Clause 9
Political Parties and Elections Bill
2:15 pm
Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Minister, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Huntingdon, Conservative)
The clause proposes to insert a defence into section 56 of PPERA to excuse the party treasurer from liability for a criminal offence under section 56(3). Section 56(3) requires the treasurer of a party to return such a donation or to pay an equivalent amount back to the donee. The offence arises from a failure to return donations from donors considered impermissible under section 54(2) and attaches to both the party and the party treasurer.
We have tabled a series of probing amendments. Amendment No. 182 would remove the need for “all reasonable steps” in proposed new section 56(3A). By removing the word “all” in subsection (a), the requirement becomes more practical. Requiring reasonable steps is one thing, but requiring “all reasonable steps” is quite another. The exhaustive nature of the “all” requirement imposes an unduly high burden on parties and treasurers. In essence, they must second guess all the possible routes of verification that the commission could come up with.
Local treasurers are not professionals. They are often volunteers who help out of a sense of civic duty. To require them to take “all reasonable steps” seems unreasonable to us. The requirement of reasonableness, as set out in the clause and in many other pieces of legislation on any number of different subjects, applies the so-called reasonable man test to any given set of circumstances. Called on to adjudicate on disputed behaviour, the courts should ask what a reasonable man would have done. That should be adequate.
Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 would amend proposed new section 56(3A) of PPERA as set out in the clause. The section covers the party’s belief as well as that of the treasurer and states that such belief must be reasonable. Amendment No. 184 seeks to rerun the arguments in favour of the inclusion of a test of reasonableness, where the opinions of individuals form the crux of the section in question. The need for objectivity as the yardstick against which to measure that belief where it has given rise to dispute, is important to ensure fairness and safeguard individuals from arbitrary penalties.
Amendment No. 183 would insert the word “party” alongside “the treasurer” in subsection (b). That is included in proposed new section (3A), and is perhaps a drafting oversight on the part of the Government. As it stands, only the treasurer must believe the donor to be a permissible donor. That is odd because the reasonable steps verification requirement in subsection (a) is imposed on both party and treasurer.
As I understand it, the party would currently be able to take reasonable steps to verify whether a donor is permissible, and leave it at that. Furthermore, it could suggest that in such situations, the treasurer must believe the donor to be permissible, despite not necessarily having undertaken the verification. That seems confusing and the amendment has been tabled in an attempt to clarify what is required by the people involved, and to ask the Minister to explain the drafting of the provision.