Political Parties and Elections Bill

That could most certainly be the case, and that is a good example of some of the problems with the amendments and the underlying provisions. In the same debate in the other place, Lord Campbell-Savours said:""I had a conversation with the Justice Secretary Mr Jack Straw about the matters raised in the next paragraph and he raised exactly these issues with me. Paragraph 2 states:""'The amendments would create an anomaly in rules regarding democratic participation. The amendments would allow a non-UK taxpayer to stand for election, collect and receive political donations, vote in elections and potentially sit in a democratically elected body. But the same individual would be barred from donating money—even to their own campaign. There is no coherent reason for this discrepancy'".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2009; Vol. 710, c. GC143-4.]" How nicely put. So why have the Government so fundamentally changed their mind on this issue? We agree that there is a question as to whether it is reasonable to allow someone to vote in an election, and even to stand in an election, but not to make a donation to the political party for which he or she is voting. That would tend to suggest that the purpose behind the amendment is not to provide greater protection against foreign influence, as a person who holds public office is intrinsically likely to wield greater influence than someone who gives a political donation. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 introduced statutory principles to which persons exercising regulatory functions should have regard. While Parliament is not bound by those principles, it is arguable that, when making legislation that has a regulatory function, it should take them into account. The principles are set out in section 21(2) of that Act:""(2) Those principles are that—""(a) regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent;""(b) regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed."" Because of the difficulties that performing the new tests would entail, it is arguable that the proposals, even as now amended, would be disproportionate. The increased resources that political parties and the Electoral Commission will need to apply in order to meet the proposed new requirements will not have been considered in the impact assessment. Will the Minister now update the impact assessment before this returns to the other place? I hope that the answer to that is yes. The provision is also disproportionate to the aim of the original legislation, which is to impose restrictions on "foreign donations". Individuals who are on the electoral register have a connection with the United Kingdom, and therefore should not fall within the category of impermissible donors. The Electoral Commission has stated that if these permissible donor provisions are agreed in their current unamended form, those whom it regulates will be unable to comply with the resulting law, which is therefore unlikely to be enforceable in practice. The Electoral Commission is particularly concerned that the Bill does not provide donation recipients with a right to obtain reliable information—for example, from HM Revenue and Customs—about the donor's tax status. Whether its concerns have been addressed by the Government amendments is something that we will wish to consider carefully before this Bill returns to the Lords. In the current climate of voter apathy, dwindling party membership, and an increasing disinclination to participate in the political process, is this the right message to send to those UK citizens living abroad who may be affected by the amendment? We should be encouraging people to get involved with democracy and not provide barriers to getting involved in the political process. The reality of modern life is that many people do need to live and work abroad. Are we really saying, in this age of globalisation, that some of our most industrious people—those who get out around the world and promote our country in foreign lands—should be rewarded by having their political tights removed in such a way? If the provisions go through, will future laws seek to impose yet further restrictions on political donations? By shifting the link between voting and donating to one based on tax status, is there a risk of establishing a principle that political rights should be in some way based on making a contribution to the state through taxation? We cannot just allow political rights to be linked with taxation without a proper and full debate on the issue. The strongest argument against the provisions is that it would be very difficult for individual donors, for the political parties and for the Electoral Commission, in some circumstances, to establish whether they were in compliance with the new requirements because of the legal complexity of the concepts of residence and domicile.