Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, these regulations will ensure that those who remain eligible to be registered on the electoral register but did not respond to the last electoral canvass can remain registered while attempts are made to contact them. Strengthening and encouraging participation in our democracy is an essential part of a strong democracy, which is why this Government committed to doing so in our manifesto.

It may be helpful to provide some context. In GB, the annual canvass requires most registered individuals simply to confirm that their circumstances have not changed in order to remain on the register. However, in Northern Ireland, there is no annual process; rather, the independent Chief Electoral Officer—the CEO—is required to conduct a canvass at least every 10 years. This requires all eligible individuals to respond by completing a full new application form or risk being removed from the register.

All registered individuals who fail to complete a new application are removed from the register at the end of the canvass period unless, having cross-checked their registration record with other government data, the CEO is satisfied that the entry remains valid. In these circumstances, under the existing law, the non-responder can be retained on the register, becoming a retained elector for up to three years.

Under the existing legislation, and following the last canvass in 2021, there are 87,000 retained electors—around 6% of the total electorate. Without the changes in this statutory instrument, they will all be removed from the register on 1 February 2025. The CEO’s assessment is that almost all of these retained electors remain eligible to vote. The view of the CEO and the Electoral Commission is that this loss of otherwise eligible electors would negatively impact the quality of the electoral register in Northern Ireland and potentially disenfranchise electors. The Government agree with this assessment.

To avoid this outcome, these regulations extend the retention period from three years to six years. Crucially, they provide a framework to audit the retained electors annually. It also stipulates the required engagements needed to encourage re-registration. We are satisfied that the extension from three years to six years is reasonable; additional data is available to the CEO, and improvements in data science since the legislation was made mean that the data is of a much higher quality than it was when the canvass retention provisions were previously set. The CEO has made it clear that he has full confidence in the quality of the data available to him, and that this provides him with confidence in determining eligibility in terms of both retention and, where warranted, removals. This instrument provides a framework for these engagement processes to take place.

The CEO will for the first time be required to conduct a residence audit every year to check the residence details of retained registrants against the external data streams available. The CEO regularly checks and verifies entries on the register against the external data to which he has access. These regulations will formalise the process in respect of retained electors and will set out the steps to be taken to encourage re-registration. Where the audit raises a question as to residence at a registered address, a removal warning notice must be sent.

If an elector does not re-register within 28 days of a notice, they will be removed from the register where, on the basis of the audit, the CEO remains satisfied no further action will be taken in years 1 to 3. In years 4 and 5, where the CEO is satisfied that retained electors remain resident, they will be sent a household notice showing which electors in the household must re-register or risk removal. They will not at this stage be removed. Given that three years have already elapsed since the 2021 canvass, the current retained cohort will start this new framework in year 4 and be subject to the provisions relating to years 4 to 6 of the scheme.

I turn to final year notices. In the sixth and final year, all remaining retained electors will be sent up to three notices informing them that, if they do not re-register, they will be removed. If they fail to respond, they will be removed from the register. This is in line with the primary legislation, which is clear that non-respondents may not be retained indefinitely.

The central purpose of these processes is to ensure that reasonable efforts are made to prevent the loss of eligible electors from the register. The CEO and the Electoral Commission have supported the development of this framework; I thank them for their engagement. His Majesty’s Government will work hard to strengthen our democracy by encouraging participation in the democratic process. These regulations are a first step towards that.

I beg to move.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I note that within it she observed that the processes for registration differ between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is for specific reasons in terms of the system, which is somewhat different in Northern Ireland from that applying in Great Britain. However, the process suggested here is substantially more elongated than what would apply within Great Britain. I can understand why this is, given the difference in processes, but I am not convinced that it is absolutely necessary so to do. I am not against these regulations because, given the circumstances, they make sense, but I am making a comparison with Great Britain.

I understand that there is a capacity to register online. At the last general election, 3 million people across the whole United Kingdom took advantage of that, only for half of them to be told that they were already registered, because there is no read-only access to the electoral roll in this country. I am talking here about the United Kingdom and commenting on a decision of the previous Government. It is striking that they would not introduce read-only access to the electoral roll, despite the fact that in Ireland they have one and it only cost them £6 million. There are alternatives in tackling the issue of people who do not respond.

The route which has been gone down of accessibility, with the capacity for individuals to register online for elections, is one we should give serious consideration to. I know there are alternatives such as automatic registration, which is being considered and advocated. I am not convinced of that route. While I can understand why this is being proposed in these circumstances, it would be sensible if we acknowledged—across the whole of the United Kingdom—the position whereby people can register simply for an election and then participate. They are the people who will be willing to participate. We are asking for a fairly lengthy and costly process to be undertaken, when people who fail to respond are more likely to be those who do not participate in elections anyway.

I have made a few brief comments in broad terms, contrasting the processes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I understand why this is being done on this occasion but online registration is a much better system, from which we could all operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, for setting out the terms of this statutory instrument and to noble Lords from both Northern Ireland and Great Britain for their contributions. As the noble Baroness made clear, the purpose of these regulations is to extend the retention period for electors in Northern Ireland and to retain these electors on the register for an additional three years, bringing the period to six years in total. The regulations also introduce an annual audit of these retained electors, including measures to contact them in an effort to encourage them to reregister.

At present and without this measure, as has been mentioned, it is expected that approximately 87,700 retained electors will be removed from the register on 1 February. While the Opposition obviously support these regulations, does the noble Baroness agree that this is quite a significant number and that we are justified in asking why such a large group of eligible voters is at risk of being removed from the register on this date? The regulations offer a framework for auditing and engaging these electors, but this still raises questions about whether enough is being done to prevent the unnecessary disenfranchisement of the electorate.

The noble Baroness will be acutely aware of the history of elections in Northern Ireland and that, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, they have not always been without controversy. It was due to widespread concerns over fraud that, some 20 years ago, the last Labour Government introduced individual voter registration in Northern Ireland, and I commend them for doing so. I merely wish that they had been more supportive of our efforts in Great Britain to deal with electoral misdemeanours and fraud in the previous Parliament. Even more recently, despite the efforts of the last Labour Government and others, there have been serious allegations of vote rigging.

I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, refer to Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He will be aware that I was actively involved in the election campaign in 2010 in Northern Ireland, when the candidate agreed by my party, the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists lost to Sinn Féin by a mere four votes. The noble Lord will also recall that a number of photocopied ballot papers mysteriously turned up at polling stations shortly before 10 o’clock that evening.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, also referred to vote stealing. She will remember that in the Foyle constituency in 2017, Sinn Féin defeated the former leader of her party, Mark Durkan, by a mere 169 votes, I think it was, there were again many serious allegations of vote stealing. As far as I am aware, these were investigated and no evidence was found, but the suspicions remain very widespread, and the noble Baroness was right to raise them.

Despite the progress that has been made in tackling fraud, the need for vigilance remains, not least when a number of constituencies in Northern Ireland are much more marginal than they might have been in the past. Indeed, I think around half of the constituencies in Northern Ireland are held by majorities of under 6,000 these days. This highlights, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, said, the importance of every vote, and we must ensure that no eligible voter, particularly in closely contested areas, is unfairly removed from the register and that retaining people on a register for longer periods does not increase the scope for fraud. While the extension of the retention period may provide flexibility for electors who are unable or unwilling to respond in a timely manner, it could also open the door to exploitation. The longer individuals remain on the register without reconfirmation of their eligibility, the greater the risk that ineligible individuals could be made, either deliberately or inadvertently, to vote fraudulently.

Can the Minister therefore reassure the Committee how the Government, working with the chief electoral officer, will ensure that the retention of electors for up to six years does not create opportunities for fraudulent activity? Are there sufficient safeguards in place to prevent ineligible individuals from being added to or retained on the register, particularly if they have not been adequately contacted or if the audit process has not been thorough enough?

My final point touches on issues raised by the former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and my noble friend Lord Hayward regarding voter turnout, which in 2024 was down by four percentage points to just 57% of the electorate, which is very low. Again, can the Minister assure us that this is an issue that the electoral office takes very seriously and that every effort will be made to boost turnout across Northern Ireland? My noble friend Lord Hayward made some very sensible suggestions regarding online registration, and so on, to boost turnout next time for both Stormont and Westminster elections.

On that note, I will finish, but I reiterate that the Opposition support the regulations before the Committee this evening.

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

I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful consideration and input, as ever when we discuss matters pertaining to Northern Ireland. Building confidence in our electoral system will help strengthen engagement in democracy and, in turn, strengthen democracy. I am therefore pleased that we have been able to discuss the statement. With regard to some of the specifics raised, I will go in order; noble Lords will have to bear with me as some of them made similar points. I hope to be able to respond to everybody.

For the information of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, Northern Ireland has an online register checker that allows people to establish in minutes whether they are already registered, which I think is incredibly helpful. Many of his questions were slightly outside the scope of these specific regulations. However, I would very much welcome an opportunity to meet the noble Lord, along with my officials, to discuss some of his suggestions in detail—especially as the Government are looking at how to review this measure in terms of a UK-wide solution and next steps. I assure the noble Lord that we are using all the tools at our disposal, as is the chief electoral officer, to encourage sign-up and engagement. Obviously, the world has changed significantly since this legislation was originally done, so we must ensure that we have the opportunity to engage appropriately with all potential voters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Can I make two observations? First, I thank the Minister for her generous offer of a meeting to have further conversations on the issues I raised. Secondly, I observe for the Committee in general that, when I was the MP for Kingswood in Bristol, an eight year-old female came to visit the House of Commons with her mother. I am pleased that the guided tour I gave the now Minister was so successful in interesting her in politics that I have the honour of sitting opposite her, asking her questions and accepting her invitations. In conclusion, I just wish that she had listened to my influence on that guided tour rather than her mother’s, which may have decided why we are sitting on opposite sides of the table.

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

I thank the noble Lord and I am grateful to my mother for the values that she gave me.

Motion agreed.