APPEALS AGAINST REFUSAL OF GRANT (Hansard, 28 July 1972)

§ Mr. Pardoe

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

I shall be brief in presenting the new Clause, and I hope that the Government will state their thinking in equally few words. I almost hope that no other hon. Member joins in, though I suppose I ought not to say that.

In our debates so far we have been concerned with the rights of the taxpayer and how we should control the allocation of the taxpayer's money and see that it is used in the proper way. This new Clause is concerned with the person who is refused a grant or financial assistance. I do not say that the problem here is as bad as it was under Part I, because under Part I there is no longer quite the selectivity that there was, though there still remains considerable discretion given to the Secretary of State. That applies, for example, to Clause 2(5). Under Part II, however, there is great selectivity, and the words "in his opinion" are crucial to the whole allocation of money.

On the Secretary of State's decision substantial public favours will be given. In other branches of government where this is done, we almost always have an appeal procedure. For example, under the Department of Health and Social Security, although quite small sums of money, sometimes pence a week, are involved, we have the full panoply of appeals with, at the end of the process, after the national insurance officer and the rest, an appeal tribunal.

All hon. Members who have had dealings with firms which have applied for development grants and been refused have been brought face to face with the feeling of injustice which that can bring about. One of the reasons is that no explanations are given. The old BOTAC used to give reasons to the Minister but they were not passed on and one could never explain why a person had been refused. In town and country planning decisions, on 2444 the other hand, one may always give an explanation because one has a fairly good explanation from the local authority.

I am not wedded to the specific suggestion of an industrial grants appeal tribunal. Nevertheless I believe that a person who is turned down—there will be hundreds turned down under Part II—ought to be given specific reasons for the refusal and ought to have some sort of appeal to an authority other than the Secretary of State.

I have put the matter shortly, and I suppose that at this hour the House will breathe a sigh of relief to hear me come to a conclusion.

§ Mr. Anthony Grant

I shall be equally brief in responding to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I echo the hope which he expressed as to the length of this debate. The hon. Gentleman made a persuasive point for the establishment of an appeal tribunal to consider appeals against refusal of assistance. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the new Clause would relate to all assistance under all parts of the Bill, regional development grants, selective assistance, shipbuilding grants and other matters.

The considerations applying to those different forms of assistance are very different. It is difficult to see how an appeal tribunal could have any rôle under Part II of the Bill as the essence of assistance is that it should be selective and tailored to the particular needs and circumstances of the case. The basic objection to what is proposed is that in effect we would be substituting a tribunal's judgment for that of the Secretary of State, and I cannot see that this would necessarily ensure that an applicant would get a more favourable response or that the taxpayers would get better value for their money, because at the end of the day it must be for the Secretary of State to decide where the national interest lies and how best to use the discretion given to him in the Bill.

We have rightly talked a great deal today about the question of parliamentary accountability. I do not think it would be acceptable to the House or to interests outside if the exercise of these powers were, as the new Clause proposes, to be left to a separate tribunal which 2445 would not be accountable to the House. These are our basic objections. I assure the hon. Gentleman that an applicant who is aggrieved by a refusal of assistance can ensure that his case is fully considered and ventilated. He can approach his Member of Parliament, who can raise the matter with the Secretary of State. He can invoke the Parliamentary Commissioner in cases of maladministration. In practice, the various stages of the parliamentary procedure which exist are more likely to secure justice for the hard case.

I believe I am right in saying that if there is a faulty interpretation of the Statute in some way there is even resort to the courts in the normal way. But by and large, I think that parliamentary procedure is an infinitely better way than the use of a separate tribunal. This is borne out by experience under both the LEA building grant and investment grant schemes. These were both discretionary grant systems in which responsibility for exercising discretion rested firmly on the Secretary of State, who in turn was answerable to the House. Also, the 2446 reasons are given or can be obtainable for a refusal, and certainly we would not wish to change the practice under the new system from that which has prevailed under the old.

For these reasons, I regret to say, although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter and enabling us to apply our minds to it, that I cannot accept the new Clause.