§ Amendments made: No. 21, in page 53, line 18, leave out 'allowances or gratuities' and insert 'or allowances'.
§ No. 22, in page 53, line 21, leave out 'allowances or gratuities' and insert 'or allowances'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 54, line 15, at end insert—
§ `Appeals in certain types of case
§ 10.-(1) The President shall make arrangements for the identification of appeals made under section 13 of this Act which appear to him to raise questions of general importance relating to the interpretation or application of the law in respect of which the Secretary of State has decision making functions under section 1 or section 2 of this Act.
§ (2) The President shall, in making such arrangements as are referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above, delegate such of his powers in that regard as seem to him appropriate to any full-time chairmen of appeal tribunals who hold office for the time being.
§ (3) The President shall, when he identifies any cases as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, make such further arrangements as are necessary to ensure that such appeals are determined as soon as reasonably practicable in priority to other pending appeals.'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in schedule 4, page 59, line 29, at end insert—'Appeals in certain types of case—
8. The Chief Social Security Commissioner shall be under the same duty as respects appeals pending under section 15 of this Act, as is the President under paragraphs 10(1) and (3) of Schedule 1 to this Act.'.
§ Mr. KirkwoodI detect that the House wants to move on quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] However, if I am provoked, I might speak for a long time. I want to insinuate a thought into the Minister's mind. The amendments deal with some important procedural aspects of the Bill. Some of the clauses, especially clauses 26 and 27, contain some dramatic and far-reaching changes, about which I am concerned. Through amendments Nos. 3 and 4, I want to ask the Government to consider mitigating some of the consequences of clauses 26 and 27.
The House may not be fully aware of the powers with which clauses 26 and 27 deal, but they allow the Secretary of State to direct a social security tribunal or commissioner not to hear a case where another similar and test case is pending. That is an unprecedented power. It allows a member of the Executive to direct how members of the judiciary or quasi-judiciary shall deal with appeals that are before them in certain circumstances. That is a new power, and one that is unprecedented and the Government should be careful about the circumstances in which that sort of power is used.
The amendments would require that suitable arrangements are made for identification and hearing of test cases—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The conversation in the Chamber is growing louder. I know that hon. Members 1123 are anxious that we should now proceed quickly, but the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) should be heard in silence.
§ Mr. KirkwoodI want the Government to think about the possibility of looking at special provisions for identification and hearing of test cases as priority matters for social security appeal tribunals and commissioners. It can only help claimants and appellants in test cases to have their cases determined within a reasonable time against the background of the powers in clauses 26 and 27.
The amendments are perfectly self-explanatory. The Minister may say that the same results can be achieved via an administrative route or, indeed, he may even say that the Government already have the power, in the Bill, to do that. If so, I ask him to consider putting it on the face of the primary legislation. If he is unable to agree to that tonight, will he give careful consideration to making those changes so as to expedite the process? That would go with the grain of what the Government are trying to do in other parts of the Bill, while at the same time mitigating some of the new powers the Executive is taking to control appeal tribunals and commissioners. If he can give me an assurance that he will at least consider the matter between now and the Bill going to the other place, I should be happy not to press the amendments.
§ Mr. Keith BradleyThe amendments would impose additional duties on the president of the appeal tribunal and the chief social security commissioner. Each year, there are 300,000 appeals and such detailed examination of all of them would not be practical, given that fewer than one in 3,000 may eventually become a so-called test case. Examining each case would also create further unnecessary delays in the appeals process. The appropriate time to consider whether there is a general issue of importance is after a tribunal has decided an appeal and one of the parties has applied for leave to appeal on a point of law.
Commissioners already have complete discretion to expedite specific cases and we shall continue with that. It is our intention to speed up the process for all appeals. The amendment would create further delays, but I can assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that I shall look carefully at what he has said and consider whether any further action is appropriate. With that assurance, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. KirkwoodI give in—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.