REDETERMINATION ETC. OF APPEALS BY TRIBUNAL (Hansard, 13 May 1998)

§ Mr. Keith Bradley
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 18.

§ Mr. Bradley
Amendment No. 17 allows a tribunal chairman, who is considering an application for leave to appeal against a decision of a tribunal, the discretion either to set aside that decision and refer it back to an appeal tribunal, or to grant leave to appeal to a commissioner. As clause 14 is currently drafted, the chairman would be required to set aside an erroneous decision and refer the case for redetermination by a tribunal.
Concerns were expressed in another place that a chairman would be required to set aside an erroneous decision even where he had been outvoted at the tribunal on the same issue, which could place him in a difficult position.

§ Mr. Burns
On a point of information, will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding what he has just said about this issue being raised in another place, it was also raised in the Committee upstairs in this House?

§ Mr. Bradley
I cannot confirm it in the sense that I do not have Hansard in front of me, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be referring to some comment that he made in Committee and I would not in any way wish to undermine that position. If he now wishes to take credit for the amendment, again, we are all on the same side on this one.

§ Mr. Burns
The Minister is right in his surmise. It was raised in the Committee of this House, so will he tell the House: if it was so compelling an argument in another place, why did he not listen and why was it not compelling in Committee?

§ Mr. Bradley
If we go down that route of argument, there would no point us discussing these amendments and the Government laying out their position on accepting them. The parliamentary process is a total process: through Second Reading, Committee, the Lords and back again. Throughout that process, not just in parts of it, 406 we are a listening Government. I am pleased that we have listened very carefully to the arguments throughout that process and have come to a conclusion on them.

§ Mr. Burns
rose—

§ Mr. Bradley
I wish to make progress. I do not think that we need to make a fuss about nothing on this point.

§ Mr. Burns
If the Minister gives way, it will save me having to make a speech

§ Mr. Bradley
In that case, I am only too delighted to give way.

§ Mr. Burns
I will keep to my commitment, as the Minister has generously given way. If he is part of such a listening Government and the legislative procedure is an on-going complete sequence of events, why did his Government not listen to the message that was being sent on single parents in the vote last December? Why does he cherry-pick which issues he is going to listen to and claim the credit for listening to?

§ Mr. Bradley
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us keep to the subject that is before us.

§ Mr. Bradley
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I completely agree with your ruling on that point.
Concerns were expressed in another place that a chairman would be required to set aside an erroneous decision even where he had been outvoted at the tribunal on the same issue, which could place him in a difficult position. The Government have considered the matter further and have made appropriate amendments to ensure that the chairman has the option to refer cases back to a tribunal for determination.
Amendment No. 18 is consequential on the amendment to clause 14(2). It ensures that a decision will always be set aside and referred for redetermination wherever the principal parties agree that a decision is erroneous in point of law. Without the amendment, it would not be clear whether the chairman could override their request if he agreed that there was an error of law and were to exercise his discretion, under the amended subsection (2), not to refer the case for redetermination.
These are sensible provisions and I commend the amendments to the House.