Political Parties and Elections Bill

I do not think that we can allow this to go unresponded. First, on a point of order, I think that the noble Lord in referring to Angus Maude meant Francis Maude. But I am concerned with his obsession with the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, and I think that treatment needs to be given. In his dialogue, the noble Lord shot his own fox to a certain extent. First, he implied that the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, was responsible for funding the campaign entirely, then he referred to the fact that he did it in consortium. I should like to add some factual evidence to that: in fact, it was a match funding plan with central office. When the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, raised money, central office raised money. So a very broad donor base applied. The noble Lord said that the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, had exposed a loophole. I do not think that I need to answer to the Labour Party about exposing loopholes in election funding—and I am sure that we are ad idem that there are far bigger loopholes than this one that need closing. Finally, the great merit of the money of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, and others—I stress "others"—is that it counters the vast amount of union money going into these target seats, union activity in the form of individuals canvassing and leafleting and the substantial advantage that a sitting MP has with the expenses that are available to him to fight the seat. The obsession falls down completely because, unless my understanding is wrong, the Labour Party won the previous election with a very substantial majority.