Political Parties and Elections Bill

I accept on one level that the arguments seem a little thin in terms of making this request for a review, but it seems appropriate. I can think of a few circumstances in which it could be useful. Is it requesting too much to have something contained within the letter to the effect that the disclosure notice would clearly have to set out some statements of fact about why the disclosure notice had been sent to that individual—that there were certain assumptions—and that the person can write back? We can argue the semantics about whether writing back constitutes an appeal. There may also be circumstances in which someone receives a disclosure notice and the facts are absolutely correct: they are the person and this is the information. But there may be areas of which we are not aware why they feel that it is unfair for them to be served with a disclosure notice and therefore they should have some basis of appeal. That was the thought behind the amendment. I accept all the points that have been made and the weaknesses of the argument that have been presented and I recognise many of them, but I none the less think that it is important to put these things on the record to test the Government’s view on these matters and what are the boundaries. The theme that comes through all these amendments is what are the boundaries? What procedures are there to protect the rights of individuals who are brought into inquiries under the auspices of the Electoral Commission? I am grateful for the Minister's response as well as the noble Lord’s corrections and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 5 withdrawn.