HC Deb 05 February 1951 vol 483 cc1487-95

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hay

I do not think we should hurry past this important Clause without some discussion of the principles involved. Clause 13 completely shuts off any of the parties who might have to go to court under Part II of the Bill from any opportunity of appealing against a decision of the court. When the House was discussing the Second Reading of the Bill, a hon. Member opposite—I think it was the hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman)—protested against Clause 13.

If I understood the Attorney General's argument at that stage, it was that we should not have a right of appeal in this case for two main reasons—first, because this was only temporary legislation and it was unwise to burden the Court of Appeal with too many applications; and secondly, there were very few matters in the Bill which could possibly be the subject of appeal. As to the first point, I must say that I do not think it has much validity, but the second point is rather more important and I should like to spend a few moments in dealing with it.

As the progress of the Bill has continued, we have seen various Amendments that we have put down to clarify difficult and awkward points continually turned down by the Government. We feel that now, more than ever before, it is vital that we should have a right of appeal in this Bill. There are many subjects of appeal. The Bill is full of them. We have had two discussions to-night on matters which might very well be subjects of appeal. We have had a discussion on demolition and reconstruction, and it would be useful if the meaning of these terms were to be decided by the Court of Appeal. They might also decide what is meant by "in the public interest." There are many things in the Bill which ought to be the subjects of judicial decisions at a higher level than that of the county court judge.

When the Rent Acts were being passed by Parliament, it was expected that they would be temporary pieces of legislation, but we know that they have given rise to many judicial decisions and I can see some of the expressions in this Bill giving rise to questions of appeal as much as those Acts do. There have been many cases to decide what is prejudicial to "terms and conditions," an expression which is repeated in Clause 10 of this Bill. There have been many questions. too, about what is meant by "reasonable alternative accommodation." That phrase is repeated in this Bill. There have been heaven knows how many questions on what constitutes "greater hardship." This, again, appears in Clause 10. On all these points, I think there ought to be a right of appeal.

Let me make a final reference to what I think has been an unsatisfactory development in the law on rent tribunals. The same provision was made in that law, namely, there was no right of appeal. In consequence, there has been dissatisfaction and even hardship. The matter was the subject of discussion in the House some time ago. I am very much afraid that if the same sort of provision is made in this Bill, that there shall be no right of appeal, we shall have the same sorry story of dissatisfaction and discontent. If there are matters which ought to be, and which could be, the subject of reasonable litigation between the parties, I do not think the Committee ought to say that the parties are to be prevented from carrying the matter to the highest court of the country.

The Attorney-General

I could not help thinking that the references which the hon. Member made to our experiences under the rent restriction legislation were unhappy in this context. One of the things which I should have thought everyone would want to avoid in a temporary Bill of this kind, dealing in the main with small premises, is a repetition of the amount of litigation which there has been under the Rent Restriction Acts. We do not want that. I should have thought that everyone would agree with that view. The Bill is dealing, in the main, with small premises. That has been the position so far as it has arisen in Scotland, and I apprehend that it will be the same here.

I think everyone will agree that with this temporary Bill it is most undesirable to make it possible to build up a complicated mass of case law dealing with these different points. As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has reminded the Committee, most of the questions arising under this Bill will turn upon fact, and would not properly be subject to appeal. But very often an appeal is lodged upon a question of fact and the matter argued at considerable expense, with profit to the lawyers of appeal only, and at the end of the hearing it is said that the question was one of fact and that it is a matter for the county court. The appeal is then dismissed. Demolitions or reconstruction in particular cases, or whether a particular matter is in the public interest, are questions of fact which it would be proper to leave to the county court judge to deal with under a Bill of this kind.

Mr. Hay

It was not my intention to put it that way. I was pointing out that such expressions might have a different construction or be differently construed by different people and that there should be some kind of appeal to decide who was right.

The Attorney-General

I doubt whether as a court of law the House of Lords would lay down a definition of what the words meant. It would say that the particular case, and the particular premises involved, must be looked at, and that it must be left to a county court judge to say whether what is proposed is reconstruction or demolition, or whether it is in the public interest. These are matters which cannot, because of their nature, be defined in strict legal terms.

But the real objection to this Amendment, which I am sure will appeal to the hon. Member, is the position of the unsuccessful applicant turned down by the county court judge who could have got at most a year's increase of tenancy, in addition to giving notice of appeal. He will see his solicitor and start an appeal and be as slow about this as the rules permit. He will take every step of the most dilatory sort that he can. By that means he would maintain himself in occupation of the premises for what might be as long as, and in some cases longer, than the maximum period of renewal of the lease he could have obtained at the hands of the county court judge. To have an appeal here would provide a device to enable tenants to continue in occupation although their application had been rejected by the county court judge.

In general, I am not in favour of excluding appeals to higher courts, although I have always held that there should be a limitation on the number of appeals that can be taken but I ask the Committee to agree with me that this Amendment would bring no benefit to anybody at the end of the day. If the appeal went forward, the landlord would often find at the end of the day that he had spent a good sum of money simply to let his tenant remain in possession for what was the maximum period he could have obtained in any event. I ask the Committee to say that that would not be an improvement in the Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I am afraid that I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. In the first place, I think a very strong case has to be made out to deprive the subject of the right he possesses now to appeal from a county court judge to the Court of Appeal. The tendency has been far too prevalent in the last few years to deprive ordinary people of the right of appeal which they otherwise would have. I start off my consideration of this question from that angle. I think that a strong case has to be made out, and I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentle-man has done so. I quite agree with him that many of the questions which would fall to be determined here would be questions of fact decided by the county court judge, and I began to think, from what the right hon. and learned Gentle. man said, that he must have been more fortunate than I have been to get any question of fact considered by the Court of Appeal on appeal from the county court judge. I think the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) will agree with me that it is quite impossible to get an appeal on a question of fact from the county court judge on its legs at all. Therefore, in considering this question, I think one can eliminate the number of appeals on the question of fact that come to the courts.

The only real question that has to be considered is whether there are likely to be difficult questions of law here arising out of the interpretation of Part H where, for instance, one decision of a county court judge might conflict with another. I think myself that the risk is by no means small of getting different interpretations and different decisions on points of law by different county court judges. They are all equal in jurisdiction and in status, and one has to assume that there is that possibility. I believe there is that possibility, and it seems to me that there will be cases where there should be the right to go to the Court of Appeal, if necessary by leave of the court. I would not mind having the right of appeal by the leave of the Court of Appeal, because it would be an appeal on a matter of law. Here in this Clause we are asked to say that there should be no appeal on law.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman then advanced the argument that the appellant might abuse the process of the law by dilatory action. I do not think there is much possibility of that with regard to an appeal from a county court judge. Notice of appeal is given within the prescribed period and the case comes into the list in the ordinary way. It would, of course, depend on how many judges were available when the case would come on for hearing. Quite apart from that argument, the possibility that in some instances one might be guilty of delay is, in my opinion, no argument for saying that the subject, be he a tenant or a public authority, if one likes, should be deprived of the right of appeal to the county court or the Court of Appeal. For that, as for the other reasons which have been advanced by my hon. Friends, we cannot agree to the inclusion of this Clause.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

We on this side consider this as a matter of principle, quite apart from the fact that it is in itself one of the most important matters in the whole of this Bill. I think my hon. Friend will agree that we have become accustomed in the last five years to being informed by hon. Members opposite that what the Government want to achieve is rough justice.

The Attorney-General indicated dissent.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

Well, that is what we have often been told, and the longer the Government are here the rougher the justice gets. Rough justice is the expression to which we have been singularly accustomed in recent years, but this seems to be the last example of how rough justice can be. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is an argument merely of expediency, and what he is saying is that what the Government are aiming at is to have a cadi sitting under a palm tree and trying to arrive at decisions without guidance. If that is so, he is taking us back to the days when the then Minister without Portfolio in this House, now the Lord Chancellor, used the same expression on the question of rehabilitating sea-coast resorts. It may be within the memory of some hon. Members that it was then found that this belief was singularly unsuccessful, and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he tries it again he, too, will find it singularly unsuccessful.

It is absolutely essential for these tribunals to have some sort of direction from Parliament as to the lines upon which they have to function, and if he leaves the Bill as it is now, without any right of appeal to anybody at all, it is unavoidable that there will be an immense number of applications to judges all over the country. What will be the result? The result will be a mass of completely unrelated and differing decisions. The only possible way of even offering a rough choice of the rough justice which the Government seek to accord by this Bill is to allow some right of appeal whereby at least the decisions which must be made when this Bill comes

into operation will find a certain amount of correlation.

What Parliament is being asked to do is to "pass the buck." We are being asked by the Government to do nothing more than shelve our responsibilities for making quite clear what is the intent as well as the nature of the legislation we are passing. In other words, we are being asked to pass this responsibility on to the county court judges, and I say that, both as a matter of principle, as well as a matter of policy, it is grossly unfair and unbefitting that this should be done; and the very least that we can do is surely to assist those hard-working and intelligent people who are going to be put into a difficult position, by having matters taken to a Court of Appeal.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

"The Committee divided: Ayes, 160 Noes, 133.

Division No. 28.] AYES [10.49 p.m.
Ayles, W. H. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Mitchison, G. R.
Bacon, Miss A George, Lady M. Lloyd Moeran, E. W.
Balfour, A Gibson, C. W. Monslow, W.
Barnes, Rt Hon. A J Gilzean, A. Moody, A. S.
Bartley, P. Greenwood, A. W J (Rossendale) Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Bonn, Hon A N Wedgwood Grenfell. D. R. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Benson, G. Grey, C. F. Mort, D. L.
Blenkinsop, A Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Mulley, F. W.
Blyton, W R. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Neal, H.
Boardman. H Grimond, J. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Bottomley, A. G Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Oliver, G. H
Bowden, H. W. Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.) Orbach, M
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Padley, W. E.
Brockway, A. Fenner Hardy, E. A. Paget, R. T.
Brook, D (Halifax^ Hargreaves, A. Parker, J.
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton) Harrison, J. Pearson, A.
Broughtom, Dr. A, D. D Hastings, Dr. Somerville Popplewell, E
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hayman, F. H. Porter. G
Burke, W A Herbison, Miss M. Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Burton, Miss E. Houghton, Douglas Proctor, W. T.
Butler, H. W. (hackney S.) Hoy, J. Rees, Mrs. D.
Champion, A. J Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Clunie, J Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Cocks, F S Hynd, H (Accrington) Richards, R.
Coldrick, W Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Robens, A.
Collick, P Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Corbet, Mrs F. K (Peckham) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Cove, W. G. Janner, B. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jeger, Dr. s. W (St. Pancras, S.) Royle C.
Crosland, C. A R. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Jones, William Elwyn (Conway) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Darling, G (Hillsboro') Keenan, W. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Davies,.A Edward (Stoke, N.) King, H. M. Simmons, C J
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lee, F. (Newton) Slater, J
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lindgren, G S. Smith, 'Ellis (Stoke, S.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey MacColl, J. E. Sorensen, R. W
Deer, G. McInnes, J. Soskice, Rt Hon Sir F
Delargy, H J McKay, J. (Wallsend) Sparks, J A
Donnelly, D McLeavy, F. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Driberg, T E. N MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirring) Stross, Dr B.
Dye, S. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Ede, Rt Hon J C Manuel, A. C. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Ewart, R. Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Thomas, I D (Wrekin)
Fernybough, E. Messer, F. Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Finch, H. J Middleton, Mrs. L Thurtle, Ernest
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Mikardo, Ian Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Follick, M.
Tomney, F. Wilkins, W. A. Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)
Turner-Samuels, M. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L Williams, D. J. (Neath) Wise, Major F. J.
Wallace, H W Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Weitzman, D. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Wilt, D. G. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton) Mr. Hannan and Mr. Collindridge.
NOES
Alport, C. J. M. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M Powell, J. Enoch
Arbuthnot, John Gage, C. H. Profumo, J. D
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Raikes, H. V
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh) Redmayne, M
Baker, P. Gates, Maj. E. E. Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Baldock J. M. Hay, John Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)
Baldwin, A. E Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C Roper, Sir H.
Banks, Col. C Heald, L. F. Ropner. Col L
Baxter, A. B Heath, E. R. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W Russell, R. S.
Bell, R. M. Higgs, J. M. C. Scott, Donald
Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)
Birch, Nigel Hill, Dr. C. (Luton) Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Bishop, F. P. Hornsby-Smith, Miss P. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Black, C. W. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hurd, A. R. Stanley, Capt. Hon R (N Fylde)
Boothby, R. Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Stevens, G. P.
Bossom, A. C. Hylton-Foster, H. B. Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A Jeffreys, General Sir G. Storey, S.
Boyle, Sir Edward Johnson, Howard S (Kemptown) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Braine, B. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W Studholme, H. G
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Studholme, H.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Coi. W Lambert, Hon. G. Teeling, William
Brooke, H. (Hampstead) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Thompson, R. H. M (Croyoon, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Linstead, H. N. Tilney, John
Burden, Squadron-Leader f. A Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Touche, G. C.
Channon, H. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Turton, R. H.
Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead) McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Clarke, Brig T H (Portsmouth, W.) McKibbin, A. Vaughan-Morgan, J K
Colegate, A. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Vosper, D. F.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Maclay, Hon. J S Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne) MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.) Wakefield, Sir W. W (St. Marylebone)
Cranbome, Viscount Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Walker-Smith, D C
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0 E Mai Hand, Comdr. J. W. Ward, Hon G R. (Worcester)
Crouch, R F. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Darling, Sir W Y (Edinburgh, S.) Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Waterhouse, Capt. RI. Hon C
de Chair, S Maude, J. C (Exeter) Wheatley, Major M J. (Poole)
Deedes, W F Medlicott, Brigadier F White, J Baker (Canterbury)
Digby, S. Wingfield Mellor, Sir J. Wills, G.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Molson, A H. E. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Duncan, Capt. J A L Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl
Eden, Rt Hon. A Nul[...]ing. Anthony Wood, Hon. R.
Fisher, Nigel Oakshott, H. D.
Fort, R Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Foster, J. G. Pickthorn, K. Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.