Political Parties and Elections Bill

In moving Amendment 80, I shall speak also to Amendments 85, 91, 93 and 95, which propose altering Clause 8 so that a declaration as to the source of the donation is required only for donations above £7,500, whatever the nature of the body receiving it. Currently, a declaration would be required for all donations above the reporting thresholds—£1,500 and £7,500 depending on the recipient. We support this proposal as a means to reduce the burden of compliance with the 2000 Act. This is effectively an alternative to the Opposition’s proposal to increase the local reporting threshold, which is currently set at £1,500 in the Bill. While that would undoubtedly reduce the burden of compliance, it would have an impact on transparency and, as such, we have decided that an increase in the threshold in Clause 8 is preferable. If it were ever moved, we would be bound to resist opposition Amendment 111. I note that the Electoral Commission opposes that amendment for similar reasons. Balancing the importance of transparency and encouraging compliance with the reporting requirements of the 2000 Act with the twin, and also important, objective of minimising the regulatory burden of compliance is a delicate act. First and foremost, it is the Government’s belief that transparency and effective regulation are vital to public confidence in the probity of our democratic and electoral systems: an objective to which all in this Committee would subscribe. But that is not to say that we are not sympathetic to the concerns expressed here and in another place about the challenge of compliance with the reporting requirements set out in the 2000 Act. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that compliance is key to supporting the effectiveness of, and public confidence in, the regime: it is not intended as a challenge in its own right. We therefore agreed that, to balance the additional requirements in the Bill which are intended to increase the transparency and regulation of political party finance, we would in parallel support a measure to reduce the burden of compliance. Doing so by further increasing the thresholds for reporting donations was one option we considered, but concerns have been expressed that that would reduce the public transparency of political funding, and such a step might be detrimental to public confidence. That is why we have instead supported this proposal, which increases the level above which a declaration is required, stating whether or not a donation is the donor’s own. Instead of the declaration requirement mirroring the differential reporting threshold set out elsewhere in the 2000 Act, declarations will be required only for donations for the purpose of Clause 8 in respect of donations above £7,500. It should not be inferred from this change that the declaration is not of value, nor that the smaller donations need not comply with the same rigorous transparency requirements. The declaration requirement will help to shine a light on the true source of the most significant political donations by focusing the minds of those claiming to make the donation and those who are in receipt. Importantly, this will ensure that donors understand the legal requirements relating to permissible donors. Additionally, it will reduce the scope for donors to claim ignorance of the law, put in place by the 2000 Act, which seeks to ensure disclosure of the identity of the individual or body that is regarded by the Act as being the "true" donor. Rather, the amendment before us today recognises the concern that the burden of reporting can be high, and seeks to address this concern in a way that is least damaging to transparency and thus to public confidence. I hope that this approach will gain the support of the Committee. I beg to move Amendment 80.