§ Mr. BoscawenI beg to move amendment no. 15, in page 6, line 23, at end add—
' (6) Any reconsideration of determination and recovery of payment under this section shall be subject at the instance of the applicant or his relatives to appeal to the High Court '.This amendment sets down the possibility of an appeal to the High Court. The clause deals with cases where there is a reconsideration of a previous determination of a claim, which is a serious matter. It is not concerned with reconsideration on medical grounds or on the causation of the vaccine damage, but perhaps on the grounds of a falsified claim. There should be an appeal to the High Court against the reconsideration. Once a claim has been given it is a serious matter to take it away, and the individual should have an outside right of appeal.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisThe amendment would pick out one provision of the Bill and apply to it a right of appeal to the High Court. The drafting is defective. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has put down the amendment to raise the question of principle about appeal. It would not be appropriate in a Bill dealing with a limited scheme of this kind to provide an elaborate apparatus of appeal. The claims will first be considered by the Secretary of State, In all cases there will be a right to have the original decision reviewed by the independent medical tribunal. It is not appropriate to provide for further proceedings about the facts of the case. In some circumstances disputed points of law can be raised in the courts in the ordinary way.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 5 deals with the case where a favourable decision has been given, payment has been made and it is subsequently found that it was not due because the Secretary of State or the tribunal, in determining the case, had been in ignorance of or had made a mistake about some material fact. If this is shown to be so and the original decision is reconsidered, the Secretary of State can require repayment, unless the 1413 recipient can show that the misrepresentation or failure occurred without his connivance or consent. If the fault lies with a third party, the payee will not be liable to repay.
In these circumstances, repayment will be rare and may never occur. But in order to protect public funds if there is a blatant instance of a payment being irregularly obtained, such a provision should be included. If the change in the determination arises because, on the facts eventually brought to light, a claim is refused on grounds relating to the cause or the extent of the disability, the claimant can contest the Secretary of State's fresh determination through the tribunal. After all this, if the claimant still considers that he should not repay, he would refuse to pay and the Secretary of State would have to sue him for repayment. If the claimant considered that repayment was not legally due, he would be able to argue that in court.
It is unnecessary to add to these various remedies a specific provision for appeal to the High Court. It is also not clear on what grounds the High Court could set aside a decision that repayment was due. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. BoscawenThe right hon. Gentleman is correct. This was a probing amendment to discover the position of appeal in a serious case. it is clear from what he said that an aggrieved individual would have a right to appeal in a medical case to an independent tribunal, and, in a case where there might be legal problems, to the court. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.