Political Parties and Elections Bill

I am thankful to the Minister for putting the record straight. That makes it more important that we request a Division on amendment 121. Amendment 122 would change the requirement for a declaration under new section 54A(1) to be made""to the best of the individual's knowledge and belief"" by inserting a less oppressive requirement of "reasonable" knowledge. As it stands, the Bill imposes a considerable obligation on the donor by requiring them to apply the highest level of their knowledge and belief in stating whether subsection (2) applies. Subsection (2) applies if another person has provided the donor with money or another benefit in excess of the threshold in subsection (2)(b). It therefore has two layers: the fact of the provision and the value of the provision. In the case of the latter, subsection (2)(b) applies if the "value of the benefit" exceeds the threshold. Satisfying that requirement could be especially difficult. Likewise, it may be equally tough to apply one's best knowledge in deciding whether another person has provided a benefit""in connection with the making of the donation"." That is emphasised by the lack of an obligation in the Bill for the commission to provide guidance on valuing benefits, so the potential to catch out honest donors is considerable. The provision implies that the person must use all efforts to ascertain whether a vague link or high value of an obscure benefit requires a declaration. When we consider the sanction for failure in this respect, we see that that is a tough standard to satisfy. In short, the provision can serve only to discourage donations and engagement with the political system. I remind the Minister that he accepted the principle at stake in Committee, where he said:""Of course reasonableness is important. For instance, when someone is required to give an opinion it should be a reasonable one."––[Official Report, Political Parties and Elections Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2008; c. 371.]" That being the case, why not incorporate it clearly in the Bill? This requirement is oppressive and potentially counter-productive in terms of the wider goals of the legislation. Our amendment seeks to temper the Bill and bring it into line with the mutual expectation that reasonableness, rather than best knowledge, is the correct requirement in these circumstances.