---

Political Parties and Elections Bill

It has been a short and interesting debate. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) got extremely indignant about these provisions, although I note that his party did not vote against them when they first came before this House. I shall be interested to see whether his indignation leads him to vote against provisions that he said are an improvement on last time, given that his party did not vote against them, either here or in the other place. As always, I am interested in his contribution and I shall be interested to see whether he takes this through to a vote. The hon. Gentleman asked one specific question about the tax year definition. We recognise that in many cases "residence" and "domicile" are, in essence—or at least in large part—retrospective terms, so there are practical difficulties in linking the restriction to the current year. However, setting the qualifying point as the preceding year equally contains practical difficulties—we have reflected on that—and, in addition, would create a somewhat odd position, whereby a person who at the time of a donation knows themselves to be a non-resident and non-domiciled could still donate. Although we recognise the difficulty for individuals and parties of a potential uncertainty about someone's tax status during the tax year, we have concluded that if a person wants to make a large political donation—in other words, one of more than £7,500—it is not unreasonable to require them to take steps to ascertain their current status. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs already publishes guidance to help such people ascertain their status and, if they are in doubt, they could of course make a donation below the threshold. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) asked two specific questions, one of which was about "causing" donations, and I understand his concerns. May I say to him, distinguished lawyer that he is, that they were based on a misunderstanding of the intention behind the original amendments? The amendments tabled by Lord Campbell-Savours sought to require a declaration from an individual who makes a donation. We sought to achieve the same effect, and it has never been our intention, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon pointed out, to place a restriction on donations made through companies by these standards. Notwithstanding that, I am not even sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge is correct to say that if we used "cause" in the sense that he would like us to use it, it would capture companies. Even if he were correct, it is not the Government's policy to do that. The hon. Member for Cambridge also asked when the arrangement would come into effect. As everyone who has spoken so far has mentioned, these are complex clauses that raise considerable practical difficulties. It is the intention of this House and the other place that the spirit of these clauses should be put into effect, and that is what we are endeavouring to do, in keeping with our longstanding policy of pursuing consensus on these matters. Given their complexity, we are practically unable to commence provision before the summer of 2010, so we are not proposing to commence the arrangements before then. Equally, we are not envisaging undue delay after that date. I hope that that will give the hon. Gentleman some comfort about our intentions in this matter. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made a brief but powerful contribution about evasion and he said that what is being proposed would not prevent those who were "absolutely determined" to evade the provisions. He is right: there is no legislation that will make it certain that we can prevent people from evading who are determined to do so, but we have made the intention behind these provisions clear here and in the other place, and we expect all political parties and donors to abide by that. Question put and agreed to.