Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Caine
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.
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Caine
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, yesterday the Prime Minister promised that the Government would stop Gerry Adams receiving any compensation. Why, then, in July, did they so abruptly drop the appeal against the High Court judgment on the amendments I made to the legacy Bill that would have achieved just that and which Labour supported at the time? Was the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland consulted before that decision was taken? Until publication yesterday of the Policy Exchange paper, what proposals of their own were the Government actively working on to remedy this situation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think it would be helpful for people to appreciate what the Prime Minister actually said yesterday, which is that the legacy Act was
“unfit, not least because it gave immunity to hundreds of terrorists and was not supported by victims in Northern Ireland—nor, I believe, by any of the political parties in Northern Ireland. The Court found it unlawful … We will put in place a better framework. We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/25; col. 324.]
The objective in Sections 46 and 47 was right, which is why my party supported it in opposition. The method has been found to be unlawful and we are looking at every option for engagement. The noble Lord may be interested to look at the comments of the High Court. Although we did not appeal, the court chose to comment and suggested that we would have failed in our appeal. I have the exact wording which I will send to the noble Lord.
Northern Ireland
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Caine(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Caine
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to strengthen Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the Question, I will take a moment to share my sympathies with all those who have been affected by flooding as a result of Storm Bert over the weekend. The storm and resulting flooding are, of course, very concerning and distressing for those affected, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his work on the flooding experienced in Northern Ireland last year.
The Government are committed to delivering for all communities in Northern Ireland by resetting the relationship with the NI Executive and working collaboratively to transform public services and champion investment opportunities. This Government will work tirelessly to fully realise one of our greatest achievements, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and its vision for reconciliation, equality, respect for rights and parity of esteem, making Northern Ireland more prosperous, more inclusive and safer for everybody.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words and I associate myself with what she said about the flooding. A key commitment in Annexe B of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper in January is for the Government unashamedly to make the positive case for Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. This was to be supported by papers setting out the considerable mutual benefits—political, economic, social, cultural and security—gained by Northern Ireland being an integral part of the union. Can the noble Baroness confirm that these remain firm government commitments? Can she update the House on the schedule for publication of these papers and the steps being taken to ensure their widespread circulation in order to counter the arguments of those seeking constitutional change?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this Government believe that Northern Ireland is a core part of the United Kingdom. As regards our commitments and those made in Safeguarding the Union, we are not reneging on any of the Command Paper commitments but remain committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and taking forward commitments in a way that best delivers for the people of Northern Ireland. I will come back to the noble Lord on the timetable for publication; we are still working.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for Northern Ireland) Order 2024
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Caine(2 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to what I think is her first Northern Ireland-related Grand Committee. I thank her for her kind words and thank noble Lords from the DUP for their kind words too. I also associate myself very strongly with her comments about the PSNI and the Armed Forces, and the commemorations that took place over the weekend. As Minister, I had the great honour of laying a wreath of behalf of His Majesty’s Government at Belfast City Hall in 2012 and Messines in 2023, where the Ireland Peace Park is located—very moving and poignant events they were too.
If the noble Baroness were to look at my Twitter account—or X, as it is called these days—from Saturday, she would see that I was proudly sporting a poppy that contained the cap badge of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have long maintained that, without the service and sacrifice of the RUC, the PSNI and our Armed Forces, there would have been no peace process in Northern Ireland. They created the conditions in which politics could work, and we owe them all a huge, enormous debt of gratitude.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for concisely setting out the terms of this statutory instrument. I will be very brief because, as the noble Baroness made clear, the SI has its origins in changes to the Terrorism Act that were contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022—a hugely long title for an Act of Parliament—which I well remember my colleagues debating at length when it was going through your Lordships’ House. The changes made to the Terrorism Act, as the noble Baroness set out, related to stop and search powers under Section 43C and required the publication of terms of reference under Section 47 for the exercise of those powers. The SI might, in some respects, be described almost as Conservative legacy legislation. The noble Baroness referred to the consultation that we conducted, which concluded earlier this year.
I can see nothing in the terms of reference that we would have done any differently, frankly, and they should therefore have our full support. Of course, as the noble Baroness made clear, they largely align Northern Ireland with the powers available to and codes of practice for police in other parts of the United Kingdom, to which no unionist could possibly take exception or object.
I have just one question for the Minister; I gave her prior notice of it yesterday. For the general benefit of the Committee, can she set out how the new powers sit alongside the powers that exist for the police, in the justice and security Act of 2007, relating to stop and search without reasonable suspicion? I signed a number of authorisations for the use of these powers, so I know how important they are for the police in the exercise of their functions. It would be helpful if the Minister could elucidate a little further how they sit alongside the powers contained in the Terrorism Act.
The fact that we are debating these matters today, with the contributions from the Minister and DUP Members, reminds us of the security backdrop in Northern Ireland. We have been reminded that the threat level is currently classed as “substantial”. It has been reduced from “severe”, to where it was raised after the murderous attack on DCI John Caldwell in February 2023, but it is worth reminding ourselves that the difference between “substantial” and “severe” is one word: “highly”. “Substantial” means that an attack is likely, while “severe” means that an attack is highly likely.
The ongoing threat from terrorism is real. As the Minister made clear at the beginning of her remarks, there remains in Northern Ireland a small group of people who have lethal intent and capability, and who wish to continue to pursue their political objectives by violence. It is essential, therefore, that the PSNI has all the necessary powers available to it in order to combat that ongoing terrorist threat.
I conclude by reiterating our heartfelt thanks for everything that the PSNI does in Northern Ireland and that the security services do. They do a superb job of keeping people safe and secure from terrorism in Northern Ireland and, in so doing, keeping us safe and secure throughout the whole of this United Kingdom. On which note, I strongly welcome the SI; it has our full support.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. As ever, they were thoughtful and considered and took us to the heart of the issue, especially in relation to our security and safety.
I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords’ comments about the role of our security services in keeping us safe. These are people who run towards the fire in trying to protect others as they run away from it. We are always in their debt. This SI is one effort in ensuring that they have the right powers available to them, without us doing them a disservice and restricting their ability to operate. I assure noble Lords that that is where we are.
We talked about Remembrance Sunday. I reside in Staffordshire, where the National Memorial Arboretum is. One of the most beautiful parts of the arboretum is the area dedicated to those who served and fell during the Troubles, and those who continue to serve to keep us safe. I highly recommend a visit to noble Lords.
Let me respond specifically to the questions raised by noble Lords. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that this instrument is not an effort to curtail policing in Northern Ireland. We are doing everything we can to ensure that everyone has the appropriate tools and resources available, which is why we increased the PSNI’s additional funding budget for security in last month’s Budget.
I have some specific responses so I ask noble Lords to bear with me. My civil servants have done what they are meant to do: make sure that I do not have to write.
The threshold for power and use has not changed or restricted the PSNI. This is a new power, brought in in 2022, to allow the search of an individual who is licensed—that is, someone who has already been arrested. They are included in a search condition so that they can continue to be monitored. As I will emphasise in response to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Caine, this is a separate power. It is in addition to, not in replacement of, the existing powers under TACT and the justice and security Act, and it has been supported by the PSNI. We have not done this to the PSNI; we are doing it with the PSNI.
This new code of conduct will not change the way in which police searches are conducted. The code simply provides guidance to police officers in Northern Ireland on basic principles for the use and scope of the new Section 43C power.
With regard to the question from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, on police numbers, decisions about the allocation of the Northern Ireland budget rest with the Northern Ireland Executive, as the noble Lord knows well. It is a matter for the PSNI and DoJ to consider and agree on officer numbers to fulfil the services, operational demands and its responsibility to keep Northern Ireland safe. I am reassured that while the PSNI, as of 1 October, has 6,303 full-time equivalent officers, the New Decade, New Approach draft programme for government aspires to 7,500, which is definitely a step in the right direction.
With regard to how police officers will make decisions in practice to be satisfied that a search is necessary, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, the PSNI has operational independence. It is for it to determine how it will apply this. This should do nothing to restrict its efforts. In terms of making the threshold higher, this is a new power. Codes of practice have always been available to be viewed. “Consulted” was probably the wrong term. It should have been in terms of viewing and being able to access, rather than consulting on, the document. It is not a living, breathing document in that way.
Section 6(2) circumstances for a search are an operational decision for the individual officer. How the PSNI wants to do briefings and training will remain an operational matter for it. That also relates to bodycams and their application. We have provided additional funding, and it is up to it how it uses it. I am sure that it will want to get additional bodycams, but that is a matter for it.
With regard to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Caine, about the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act versus TACT powers, as requested I read into the record that JSA powers are specific to Northern Ireland, timebound and must be authorised by a Minister for a maximum 14 days for a designated geographical area in Northern Ireland. Under these powers, PSNI can stop and search a person without reasonable suspicion to ascertain whether they are in possession of wireless apparatus or are in unlawful possession of munitions. Each JSA authorisation is reviewed and considered by the Secretary of State or someone with their delegated authority if the authorisation is to last longer than 48 hours. The noble Lord, Lord Caine, did many of these in his time as a Minister.
Section 43C of TACT applies across the whole of the UK but can be used only where it is applied as a licence condition and where the police constable is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism. It has been in operation and, although the number of stop and searches is slightly down this year on last, it has not changed how the police are operating.
I hope that with those reassurances noble Lords will appreciate that this SI is largely technical but is important to policing in Northern Ireland. It will help the police continue to keep people safe. This Government are committed to ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK, are safe.
Northern Ireland City Deals
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Caine
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness understand the deep dismay over the city deal pause that the Government slipped out late on Friday 13 September, while Parliament was in recess, particularly in the two areas where the deals remain paused: the Mid South West region, which I visited in February, and Causeway Coast and Glens, where I signed the terms of agreement in April and where there is now great uncertainty and limbo? Will she apologise to the House for the shoddy and disrespectful way in which this was announced? Can she assure us that the Secretary of State will employ the full weight of his office to persuade the Chancellor, in the forthcoming Budget, to lift the pause so that these deals can now proceed as planned and deliver investment, growth, jobs and prosperity for the whole of Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I shall be clear: if the former Government had not left us in such a challenging fiscal situation, there would be no financial pause and we would not be in the position we currently are. While I agree that the timing was unfortunate, whenever the announcement was made it would not have been welcomed by those people whom it affected. I assure your Lordships’ House that, since the announcement was made, the Secretary of State and all the officials at the NIO have been working tirelessly with key partners. We are doing everything that we can to make representations to our very dear and close friends at the Treasury, to whom I am going to be very nice for the next 20 days, making it clear how important these deals are to the future of Northern Ireland.
Patrick Finucane Murder
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Caine(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his incredibly generous comments. We will see whether I live up to them—or not—in due course. Given the noble Lord’s role in the last Labour Government, he will be aware that every penny we can spend on economic development and regeneration itself acts as a bridge to peace and to moving on from the Troubles. However, people still need answers. One of the things we have heard in your Lordships’ House today is that people’s hurt is still tangible. We need to do everything we can to provide closure and to move forward on behalf of all the families and all those touched by the Troubles throughout my lifetime.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as there are a few seconds left, I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. When she looks at Hansard, she may notice that she missed one or two of my specific questions. I would be very grateful if she could go away with her officials—some of whom I spy out of the corner of my eye—and possibly write to me with some detailed answers to the questions I put.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Of course, I apologise if I did not get to all of your Lordships’ questions, and specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Caine. I will check Hansard for the full debate and respond appropriately.