HC Deb 21 October 1952 vol 505 cc858-61
37. Mr. Dodds

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the dissatisfaction in north-west Kent at the closing of the Dartford Rent Tribunal office which operated in the thickly populated part of Kent; and why he has centralised this work at Maidstone.

Mr. H. Macmillan

I have received some representations on the matter. The work has been centralised at Maidstone on grounds of economy and convenience.

Mr. Dodds

How can the right hon. Gentleman plead the ground of economy when this office, in the first six months of this year, granted 616 interviews, and when it is considered that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works paid £525 for an Adam mantelpiece and only £500 for the office? Is that economy?

Mr. Macmillan

I do not see the connection between the two matters.

Mr. Janner

Will not the Minister give serious consideration to stopping this kind of action in order that the Rent Acts may not be destroyed? Is he aware that, in West Cheshire already, instead of 41 applications being heard, as was the case three months ago, now only 13 people have been able to take advantage of that particular tribunal, since the number of tribunals has been reduced? Is it not really ridiculous, on the grounds of economy, at a time when we are supposed to be putting into effect measures for the protection of tenants?

Mr. Macmillan

The reason why the economy was made was because the number of applications at all of these tribunals had been steadily falling in recent years. On the other point, on which the hon. Gentleman came to see me the other day, I gathered that the question was not so much against concentration but as to where the location of the single office should be.

Mr. Dodds

Will not the Minister give the House accurate information? Is it not the case that he himself had so little time to give to the discussion that he does not know what were the points to be raised?

Mr. Bottomley

When the Minister talks about convenience, does he mean the convenience of this Department or that of the people in north-west Kent?

Mr. Macmillan

The general convenience of the public, having regard to the amount of business to be done.

38. Mr. Dodds

asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why, in deciding to abolish the Dartford Rent Tribunal, it was considered unnecessary to consult with or inform the local authorities concerned of the proposal.

Mr. H. Macmillan

Because the cost of rent tribunals is met wholly from Exchequer funds and the responsibility for ensuring economy in administration is entirely mine. Local authorities were informed of the proposed amalgamation on 4th September last.

Mr. Dodds

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, before the Labour Government introduced them, they did have discussions with the local authority, but, now that the local authorities are being asked to provide experts in every office, as well as a room for the tribunals, can he wonder that they are annoyed at the high handed action in not discussing it with them before?

Mr. Macmillan

In accordance with the statute, the local authorities were consulted by my predecessor as to where these tribunals should be situated, but they were not consulted by either of my predecessors as to what should be the districts that were to be included in any particular area. I therefore followed precedent in this matter.

Mr. Pannell

Is the Minister aware that the local authorities were asked to co-operate, and that, in the case of one of them—the Erith local authority—it has provided for this tribunal over a period of years the free use of the council chamber and free tea for the members when the tribunal has been sitting, and that, generally speaking, they have attempted to co-operate in the most friendly way?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, having received such co-operation—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite care nothing about rents or rent tribunals, but they might at least be silent. Does not the Minister think that it is reasonable that they should have been consulted before this tribunal was transferred to a place 40 miles away?

Mr. Macmillan

I do not think there is any resentment in this matter. My relations with the local authorities, in this as in other matters, have been very happy, and I have done everything I can to help them in the normal way. I do not regard this as anything but a rather trumped-up agitation to suit a few hon. Members opposite.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is not the Minister's answer to this question inconsistent with the answer which he gave to the previous Question on the Order Paper? Surely, if what he has been considering was the public convenience, the local authorities ought to have been the first people to consult, whereas, if he is concerned only with economy, then it would be quite understandable why he should consult only the Treasury?

Mr. Macmillan

One is a matter of economy and the other one of convenience. When there are a large number of local authorities concerned, I have usually found that each thinks theirs is the one where the tribunal should be held.

Mr. Dodds

I beg to give notice that, owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Macmillan

I rather expected that.

Mr. Dodds

Why not tell the truth?

Back to