Electoral Administration Bill

I said in my opening speech on the amendment that I thought that the circumstances in which a registered party would transact with an unauthorised participant ab initio would be extremely rare; but there may be occasions—particularly if the Government consider my European amendment on Report and come to the conclusion that any European bank ought not to be entitled to be an authorised participant—when a bank decides to cease business in London, because, for example, the FSA regime proves too onerous. In those circumstances, a registered party might legitimately be unaware for several weeks, or perhaps even months, that the participant ceased to be authorised. So there are circumstances in which the set of facts that I am confronting make sense. However, I entirely understand both the reasons which the noble and learned Lord gave for being disinclined to accept my amendment and the reasons behind the reasons which he gave for being disinclined to accept my amendment. I shall certainly not press it today, although I shall reconsider it between now and Report. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that the most important section of the Bill relating to transactions with unauthorised payments is that which deals with criminal offences. The only reason why I did not table amendments to that section first was that it comes after this section. I certainly do not dispute the Lord Chancellor’s judgment about the importance of those provisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, as amendments to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]