constitutional position but directly on the United Kingdom, because the Government have made it clear that they are preparing to align in order to avoid divergence with Northern Ireland in many respects. In our view, unless the Windsor Framework/protocol is fundamentally dealt with, there can be no genuine reset of relations with the UK.

Some might say, “Well, things are settled”, but as we were reminded by noble Lord, Lord Bew, earlier in Question Time, the situation in Northern Ireland is far from settled. When there comes a point when this issue of the Windsor Framework/protocol and our relationship with the EU remains unresolved and the Northern Ireland Assembly and other institutions are in peril, people in this House and in the other place will say, “How did we get to this place?”

The reality is that unless we deal with the issue of the Windsor Framework and its economic detriment for Northern Ireland, its constitutional detriment and the denial of democracy, we will inevitably reach that place. I think that at that point, this House will say that we need to take these matters much more seriously, because the Windsor Framework leaves large volumes of EU law in place over Northern Ireland. There is no democratic control. It preserves a customs border down the Irish Sea between one part of the United Kingdom and the other. It maintains a role for a foreign court in the internal trade of the United Kingdom and embeds regulatory divergence inside our own country, as the backstop proposals would have done as well. This is not normal or sustainable in any modern democracy and it is not compatible with equal citizenship within the United Kingdom.

Businesses, as the Federation of Small Businesses’ report recently said, face massive bureaucracy and compliance costs. The Trader Support Service is already costing half a billion pounds of public money, just to help traders negotiate this labyrinthine process. We have to accept that this is not what sovereignty in a modern country looks like; it is what colonialism looks like. The principle of consent that lies at the heart of the Northern Ireland political settlement is being devastatingly eroded day by day. Legal changes imposed without that consent have altered Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.

When we discuss the issues of the UK-EU relationship, we must not turn our eyes away from the fundamental problem that faces us in this United Kingdom, which is the democratic denial of consent to British citizens in this country in the 21st century. This needs to be continually highlighted because it is going to lead to real problems—not just for Northern Ireland but for this whole country.

“Soldier F” Trial Verdict

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

The noble Baroness raises an incredibly important point. That is why it was so important that we announced a joint framework with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Tánaiste to make sure that they are committed. Obviously, I cannot speak for their actions —we will all be judged on how we deliver—but this Government are moving forward with our legacy plans.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, when even the judge in this case has said that the evidence fell well short of the standard required, can the Minister understand why most people regard these prosecutions, particularly this one, as vexatious? Can she understand the feeling among many people in Northern Ireland, from all communities, that a blind eye is turned to the ringleaders of terrorism, who continue today to boast of their involvement in crimes and who eulogise and glorify terrorism? There is legislation on the books, but nothing is done. They may be elected politicians in Sinn Féin—some of them are MPs and some are even in the Executive. Why is it that certain people are immune from prosecution while our veterans are hounded?

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

My Lords, no one is immune from prosecution and nor should they be. As the veterans’ commissioners of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said collectively in July, this is a call not for immunity from the law but for fairness under it. That applies not just to people who wear uniforms; it should apply to everybody. With regard to the prosecutions, over the last month noble Lords have heard me, in different guises, talk about the independence of our Public Prosecution Service and our judiciary. Those are incredibly important parts—the core basis—of our British values. That is why people put on uniforms to protect them, and it is incredibly important that that is what is delivered.

Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction to this statutory instrument and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for raising this issue, even though I will take a very different approach to the SI. I will park the constitutional questions, leaving the Windsor Framework to one side, and raise the issue of why Britain is trailing globally on the issue of mercury dental fillings.

I take issue with the Minister’s introduction, which talked about a stable, safe and typically cheaper material. It is worth stressing that this SI provides bespoke arrangements—here, I am looking at it purely from the medical health side—for a longer transition period away from mercury dental fillings in Northern Ireland compared with the EU, a delayed phase-out that is in line with the rest of the UK. This is bad for the people of Northern Ireland, bad for the UK and bad for the world.

Coincidentally, a new study is out today from the Rivers Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link that shows that more than 98% of fish and mussels tested in English waters contain mercury levels above EU safety limits. In fact, more than half the fish and mussels tested have mercury levels more than five times above the EU safety limits. We all know that mercury is a potent neurotoxin, even at low levels of exposure. There is the tragedy of Minamata, the disease that resulted from the industrial release of methylmercury in Japan. This has been known for many decades. Some 43 countries have now banned mercury amalgam fillings, including the EU and the Scandinavian countries, but also countries such as Tanzania and Indonesia.

The practical reality is that crematoriums are now the second-largest source of mercury emissions to the air, after the combustion of fossil fuels. We know that fossil fuels are and have to be on the way out for other reasons, so the percentage contribution will only rise higher and higher. As has been mentioned, there is the Minamata convention meeting in November, and there is talk of a global phase-out by 2030, led by African countries including Botswana and Burkina Faso.

I raised issue with the “cheaper” point. Cost is often cited as the reason why we have to go slower, but countries such as Germany use safer alternatives and the cost is only very marginally higher. If Germany can manage it, surely we can manage it too.

It is also important to understand the issue of mercury pollution on a global scale. It is interesting that the African nations are leading at that November convention, because the rise in the price of and demand for gold is also associated with massive increases in mercury pollution around the world. We are used to the idea of blood diamonds; mercury-poisoning gold might not be such a catchy phrase, but it is something we should really be talking about. The risks are particularly acute in the Amazon, as highlighted by the campaigning priest Miguel Ángel Cadenas, who works in Peru. It is also a huge issue in artisan gold mining in Africa, and globally it is estimated to release 800 tonnes of mercury into the air per year. That is nearly 40% of global emissions.

These are global emissions; they do not stay where the emissions happen. I point the Minister to a very important study that has just been published in the journal of the European Geosciences Union. We are used to the idea that food crops are being contaminated by taking up mercury from the soil, so the mercury has drifted in dust around the world, settled in the soil and then been taken up. This study has demonstrated, which we have not realised before, that the mercury is being taken in from the air by plants when they photosynthesise. It is going directly into the green, leafy crops that we all need.

I put to the Minister that this SI takes Northern Ireland in the wrong direction. More than that, the Government are not taking the steps they need to take for public and environmental health here in the UK and for global One Health.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I will briefly make a few comments on this regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I am grateful to her for tabling it, as it allows a debate on this important issue, which has caused concern in Northern Ireland about access to NHS dentists and not having massive expense imposed on people seeking dental treatment.

I listened very carefully to the arguments that were put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who spoke very eloquently about why they believe the EU is right to move to a speedy removal of dental amalgam. I also listened very carefully to other noble Lords who spoke about their real concern about a cliff edge, the impact that there may be on the supply chain and so on, in relation to this ban happening in Northern Ireland and not in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Whichever side of the argument noble Lords are on, whether for implementing an immediate ban, slowing it down, or having it at all, this is an issue that should be debated and decided by us. That is the crucial question. There is a multitude of issues within the Windsor Framework, of which this is one tiny example, ranging from the environment, agriculture, manufacturing and thousands of regulations. In Northern Ireland, we can debate until the cows come home about whether they are good or bad ideas and whether the principle behind them is a good or bad thing—which is good, and we should be debating that—but there is nothing we can do about it. The debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly is irrelevant; the British Parliament has no powers. That point has been highlighted by my noble friends Lord Morrow and Lord Weir, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

It is an amazing situation that the arguments that are being put forward in relation to these matters have no relevance in Northern Ireland, because the European Commission and the European Union will decide the matter and not give a fig for what anyone elected in Northern Ireland says about it.

When these issues are raised, with there being example after example, I know that there are people in the generality of Parliament who do not take a great interest in these matters, may find this tedious and may even find it laughable at times. You see people who ask, “What is this all about? What are they going on about again?” But time after time, we are seeing a situation where the impact on Northern Ireland is not just in terms of the economic costs of divergence, as has been recently highlighted by the Federation of Small Businesses report and by the Murphy review of the Windsor Framework, which the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to and which was highlighted in the recent report of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee of this House. I would urge your Lordships to read that report, which sets out in very stark terms the cost and the economic damage in a whole range of areas.

So it is not just the cost but the democratic cost as well. We cannot decide these matters. I thought the most telling remark that the Minister made in her introduction, in recognising the problem and hearing what people were saying in Northern Ireland, was that the UK Government “made representations to the EU”. Somebody mentioned self-respect and dignity; this is what we have come to in Northern Ireland on this issue and across a thousand directives and regulations, across 300 areas, for vast swathes of our economy.

We will continue to highlight this issue, because it is something that is ultimately going to cause major problems down the line. I have been warning for some time about the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has been set up, has worked and has done many good things, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to, the basis on which it has been restored and commitments that were entered into that the Government have been cast aside. EU labelling was to be introduced for the whole of the UK, which was a commitment in Safeguarding the Union. That was one of the reasons why the Assembly was restored, but it has been cast aside, rejected and torn up; commitments have been shredded and have not been implemented. This is another example of where we are going wrong and where, ultimately, the Northern Ireland Assembly will be placed in danger.

It may be a minority concern now—it is hard to know, but we will soon find out at the next election—but the recent Northern Ireland Life and Times survey by Queen’s University indicated growing concern in the unionist community about the implications of all these issues. If that is replicated in an election, it will be very difficult to have the stability within the Assembly that is needed to have a strong unionist and nationalist presence in the Executive. I do not say that out of any desire to see it collapse or anything like it, but I am just pointing out a reality.

Whitehall generally, the Government and the big parties need to understand what is at stake. There is a growing disillusionment, anger and frustration that these debates, which we should be having in the Assembly in Northern Ireland or here, are not happening. The decisions have been made by bureaucrats in Brussels, by the Commission, and imposed on Northern Ireland, and then we have to go and beg for a grace-and-favour extension to not have it implemented immediately. That is happening over and over again.

This has been a useful debate, and I commend those who have spoken and highlighted all these issues. I know that the Minister takes a very strong interest in Northern Ireland, follows these things deeply and cares about Northern Ireland, and I look forward to her response.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I too pay tribute to all the victims, the survivors and their families, who have suffered so much over many decades of the Troubles. She will be aware that there was great annoyance that this Statement was originally made when the other place was in recess and on the very final sitting day of this House, contrary to promises and pledges made to all the parties. The Government should apologise to parliamentarians in both Houses for that.

It is also important that, as we take this legislation through, there is no conflation of innocent victims with the perpetrators of violence, no conflation of the security forces of Northern Ireland—including the Army, the UDR and the police—with terrorists of whatever hue, and no conflation between those of us who advocate on behalf of the victims of terrorism and violence and those such as Sinn Féin which advocate on behalf of terrorists against the security forces. These basic principles must be re-emphasised if we are to give confidence to those who have suffered so much at the hands of criminals and gangsters. Will the Minister commit the Government, here and in the other place, to talking to the victims and veterans throughout this process and hear what they think of this legislation? So far, it appears that the only consultation that has taken place has been with the Dublin Government.

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

I thank the noble Lord not just for his comments but for all the work he has done as a genuine leader in his community. There are still times when I call him and cannot believe that his name is in my phone. I am grateful for everything that he has given me. He is absolutely right that I need to apologise that we could not do this because of the timings of the international agreement, which is what the framework was. The noble Lord is very aware that the timing was not of my choice. I apologise to him and your Lordships’ House that it has taken us this amount of time to get here. I also make it clear that we are here today because Northern Ireland business should never happen on a Thursday, so that noble Lords can actively participate.

The noble Lord touches on a very important point about the victims of terrorism. Many people have made that clear, including Ben Wallace. I debated using this quote but, when Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace said that:

“No-one is above the law. The British Army uphold British values, which is the rule of law, and that’s what we stand for. That’s why we are better than the terrorists”.


I am clear about our responsibility to make sure that the people affected by the most heinous terrorism of my lifetime on our shores get the answers that they are working for. There is not a day in the calendar on which someone was not murdered in the Troubles. As we stand here today, people will be grieving and remembering what happened to their loved ones. We all talk to victims’ groups regularly, as well as the NIO.

I will make one offer to noble Lords. I will be in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions before this legislation comes forward, and definitely between now and Christmas. If there are people whom the noble Lord would like me to sit down with—that offer goes to all Members of your Lordships’ House who live in Northern Ireland—and talk to about their experiences and what they need from this legislation, then my time is theirs.