My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I shall return to later. The provision will put off people who live abroad—regardless of why they want to live abroad—from becoming engaged in party politics. To that extent, it is an exclusive, rather than an inclusive, set of provisions, and a poor set for that reason.
On the overall tax position, I have tried to explain that this is complicated stuff, as the Secretary of State also said. It is very poor and unacceptable that we were given these six pages of Government amendments only this morning and expected to come here and present on them in an expert and advised fashion. It seems that the Government amendments' broad impact is to tighten the residency test and introduce a declaration requirement for donors above £7,500. While the latter is certainly a move in the right direction, we still have many other concerns. As to the specifics of the amendments, however, there was no way that we could have had time to study them, so we will have to revisit them in the Lords.
Returning to the principles behind the permissible donor provisions of clause 8, we believe that it is unreasonable to impose requirements that are so difficult to meet, especially when the consequences of not meeting them are so draconian. That point was also made by the Electoral Commission. The prohibition on the acceptance of impermissible donations and the duty to return any such donations within 30 days of receipt are subject to criminal and civil enforcement regimes. The party and the treasurer are guilty of an offence if the donation is not from a permissible donor and is not sent back to the donor within 30 days of receipt. The court has the power to order forfeiture of an amount equal to the donation.
Section 56(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides that""all reasonable steps must be taken forthwith by or on behalf of the party to verify (or, so far as any of the following is not apparent, ascertain) the identity of the donor, whether he is a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation.""
However, it is true that the Political Parties and Elections Bill provides""a defence to prove that—""(a) all reasonable steps were taken by or on behalf of the party to verify (or ascertain) whether the donor was a permissible donor, and""(b) as a result, the treasurer believed the donor to be a permissible donor.""
In view of the guidance from HMRC as to the complexity of the concepts of residence and domicile and the detailed inquiries that need to be made to ascertain the latter in particular, it is not clear what would constitute "reasonable steps" for these purposes. Primary legislation cannot be challenged on the grounds that it is unreasonable, but if it were considered unreasonable, that would support an argument that the provision was an infringement of human rights. I think that the Secretary of State acknowledged that earlier.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jonathan Djanogly
(Conservative)
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 c72-3 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:45:41 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577096
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577096
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577096