Electoral Administration Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, accurately describes the effect of the proposals that the Government are advancing. It is worth emphasising the following points, which I hope the noble Lord will accept. The main method of enforcement is criminal proceedings. Before any criminal offence is committed, the relevant prospective defendant has to know, or ought to have known, that the offence was committed. The amendment that the noble Lord is advancing at this stage of the debate is nothing to do with the criminal offences but with when the void impact occurs. He rightly says that where the participant was unauthorised from the very beginning, the transaction is void from the very beginning, irrespective of whether the political party knew, or ought to have known, that the person was an unauthorised participant. Where, under the existing amendments, a participant who was authorised later becomes unauthorised, the transaction only becomes void at that stage. The noble Lord argues in his amendment that the transaction should become void only at the point when the political party knew or ought to have known that the participation was unauthorised. That would be neither sensible nor possible. The sections with which we are dealing do not place any form of obligation on the party to do something until it knows what the position is. It is true that new Section 71I(3) requires the treasurer to repay any moneys lent under the void transaction. Had we not made this clear, the common law may have left losses to lie where they fell. Had this been the case, it would have had the perverse effect of allowing the political party to retain any moneys lent as a de facto donation. The obligation to repay imposes no time limit. It is necessarily implicit that this obligation could be discharged only when knowledge of the transaction and the unauthorised participation came to the attention of the party. Moreover, the amendment would unnecessarily complicate the operation of these provisions. At present, all one needs to do is to look whether, at the material time, a party to the transaction was an unauthorised participant. This would be readily ascertainable. However, were this amendment to be accepted, it would be necessary additionally to consider the precise point in time at which the party became aware, queried, or ought to have become aware that this was the position. Although a knowledge test is appropriate before criminal liability is imposed, which is the position under the Bill, this additional requirement of knowledge which the noble Lord proposes does not strike the right balance in determining whether a party should be deprived of the benefit of an agreement that should never have been concluded in the first place. Although I fully understand the reasons behind the amendment, it is not appropriate for the reasons that I have given. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and never to return with it.