RENT TRIBUNALS, LONDON (CHAIRMEN) (Hansard, 16 December 1953)

§ Mr. G. H. R. Rogers (Kensington, North)
I am raising the question of the London rent tribunals tonight to give the Minister an opportunity of clarifying his policy in the selection of chairmen of the tribunals. From our recent experience, his policy seems to be contradictory and to involve one or two important principles which require settling.
Members of rent tribunals, like members of new town corporations and of many other quasi-judicial bodies which have been brought into existence in recent years, form a new type of public servant. They are not part of the Civil Service or of the local government service, and in many cases their functions are of such a character as to make it undesirable that they should be an integral part of either of those services. Their decisions have frequently to be clearly outside any form of governmental control. This situation gives rise to two problems. They are subject to arbitrary removal at the instance of the Government, and yet they are assumed to be capable of preserving their complete independence, in functioning in their quasi-judicial capacity.
The present situation gives very little ground for satisfaction as to the position of these members. Chairmen or otherwise, they have no security of tenure and can be, and, in fact, have been, even dismissed with little or no notice and without being given an opportunity of resigning. Allegations have been made concerning the quality of their work or judgment which they have been given no chance of refuting.
I propose to raise one or two points to which, I hope, the Minister will be able to give an answer. Before doing so, however, I want to remind him that, although under the 1946 and the 1949 Acts he was given wide powers to deal with the appointment of chairmen and members, I think it fair to say that those powers were not intended for more than the general convenience of the Minister, and were certainly not intended to give him power to play about with the members of the tribunals as though he were playing a game of draughts, which, judging by our recent experience, seems to have been the case.
535 The rent tribunals are semi-judicial bodies, and at the time of the last debate hon. Members on both sides of the House thought it a bad thing that, by implication, chairmen and members of these tribunals should have no security. I think I am right in saying that on that occasion it was felt that unless there was some sort of misconduct involved, the members of rent tribunals should be able to feel that their appointments were fairly secure.
I think it reasonable to suppose that if, ultimately, chairmen and members do not know their position, responsible people will not be ready to serve on rent tribunals. It could even mean that those who do serve will gauge their own conduct in the light of the approbation they can gain from the Minister and not for the proper carrying out of their functions.
If, for example, a tribunal is faced with a decision which might lead to a High Court action, despite the fact that the tribunal believes that decision to be the right one, it might well give a contrary decision if the Minister is known to object to High Court cases, which, incidentally, is fairly likely to be so in view of Ministerial reluctance to appeal. The mere fact of that unwillingness could govern the decision of a semi-judicial body such as the rent tribunal.
Indeed, if we look at the incidence of High Court cases recently, as though on a graph, it will be seen that it was only after this unwillingness to appeal was established that they began to increase. The constituency which I have the honour to represent is represented by the Hammersmith Rent Tribunal, and the first High Court case which they were concerned in was over three years and 10 months after it was set up.
In rather less than the three years immediately following—the answer given to me the other day was typically in accurate; it said there were eight cases—there were seven other cases, one of which was won. Not once did the Ministry attempt to appeal, even though in one case the decision was reached by a special tribunal with a legal chairman. Arising from another case, there was a subsequent successful prosecution at the Old Bailey brought about by the chairman and the clerk of the tribunal.
536 In the Pick Vance case, concerning the St. Helen's Tribunal, the decision to appeal to the Lords was taken so late that it was got in with only six hours to spare, and the judgment was unanimous and favoured the tribunal. The flow of High Court cases has tapered off. Few things regarding rent tribunals have been more unfortunate than the pusillanimous attitude of the Ministry towards High Court cases and its downright lack of support for the tribunals, thus encouraging the wrong type of landlord to litigate with almost a guarantee of success.
In reply to a Question, I was recently told that the Minister's policy when choosing chairmen was to make the best possible appointments. Is this rather smug reply designed to hide the absence of any policy, or does it mean something even more unfortunate? Does it mean that if Mr. X's qualifications are brought to the notice of the Minister and they impress him, he is at once appointed to a tribunal to replace Mr. Y, who, for some reason or other, is not so interesting to the Minister?

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)
If the hon. Gentleman is making innuendos in a particular case, he ought to specify that case. It is difficult for me to answer generalities.

§ Mr. Rogers
The Minister will have an opportunity of replying shortly. I shall deal with the matter as I go along, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
A member of the Wimbledon Tribunal, as far as I know satisfactory, had been appointed for 12 months, and a few months ago the Ministry let it be known that his appointment would not be renewed but that someone else would be appointed. The Wimbledon Tribunal objected to this procedure; the Chairman went to see the Minister, and his decision was reversed. In other words, the member remained. Yet, for some reason, the Ministry was determined to find a job for the man who did not succeed in getting that post on the Wimbledon Tribunal. I do not know why it was so urgent to find him a job, but shortly afterwards he was appointed Chairman of the Ealing Tribunal where he replaced a lady who is now Chairman of Hammersmith Tribunal.
537 It puzzles me exceedingly why this lady was removed from Ealing Tribunal and sent to Hammersmith in order to make way for this person, against whom I have no complaint, who was put in her place. I cannot understand why the Minister dismissed, with very discourteous short notice, an ex-Service man, 53 years of age, and put in his place a lady of about the same age as Lord Beveridge whom the Minister dismissed for being too old.

§ Mr. Marples
What age is that?

§ Mr. Rogers
About 70.

§ Mr. Marples
The hon. Gentleman says that the lady is 70. Is that a fact?

§ Mr. Rogers
That is what I am informed.

§ Mr. Marples
Does the hon. Gentleman stand by that statement or not?

§ Mr. Rogers
I said that I have been so informed. I have not met the lady, and I am putting it forward as the most accurate information which has been supplied to me by those who should know. Does the Minister question the accuracy of that statement? Does he say that she is 20 or 30 years younger?

§ Mr. Marples
I shall have my opportunity to reply. The hon. Gentleman is making accusations and allegations. He may or may not be right. I am trying to ascertain with certainty what allegation he is making. Is she 70? It is up to the hon. Gentleman to say what he thinks.

§ Mr. Rogers
The Minister does not seem to know her age. I am informed that the lady's age is 70, and that is the age at which Lord Beveridge was said to be too old. She was moved to the Hammersmith Tribunal after, I understand, she made a request to be shifted from the previous tribunal. Here again, there was some reason for finding this lady another post, and, in order to make room for the first-mentioned gentleman—I do not want to mention names particularly—the chairmen of two tribunals were moved around and, finally, this gentleman was found a job.
I consider that the Chairman of the Hammersmith Tribunal was treated with discourtesy. A letter dated 8th September did not reach him until the 14th, terminating his employment on the 30th of the same month. The Minister, 538 despite an urgent letter from me, declined to see the other members of that tribunal, who were very unhappy about the peremptory dismissal of the Chairman.
At one time the Minister seemed to suggest that he wanted legally trained people at the head of the tribunals. Yet, in reply to my Question, he said that his policy is to appoint the best people to the job. It is nonsense to suggest that legal minds do not make mistakes. The courts and the prisons are full of them, and I question whether legally trained chairmen would have a better record than lay chairmen who had only seven or eight cases taken to the High Court out of 5,176.
I want to assure the Minister that these changes have left a nasty taste in many mouths. I hope he has a satisfactory explanation of these changes, and that he can explain what principles guide his Department in the choice of these people.

§ Mr. John Hay (Henley)
I intervene for a few moments because I feel that the House should not be left with a complete misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman complained about appeals from tribunals not being supported by the Ministry. The fact is that there is no appeal from the decision of a tribunal. The only power there is is the power of the High Court to intervene to quash proceedings if there has been some irregularity. It is not for me to argue at this point whether there should or should not be appeals. I hold very strong views on the subject.
However, I do think that before the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) comes here to make rather wild accusations, praying in aid what he calls appeals that have not been heard by the High Court, and to attack the Minister of Housing and Local Government, he ought first to get his facts more correct than he has got them. I hope that my hon. Friend, when dealing with the administrative side of the matter, will agree with the statement made by the Minister that the best people to be chairmen of rent tribunals should be those with some legal qualifications.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kensington, 539 North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) gave me notice, in the usual way, that he was raising this matter, but I confess that the notice was not as detailed as I should have liked it to have been to enable me to answer his particular accusations. He has raised two points. The first is a general one on rent tribunals and the second relates to particular cases, specifying no individual, yet making innuendoes, which makes it difficult for me to reply.
On the general proposition of rent tribunals, I would say that my right hon. Friend makes these appointments to the rent tribunals fairly on merit. They have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Almost every appointment he has made, perhaps a new town, perhaps to a rent tribunal, has been of someone who does not belong to a particular political party, but consequent accusations are made that it is unfair. I know of one case in a new town where he appointed a member of the hon. Gentleman's party and my own party said that the appointment was unfair and biased.
In this particular case to which I think the hon. Gentleman was referring. Hammersmith, a Liberal was replaced by a qualified barrister, and there the hon. Gentleman has been wrong in most of his accusations. The first one was that Lord Beveridge was dismissed as too old at 70 and yet a lady who was appointed in place of the chairman was of the same age. The hon. Gentleman, knowing the opposite sex far better than I do, would not expect me to give the lady's age away, but she was qualified and the hon. Gentleman was about 10 per cent. wrong about her age, and in the wrong direction. So he was completely wrong.
The second accusation was that these two tribunals were unhappy about these appointments, including that of this lady. He was wrong again in that respect. A member of his own party wrote into the Ministry and dissociated himself from any letter of protest about the dismissal of the chairman—or, rather, the fact that there was not a renewal of the chairman in the office—and the appointment of a new one.

§ Mr. G. H. R. Rogers
The hon. Gentleman is not talking of Hammersmith Tribunal, is he?

§ Mr. Marples
I am referring to it openly. The hon. Gentleman referred to it rather obliquely. I am talking about Hammersmith Tribunal.
A letter came from the third member of the tribunal, a Labour councillor for a North London constituency. I shall not specify which, because I do not want to introduce personalities, and I should not have gone so far if the hon. Gentleman had not put me in a dilemma. It is repugnant to discuss personalities, but what else can I do to refute the allegations the hon. Gentleman has made? I must introduce this matter. A member of the tribunal who is a Labour councillor for a North London constituency said in a letter to my right hon. Friend that he supported the Minister's decision. He did not wish to be associated with any letter of protest.
So there were people of the hon. Gentleman's party on the side of the Minister. I have been associated with my right hon. Friend now for two years. The hon. Gentleman may say many things against him, but he has made these appointments quite fearlessly, irrespective of party, irrespective of politics, on the basis of who is the best person to do the job. The person who was replaced at Hammersmith as the chairman was not qualified legally. He tried to qualify legally, and he studied law, but, unfortunately, the examiners had not the same high opinion of his abilities as the person himself. He has been replaced by someone who succeeded in the examination and therefore, on that account, I do not think that the appointment is unreasonable.
The hon. Member for Kensington, North may think it unreasonable, but I must tell him that in the three years, the Hammersmith Rent Tribunal has lost eight cases in the High Court out of all the cases which it has sent there and has, in point of fact, lost more than any other tribunal. That may have something to do with the legal qualifications of its chairman; equally, I agree, it may not, but it is a point that should be taken into consideration.

§ Mr. Rogers
They have been majority decisions.

§ Mr. Marples
The hon. Gentleman may say that the High Court should have a different constitution, or that its 541 decisions are wrong, and I cannot give him an answer on that; but the fact is that the Hammersmith Tribunal was wrong more often than any other similar tribunal.

§ Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that is an absolute figure, or a percentage figure?

§ Mr. Marples
I suppose that it could be given as a percentage figure, but if it was it would be meaningless for the reason that so few cases are remitted to the courts.
The Act under which the tribunals operate was passed by the Socialist Government in 1946 and amended in 1949, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we are doing our utmost to operate it fairly although, in certain respects, we disagree with it. But it is our duty to operate it and my right hon. Friend has tried his very best to work it with fairness. There is no ordinary machinery of appeal from the decisions of a tribunal. It is not a question of a higher court reversing the decision of a lower court.
Only when a tribunal appears to have exceeded its jurisdiction, or to have made a wrong determination in law, can action be taken. By jurisdiction I mean what is within its competence to decide. If it has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction, then the rather expensive machinery of the High Court can be set in motion; with the knowledge that the applicant may lose. Consequently, perhaps because of that, the number of cases which have gone to the High Court has been infinitesimal. As I have said, the Hammersmith Tribunal has had no fewer than eight cases lost in the High Court, and that 542 figure is in excess of the number of cases lost by any other tribunal.
I might add that the nearest approach to that figure was from the Paddington Tribunal; and there, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) split the tribunal into two, and gave the old chairman control of the smaller part for three months and he was replaced in 1952.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
Did he give a warning?

§ Mr. Marples
I cannot answer that question without notice.

§ Mr. Stewart
I am told that he did not give a warning.

§ Mr. Marples
I must say that it is in the interest of Tribunals generally, and of the efficiency of that with which we are concerned tonight in particular, that the chairman of this one should be replaced in view of the failures so often in the courts. The appointment has been filled by a lady with legal qualifications, and she has, incidentally, rendered excellent service to another tribunal. I do not think that the hon. Member for Kensington, North, who is normally most moderate, is doing his constituency, or the work of the tribunals as a whole, any good when he raises an allegation of this sort without being more specific; and, if he wishes to pursue this matter further, I shall be pleased to consider any specific cases which he may bring to my notice.