UK Parliament / Open data

Political Parties and Elections Bill

I am glad the noble Lord has raised that valid point because it draws further attention to the invalidity of the statistics that were published on those three authorities. However, 439th, Belfast; 438th, Camden in London, which has the same characteristic foreign population; 437th, Antrim; 436th, Limavady in Northern Ireland—they are all Northern Ireland now—434th North Down; 433rd, Derry; 432nd, Coleraine; 431st, Carrickfergus; 428th, Castlereagh; 427th, Newtownabbey; 426th, Lisburn; 425th Craigavon; 424th, Down; 423rd Ards; 422nd, Omagh. In other words, at the bottom of the electoral registration tables within the United Kingdom at the time that the Northern Ireland committee in the other place was doing its work, all these Northern Irish local authorities came bottom of the list in electoral registration. The percentages have been calculated, according to our source, using the mid-2007 population estimates for local authorities in the United Kingdom of those aged 18 and above and the numbers of people registered to vote in local government elections on 1 December 2007. I correct myself, I said 2004 before; I meant 2007. Those statistics show that there is a problem in areas where this system of electoral registration has been introduced. My amendments concentrate on where the problem exists. In my view, there is no problem in Cumbria. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, did not want to be absolutely clear on that matter because he knew that if he were to concede that, he would be conceding much of my argument.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

710 c393-4GC 

Session

2008-09

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top