§ Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 44, after "occupier" insert "to require the owner".
§ Mr. Tom KingI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a valid point. As originally drafted, the Bill referred to the right of the occupier to extend the term. The occupier does not grant the agreement. Therefore, we need to insert the words "to require the owner" to extend the agreement. That is an obvious and necessary correction.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 9, leave out "subsection (2) of section 2" and insert "section 2(2)".
§ Mr. Tom KingI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is entirely a technical correction.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 4, line 15, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
(d) the annual charge to be made, the intervals at which payment is to be made and provision for reviews of that charge at intervals of twelve months subject to the right of an occupier who has determined the agreement to be repaid by
967
the owner such proportion (if any) of any payment made by him as is attributable to a period after he has ceased to occupy part of the site, any such repayment being apportioned from day to day;".
§ Mr. Tom KingI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 28, leave out paragraph (e).
§ Mr. KingThis is the one change of real substance which has been made by their Lordships since the Bill departed from this House.
The House will be aware that this matter was the subject of keen debate on Report. I moved similar amendments on that occasion. There was disagreement and misunderstanding by hon. Members about the exact impact of the amendments. There have been further discussions with outside bodies—particularly with the Mobile Home Residents Association—to decide what basis might be most acceptable to all parties concerned. The National Caravan Council and the National Federation of Site Operators have made their views known as well.
I believe that this amendment will provide the best basis on which to proceed. The first basis is that the charge is now a single charge. We have avoided the problem of splitting the site charge and the service charge.
The second matter of substance concerns the review period—whether it should be annually, two-yearly or three-yearly. The more I have considered, the more I have been persuaded that it is in the interests of all concerned that the review should be annually. Although there is a fear on the part of tenants that there will be more frequent increases, against that there is the valid point that a site owner who has to decide in the next couple of months what he considers the right rent to fix for two years ahead might, in the present inflationary situation, wish to cover himself for a substan- 968 tial amount in view of possible increases in electricity and water charges, rates, labour costs and other possible eventualities.
There has probably never been a more difficult time for people accurately to budget their costs forward. The tendency would be for perfectly responsible, reasonable site owners to over-cover themselves to the disadvantage of tenants. Therefore, I believe than an annual review is the right way to proceed. After discussion, I think that is now the general view in the House. I think that this is the right way and the best basis on which to initiate the mobile Homes Act, as I hope it will be.
The Minister mentioned the review which he will be carrying on. No doubt this is a matter to which the review will pay attention.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (h) and insert:
(h) the right of the owner to determine the agreement for breach of an undertaking, subject to the requirement, in the case of a breach which is capable of being remedied, that he has served written notice of the breach upon the occupier and has given the occupier a reasonable opportunity of remedying it;
§ Mr. Tom KingI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a simple piece of good English, although that may be a dangerously brave remark to make. It requires that anybody who is determining an agreement for breach of an undertaking should give an opportunity for the person concerned to remedy the breach, but it allows for the fact that that opportunity will not occur for the kind of breach which is incapable of being remedied. I think that is a sensible note to include.
§ Question put and agreed to.