§ Mr. Michael Mates (Hampshire, East)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision as to the circumstances in which possession of a dwelling-house is recoverable under Case 11 in Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977 and Case 11 in Schedule 2 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and as to the parliamentary procedure applicable to an Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which states that it is made for corresponding purposes.
The Bill seeks to put right a flaw in two previous Rent Acts which has come to light only recently as a result of an Appeal Court decision.
It was the universally held view that case 11 of schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977, which repeated the provisions of the Rent Act 1965, meant that an owner who let his or her home on a contractual tenancy while he or she was away could repossess that home once the contract had ended. The Appeal Court, however, in the recent case of Pocock v. Steele found that, because there had been a further letting during the absence of the owner, that provision did not apply. Therefore, my constituent, Mrs. Pocock, was unable to get back her home and her possessions inside it.
The result of that judgment is that many people who have let their homes in good faith for a short period while they are away overseas—perhaps on Crown service or on private business—may not now be able to repossess either their homes or their goods and chattels inside their homes.
The purpose of the Bill is, therefore, to restore the law to that which Parliament thought it was when it enacted those measures—first, the Labour Government in 1965, the Labour Government again in 1977 and the Conservative Government in the Housing Act 1980. We seek to restore the position to that which every Member of the House thought it was at the time when those measures were enacted.
It will not be news to the House that this sort of legislation cannot be enacted by a private Member without the consent of all the parties in the House. I am happy to 188 say that this is one of the more civilised occasions in the House when all parties are agreed that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment.
I am grateful not only to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), but to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who has written to me in generous terms:
I write on behalf of the Official Opposition to confirm that we have no objection to your proposed Bill. Indeed we hope it reaches the Statute Book.I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who speaks on housing matters on behalf of the Liberal party, and to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who does the same on behalf of the Social Democratic party. The fact that I have not contacted hon. Members representing all the minor parties is a matter for which I apologise, but I have been unable to identify who speaks on this matter.I therefore hope that I shall be given leave to bring in the Bill and that, with the help of all concerned, it will have a speedy passage through the House and become law, so that the law returns to that which we all thought it was until the Appeal Court, in its correct independence, informed us otherwise.
Question put and agreed to.Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. John Cartwright, Sir Paul Hawkins, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Allan Roberts and Mr. Neil Thorne.