Electoral Administration Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 3:"Leave out lines 85 to 87." The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 11. These are the only amendments to the new legislation we have tabled. Their purpose is to remove the exemptions provided for loans made by individuals or corporate bodies who are not permissible donors if those loans were made before the commencement of the proposed new Part 4A of the 2000 Act, which I shall use with the same meaning as that used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. These amendments are not intended to apply to loans made by unauthorised persons if they are repaid before commencement—we are happy with that. However, we believe that loans made by persons who are not allowed to make donations should be repaid before the commencement of the new Part 4A and, if not repaid by then, they should be both disclosed and subject to the provisions for compulsory repayment. That would bring these provisions into line with the rules for the disclosure of loans made by people who are permissible donors. The identity of the lenders, if they are permissible donors, does not have to be disclosed if the loans are repaid before the commencement date—we accept that—but they must, under the new Part 4A, be disclosed if the loan is outstanding at the commencement date. To that extent, these provisions override any confidentiality provisions in the loan agreement. The reason behind this, no doubt, is the realisation that accepting loans from permissible donors in order to avoid disclosure is contrary to the spirit behind the 2000 Act and, if the loans are outstanding at the date of commencement, they must be disclosed. Accepting loans from people who are not permissible donors is doubly contrary to the spirit of the 2000 Act because it avoids not only disclosure of the identity of the person who made the loan but the ban on financial assistance by persons who are not permissible donors. We believe that it is right, therefore, that if such a loan is not repaid before the commencement date of the new Part 4A, the loan agreement should become void and there should be an obligation to make immediate repayment. It is not the amendments’ intention to make retrospectively entering into the original agreement with the person who is not a permissible donor into a criminal offence. That would be wrong in principle and contrary to Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But we believe that imposing the obligation to repay would be legitimate in the same way as an obligation to disclose the names of the lenders who are legitimate donors is legitimate. We believe that the two would be equally justified. Why have the Government not taken this line in respect of loans from people who are not permissible donors? I beg to move.