Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 12, line 11, at end insert—

`(2A) The Secretary of State may extend the period specified in subsection (2) where he receives representations in writing after the 21 day period showing good cause why an appeal could not be brought within the given period.'.

The purport of the amendment is clear. An individual might typically be away for the sorts of reasons that I gave earlier. There could be other business, family, or personal reasons why an individual was not able to make representations in the 21-day period and representations were subsequently to be made. In that circumstance, there should surely be flexibility for the Secretary of State. It does not currently apply. If we are to achieve the objective of firmness with fairness, which is surely what we are about, my hon. Friends and I believe that such flexibility should apply.

Mr David Kidney (Stafford, Labour)

I hesitate to say that once upon a time I was a practising solicitor in magistrates courts, but confess that I have forgotten whether magistrates have the power to extend the time for an appeal if a person is out of time. Nevertheless, should not magistrates courts, rather than the Secretary of State, extend the time for the appeal if the 21-day time limit is not met?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I would have thought that that would fall to the Secretary of State, because it is within the relevant terms. There is some head-shaking going on from a person in the Room whom I cannot identify.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Nor refer to.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am guided by you, Mr. Sayeed, but if that individual could be referred to, he would be referred to as ``august''. I am influenced by that consideration. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) when he picked me up on something in another context, if I turn out to be wrong in Committee and we have an opportunity to debate the matter, I shall of course readily concede. I apply a similar philosophy to the Under-Secretary. If it is a matter for a magistrates court, so be it.

Mr David Kidney (Stafford, Labour)

I take no pleasure in pointing out that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, I merely think that the amendment is incorrect.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect as a committed parliamentarian.

The wording or precise categorisation is not strictly relevant to the validity of the argument, but it may be a good reason for the Minister to resist the amendment. However, even when there is little good reason to resist an amendment, it is Ministers' habitual practice to do so. We want to ensure that legitimate businesses are given the greatest opportunity to go about their trade lawfully. We want to punish the criminal, protect the innocent and create, maintain and nurture a climate in which legitimate commercial activity can survive and flourish. That is my concern in proposing the amendment. I await, with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat upon my brow, the Under-Secretary's considered response.

Mr Keith Hill (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Streatham, Labour)

Not for the first time, I defer to the wisdom and professionalism of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. The question is one of the consideration of powers; it is a matter of whether the Secretary of State may or may not intervene in the judgments of the courts. I must say, absolutely categorically, that it would be inappropriate to give the Secretary of State the power to extend the period in respect of named individuals. That is the best legal advice that we have, and my hon. Friend—needless to say—anticipated it in his extremely pertinent intervention.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am content, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.