``a person appointed by the Secretary of State''

and insert ``an independent adjudicator''.

The amendment is intended to ensure that an individual registered plate supplier who is subject to the threat of deregistration and wishes to make representations about it can be heard by an independent person. We prefer the wording ``an independent adjudicator'' to

``a person appointed by the Secretary of State''.

I shall not develop the point at length, as what we are saying is obvious. My concern is that on the principle—precedents may be invoked either way—that no person should be judge in his own cause and also the principles that business people should receive equitable treatment and that proper regard should be paid to protecting the interests of the ``small guy'' and the ``small gal'' against the regulatory leviathan of the state, it is surely right that the person making the representations should have a fair hearing. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is attending closely, because I would value his thoughts on the subject. What worries me is that, if the person before whom the potentially deregistered supplier appears is chosen by the Secretary of State and, in a sense, is acting on his behalf, it is not entirely clear that the process is fair.

I make the point honestly, but I shall not labour the argument because, in another context—I hope that you will allow me briefly to allude to it, Mr. Sayeed, because it is relevant—one could argue slightly differently. The Committee may have thought of parallels and of models of adjudication used by other Government Departments or their agencies. For example, we are all familiar with the Child Support Agency and the Benefits Agency and the fact that such matters as the over or under-payment of benefits or entitlements and the possible recovery of that money can be referred to another authority. In some cases, but not all, those authorities comprise individuals who are entrusted with responsibility by, and, in a sense, are acting on behalf of, the Secretary of State. I was recently involved in such a case but, although that authority was acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, I am pleased to say that it found for my constituent and against the Benefits Agency. That saved my constituent a considerable sum of money, which she and her husband could ill afford to lose.

The Minister may think that I am arguing against myself, but I am not. I am making the point that, although those who act on behalf of the Secretary of State can sometimes make a fair judgment, that may not necessarily be so. I am concerned that, especially in the early stages once the legislation has come into force, the volume of correspondence about such matters might not be remotely approximate to the volume that we habitually expect to receive in relation to cases involving the Child Support Agency or the Benefits Agency.

In those circumstances, it is possible that no representations will be made to Members of Parliament, that Members themselves may make no representations to the person appointed by the Secretary of State and that that person will side with the Secretary of State's initial judgment unless the threatened registered plate supplier can provide an overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary. A case can therefore be made that it would be useful to appoint someone independent of, and separate from, the Secretary of State, who is capable of coming to a different conclusion. I simply put the thought forward. If the Minister knows of a good reason why that would not be appropriate, and if a compelling case can be made for the status quo, I shall no doubt be so advised.

I do not wish to be unduly suspicious, but as I speak another slip of paper is progressing from the top desk to the ministerial Bench. I may have a feverish imagination, but it occurs to me that it might not be entirely unrelated to my observations in support of the amendment.

See this item in context