Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 27:"Page 65, line 39, leave out ““ought reasonably to have known”” and insert ““was reckless as to whether or not he knew””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, having raised the question of negligent treasurers during my intervention to express my support for the Government on the previous amendment, I now seek to expunge the word ““negligence”” from the obligations of treasurers. In doing so, I hope that I shall not be accused of hypocrisy by the noble Baroness. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 relate to Section 71L entitled:"““Offences relating to regulated transactions””." I wish to draw your Lordships’ attention to Clause 71L(1)(b) which reads:"““A registered party commits an offence if . . . an officer of the party knew or ought reasonably to have known of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a)””." Our amendment would replace the words,"““or ought reasonably to have known of the matters mentioned””," with the words,"““was reckless as to whether or not he knew””." The reasons for pressing the amendment are twofold. First, as a general proposition the criminal law is extremely reluctant to incorporate, in any statute, negligence as part of the mens rea of a crime. Indeed, in a letter written to me by the noble Baroness, which I have just seen, she says herself at the beginning of the fourth paragraph:"““We do, of course, act with great hesitancy in using negligence as a basis for criminal offence””." The noble Baroness goes on to say:"““However, the criminal offences set out in new section 71L operate within a regulatory framework and we consider this to be an appropriate standard in such an environment””." I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness would explain in her response exactly what that means. In my submission, it is neither here nor there if negligence is used as part of the mens rea in a regulatory context. In whatever context negligence is used in a criminal offence, in principle, it is something that is contrary to the great constitutional principles of this country, which have informed the drafting of our criminal law throughout the ages. I have a second reason for proposing the amendment. People who run the finances of local constituency parties, the honorary treasurers, often do so out of a sense of public duty, are frequently not experts in financial matters, and are usually retired and spend most of their time doing things other than looking after constituency finances. Quite often there might be considerations about whether a particular financial transaction falls within or outside the regulatory framework. How on earth can a treasurer in that position know for certain what is the situation? In my view, this provision will be a serious deterrent to individuals coming forward to be honorary treasurers of their local constituency parties. I believe the Government have the balance wrong here. Voluntary work of this sort is to be encouraged; and they will be doing completely the opposite with the drafting approach they have taken in new Section 71L. A further matter puzzles me. Turning to the part of the Bill dealing with loans, we reach Section 71T, which is headed:"““Declaration by a treasurer in transaction report””." Section 71T(5) states:"““A person commits an offence if he knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section””." There is a clear conflict between the approach taken by the Bill for declarations by treasurers in transaction reports under new Section 71T and for what is to be recorded in quarterly reports under new Section 71M. What on earth is the logic of this? There may be a simple answer, but it is not one that occurs to me. For those reasons, I shall seek to press the amendment. I beg to move.