I will draw this exchange to a close, but just say that it illustrates that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) does not even concede the idea of a Union. He simply wants Scotland to be a foreign country. That is his business, but it is not where the majority of the Scots are on that matter, and it is certainly not where the majority of those who live in the United Kingdom are.
On residence, we looked closely at whether the wording, which seeks to right the technical defects in Lords amendments 11 and 12, provides the right results. We would want to be sure in finalising the drafting of the relevant clauses that the overall approach was proportionate—a point that I was trying to reflect in my answer to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox). Domicile is a common-law concept. Our understanding is that large numbers of people may be non-domiciled in those terms, but still pay full UK income tax. If Lords amendments 11 and 12 were aimed not at such a category, but more at those who seek to restrict their tax liabilities through their residence or domicile status, we would need to think about whether amendment (a) should be revised with that aim in mind. We will certainly listen carefully to the debate today. Given that a person's right to freedom of association, as enshrined in article 11, is in play, we should not be complacent about the potential ECHR implications of any proposals in this area.
One potential option to address that issue—it is only one option—would be to specify that recipients of donations would be required only to satisfy themselves as to an individual's taxation status for donations above £7,500, rather than the £500 threshold. The result would be that the restriction would target only those who donate significant sums of money—that is, amounts that require that the fact of the donation be made public. Anyone wanting to make a smaller contribution would not be subject to the new requirement, with the result that the proposal would not operate as an absolute bar on a potentially large category of donor. Also, setting the permissibility threshold in relation to taxation status only at the level of the amount at which donations must be reported to the Electoral Commission would plainly be much easier for political parties to operate.
There is a consensus on that, and long may it continue. We have sought throughout to ensure that the changes made to the Bill take account of the impact that the regime for party funding has on the volunteers who staff our parties. Our very good officials and the Electoral Commission sometimes forget this, but as I have told them, our political parties are not staffed by career civil servants, but by volunteers. They are not paid and they do not get expenses; they do what they do because they believe in it. We need to honour them and respect that.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jack Straw
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Political Parties and Elections Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
496 c62-3 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:45:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577061
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577061
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577061