Political Parties and Elections Bill

Amendments 83, 87 and 88 relate only to Clause 8, the requirement for a declaration as to the source of a donation above a certain threshold. Government amendments alter the level above which such a declaration is required so that it is necessary to provide a declaration for donations above £7,500 only. The intention of these amendments appears to be to ensure that so-called "innocent" mistakes—essentially, the inadvertent submission of a false declaration under the requirement in Clause 8—are not needlessly punished. That is an intention with which I have some sympathy, but I am afraid that the effect of these amendments in this specific context is not something I can support. While I am determined that the public interest is effectively served by a rigorous and enforceable regulatory regime, I am equally determined that minor or genuine mistakes are not automatically pursued where it is not in the public interest to do so. The Electoral Commission has reassured us that it intends to take a risk-based approach to the use of their investigatory powers and civil sanctions. This implies a proportionate approach where attention is focused on the most egregious breaches of the Act. The amendments before us would negate the requirement for a declaration under Clause 8. They would mean that a person could only give a false declaration if they did so knowingly; that the test for making a declaration would no longer require an individual to be satisfied "to the best of their knowledge or belief"; and, most significantly, that any honest mistake would not be punishable. This is a powerful combination of amendments that would render the declaration requirement nugatory. It would be very hard for the commission or Crown Prosecution Service to be satisfied to the criminal standard of proof, as is required by the changes proposed in these amendments. That is contrary to our intention. The clause seeks to remind donors of the requirements applying to them—requirements of which many donors could be ignorant. Any individual signing a declaration must surely be required to be certain of the truthfulness of that declaration. That is a basic requirement in many spheres of law. Suggesting that it does not matter whether the statement is truthful, or that the individual has no responsibility for seeking to ascertain its truthfulness, detracts significantly from the value of the provision. The provision is intended to buttress the existing regulatory regime for party finance, in particular by ensuring that donors of significant amounts—now above £7,500—should not be ignorant of the law. Clause 8 does not make it harder to comply with the law, since it does not restrict the permissibility of donors. Rather it ensures that the existing law is complied with. Accepting the amendments would weaken the declaration requirement for Clause 8 when compared with other declaration requirements in the 2000 Act; and a justification for this difference in treatment is not evident. Moreover, removing the reference to recklessness in this context might incentivise ignorance of the rules. I reject the suggestion that all innocent mistakes ought to be disregarded. If an individual signs a false declaration under this requirement and there is no clear evidence that they knew that the statement was false, there might be evidence to suggest that the statement was reckless. If this cavalier attitude to the statutory requirements is permitted, it will over time erode public confidence in the probity of our party and of the electoral finance regime. For these reasons, I reject the amendment and hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.