National Insurance Contributions Bill

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) have done the House a service by tabling the amendments. When I perused the amendments last night, I was more attracted to my right hon. Friend’s amendment No. 2, which unfortunately has not been selected. I was unsure whether his amendment No. 1 would have any effect at all if implemented. The commissioners are not at arm’s length from the Treasury. They have a similar purpose, and one struggles to think of occasions when the commissioners have stood up strongly to a Treasury view on a particular matter. So I started out not being sympathetic to my right hon. Friend’s amendment because I took the view that it was too weak to be worth the candle, but on reflecting on the matter and listening to what he said, it occurred to me that if approved by the House, it may bring some benefits in that Ministers might decide to set out guidelines to the commissioners telling them, if the power of consultation was incorporated in the Bill, that they were required to take evidence from interested third parties and listen to representations made to them. The issuing of guidelines, which is not part of my right hon. Friend’s amendment but which Ministers could nevertheless do, could make his amendment worthwhile. I have been won over as the debate has progressed, because the amendment could be made to work and have some effect. So, on balance, I can say that my right hon. Friend has my support. I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch all the way on the amendments that he tabled. I cannot see how the Minister can justify resisting the use of the word ““reasonable””. A number of definitions were quoted to the House, but the essence of my hon. Friend’s argument is contained in the ““Concise Oxford English Dictionary”” quotation that I read to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst earlier. The ““Concise Oxford English Dictionary”” defines ““expedient”” as ““advantageous”” and goes on to say—this is a killing phrase—““politic rather than just””. The Paymaster General is asking us to accept the use of a power that can be taken to be unjust. I wonder why she has not thus far signified that she accepts my hon. Friend’s amendments. I suspect it is highly likely that the courts would not interfere with the use of a power where that power can be used expediently. I do not think the courts would interfere with a Minister saying, ““I took that decision because I deemed it was expedient””, whereas we know from a raft of court decisions that the courts eagerly give their view where the statute concerned refers to ““reasonable””. Using the word ““expedient”” in effect gives Ministers carte blanche. I agree with what was said earlier. I have nothing but praise for the Paymaster General, but when we are making law and examining the phraseology that we use, we must assume the worst. I am far from happy to allow a future Government of whatever political persuasion to give powers enabling a Minister to deem, on a whim, that a decision is expedient. I hope that on reflection the House will accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it.