Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 12, page 9, line 36, leave out ‘may (but need not)’ and insert ‘must’.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 51, in clause 12, page 9, line 37, leave out ‘if it does,’.

No. 53, in clause 14, page 11, line 46, leave out ‘may (but need not)’ and insert ‘must’.

No. 54, in clause 14, page 12, line 1, leave out ‘if it does,’.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

The principal amendment is a simple probing amendment that would replace the word “may” with the word “must”. The others are consequential on it. If the upper tribunal decides against the lower tier, it is surely not the case merely that the upper tribunal may be able to set aside the decision. Rather, surely it is the case that it must set the decision aside. There should not be any “mays”, “perhapses” or “coulds”; the word should be “must”. That would represent better drafting and would be altogether neater and clearer.

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

The question is one of the discretion to set a decision aside when the upper tribunal finds an error of law, and I remind the Committee that we are concerned with matters relating to the senior judiciary. An error of law might be found that none the less does not render the corresponding decision incorrect. To force the upper tribunal to set the decision aside in that situation would clearly not be wise. I hope that those few words of explanation will persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I am in a good mood, because it is a lovely spring day. The Minister has made the Government’s intention clear. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.