Electoral Administration Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 12:"Line 193, at end insert—" ““(   )   It is a defence for the treasurer to prove that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain the matters mentioned in subsection (2). The noble Lord said: We now come to the criminal offences to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred in response to an earlier amendment. I am looking particularly in my amendments at new section 71L(12) and (13), which deals with the state of mind of a party treasurer in relation to an issue which your Lordships have been discussing earlier: an authorised participant. The crucial words in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment are,"““knew or ought reasonably to have known””." In tabling my amendments, I might have simply sought to strike out the expression ““ought reasonably to have known”” because we are dealing with a criminal offence and the normal rule is that there has to be subjective knowledge before proof of mens rea. ““Ought reasonably to have known”” clearly falls within the category of negligence and therefore, as a matter of principle, ought to have no place in the criminal provisions of the statute. However, I have adopted the different approach of using the expression contained in the amendments. Although the regulations have not been made, as I understand it, the character of the registered party depends entirely on the structure of the political party. There may be one treasurer for all activities of the party, which include not only what happens at the centre but also on the periphery. Or there may be a large number of treasurers, many of whom are doing the work voluntarily and part time. It is important, therefore, to take account of the level of knowledge and the degree of professionalism that a treasurer might have in relation to transactions with authorised persons. It is with that very much in mind that these amendments are tabled. I beg to move.