Political Parties and Elections Bill

I do not have the information to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, refers. I need further and better particulars, as they say. All I do know is that the last time the Government were defeated on a Motion moved by a Liberal Democrat was when, at 10 to one in the morning when dealing with terrorism legislation, I moved that the House go into private session. Because no one had any idea how that should proceed, it was passed. The Whips were all trying to get Labour Members out of appropriate parts of the building at the time and so Treasury Ministers on the Front Bench had no advice from Whips as to what the heck they should be doing. That is a little bit of history. We, too, think that this is an important issue to probe and think through. I understand that amendments along these lines were discussed briefly in Committee in the other place but were not then debated on Report. Therefore, I think that it is important for the Minister to explain precisely why he feels that this period is necessary. As I understand it, if we were to reduce the time from three months to 42 days, it would still be open to the commission to apply to a magistrates’ court to extend that if, in particular circumstances, it was vital to a major investigation. Therefore, we are not closing the door on retention for the longer period. However, surely we should be asking what would normally be the case and what would be reasonable, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said. The enhanced powers to seize documents, to which these concerns are related, were, I think, dropped from the Bill by Ministers during its passage through the other place. Therefore, in a sense, it is rather unclear why this issue has not already been resolved. In Committee, the Government argued that amendments along these lines would impact significantly on the commission’s ability to give proper consideration to documents which it required for the purposes of investigating a suspected breach or contravention of the 2000 Act. The Minister also pointed out that the commission could return documents before the three months if there was no reason to retain them for longer. However, in a sense, that flexibility should work the other way round, given that there is also the longstop provision that, in the case of a major investigation, the commission can apply to a magistrates’ court to extend the period. On the whole, our response to this choice is that it is better to err on the side of flexibility, even if it means that occasionally the Electoral Commission is put on the spot to justify special circumstances. On that basis, we look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.