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

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[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 Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I would welcome some clarity from the Minister on two aspects of these regulations.

First, we are keen to know how many checks the Government expect the Electoral Office to carry out on individual voters to ensure that they are genuinely resident in a Northern Ireland household before giving them a vote. It is a simple fact, and one which some noble Lords may not be aware of, that we currently have people living in the Republic of Ireland but with a registered address in Northern Ireland, often that of a relative. Not only does this give them a vote in Northern Ireland; it also allows them to register with a GP and receive free National Health Service care in the Province, courtesy of the British taxpayer. This situation has been allowed to develop because the Electoral Office seems simply to take the word of those who complete the canvass forms, without conducting any additional checks. Can the Minister advise the Committee how His Majesty’s Government intend to address this situation, which I am sure she will agree is unacceptable?

Secondly, in our view, the application process for absent votes is open to serious abuse. As the Minister will be aware, to obtain a postal or proxy vote under these regulations, the applicant will need a digital registration number and their national insurance number. However, those details are now in the possession of some of the political parties standing for election in Northern Ireland, with few checks on their signatures. What assurances can she offer us to counter the very real threat of votes being stolen or misused under these rules?

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked: does this not mean that Northern Ireland will be retaining ineligible people on the register? Existing provisions set out that, where the chief electoral officer is able to accurately assess, using local data, that a non-responder is eligible to be on the register, they will be retained. We are using this retention period to ensure that the register is as complete as it can be, while also undertaking regular checks. We look forward to working with all colleagues in Northern Ireland to deliver a democratic electoral process that they can be confident in and proud of.

[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.