Political Parties and Elections Bill

I have no doubt that the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Bates, are right to raise this matter. Indeed, I understand the Liberal Democrats wanting to pursue and debate the matter and to have the Minister’s response. However, on the face of it, I do not see the strength of the argument that has been put. We start with the proposition that there has been a court order for an investigation and disclosure, and, if the Act ultimately says what the Bill says, the court will know that that means a three-month period in which the documents will be retained. The amendment would halve the time allowed in the Bill for retention, although it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, that the commission can go to a magistrates’ court for an extension. That is all very well but you can imagine the seriousness of the situation. The Electoral Commission has, ex hypothesi, embarked upon a serious investigation and, before it has thoroughly carried out that investigation, it is required to go to a magistrates’ court for a time extension, which will further delay the outcome of what must be a very serious inquiry. Furthermore, before the documents are handed over, they can be copied—there is nothing to stop that. The inconvenience of not having the original documents has rightly been referred to, but if copies can be made, surely the inconvenience is thereby minimised. I do not feel therefore that the opposition parties have so far made a case for the Bill’s requiring or allowing three months’ retention being a serious infringement of liberty.