MOBILE HOMES BILL (Hansard, 20 June 1975)

HL Deb 20 June 1975 vol 361 cc1148-85 1148

§ 2.20 p.m.

§ Lord ELTON
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.

§ [The Lord Maybray-King in the Chair.]

§ Clause 1

§ [Duty to offer agreements.]:

§ Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 11, leave out (" or main ").

§ The noble Baroness said: I consider that if this Bill is to be successful in helping the homeless, the overhoused and the young married couples, surely the mobile home must be the only home. It is for this reason I should like to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. For 19 years as a Member of the House of Commons I had an interview session every Saturday and I learned, much to my sorrow, of the great problem of homelessness. It was not only that, but when there were debates in the House it seemed to me that this was a universal problem throughout the country. Various Acts of Parliament have, regrettably, stopped many people either from letting their house or from selling their flat. I believe very sincerely that from the moment children are born the whole environment begins to affect them. Overcrowding leads to wife beating, to baby battering, to divorces and also to vandalism because young people leave homes which are overcrowded. People are sleeping in undesirable places. 1149 Quite a number of times they are sleeping in vans—they have nowhere else to go—or in damp basements or in attics or women having to share kitchens. Many people have no shelter at night and sometimes they are found shelter by the local authorities but afterwards have to wander again.

§ As, in this Bill, it is to be the main and only home, I should like to know how it is to be judged, how many months have to be occupied in the main home? In my opinion, what are being created are second homes which I consider undesirable. Many people have homes and take the mobile home as a second home. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that this Bill was to help the homeless. I find that it will not do so unless this Amendment is accepted. If it is the only home and should the owner sell it at a profit he does not have to pay Capital Gains Tax.

§ A Minister recently put forward Circular No. 24 on housing needs and action from the Department of the Environment. It has been summarised as follows: To meet immediate needs mobile homes or other forms of housing which can be made available quickly should sometimes be provided or allowed and such proposals will be sympathetically"— that is, by the Minister— considered for key sector loan consent. Local authorities are asked to speed the lengthy process of designing and building local authority dwellings, and in particular designs should avoid complexity intended ' to seek an interesting scheme '.

§ I think that this Circular to the local authorities should be helpful if it is carried out. The immediate need is for mobile homes and other forms of housing that can be made quickly available. I think that with this Circular from the Minister there is no reason why it should not be carried out.

§ In many areas there were "prefab" houses which were in good condition but, unfortunately, they were pulled down too soon. I think it unfortunate that in Clause 9 of the Bill "mobile home" regrettably has the same meaning as "caravan" in Part 1 of the 1960 Act as amended by the 1968 Act. I have brochures here but I cannot mention names; but I think that a mobile home is completely different from a caravan and should have a different distinctive title.

1150

§ In Gibraltar for example, the Royal Navy was housed in these mobile homes. They preferred to have permanent homes, of course; but this was much better than them having to share, and it was better for the wives to be able to be with their husbands. In Devonport recently the Navy used "prefabs" while rebuilding on the site of "H.M.S. Drake ", and there are some nice "prefabs" in Wiltshire. There are plenty of sites and they will go on standing empty for economic reasons. Certainly roads will not be built. There is one road, where several hundred prefabs were pulled down in order for it to be made into a main road, which will not now be constructed, after all. With unemployment rising, a family could take a mobile home to a certain area, particularly Scotland where so many men have to work and leave their families behind. In America it is not unusual to see mobile homes being taken on a lorry from one place to another.

§ Who is to decide the meaning of "main"? I suggest that we take out "or main" but leave in "only" in view of the housing shortage. The expression "only or main residence "has been used in the Bill because of the expression in Section 29 of the Finance Act 1965 dealing with the exemption of capital gains. But if it is an only home and it is sold at a profit, capital gains tax will not be payable. My noble friend might consider some other phrase such as "usual place of abode" which I gather is used in Section 38(1)(b). of the Land Compensation Act 1961.

§ I am astonished that this Bill defines a mobile home and states that it has the same meaning as caravan. Surely to call this the Mobile Homes Bill is a misnomer. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, regarding the attitude of the Government to the Bill, said that the problem of mobile homes was the responsibility, in the main, of the Secretary of State for Trade. He also said that, in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was involved, but that he would be keeping in close touch with both. How absurd can one become when the main desire is to create new homes for the people themselves! There is a 1151 waiting list for these sites of approximately 20,000 people who could be moved into mobile homes in the not too distant future. More sites could be made available. At least 10,000 houses or flats might be released.

§ If the noble Lord cannot accept this exact Amendment, I hope he will give me an assurance that he will look into this to see that this Bill creates new homes for the homeless, and that the other people who have another home somewhere else, can either have a caravan which they can tow, or provide themselves with a caravan site. We shall be doing a great service not only to individual people, but to the whole country if we can relieve some of the destitute people who are in need of homes. I beg to move.

§ 2.28 p.m.

§ Lord AVEBURY
I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, but I am not sure I followed her argument or whether, with this Amendment, she was intending to probe the sponsors of the Bill to see if a more precise definition of the word "main" could be ascertained. As I understood what the noble Baroness was saying, the connection between the availability of mobile homes and the provisions of Clause 1 was not immediately apparent. Nor was it clear to me how, by striking out the word "main ", as she suggested, any additional sites were to be provided, and the waiting list of 20,000 people, to which she referred, was to be diminished.
The noble Baroness made an important point when she referred to the definition of main " in the Finance Act 1965, which applies to owner-occupiers of ordinary dwellings. She said that provision was made in that Act for exemption from capital gains tax where a person had two or more homes and had to choose one of them to which the exemption applied. That was obviously sensible because the Government and their successors would not have wished to extend that concession so that an unlimited number of houses were to come under it, if anybody was fortunate enough to have more than one place of residence. Precisely the same argument must apply in the case of mobile homes, although hitherto it has been very unusual for anyone to make a capital gain on dis- 1152 posing of his interest in a pitch. Of course, that position may change now under the Bill since the right of transfer of an agreement is written into a later clause and the occupier might have a capital asset of which he could dispose. In that case it would be very important, I suggest, that the provisions of the Finance Act 1965 should be extended to the capital gain which the occupier would then enjoy.
However, if one looks at Clause 1 in full one sees that it refers only to persons who are occupying, or intending to occupy, a mobile home on a protected side. The definition of "a protected site" is found in Clause 9, which excludes sites for which the licence is only for holiday use or, in equivalent terms, such as to allow occupation only at certain times of the year. Therefore, if the noble Baroness has in mind those sites which are entirely for holiday makers, they are already excluded and the person occupying a caravan on one of those sites for two weeks of his annual holiday, or even for much longer periods of the year, would not qualify for the protection given to others under this Bill. So that leaves to be dealt with sites which are entirely residential, and there are a few where the licences allow a mixture of both holiday and residential use. We have a minor problem here, and perhaps the Minister can say something about the number of places on sites which are not specifically residential or holiday but have a mixture of the two uses, where the respective numbers are not clearly laid down in the licence.
What the noble Baroness is saying is that on those sites where the occupation is incontestably of a residential nature—and, after all, the person has to sign a declaration that this is the case the protection conferred on everybody else under the Bill will be denied to an occupier if he is in any other premises for some fraction of the year, however small. The noble Baroness asked the question, to which it would be interesting to know the answer: When we speak of "main", does that imply some minimum length of residence? Certainly in debates on the electoral law, the noble Baroness may remember—I think she took part in the debates on the Representation of the People Bill in 1968—this point came up.
1153 The question arose whether, if a person had a residence, say, in South Kensington and another in North Cornwall, and he was not specific as to the amount of time he spent in each of one of them. would he be able to pick and choose which was his qualifying address for the purpose of exercising his vote under the Representation of the People Bill? The answer is that this point has never been really gone into by the courts and it is a matter for the discretion of the householder.
As I read this Bill, if the occupier declared that a mobile home is his main residence the courts would not be entitled to ask him detailed questions about the length of time which he spent there and the length of time he spent in any other residence where he had a right of occupation. But the principle which the noble Baroness is suggesting—that is, that the protection should vary according to the nature or length of occupation of the pitch—is not one which has ever been suggested for application to housing. And I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it would be decisively rejected if it ever were.
The person who lives in a council house or in a privately rented dwelling might own a caravan and reside there at some period of the year, either on holiday for two weeks or over the weekends—or, if he is fortunate, he might have even longer for his vacation than that. Because he owns or rents a caravan or some other holiday home, he does not thereby forfeit the protection conferred on him by the Rent Acts in his council house or privately rented dwelling. Therefore, I suggest that in this Bill it would be quite illogical for us to prevent a person who owns or occupies a caravan as his principal residence from having the same protection if he is fortunate enough to own or have rights of occupation in any other premises.

§ 2.36 p.m.

§ Lord MELCHETT
I am sure that members of the Committee will forgive me if I start to talk about the conservation of caravans half way through my speech! Indeed, my sense of schizophrenia is added to by the fact that I am rising from these Benches to resist the Amendment of the noble Baroness and 1154 am thereby, as I see it, benefiting people who own more than one home. It is an unusual position for a Member of this Government to be in. However, the effect of the Amendment of the noble Baroness would be to limit the application of the Bill to occupiers who have no other residence except the mobile home in which they live. Even if this Amendment were accepted, without doubt the majority of permanent mobile residents would stand to benefit from the legislation. However, it seems harsh to exclude those who have a second home elsewhere and who occupy their mobile home as their principal residence.
The noble Baroness mentioned one previous example of where this form of words is used. There is another precedent for the phrase "only or main residence" in section 1(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The noble Baroness is concerned lest protection is offered to second home dwellers. However, the Bill does not apply to occupants using their mobile homes as second homes or holiday residences. This is a point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Most of these occupants probably occupy sites or parts of sites which are not used all the year round, and thus in any event are not covered by the Bill. These people are different from those who live in their mobile home as their main residence, even though they have another but secondary home elsewhere. Such residents are similar in kind to those whose caravan is their only residence, in that both categories would regard it as home. Therefore it seems only fair that the protection offered by the Bill should extend to both categories. When Parliament has granted the very substantial benefits conferred by the Leasehold Reform Act to people who occupy the houses concerned as their main but not their only residence, it seems not unreasonable that the residential entitlement to the benefit of this Bill should follow a similar procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me about the definition of "main ". As I understand it, no further definition is thought to he required. In any dispute ultimately it would be a matter for the county court to decide, and the fact that it has been used in previous legislation 1155 would mean that there was some experience of deciding this matter.

§ Lord ELTON
I do not wish unnecessarily to extend this debate. The most that needs to be said has been said. I hope that in the light of what has been said the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this Amendment, which in my view does not extend protection to a significant class of people. It will not ensure the release on to the market of more housing stock than is at present available, and if it did it would be so marginal as hardly to make any difference. All of us are concerned to increase the available housing stock and to put roofs over people who have no roofs under which to live. That is a principal aim of our whole society and our political effort at the moment, and a good deal of our political argument centres on the way in which it should be done. This way would not have a sufficiently significant effect to justify narrowing the Bill so as to exclude from security of tenure a number of people for whom this is not their second but their principal home, who may need a pied a terre elsewhere for their work and who may have a caravan on a park in Cornwall which they occupy for a fortnight a year and which they would have to own up to, thereby excluding themselves from the protection afforded by this Bill.

Baroness VICKERS
In view of what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 1 agreed to.

§ Clause 2 [Term of agreements etc.]:

§ Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 4:

§ Page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— (" (2) Where—

(a). an owner of a protected site who is deemed to have complied with this section by virtue of paragraph (a). of the proviso to subsection (1) above subsequently acquires a new or extended estate or interest in the land comprising the site; or
(b). an owner of a protected site is deemed to have complied with this section by virtue of paragraph (b). of the proviso to subsection (1) above and planning permission is subsequently granted for the use of the land 1156 comprising the site as a site for mobile homes either without limitation or for a specified period,

the owner shall offer to extend the term of any agreement entered into in pursuance of a duty imposed on him by section 1 of this Act for a period which expires on whichever of the following dates first occurs:

(i) a date which is five years from the date on which the agreement commenced;
(ii) the date when his estate or interest in the land ceases; or
(iii) the date on which planning permission expires.").

§ The noble Lord said: This is largely a technical matter, and I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that it had not been foreseen. The Bill as it at present stands provides that agreements which are to be offered under Clause 1 must be for a minimum term of five years. Subsection (1) deals with the situation where either the site owner's interest in the land or the planning permission for use of the site for caravans is insufficient to enable a five year term to be granted. Subsection (2) then caters for the situation where an owner who has necessarily had to offer agreements of less than five years, because of limited interest in the land or limited planning permission, gets his interest or planning permission extended and in these circumstances he must extend the duration of the agreement.

§ However, subsection (2) of the clause as it stands in the Bill applies only where the interest or permission is extended to a date which is more than five years from the date of the commencement of the agreement. It fails to cover the case where the owner's interest in the land or his limited planning permission is extended but to a point less than five years from the commencement of the agreement. This Amendment ensures that whenever a site owner gets his interest or planning permission extended for any period, he must extend the agreement either up to five years from the date of the original commencement, or, where this is not possible, because the renewed interest or permission expires before then, up to the end of that renewed interest or permission. This is clearly what the sponsors of the Bill had in mind at the outset, but it was overlooked that if the precise length of time did not match the permission there would be a gap, which would make nonsense of the intentions of 1157 the Bill and provide little advantage to anybody. I beg to move.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 3 [Particulars to be contained in agreement]:

§ 2.44 p.m.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 5:

§ Page 3, line 38, at end insert— ("( ) the description of the mobile home stationed or to be stationed on the site and provisions to enable the occupier to replace such mobile home with another during the period of the agreement, subject to the owner's consent which shall not be unreasonably withheld; ").

§ The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that unless there is some provision in the Bill for the mobile home itself to be identified in the agreement, considerable difficulties and uncertainties could arise. These would be greater if the terms of the agreement had to be specified by the courts as provided for in later clauses, and the courts are given no guidance in this matter by the law. I am sure your Lordships will agree that vagueness in legislation should be avoided wherever possible. Precision is desirable and here is a case in point.

§ From the practical point of view, and in the draft form of agreement that I am advised is so near to mutual acceptance by the three parties concerned—the National Caravan Council, the National Federation of Site Operators and the Mobile Home Residents' Association—it has not been disputed that the mobile home should be identified in the agreement. That being so, it would seem desirable that it should be included. If it is not so identified, any resident would be quite within his rights to replace his present home for another. The new home might, or might not, be suitable from the point of view of its compliance with the relevant British Standard, and there are a number of standards, mostly related to safety and comfort in all seasons of the year. But a home can infringe the site licence conditions because of its dimensions, and this is of some considerable substance. This would then put the park owner in an impossible position. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that it is important 1158 that the site owner should be consulted before any replacements are made.

§ Having identified the mobile home at the time of the commencement of the agreement, I suggest that it is equally important to provide for its replacement. That might become necessary in the case of an accident, such as a fire or something of that kind, which would make the original mobile home uninhabitable or, indeed, the owner might quite naturally wish to replace it with a more modern home. I suggest to your Lordships that it might also be to the advantage of the occupier to have the mobile home identified if he is seeking credit for the purchase of a unit. For these various reasons, I suggest that the Bill is improved if the Amendment is included. I beg to move.

§ Lord ELTON
I regret that I have to resist this Amendment on two sufficient grounds. First, it seems to me to be unnecessary; and, secondly, it does not seem to me to achieve its declared intention. I hope it is understood by those who have read the Bill that the terms which have to be included in the agreement, and which are listed in this clause, are not the only terms which may be included in the agreement. It is open to a site owner to put down as many other agreements as he thinks proper, and as the home occupier is prepared to sign for.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, said that if the specifications were not included, a replacement home might be unsafe, because it did not conform with British Standard Specifications, or might infringe the conditions upon which the licence for a site had been given to the site owner. I should have thought it was a very imprudent and improvident site owner who did not put in his agreement words to the effect that no home occupier might introduce on to that site something which would result in his loss of the licence. Almost anything might be dragged on to the site if the owner did not put that in. I doubt very much indeed whether many site owners at present extend this extraordinary generosity in terms of admission to their sites. Nevertheless, if such people exist, it is open to them under the Bill as now drafted to protect themselves by putting in those specifications for their own protection. To that extent, therefore, I feel that the Amendment is superfluous, because it 1159 introduces no new rights whatsoever to anybody.

§ Lord AVEBURY
If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will forgive me for interrupting him, apart from the words at the beginning of the preamble to Clause 3, "without prejudice to the generality ", would not the site operator also be able to specify the dimensions and other characteristics of the mobile home under the provisions of paragraph (g), which says that "such other provisions" may be included in the agreement as are "necessary to maintain the standards ". That phrase presumably includes the standards imposed on the site operator by the local authority under the licence.

§ Lord ELTON
The noble Lord helpfully anticipates my next point, which is this. There is an understandable alarm among site owners that the Bill as it stands might be something which I think they term a "banger's charter ". I should explain that a "banger" is not something which makes a noise, but something which looks as if it will collapse. It is perfectly possible for the site owner to put in specifications as to the standards of maintenance and the dimensions, as the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, helpfully said, and indeed anything else he thinks is helpful, under the Bill as it now stands.
I presume this is intended by the site operators to meet their point that the duty to offer to enter into what is, in effect, an eight year agreement will mean that existing residents who live in old worn-out homes will be given the right to remain in occupation of them. Either they can say, "The only agreement we can offer you is one that you will not be able to meet with your present residence because it will have deteriorated in the next three years and you must take the risk if you sign it ", or, if the occupant then signs that undertaking, he has to maintain his home at the acceptable level so that the standard of the site does not decline. If he refuses to do so, which he may do, he may be allowed to remain on the site but he loses the protection of the Bill.
The point is that the Amendment would not appear to have the desired effect which the noble Lord seeks, as the option to replace the existing mobile home would rest with the occupier, as the 1160 Amendment is drafted, and there is no provision giving the owner the right to require that it be replaced by another because of its deteriorating condition. That is something he would still have under the Bill, and which is not due to the Amendment as it now stands. It should be in the agreement. The owner who wants to preserve the standard of mobile homes on his site is not protected by this Amendment, but is perfectly capable of protecting himself, and I would be astonished if he did not do so.

Baroness VICKERS
I was going to support this Amendment, because I thought it was very reasonably aimed at greater clarification, which I always think is advantageous. Also, the exact location of the pitch would facilitate subsequent administration.

§ Lord ELTON
Is this Amendment concerned with the location?

Baroness VICKERS
As it has already been turned down rather forcibly, I will leave that. May I put one point which might be of interest to the sponsors? There was a conference between the National Caravan Council, the National Federation of Site Operators and the Mobile Homes Residents' Association, and that was frustrated by the refusal of the residents to return to the conference table. They have now sent a letter saying that they have agreed to do so. This may be advantageous in the future.

§ Lord ELTON
I welcome this sign of growing good will between the parties concerned. That is all I have to add, except that I do not think the Amendment would achieve what it sets out to achieve, and therefore I must ask your Lordships not to support it.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL
We have had from my noble friend a very full statement of the reasons why he considers this Amendment will not achieve the objectives it was hoped would be achieved. In the circumstances, therefore, I should like to withdraw this Amendment. I should also like to study very carefully all that has been said, in case it may be necessary to return to the subject on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1161

§ 2.55 p.m.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 6:

§ 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 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; ").

§ The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience if at the same time we could discuss Amendment No. 7. The reasons for proposing this Amendment are that the system of splitting the annual charges was introduced as a compromise to meet the needs and the requirements of the site owners and the mobile home occupiers. On the one hand, the longer the gaps that exist between reviews the greater the sense of security of the occupiers of mobile homes. On the other hand, with inflation running at its present very high rate, the site owner needs to be able to make adjustments to meet higher costs.

§ The site owners have been opposed in principle from the very beginning, and this was made clear to the promoters of the Bill by both the National Caravan Council and the National Federation of Site Operators when the Bill was introduced. I think it is the fact that all values and costs rise in inflationary situations, and while wages and costs of materials and services may be more easily seen to be rising that does not mean that land values, for example, and the capital costs and interest rates are not also rising. Therefore, the site owners see that it does not seem to be justifiable to separate the charges, but they indeed see that there are serious disadvantages to the mobile home occupants if these charges are split.

§ It is fairly obvious that the longer the gap between reviews the higher must be the increase in charges each time in order to anticipate inflationary trends. It must be obvious to your Lordships that each increase that is made must come as an ever bigger shock to the mobile home occupant. Most other factors are reviewed annually, such as 1162 pensions, rates, and salaries; indeed, at the present time owing to the high rise of inflation, we often have biannual reviews of quite a number of items. If the charges continue to be split it is probable that the site owners will load as many costs as possible into that part that can be reviewed annually. This also would be a disadvantage to the occupiers of mobile homes because VAT will automatically be attracted by the management services.

§ Perhaps I should here explain that the service element in the site fee is liable to VAT in any case, but it is not always easily definable, and then not only would this system of splitting the original charge precisely define the services element, but it is likely to inflate it too. I suggest that that would be to the disadvantage of the mobile home occupier but would make no difference to the site owners. For these reasons, I very much hope that this Amendment and Amendment No. 7 may be agreed. I beg to move.

§ 3.0 p.m.

§ Lord AVEBURY
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has discussed this matter in detail with the National Federation of Site Operators and the National Caravan Council and that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, are putting forward the views of those organisations. Perhaps I should say at the outset that I have the honour to be President of the National Mobile Home Residents Association and therefore it will come as no surprise to the noble Lord that I shall not agree with everything that he said, or with what the noble Baroness said in her brief speech at the end of the last Amendment.
I must take issue with the noble Baroness for raising a correspondence of which we in this Committee have no knowledge and for saying things in this Chamber which are not likely to encourage, harmonious relationships between the site operators' organisations and the National Mobile Home Residents, for whom I have the honour to sneak. I knew nothing about the correspondence to which she referred, but I must say that if one looks back over the long history of negotiations between the site operators and the residents one sees that it has been a question of intransigence on the part of the site operators and a willingness 1163 to move by the residents which did not result in any progress until this legislation was brought forward, and we could have gone on arguing ad infinitum without making any progress if Mr. Tom King had not brought forward the measure which we are now discussing. I am sorry to have had to say this, but the noble Baroness provoked me by what she said at the conclusion of the last Amendment.

Earl FERRERS
The noble Lord will agree that he does not speak for the Mobile Home Residents' Association, but for himself? I do not think any noble Lord speaks on behalf of anyone.

§ 3.3 p.m.

§ Lord AVEBURY
I was using a shorthand term and what the noble Lords says equally applies to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. They speak of course for themselves, but one knows that the views which they are expressing are likely to be as acceptable to the site operators as mine are to those for whom this Bill is designed, those who live in mobile homes as their permanent residences. Perhaps I used a form of shorthand which could be misunderstood and I accept the noble Lord's clarification. One looks at this Amendment in the light of one's knowledge of the fact that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are representing the site operators and one must say that despite the fact that the noble Lord maintains that it is in the interests of the residents because of the VAT implications—and we went into all that on Second Reading and quite thoroughly in another place—what is the snag?
As I see it—I mentioned this briefly on Second Reading—if we accept that an annual review of both elements of the charge is the most convenient and simple answer to the problem, then we must have some provision which restricts the increases which the site operator can demand at those intervals. If there is no rule by which the increases in charges are to be determined, then every time the matter will have to be referred to the courts in the case of a dispute and therefore I see the Amendment as being to the disadvantage of the residents. I have already said that so far as I can see it would be perfectly acceptable to have the annual review of both parts, but only on 1164 that condition, and if the noble Lord has any further suggestions to make as to how the residents can resist demands for what are perfectly unreasonable increases at these annual intervals, one would be happy to hear about that.
The noble Lord mentioned that costs of site operators go up like everything else in an inflationary era and one accepts that in general, but the three elements to which he referred were land values, capital costs and interest rates. If one takes the first, land values, they do frequently go up pari passu with inflation, but over the last two years that has not been the case, as the noble Lord is probably aware. If one looks at the indices which are published, at any rate of agricultural land values, one sees that they have been falling quite steeply from the peak of 1972. Thus, on the noble Lord's argument that the value of the land on which these mobile homes stand has been dropping since 1972, at the annual review so should drop the charges which are levied. I think I heard the noble Lord say "Exactly ", but we never find this happening in practice. The noble Lord is aware that when the individual rating of caravans was introduced, so that the site operators were relieved of the charges which they formerly had to bear, those charges were transferred to the individual residents. That never led to any reduction in the charges that were made to the mobile home residents. The landlords simply pocketed the money which they formerly had to pay out in rates. Similarly, if land values are going to fall I cannot believe that this is going to be taken into account in the annual revisions which the noble Lord is proposing.
The second element which he suggested should be considered was capital costs. If the site is one in which model conditions have already been implemented before these agreements are offered, then there is no question of additional capital cost being incurred. Assuming that they already have hardstandings and adequate washing facilties, that there are roadways on the site, children's playgrounds and all the rest of the things laid down in the model rules, and that individual caravans are connected to main drainage and have proper electric light and so on, would the noble Lord care to say what 1165 additional capital expenditure he envisages might be incurred during the course of the 12 months period which is going to justify a review at those intervals?
The last thing the noble Lord mentioned was interest rates. I do not suppose anybody embarking on the substantial expenditure of providing a caravan site is going to do so with money borrowed from the bank. He is going to do so, or he will have done so in the past, on the basis of medium-term loans on which the interest rate would be fixed. It would be a most unwise landlord who, in a year of rapid inflation, would incur long-term debts at variable rates of interest, or would incur short-term debts which may be recalled when the going is tough because banks have been asked to reduce their lending and he is thereby placed in a difficult situation at the end of 12 months because the charges, which may have been reasonable at the beginning of that period, have been overtaken by the increase in interest rates. Other than that, the kind of factors that would be taken into consideration in an annual review of rents do not come in and the analogy ceases. Of course, with local authorities and private landlords of residential property there are increases. We all know this.
We have read in the newspapers during the last few days that in the case of some of the London boroughs rents now being charged vary, if at all, only to meet the cost of the repairs which are incurred by the local authorities and private landlords. Therefore a case can be made, as the Secretary of State has been doing, for a fairly substantial increase in the amount that tenants should pay, and with possibly more frequent revisions than have taken place in the past. But none of those arguments apply to people living in mobile homes. Their agreements relate to a small piece of land on which costs have already been incurred before the occupation is taken up. I cannot see that the position is on all fours with those of tenants of private houses. Nevertheless, I am prepared to go along with the noble Lord provided he can assure me that in these annual reviews, without the separation of the charges to which he may otherwise be liable, adequate protection will be afforded to the occupiers against unreasonably increased charges which 1166 are not warranted by the costs incurred by the landlord.

Earl FERRERS
I have a great deal of sympathy with this particular Amendment, and indeed with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just said. Obviously it is absurd if you separate the two charges and then make an obligation to pay VAT. That is an absurdity which will help nobody. Equally, if it is the case that annual charges are to be so extortionate as to be unreasonable, clearly that must be taken account of. But, in an era of inflation, the great danger in having biennial rather than annual charges is not only that the increased charge, when it comes, will be greater but that there is a very real prospect that the site operators may find themselves out of pocket. If that happens, one can imagine the deterioration of the site, which will be to the benefit of nobody. Not only will it not be to the benefit of those who own the sites and of those who live on them; it will also not be to the benefit of all those who live round about. If the standard of the site drops, this will have an effect far wider than upon just the site operators and the residents. I hope that we can come to some form of arrangement under which the annual charge can be retained but can make sure that extortionate increases are not provided for.

§ Lord ELTON
Noble Lords have prefaced their speeches by declaring their interest. My interest is simply as the sponsor of the Bill in this House. It has been sponsored elsewhere in another place and my brief is to try to produce fair legislation. In my view, the Amendment which is before us is a satisfactory conclusion to a long review of the various contingent factors. My noble friend Lord Wakefield who moved it was kind enough to keep me in the picture and I can say that the arguments he has advanced this afternoon, crowning those which he advanced earlier before the debate, convinced me. No such arguments were advanced on behalf of the National Mobile Home Residents' Association and nothing was offered to me on the subject, so I judged their case on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I do not want to take up much of the Committee's time because the noble Lord, 1167 in his concluding paragraph, revealed a willingness to accept the Amendment, on terms. It may not be necessary, therefore, to prolong the argument very much. As a result, I shall only refer in passing to the fact that it seems to me that it is no more difficult to resist unreasonable demands made annually than it is to resist doubly unreasonable demands made biennially. I do not think that there is an advance in making that change which the noble Lord implied would be an improvement. I was slightly left out of the picture by the suggestion that changes in the value of land once it had been bought and was occupied would in any way alter the costs of running the site except in so far as they affected the rateable value. I should have thought that that would normally be marginal. The rest of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, against the Amendment revolved—

§ Lord AVEBURY
I mentioned the cost of land only because it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield. I did not introduce the subject.

§ Lord ELTON
I did not impute the introduction of the matter to the noble Lord, I am sorry if I appeared to do so. I said that the argument about the change in values escaped me. However, I do not think we should pursue that. Similarly. I do not think we should pursue the rest of the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for appearing to be about to resist the Amendment because they seem to me to be much more relevant to the Amendment which he has put down later on in relation to rent control. That is a separate matter. Therefore, if your Lordships are content to believe that heinous injustice by landlords of a grasping nature can be avoided—and I feel that we all believe that they should be resisted and that we may have to review how this can be done—I should recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL
I am grateful for the sympathetic way in which the Amendment has been received by the Committee. Perhaps it would be helpful, if between now and Report stage, consultations take place with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with a view to his possibly moving an Amendment which 1168 might be considered appropriate to give further protection as he might think desirable. I hope that the promoters of the Bill would be willing to look sympathetically at any Amendment moved in that way—

§ Lord ELTON
Before the noble Lord concludes his remarks, may I say that of course the promoters of the Bill will look with care at any provision and will look sympathetically at what they regard as sensible provisions. This is delicate ground upon which we are walking and I urge noble Lords to be aware of this when they approach their consultations before the Report stage, because I do not think that the interests of any parties will be served by an acute and hostile divergence of opinion on the Bill which might delay it and mean that it either became unworkable, or was replaced by something which some noble Lords might think was worse.

§ Lord MELCHETT
As someone who has kept out of the warfare raging on the other side of Committee, may I say that I think that the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, of consultations on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would be welcome? Perhaps it would be considered suitable that, as the Government have kept out of the discussions so far, we could be involved in a neutral capacity in any further discussions.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL
In the light of what has been said, perhaps it is desirable that I should take no further part in the debate on this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL
I beg formally to move Amendment No. 7.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 28, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Wakefield of Kendal.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 3.17 p.m.

§ Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 9:

§ Page 4, line 30, at end insert: ("( ) undertakings by the occupier to observe regulations made by the owner in common for all occupiers of the site governing the conduct of occupiers in relation to their occupancy of the site; ").

1169

§ The noble Viscount said: We are concerned here with compulsory conditions that go into the agreement. On reading paragraph (g) it seemed to me that it was not necessarily apt to cover the sort of house rules that one would expect on many sites, governing the ordinary standards of conduct, the making of noise, perhaps the hanging out of washing, and other matters on a communal site of this kind, with people living fairly close to one another. It seemed that it would be as well to ensure that there was a communal and common set of standards to be adhered to by everybody. With regard to the disputes procedure, your Lordships will see that one of the functions of the courts is to make any disputed agreement contain all the provisions in Clause 3. I therefore felt it would be advisable to spell this out and to ensure that there was no doubt that the kind of rules I have just mentioned should be included in the provisions of the agreement and that the occupiers should undertake to abide by them.

§ It has been pointed out to me that the way the Amendment is drafted would require there to be rules in every case. I suppose that at some sites—perhaps small sites, or those where there are large distances between the mobile homes—it may not be so necessary. I wonder whether the Committee would agree that I amend my own Amendment by way of a manuscript Amendment, so that it would read: undertakings by the occupier to observe any regulations made by the owner in common for all occupiers of the site governing toe conduct of occupiers in relation to their occupancy of the site;".

§ The inclusion of the word "any" after "observe" would take account of the fact that there may be circumstances where there are no common regulations, but would nevertheless deal with the situation where there are and would make everybody subject to them.

§ I do not know what my noble friend Lord Elton has to say about this proposal, but I think it would be as well to deal with the point specifically. If the Committee is prepared to accept my manuscript Amendment to my Amendment the matter would be even clearer, and in any event I very much look 1170 forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.

§ 3.20 p.m.

§ Lord ELTON
A good many of the observations I was about to make concerned the insertion of the word "any" between the word "observe" and "regulations ". I gather that the Deputy Chairman has accepted my noble friend's suggestion and therefore the Amendment is slightly different from that which we were about to consider. I cannot refrain from making an observation which I have already made: that the regulations as they stand allow the insertion of such an undertaking in the form of agreement. But I accept that there are perhaps strong arguments that social behaviour should be encouraged just as much on mobile home sites as on council housing estates, and that the grievances of tenants who suffer from unsocial noises, in particular, would be magnified if they live in structures of thin walls as on mobile home sites. Therefore I do not welcome this Amendment, because I do not feel it is necessary. But I do not think it is in any way harmful and I believe it could in some respects encourage higher standards of behaviour.
I wonder whether the noble Viscount has considered that if the inclusion of such regulations is made obligatory, then quite a new field of litigation would be opened and it would be necessary for the associations concerned to have standard drafts of agreement which could be adhered to by site operators and endorsed by the occupants. Subject to what might be said on either side of the Committee in support of this Amendment, I would not wish at this stage to resist it.

§ Lord AVEBURY
I should be interested to know where the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, got his Amendment from or whether he thought it up from his own knowledge of what happens on caravan sites. If it was suggested by any other person, I should like to know the etiology of it; because I do not know what the noble Viscount's experience is. I have found that in many cases the rules promulgated by the operators of these sites are extremely unreasonable, and I can see a possibility of conflict between the Amendment which the noble Viscount has tabled and the disputes procedure under Clause 4(4) where the court 1171 is required to make an order granting agreements to comply with Section 3 of the Act containing such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. I would suggest to the noble Viscount that these requirements on the court might be in conflict. He says plainly that the occupier has to give an undertaking to observe any regulations whatsoever which may be made by the owner; but these regulations may be unreasonable and so the court is obliged to uphold the provisions which require the occupier to observe the regulations, and is also obliged to see that the agreement is reasonable. The two might be totally incompatible.
Perhaps I might be allowed to give the noble Viscount two examples. I had a site in my former constituency which was run by a real "shark". He made a rule that no person on the site was to have more than one child. If occupiers were unfortunate enough to become pregnant, already having one child, they were given instant notice. After this had been argued for a considerable time and there had been some publicity about it, the owner graciously agreed that in future two children would be permitted by each occupier on the site. The other example is this and it is much more common. I am not suggesting that it happens frequently that site owners make an attempt to impose restrictions on the size of the residents' families, but frequently you will find—and I am sure the noble Viscount will have some knowledge of this—site operators who restrict access to tradesmen by persons on the site while, of course, getting a "rake-off "from the tradesmen who are permitted to operate. For instance, you may only get paraffin or coal from a certain tradesman who is granted the monopolistic situation on the site. That is written into the rules.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that if operators are going to make that regulation, he would not wish to have their power to do so upheld specifically in the Bill. I would much sooner leave this to the sense of the courts, who have to make decisions as to what is reasonable and who would be able to examine any regulations that the site operator attempted to impose, and I would accept those rules which are for the benefit of all occupiers. I agree that there may be 1172 some which are generally desirable for the good conduct of the site, just as on housing estates. These ensure that people do not disturb their neighbours with noise, or hang out washing at times which may be greatly inconvenient to their neighbours. I accept those things. On council estates and private estates there are limits on what the landlord is expected to require from the tenants, and so on caravan sites there must be reasonable limits on the rules which may be imposed. The courts should be the right people to determine that, and we should not give the site operators the power to impose any regulations that they think fit.

§ 3.26 p.m.

§ Lord MELCHETT
I urge the noble Viscount not to press this Amendment, particularly, to reiterate something the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, as the conditions which the operator writes into the agreement are not restricted to those specified in Clause 3. Agreements specifying additional undertakings will comply with the requirements of the Bill, provided its additional conditions do not conflict with those specified in the clause. I think it may weaken the generality of Clause 3. and the fact that what are listed are only things which shall be included and are not meant to be exclusive. If we add many more details to the already long list in Clause 3, the more it is likely to be thought that they are exclusive and that other conditions may not be written into the agreements. I hope the noble Viscount will accept that what he wants may be included in the agreement provided it does not conflict with anything else in the Bill, and that therefore his Amendment is not strictly necessary.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS
This leaves me very puzzled. First of all, as to the etiology of it, it is really a matter of law. I was looking in my own past and found I had been drafting model by-laws and leases for a local authority who ran a caravan site. One of the things that the occupiers had to do was to stick to the site by-laws. There appeared to me to be a good deal to be said for that. May I ask the noble Lords, Lord Elton, or Lord Melchett, whether I am right in understanding that Clause 3, paragraph (g) does not, as it is drafted at the moment, include the provision of undertakings to abide by site 1173 by-laws? It must follow from what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, that the Bill is drafted not to include that, otherwise he could not object to my spelling it out in detail. I thought it was intended to be comprehended by the wording, and the Bill talks about the provisions necessary to maintain the standards reasonably required … in relation to the occupation of the site ". I thought that included the by-laws I was talking about. The noble Lord, I imagine, is now saying it does not and should not.
Secondly, I shall have to raise something with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when we come to Amendment No. 16. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it would be a good thing that the courts should be able to consider the site by-laws, and I think I am right in saying that I have not put down anything in this Amendment which necessarily precludes them from doing that. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will look at subsection (2) of Amendment No. 16, he will find that in a case falling within paragraph (b). of that subsection "— that is, where the occupier has been offered an agreement which falls within the terms of the Bill and has not said anything about it one way or the other—the owner of the site goes along to the court and the court is strictly limited in the powers that it has. It has not powers to approve or to make an agreement which contains the Section 3 provisions and such terms and conditions or such other terms and conditions; it only has power to approve an agreement, as I read it, that complies with Section 3. There is no question of any other conditions for powers at all.
Therefore, if nothing is put in to cover the provision I am speaking about, if the occupier chooses to be idle or pigheaded and not to agree with the ordinary rules that apply to everybody else, he forces the owner to go into the courts and the courts then cannot make that man, and that man only, comply with those rules, however reasonable they may be. That seems to me an insane situation—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will now tell me why I am wrong.

§ Lord MELCHETT
No, I shall not. The noble Viscount should not jump to 1174 conclusions just because I am on my feet. I was going to ask the noble Viscount a question. He is a lawyer and I am not. I should have thought that the reference to Clause 3 in paragraph (b). in my Amendment, to which he referred, would cover the fact that Clause 3—and this is the question I am asking the noble Viscount—includes the words "without prejudice to the generality to the foregoing shall include ", quite clearly saying that Clause 3 is not an inclusive list. I should have thought that the court would be able to take that into account in the reference to Clause 3 later.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS
Perfectly right. That would be an admirable answer, if I may respectfully suggest so, if the noble Lord had not put in, in addition to that, in paragraph (a). of subsection (2), that in addition to complying with Section 3 it may also contain such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable or such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. This may well be a point that comes up in the construction in the county court, and it is a point of some importance.

§ Lord MELCHETT
I have a feeling, unless I am in a muddle, that we are on a point which an Amendment of Lord Elton will raise on the existing clause—that is before my new clause is moved—and it may well be one I am disposed to accept. I hope I have the right wording. Therefore, we shall be coming on to this point at a later stage.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS
I had to deal with the point as to what the courts could do, because the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised it. I am answering the point he made to the Committee a little earlier. But may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his assistance in the point he put to me a little earlier? If I am invited to withdraw this Amendment on the grounds that we do not wish to have anything further that suggests that the list in Clause 3 is exclusive, is it or is it not right that paragraph (g) as it stands is capable of including a requirement or an undertaking by the occupier to stick to the site rules? If it is—and I thought that it was, albeit rather heavily disguised by a number of other things—it may well be that my Amendment is unnecessary. If it is not, and we do not get the procedures right 1175 in the disputes clause when we come to it, then I would suggest to the Committee that my Amendment is extremely necessary because otherwise we shall get into the difficulty I have just mentioned.

§ Lord MELCHETT
I think this is something on which I need to take further advice. My feeling at this stage on paragraph (g) is that whether it is wide enough to include the site rules would very much depend on the rules themselves. But were it not, there is nothing in Clause 3 and in any of its subsections which prevents other rules from being written into an agreement so long as they comply with the rest of the provisions in the Bill. I do not know whether that answers the point the noble Viscount is asking about.

§ Lord AVEBURY
I am not sure whether we have altogether cleared up the point that I raised about Clause 4(4). A later Amendment, No. 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may be accepted. The wording in subsection (2) of that Amendment is identical. Whether we accept Lord Melchett's Amendment or not, my point still stands: the court is required to do two things in determining what should be said in an agreement. It is required to see that the agreement applies to Section 3 and it is required to see that it contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. My main objection to the noble Lord's Amendment is that the two requirements which are placed on the court may be incompatible with each other— that if any rules, as the noble Lord wants to say in his Amendment, are unreasonable, nevertheless, because they are laid down in Section 3, the court has to uphold them. But in doing so it is infringing the other part of paragraph (i) which is set out in Section 4(1)(a). It is upholding terms and conditions which it may well think are unreasonable.
I gave two examples of the kind of rules which I am sure nobody in your Lordships' House would defend. So long as the words "any regulation ", or a similar term, without a preceding qualifying adjective such as "reasonable", appear in this Amendment, I am afraid we shall get ourselves into this difficulty.

§ Lord ELTON
Surely the word "in" is used in the sense " any rain that may 1176 fall on Friday " or any hope that we have of getting the Bill through this House today or next week ". We are getting into unnecessary difficulty. Quite clearly, on the Bill as it stands or on the Bill as amended, as the case may be—because it does not make any difference —a court which was presented with unreasonable rules would rule that no unreasonable regulation conformed with Clause 3.
I would go further and ask whether noble Lords wish to continue this discussion without technical advice, because it is a technical point. The noble Lord who speaks for the Government has already said that he wants technical advice and I would not recommend your Lordships to proceed to the conclusion of the Bill without first having obtained that advice. And perhaps your Lordships' House may wish to take that advice. I say this in no pontificating manner but in the hope that it may facilitate the speedier progress of this Bill through the Committee.

§ Lord AVEBURY
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who has moved this Amendment is a distinguished lawyer. He is fully seized of the point which I make now and would be capable of answering it and advising your Lordships in Committee.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS
I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, either. Certainly I do not wish to waste it by giving advice, which may be wrong advice, to the Committee. Apart from speed, which is very important, I am interested in two things. First, I want to know whether or not my noble friend Lord Elton wishes paragraph (g) to include site rules. Secondly, I want to know in a minute what is to happen about Clause 4, because until we get that straight—and we shall not until I have withdrawn the Amendment or it has been agreed to—we shall not know where we are. We require a certain amount of further thought to be given to this matter behind the scenes. We have raised a problem which ought to be looked at. I am not suggesting that there should be unreasonable regulations, but I think that people should be subject to site rules, particularly if they go to court. Therefore, if we can do something elsewhere 1177 before next Friday I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Lord STRABOLGI
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I announce now that through the usual channels it has been agreed that we should adjourn the Committee at around 4 p.m. today until next Friday, when it is hoped that the Committee stage will be completed.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL
May I ask what opportunity there will then be for consideration between the Committee and the Report stage, because it seems that time may well be required for discussions to take place. I hope, therefore, that reasonable time will be allowed.

§ Lord STRABOLGI
I can give that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal. Without committing my Chief Whip, may I say it is probable that the Report stage will be a week later—on 4th July.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL
I am much obliged.

§ Lord ELTON
May I make the observation that the usual channels are agreed on this procedure on the under standing that sufficient time is provided at an early enough date for this Bill to reach the Commons in time for them to discuss your Lordships' Amendments before the Bill would otherwise lapse. I believe the date is 11th July and therefore it is possible that this may be done: but would your Lordships please bear that in mind.

§ Lord STRABOLGI
I will certainly give that assurance, always bearing in mind, of course, that the different stages of the Bill are completed with some rapidity.

§ 3.40 p.m.

§ Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 10:

§ 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:").

1178

§ The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment can be dealt with a little more quickly. It is a technical Amendment to stop up a loophole in Clause 3(h). The main requirement remains as at present drafted, that before bringing to an end an agreement for breach of undertaking, the owner must give to the occupier notice in writing of the breach. This affords to the occupier a reasonable opportunity to put matters right before the owner actually terminates the agreement. The undertakings to which this provision refers are those in Clause 3(f) and (g) which relate to the prompt payment of charges, quiet enjoyment, the provision of services, mutual undertakings by the owner and the occupier about the mobile home, and maintenance of the site and its facilities. But other undertakings not listed in Clause 3 may also be included in the agreement. However, the breach may be of a kind which in practice is not capable of being remedied by the occupier. The Amendment therefore contains the proviso that the main requirement that notice in writing should be served, applies only in the case of a breach capable of being remedied. I beg to move.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 4 [Disputes]:

§ 3.42 p.m.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 11: Page 6, line 34, leave out from (" conditions ") to (" so ") in line 35.

§ The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of your Lordships if the discussion also covers Amendment No. 12. These Amendments are concerned with disputes. This is really a very complicated matter and one which, because of lack of time, did not receive detailed consideration in another place. Lengthy Amendments were tabled overnight before the Report stage in another place, and I am advised that the National Caravan Council was unable to get a copy of the precise wording until after the debate was over.

§ As I see it, the essence of these clauses is to give the mobile home occupier the opportunity to apply to the courts for an agreement in the event that the site owner fails to offer one—I think no one 1179 would take any exception to that—or, if having offered one, and having agreed terms, the owner then fails to put them into effect. If, having gone to the court and no agreement having been offered, the court grants an agreement in terms that the occupier does not like or perhaps even cannot meet, it is just that the occupier should be given the option in Clause 4(6) to apply for the order to be revoked. All obligations are then discharged and the occupier must presumably rely on the 1968 Act for his security of occupation. However, the parts of the new clauses about which I am now objecting extended that situation, so that even if the parties had agreed the terms the courts could alter them as they thought fit. While the mobile home occupier still has his right under Clause 4(6) to apply for revocation, the site owner apparently holds no such rights.

§ Supposing the site owner and a mobile home occupier agree the terms of an agreement for a mobile home occupier to have a five-year agreement at a charge, say, of £12 a month for the first twelve months. Then, for some reason, the site owner fails to get the written agreement in its final form to the occupier in the three months allowed by Clause 4(1)(b).; the occupier is at liberty to go to the court to ask for the granting of an agreement under Clause 4(4)(a).. As this is now drafted, and without the Amendment I propose, the court, having heard both sides, would be within its right to grant an agreement to the occupier for ten years at £5 a month. How can the site owner then get out of such a situation? It seems to me clear that some Amendment is, needed to this clause to redress the balance of interests. For the reasons I have given, I hope that this Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move.

§ 3.45 p.m.

§ Lord MELCHETT
As the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has said, this is a rather complicated matter. I apologise in advance to the Committee for taking a minute or two in order to set out the feelings of the Government about it. These two Amendments relate to Clause 4(4)(a). which sets out the powers of the court to deal with applications from occupiers in the following circumstances: first, where the occupier has 1180 not offered an agreement under Clause 1; secondly, where the occupier and the owner have agreed the terms of an agreement but the owner has failed to sign the agreement.
Under Clause 4(4)(a). the court has power to make an order, first, in the case where no agreement has been offered at all granting an agreement which complies with Clause 3 and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable; or, secondly, in the case where the occupier claims that terms have been agreed and the court finds that they have, and the court then grants the agreement in those agreed terms. Or thirdly, in the case where the occupier claims that terms have been agreed, but the court is not satisfied that this is the case, and the court then grants an agreement which complies with Clause 3, and which contains such terms and conditions as it thinks reasonable. Paragraph (a). refers to such other terms and conditions in this latter context, but this is a reference to the fact that the court is not required to include terms which the occupier alleges have been agreed, but which have not.
These Amendments seek to delete the references to terms or conditions which the court thinks reasonable in the first and third case of the three cases I have just outlined. Presumably, the intention is to ensure the terms imposed by the court comply with Clause 3, but if this is the case the Amendments are unnecessary, since paragraph (a). already provides not only that the terms shall be reasonable, but also that they shall comply with Clause 3. Deletion of the words in question seems undesirable on two counts. First, the provision that the court shall grant an agreement which complies with Clause 3 seems to me insufficient in view of the fact that Clause 3 does not set out model terms for an agreement. Here we return to a theme which has run through much of the debate on the Amendments today. Clause 3 does not set out model terms for an agreement, but merely indicates the types of provisions to be included in agreements. It is necessary for the precise terms and conditions which are to be included, for example the amount of the annual charge, to be worked out, and therefore it seems desirable to make it clear that the terms 1181 are to be such as the court is satisfied are reasonable.
The second reason for resisting the Amendment is that the parties may themselves propose terms which are not reasonable. The court should have discretion in such a case to impose its own terms. If the intention is that the court does not grant agreements which include terms in addition to those which Clause 3 expressly provides, then this Amendment will not achieve that object either. The power to include extra provisions is implicit in Clause 3 which provides, at page 3, lines 31 to 43, that agreements, "shall contain full particulars of the terms and conditions" of the arrangements between the owner and the occupier, and shall include provisions of the kind described in paragraphs (a). to (k) of that clause. It would, in any event, be undesirable to exclude the power to add provisions to the ones in Clause 3(a). to (k), because these paragraphs omit a number of provisions normally included in caravan agreements; for example, the provision to secure that the site licence conditions are complied with by the occupier.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, further argued, if I understood him correctly, that it is unfair to provide the occupier with a right in subsection (6) to apply for the revocation of the court's order when he is dissatisfied with the agreement granted. The noble Lord contrasts this with the fact that the owner, who was taken to court in the first place, is bound by the court's judgment without any means of revocation. I think the noble Lord would accept that the answer to this point is that in choosing not to accept the agreement handed down by the court, the occupier would be forfeiting such protection as is afforded by the Bill and would expose himself immediately to expulsion from the site, subject only to the protection afforded by Part I of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Accordingly, it is the Government's view that the right does not bear in any way harshly on the site owner.

§ Lord ELTON
It may be helpful if at this stage I draw your Lordships' attention to the Amendment which stands in my name. That may go some way to redress the balance which the movers of this Amendment may feel is unfairly Tilted at the moment, should the Amend- 1182 ment be withdrawn. But I should like to hear what my noble friend Lord Wakefield has to say.

§ Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL
I think we all agree that this is a complicated matter. Clearly, the very full explanation which the noble Lord opposite has given, for which I am much obliged, suggests that what he has said must be looked at carefully. In the light of what he has said, I would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 3.53 p.m.

§ Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 13: Page 6, line 42, at end insert (" and contains such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable;").

§ The noble Lord said: As I have already suggested, the object of this Amendment is to redress somewhat an unequal balance which appears to lie between the site owner and the home occupier as regards their rights in the case of a dispute. In the first case, where you have absence of an agreement which appears to be, as it were, by lapse or default on the part of the site owner, there is a power for the court to alter the agreement in terms which it thinks reasonable; whereas, as the Bill now stands, where the lapse or default is on the part of the home owner such an adjudication does not exist and is not given to the court. Since a good many of the difficulties which are felt about this Bill stem originally from a feeling that one or other party is being dealt with more or less fairly than the other, it seemed to me right to mirror in subsection (4)(b). the phrase in subsection (4)(a).. That is the intention of this Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will see fit to agree. I beg to move.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS
If we are going to do this, it certainly gets us out of one of the difficulties. When we come back next Friday, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will probably have a slightly different Amendment No. 16 on the Marshalled List from the one which appears there today. If so, all to the good. If there is to be further thought about this matter, may make one further point about the whole drafting of subsection (4). I should like to remind the Committee that these proceedings are going to be in the county 1183 court, and nowhere, so far as I know, are reports of the adjudications in the county court made generally available to practitioners. It may be that through specialist channels in the world of caravans and mobile homes there will be a certain amount of intercommunication, but this is not going to help the people arguing the case to and fro before a number of county court judges all over England and Wales and, for all I know, Scotland as well.
The difficulty is that, looking at subsection (4)(a)., the first of the three situations to go before the courts is in a case falling within paragraph (a). the order for grant of the agreement must include material which complies with Clause 3 and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. With the Amendment that my noble friend has just moved to paragraph (b). we bring the words of the second limb of subsection (4)(a). into line with the wording of subsection (4)(b)., but we have as an extra word the word "other". In the second limb of subsection (4)(a)., and in subsection (4)(b). as it is now proposed to be amended, not only must the agreement comply with Clause 3 but it may also contain such other terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable.
As I understand it, what everybody wants in whatever circumstances a dispute arises and comes before the courts, is. first, that the court should be seized of the matter and be able to decide it; secondly, that it should listen to both sides, regardless of whose fault it was that the matter had to come under the dispute procedure anyway; thirdly, that whatever agreement is approved by the court includes all the things that are compulsorily brought in under Clause 3; and fourthly, that if anything is put in purportedly under Clause 3—and this is Lord Avebury's point—but still contains something which is unreasonable, the court should be able to strike that out and instead put in something reasonable; and fifthly. that there should be power for the court to put in things which are not listed in Clause 3, but to put them in in terms which are also reasonable. I think that that is agreed, and that is the intention behind what the county court is to do.
1184 What worries me is that it can do that under the second limb of (4)(a). and under (4)(b). as amended by my noble friend's Amendment, but I am not sure that that is what the courts are going to think that they have the power to do under the present wording of the first limb of (4)(a). because the word "other is not there.

§ Lord AVEBURY
Yes, it is.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS
It says "such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable ", if the noble Lord will look carefully. I think that the county courts are going to think that the only matters of terms and conditions which are reasonable for them to deal with are those which fall within Clause 3. They will not think that they can deal with anything other than the list in Clause 3 in the circumstances peculiarly described in the first part of (4)(a).. This is a fault which is common to the present Bill and to Lord Melchett's Amendment. I raise it now not in order that we need to go into it, but so that notice is given that I mean to go into it next Friday if they do not cure it.

§ Lord MELCHETT
If the answer is the inclusion of the word "other", I am sure that we can arrange for that before next Friday. Certainly, in principle, Lord Elton's Amendment seems to be acceptable. I should like the opportunity to make absolutely certain that technically we have got it right as, as I confidently hope, we will be moving a completely new version of this clause next time we come to discuss the Bill. I think that would give me an opportunity for producing an Amendment along the lines of the one now being moved, and also to take note of the points made by the noble Viscount. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment at this stage.

§ Lord ELTON
Since the clock hovers at 4 o'clock and we are due to adjourn, may I ask whether it would be helpful, in order to record the sense of the Committee, if we could accept the Amendment in the knowledge that there will be a new drafting of Clause 4, and that then it will be possible to include this intention in the Bill when the noble Lord has read 1185 Hansard and also the views, which I entirely endorse, of my noble friend Lord Colville. Therefore, I should like to move this Amendment. Has the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, anything of substance to add before the guillotine falls?

§ Lord AVEBURY
I am not sure whether it is a point of substance, but since the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is to consider the word "other" between now and Friday, I am wondering whether it should be retained in all parts of this subsection because we have … without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing and that seems to indicate that one could put anything into the agreement one wanted, and therefore rather than put "other" in later where it does not occur, we might as well delete it earlier where it does occur.

§ Lord ELTON
That is a point which the Minister will no doubt wish to take on board. I hope that noble Lords will agree to this Amendment, because it will act as a starting point from which he can spring forth, fully armed to deal with the hydrolight problems which confront him over the next seven days.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Lord STRABOLGI
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to break now. I beg to move that this House do now resume.

§ Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House resumed.