Foreign Interference in UK Democratic Processes
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Hayward(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her work in Armenia. What has come to light is extraordinary, although I have been reassured that, even with all those efforts, the Russian-supporting political party got only 17.5% of the vote. Obviously, we work closely with all our partners across all our allies to make sure that we learn best practice and share best practice where appropriate, and we will continue to do so. But each and every one of us also has a responsibility in this space to protect the democratic values we hold so dear.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to the Rycroft report, and a series of amendments to the pending legislation on elections were placed very soon after that report was published. May I ask that the Government go somewhat more slowly in relation to the proposed amendments and look at them more carefully, along with the events that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, identified, so that we do not have to come back yet again and amend yet more elections legislation in 12 or 18 months’ time?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I know how excited the noble Lord will be about the legislation that will be in front of your Lordships’ House, which he will be able to scrutinise, and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues will enjoy the inevitable debate. The noble Lord is right: we obviously responded immediately to some of the biggest areas of immediate concern that we could legislate for, and our full response to the report will follow very soon. But several reports, including from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place, have looked at this space. We need to make sure that we respond to everything in the round and take some time, but also act quickly, given the potential impact that we see every day.
Government Communications: X
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Hayward(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I genuinely do not agree that we prioritise the use of X, but 19.2 million British citizens use X. It is incredibly important, in an age of misinformation and disinformation, that facts are available on the platforms people are using, as opposed to the platforms we wish people were using, which is why the Government will continue to post organic content on X.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I take the opportunity to wish my former constituent a happy new year. Following up the observation the Minister has just made on reviewing all forms of communication, would it not have been a good idea to send out one day earlier the suggestion that local authorities postpone their elections, and to refer it to both this Chamber and the other Chamber, rather than on the day after both Houses had gone into recess?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
And there I was, going to wish the noble Lord a happy new year and thank him for taking me on my first tour of this building. This Government prioritise Statements in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord will be aware that that is not a government department I actively engage with, but I shall ensure that my colleagues respond directly to him. I am sure that this will not be the last time we discuss this issue in your Lordships’ House.
Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Hayward
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.
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.
75th Anniversary of Formula 1
Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Lord Hayward
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, all Members of your Lordships’ House will appreciate that Formula 1 is highly regulated on health and safety and wider issues. We will explore appropriate governance arrangements for every sport as and where appropriate.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister talk to all the major sporting venues? There are many worldwide sporting events that take place in the United Kingdom. I have in mind the likes of Wimbledon, sports at Wembley and the like. Major sporting events face a very specific problem in terms of organisations moving in and out of this country—whether that be on tax or mobility or the like. Therefore, it would be appropriate to bring sporting venues and events together to ensure that there is a co-ordinated government policy.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Minister for Sport has regular conversations with all relevant stadia. With regards to Formula 1, those will start for next year’s celebrations in January. If the noble Lord has specific concerns, he should feel free to raise them with me and I will make sure the department addresses them.