Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and James Duddridge

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Is not my right hon. Friend missing the elephant in the room, which is the fact that only two organisations spent over the £377,000 cap? The first, by quite a long way, was Unison. The reason why there is agitation on the Opposition Benches is that they do not like having political expenditure limits on political parties on account of their own parent organisations, the trade unions?

[Mr Lansley]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is accurate because at the last election, relatively few organisations—only two, I think—spent a sum of money that was above the proposed limit. It is conceivable that a whole range of organisations might try to spend large amounts of money to influence directly votes for candidates and political parties rather than campaigning on policies and issues. It is important—election law already provides for this—that elections are fought essentially between political parties, and the expenditure undertaken to support candidates of political parties should be authorised by them. That is why many people donate to political parties to support the campaign at a constituency level.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and James Duddridge

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Again, my hon. Friend has the advantage of me, as I do not have the Liberal Democrat manifesto to hand. I will say from the Dispatch Box that the coalition agreement is important and that it set out our shared objective to introduce a Bill that included provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in a referendum—there was not such a positive result—as well as the creation of fewer and more equal-sized constituencies. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is therefore entirely part of the commitment made in the coalition agreement.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

When I entered the House, a colleague advised me to carry in my top pocket a couple of good jokes for speeches. I will read one from the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto, which sadly my right hon. Friend does not have to hand. It is quite clear:

“we will be able to reduce the number of MPs by 150”—

full stop, end of quote. Why then are they not doing it? This would have been a good first step.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman thinks that my modest rhetoric might have no impact on my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Surely that is the whole point of this debate and, in particular, of my colleagues and I tabling the amendments in lieu—precisely because it would be in the interests of this House to settle the matter today. It would be in the interests of this House, not least in its relationship with their lordships, to say, “We have settled it today. The boundaries review should be completed, as we legislated for it to happen, and there should be no more interference by either House, for any reason or any party.” There is an independent review; it should be completed. Before we come to the amendments in lieu, however, we first have to decide whether the Lords were right to amend the Bill as they did.

[James Duddridge]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Let me make this point, if I may. Let me put it plainly: I believe that what was done in the Lords was an abuse of the parliamentary process. We sent them a Bill concerning electoral registration; they inserted a provision outside the scope of the Bill. This is the first time that that has been done, and it was done contrary to the advice of their Clerks, who ruled that the amendment was not relevant to the Bill. It is also significant to note that the Cross Benchers in the Lords voted by two to one against inserting the boundaries amendment.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and James Duddridge

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

May we have time for a debate on the rather bizarre decision by the Office for National Statistics not to change how the retail prices index is calculated, despite saying that how it is calculated is wrong? A change would help final salary pension schemes that are disadvantaged by legislation put in place by the previous Government.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not immediately have an opportunity for a debate on this subject, but it will no doubt be discussed at Treasury questions and elsewhere soon. Of course, it was announced only this morning. For my part —I am sure the same will be true of other Ministers—we will look to the ONS to make recommendations and we will now consider them very carefully.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and James Duddridge

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the future of the Shoeburyness-to-Fenchurch Street line, which is currently under tender? Specifically, can the Government give my commuter constituents reassurance that good rolling stock will not be replaced with old, dirty rolling stock without air conditioning?

[Mr Lansley]

The choice of rolling stock is a matter for the franchisee, but it must meet the franchise conditions. The competition to which my hon. Friend refers is, of course, live, so I shall not make any further comment on the bids.