Electoral Administration Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, puts the matter clearly and I agree with his analysis of the framework. In these provisions we are requiring loans existing at the time the provisions come into effect to be disclosed. We are requiring that even if, prior to the implementation of this legislation, any arrangement about confidentiality had been made. To that extent, we would be overriding an agreement made, assuming that it was made in good faith before the Act came into force. The noble Lord urges us to go one step further and say that even though the contract was entered into in good faith pursuant to no illegality persisting at the time, we should declare those loans not only disclosable but also void as being illegal because they were with an impermissible donor, namely somebody foreign. The consequence of the loans being declared illegal would be twofold: first, the terms on which they were repayable would be changed, which might be of detriment to the lender and to the political party. Encapsulated in that is the second effect: in practice they would become repayable immediately rather than over time. That is much more far-reaching retrospectively than simply requiring the loans to be disclosed, even though that might arise in connection with putting aside a confidentiality agreement entered into in good faith. We think the balance is best struck by requiring disclosure but not requiring what may wreak havoc with a party’s finances or cause significant prejudice to the individual lender. So although I understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is arguing for, our view is that the right balance is struck by providing for disclosure, irrespective of retrospectivity, but not rendering those agreements void, which is what the noble Lord is arguing for in practice.