Mobile Homes Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 12 May 1983 vol 442 cc584-96

4.13 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

[References are to Bill [74] as first printed for the Commons]

1 Leave out Clause 1.

2 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

"Particulars of agreements

.—(1) This Act applies to any agreement under which a person ("the occupier") is entitled—

1. (a) to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and
2. (b) to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.

(2) Within three months of the making of an agreement to which this Act applies, the owner of the protected site ("the owner") shall give to the occupier a written statement which—

1. (a) specifies the names and addresses of the parties and the date of commencement of the agreement;
2. (b) includes particulars of the land on which the occupier is entitled to station the mobile home sufficient to identify it;
3. (c) sets out the express terms of the agreement;
4. (d) sets out the terms implied by section (Terms of agreements) (1) below; and
5. (e) complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) If the agreement was made before the day on which this Act comes into force, the written statement shall be given within six months of that day.

(4) Any reference in subsections (2) or (3) above to the making of an agreement to which this Act applies includes a reference to any variation of an agreement by virtue of which the agreement becomes one to which this Act applies.

(5) If the owner fails to comply with this section, the occupier may apply to the court for an order requiring the owner so to comply.

(6) Regulations under this section—

1. (a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
2. (b) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case, including different provision for different areas.".

3 Leave out Clause 2.

4 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

"Terms of agreements.

.—(1) In any agreement to which this Act applies there shall be implied the terms set out in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and this subsection shall have effect notwithstanding any express term of the agreement.

(2) The court may, on the application of either party made within six months of the giving of the statement under section (Particulars of agreements) (2) above, order that there shall be implied in the agreement terms concerning the matters mentioned in Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act.

(3) The court may, on the application of either party made within the said period of six months, by order vary or delete any express term of the agreement.

(4) On an application under this section, the court shall make such provision as the court considers just and equitable in the circumstances.".

5 Clause 3, page 3, line 6, leave out "under this Act" and insert "to which this Act applies".

6 Clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out "under this Act" and insert "to which this Act applies".

7 Clause 3, page 3, line 14, leave out "under this Act" and insert "to which this Act applies".

8 Clause 3, page 3, line 26, leave out "under this Act" and insert "to which this Act applies".

9 Clause 3, page 3, line 31, leave out "complies with the requirements" and insert "concludes terms implied by virtue".

10 Clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out "made under it" and insert "to which it applies".

11 Clause 5, page 4, line 2, leave out "made under it" and insert "to which it applies".

12 Clause 5, page 4, line 2, leave out lines 12 to 14.

13 Clause 5, page 4, line 30, at end insert— (1A) In relation to an agreement to which this Act applies—

1. (a) any reference in this Act to the owner includes a reference to any person who is bound by and entitled to the benefit of the agreement by virtue of subsection (1) of section 3 above; and
2. (b) subject to subsection (4) of that section, any reference in this Act to the occupier includes a reference to any person who is entitled to the benefit of and bound by the agreement by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) of that section.".

14 Clause 6, page 5, leave out lines 1 to 3.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 14 en bloc. I should like to take this opportunity of speaking also to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 28. These new clauses and the consequential amendments will replace the system of written agreements on which the Bill was previously based with a combination of implied terms and express terms. The Bill has been amended quite substantially since it left your Lordships' House—largely in the light of views expressed during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. It was a good Bill when it left, but I believe your Lordships will agree that it is an even better Bill now.

After extensive consultations these new clauses were introduced. They oblige the site owner to provide a resident with a written statement setting out the implied terms and the express terms of his agreement with the resident. The express terms are those which the site owner and the resident have agreed between them; that is, upon subjects not covered by the implied terms. Either the resident or the site owner may then apply to the court within six months of the date on which the written statement is provided to ask that any of the express terms be varied or deleted from the agreement, or to ask that terms concerning the subjects listed in Part II of Schedule 1 shall be added to the agreement. The written statement will also have to comply with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Those are the bare bones of the approach set out in the new clauses and amendments. We have accepted that an element of implied terms will further strengthen the protection which the Bill provides to residents. We have, however, been careful to limit the scope of the implied terms to those subjects which need to be covered by them—and it would not be fair or reasonable to push the balance of the Bill too far against the site owner. This new approach will leave them free to negotiate with their residents on a local basis those matters that should be negotiated locally, such as pitch fees or the services the site owner will provide, and on the details of the resident's obligations.

At the same time, the written statement which the site owner must provide will set out all the terms of the agreement between the site owner and the resident, so that both sides may know the basis of their relationship. In that respect, we believe that the written statement will serve much the same purpose as the written agreement in the existing Bill. The Bill will make a significant difference to the lives of many people—about 160,000 in England, Scotland and Wales—who live on mobile home sites. The Bill retains a fair balance between site owner and resident.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, having spoken at Second Reading with some reservations on this Bill, may I warmly thank the Government for incorporating measures which have resolved any doubts I may have held about a Bill that is much needed and greatly welcomed by owners of mobile homes?

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, I apologise for having missed a few seconds of the noble Lord's opening speech, but I have anticipated what he said. I welcome the amendments which are before the House, and I understand that a number of other amendments are being taken with the main amendment. I should like also to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, at this stage of the Bill, which has previously and quite ably been dealt with by his noble friend Lord Bellwin. During the various stages of this Bill noble Lords of all parties have pressed for changes which will give greater protection to mobile home occupiers and to clarify the situation for site owners, so that everyone will know where they stand.

The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said—and I know that his noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will agree—that it is important to achieve a balance between the parties. We made the point earlier that those people who are mobile home occupiers do not, for a very good reason, have the help of solicitors and legal advisers, possibly, although I believe that they in fact need that kind of help on occasions. They are, after all, making a very substantial investment, often equal to that made by those in other forms of housing. Therefore, the Bill needs to give the kind of clarification which has been introduced in another place and which your Lordships are being asked to endorse today.

There have been some substantial changes made to the Bill in another place. Before making these changes the Government consulted the various interests and bodies concerned, including the National Federation of Site Operators, the National Caravan Council, the Mobile Home Residents' Association, local authorities, the National Consumer Council and others. The Government should be thanked for the agreement they have reached on this matter with members of all parties in order to achieve the changes which have been brought about. I believe the balance is fairer now. It would be unjust to imply that most site owners are not good site landlords, but we have to acknowledge the concern of everyone involved that good facilities should be provided in order to create a harmonious environment. This is greatly helped by the Bill being drafted in such a way, with implied terms and the other concessions to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has made reference. All this will help towards the proper working of the legislation.

With those few words, I should like to express the appreciation of my noble friends, and indeed those of other parties in our team of people, who will speak for themselves anyway, in saying that we welcome the changes. There are aspects, to which I might make reference later, which we should have liked to have seen in the Bill, but at this stage we welcome the amendments which have been moved.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, we, too, would welcome the amendments, which followed the discussions we had in this House; and we are very pleased to know that the Government gave further consideration to what was said by your Lordships. A solution has been reached which we think is beneficial both to the residents of mobile homes and to the site operators in clarifying the agreements that will be made between them and in ensuring that the number of disputes following the passing of this Act will be brought down to a minimum. We are very grateful to the noble Lord for explaining these amendments, which have been made in another place.

There is just one point on which I should like to ask the noble Lord's advice, and that is why the particulars of agreements have to be notified to the occupier within three months of the making of an agreement where the agreement is arrived at after the passing of the Act, whereas if the agreement was arrived at before the coming into force of the Act the site operator is given six months to supply that written statement. This was not something we had in the original Clause 1. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister could explain that. I am sure there is a good reason for it. In general, we share the welcome which has been expressed by other noble Lords and the noble Baroness to these new clauses and amendments.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for their welcome to these amendments. I very much regret that I am not able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, this afternoon on the question of the varying periods of time allowed as between future agreements and those that were in force or might have been in force under the terms of the 1975 Act, which now, on the passing of this Bill, will automatically obtain for those people who have agreements on mobile homes sites. I think it is largely a matter of administrative detail. Perhaps I could set out separately, in a day or two, the exact implications of those periods which the noble Lord mentioned.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

15 Clause 6, page 5, line 5, leave out "three months" and insert "one week".

16 Clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out from "passed" to end of line 8.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. The Government have on this occasion taken the unusual step of proposing to Parliament that the Bill should come into force only one week after Royal Assent. This is in order to minimise the danger that site owners might attempt to deny their residents the protection of the Bill by taking action before the Bill comes into force. In parenthesis, I think that perhaps this is in part the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because those who never had an agreement at all under the 1975 Act, or, indeed, those who might well have had an agreement under the 1975 Act, would find that had they exercised their options—originally, the minimium period was five years, and there was an option of a further three years—it would be this year, in a matter of weeks only, that those options would run out. I think this is in part the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was seeking.

The Bill is in its final stages. I do not think it is unduly premature to say that it is Parliament's wish that mobile home residents should enjoy the protection that the Bill will provide. These amendments will reduce as far as is possible the danger that site owners will be able to prevent that happening between now and commencement. Therefore, subject to the approval of your Lordships' House, we hope it will be possible for the Bill to receive Royal Assent and come into force before the end of May. Any resident who is still on a mobile home site, provided his right to be there has not already been brought to an end by then, will, as I have said, be entitled to the protection of the Bill from its commencement date. From that date residents will have security of tenure and a right to sell on site.

I should perhaps add that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 provides that a notice to determine a residential contract on a mobile home site cannot take effect in less than 28 days. These amendments, therefore, bring the Bill into force one week after Royal Assent. Normally, of course, we would expect a period of perhaps two months, but if the rights which the Bill provides are to be available to as many people as possible, and if it is to be effective in protecting those it is designed to protect, we must do what we can to limit the ability of a site owner to avoid that obligation. That means bringing the Bill into force just one week after Royal Assent, as these two amendments in fact will.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, we on this side would thank the noble Lord for the information he has given. We feel that the one week after Royal Assent provision is really the very best thing the Government can do, because that has tightened the loophole completely. As the noble Lord rightly said, if it had gone on for three months there might have been harassment on some of the sites, knowing that the Bill was coming into operation. So that final closing of a loophole is something for which we would commend the Government.

While I am on my feet, may I also say that we are very much indebted to the Government for trying to put the Bill into plain English, as we asked them to do. We know it is difficult to put it into plain English, but they have really tried, and for that we compliment them.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, may I say a word of thanks to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given, and echo the endorsement expressed by the noble Baroness of the principles underlying these amendments. They have a great deal to commend them. I believe that there might have been one or two unscrupulous site operators—no more—who would have attempted to take advantage of a three-month gap had it been left in the Bill. I am sure there will be no corresponding disadvantage, bearing in mind that everybody has known that the Bill is on its way since your Lordships first began to consider it at the beginning of December last year. One hopes that both site operators and residents will have been thinking about the making of the agreements into which they will now be able to enter, and that no-one will feel pressured as a result of the reduction from three months to one week. We are grateful to the Government for these amendments. We think this is commonsense and will be beneficial to both sides.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

17 Schedule 1, page 6, leave out lines 6 to 16.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. I have already spoken to this amendment; it was in the first block.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

18 Schedule 1, page 6, line 20, after "5" insert"5A".

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. The same applies here, my Lords.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

19 Schedule 1, page 6, line 38, leave out from "agreement" to end of line 41 and insert— forthwith if, on the application of the owner, the court—

1. (a) is satisfied that the occupier has breached a term of the agreement and, after service of a notice to remedy the breach, has not complied with the notice within a reasonable time; and
2. (b) considers it reasonable for the agreement to be terminated."

4.30 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. Without this amendment the Bill would allow a site owner to terminate an agreement on the ground that the resident has breached its terms and, after receiving notice to remedy the breach, has not done so within a reasonable time. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the site owner to terminate an agreement on this ground only after an application to the court, and to give the court discretion in deciding whether to grant the application.

The amendment is concerned with the site owner's ability to terminate the agreement. The court must be satisfied that the resident has breached the agreement, that he has been served with a proper notice to remedy the breach and has failed to comply with that notice within a reasonable time. Taken together with other procedures for termination of agreements contained in the Bill, this amendment ensures that such an agreement to which the Bill applies can be brought to an end only with the consent of a court. It will be the site owner who terminates the agreement rather than the court, but he will need the court's approval.

This was another issue raised in the consultation letter that was issued after the Committee stage in another place. Certainly none of those who responded to that consultation letter was opposed to this requirement that the site owner must go to court. We have also accepted that it would be right to allow the court to decide whether or not it was reasonable that it should grant an application for termination. Without that discretion the court might find itself constrained to terminate an agreement for trivial reasons. However, the court will not be able to suspend the site owner's right to terminate. Once the application has been granted he can terminate the agreement forthwith. This amendment is a valuable addition to the protection which the Bill provides for residents, but it will not disadvantage responsible site owners.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, we welcome this amendment as an improvement to the Bill, as the Minister has said. It gives greater protection and it improves the previous situation where the site owner himself could terminate an agreement, whereas now the court will have to do so. That appears to be a much greater concession than is actually the case, because the definition of "the court" in Clause 5(a) states: in relation to England and Wales, the county court for the district in which the protected site is situated or, where the parties have agreed in writing to submit any question arising under this Act or, as the case may be, any agreement made under it to arbitration, the arbitrator; and in Scotland it will be the arbiter.

As we have said at previous stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House, we all have great confidence in the courts as we know them—the county courts and other forms of court—but when an arbitrator has to be agreed between the two parties concerned, the site owner and the mobile home occupier, it can be anyone who is acceptable to both parties. In that situation we feel that the mobile home occupier is at a disadvantage because the site owner can put forward anyone, suggesting that the arbitrator who is recommended is impartial or, indeed, is well fitted in all these matters to deal adequately with the situation. It could well be—and I think I used the term previously—a friend of the family, the greengrocer or anyone else who happens to be agreed between the two parties. We do not think that is satisfactory.

If the arbitrator, who can be someone with little or no experience of these important matters, can agree to a termination when acting as a court, there is not the security for which I am sure we all wish. It means that the occupiers are still generally worse off than owner-occupiers of ordinary homes and the tenants of public and private dwellings. I know that the Minister, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in the earlier stages of the Bill, did not seem happy about rent officers and others being brought in to help. My noble friends and I tabled an amendment to recommend that an arbitrator should be appointed after consultation with the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, for instance, or the rent officer, whose experience and background is accepted on all sides as being proper and adequate. But here in Clause 5 "the court" can be an arbitrator, and that is far from being as satisfactory as we would wish. However, having said that, we appreciate the improvement which has been put forward and agreed, and which the Government are recommending to your Lordships.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I think perhaps it might be your Lordships' wish if I further commented on this question of arbitration. I know that it has caused the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and other noble Lords some concern. I am sorry that he still feels this concern.

The Bill provides for the choice of an arbitrator to be freely made by both parties. If there is concern that an unscrupulous site owner might persuade a resident to accept an arbitrator who is perhaps anything other than impartial—perhaps his brother-in-law, his agent or some other person; I am sure the noble Lord opposite bears no to greengrocers in the High Street—the resident has the opportunity to agree or disagree.

The Government will be producing a booklet in the housing booklet series to explain this new legislation and to replace the existing mobile homes booklet. The booklet will be available free from council offices, from housing aid centres and also from the Department of the Environment. It will be produced very soon after Royal Assent of this Bill, and we hope that it will be available in a very few weeks' time—certainly well before residents will need to decide what action to take with regard to the written statement they receive from the site owner. Your Lordships will recall that it is obligatory upon the site owner to provide such a statement. The booklet will set out exactly what rights the owner-occupier has with regard to owner-occupation and the use of an arbitrator.

Additionally, in considering this matter we felt that we were talking here not of small sums of money but certainly of smaller sums than one might envisage with the more traditional type of house; perhaps a mobile home of up to, say, £25,000, but more likely between £10,000 and £15,000. To enlist the aid of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors would undoubtedly cost considerably more money than going to other sources of arbitration. Provided that both parties understand exactly what the arbitrator is to do, we can see no great difficulty.

In addition, even where the resident—the owner-occupier—agrees to the appointment of an arbitrator whom he knows to be related to or in some other way concerned with the site owner, the Arbitration Act 1950 still allows him to go to court to have the appointment revoked. If the resident does not find out about the relationship between the arbitrator and the site owner until the arbitrator has made his judgment, it will still be open to the owner-occupier to go to court to have that judgment set aside on the grounds that the arbitrator was biased. It simply is not the case that the resident is unprotected against the appointment of a biased arbitrator. As noble Lords will readily recognise, arbitrators may offer a much quicker and simpler method of resolving disputes than perhaps the courts. I believe that the alternative that is provided in the Bill should really meet all reasonable expectations of an arbitration service in a matter of this kind.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

20 Page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to "if" in line 43 and insert— 5A. The owner shall be entitled to terminate the agreement forthwith".

21 Page 7, line 3, leave out "(2) The court" and insert "6.—(1) The owner.".

22 Page 7, line 11, leave out "(2)" and insert "(1)".

23 Page 7, line 16, after "5", insert ", 5A".

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments in the first block that I moved earlier this afternoon. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

24 Page 7, leave out lines 24 to 32.

25 Page 7, line 33, at beginning insert "Where the occupier sells the mobile home, and assigns the agreement, as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above,".

26 Page 7, line 33, leave out from "on" to "by" in line 34 and insert "the sale at a rate not exceeding such rates as may be specified.".

4.43 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26. These amendments strengthen the position of residents who wish to sell their mobile home. The amendments remove the obligation on owner-occupiers—residents—to give site owners first refusal on the sale of a mobile home. This series of amendments follows an undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Bellwin during the course of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House and is largely the result of further consideration of arguments which were put by noble Lords in this House on the occasion.

Noble Lords will be aware that it is on the question of sales that the worst abuses on mobile home sites are said to have taken place. These alleged abuses have arisen in cases where occupiers were not protected at all by any legislation—where, in fact, they did not have agreements under the 1975 Act. Many owner-occupiers fell into that category. Nonetheless, there can be no doubt that the right of first refusal, which the 1975 Act gave to site owners and which the initial wording of the Bill retains, puts site owners in an unusually strong position when a mobile home is to be sold. If the site owner wants to buy the mobile home himself, and he has the right of first refusal, his bargaining position is both exceptional and, we now accept, excessive.

My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State therefore introduced these amendments in another place to remove the right of first refusal. These amendments will not unduly weaken the position of site owners. There will be nothing to stop a site owner buying the mobile home himself if he wishes to do so. However, he will be in competition with other potential buyers; but, of course, he has the advantage that no commission will be payable on the price he pays for the mobile home, as it would be if someone else bought it. He can make an offer at a price reduced by the amount of commission that he would receive if the home was sold to a third party—in effect, at a discount.

The site owner will also have the right to approve a potential purchaser, and that approval is not to be unreasonably withheld. But unscrupulous site owners will be unable to misuse the right of first refusal by forcing occupiers who wish to sell to accept an unfairly low price.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State also announced that the Government would fix the maximum level of commission a site owner can charge on a sale at 10 per cent. This would be by order following Royal Assent. This 10 per cent. compares with the maximum of 15 per cent. fixed by another Administration in 1976 for sales under the 1975 Act, and it follows a consultation paper on the level of commission which my noble friend announced on the Second Reading of the Bill in this House on 18th November.

In removing the right of first refusal and proposing a maximum of 10 per cent. commission, the Government have put together a package that will significantly improve the position of residents, but will certainly not drive site owners out of business. Here, as elsewhere in the Bill, the intention has been to keep a balance between site owners and residents, and to create a framework that will enable this way of life to flourish and develop in the future. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

Lord Bishopston

My Lords. I am pleased to say that we welcome the amendments moved by the noble Lord. Once again, they help the Bill. One of the main concerns about the need for a Bill at all was the fact that mobile home occupiers do not normally have the kind of security which those living in other forms of accommodation almost take for granted. They are not covered by the legislation which covers others. Concern arose over the situation of, for example, elderly people wanting other accommodation or young people with families wanting other accommodation. When it came to the time for sale of the home we all realised the problem of getting another site or selling to someone who has planning permission to go elsewhere. In many cases that is virtually impossible. Having to give the site owner first option to buy at a much lower price of course represents a very big loss on the investment made by those concerned. We certainly welcome the abolition of the site owner's right of first refusal and the reduction of the commission to 10 per cent. I think many of us would like to have seen the commission on sale abolished altogether.

As I say, these are aspects which we welcome and they give more protection to the mobile home occupier, without being unduly unfair to the site owner. As the noble Lord has said, and as his noble friend Lord Bellwin said previously, it is a matter of keeping a balance between the interests of the two parties. I think that these amendments go some way towards doing that.

This is probably the last amendment on which I shall speak before the Bill goes on its way to the statute book. Therefore, on behalf of myself and my noble friends and, indeed, others with whom we worked in your Lordships' House, I should like to express our thanks to the Government and others for their co-operation in getting the Bill through in this much more pleasing way due to their willingness to listen to the views of all concerned.

I also think that a tribute should be paid to the members of the National Consumer Council for their work in advising Members of all parties. As far back as 1977—six years ago—the National Consumer Council submitted a response to the Mobile Homes Review published by the Department of the Environment, and since has taken other initiatives, including liaising with the DoE and, indeed, with Members of all parties in an expert, practical and understanding way. Therefore, we owe them a debt. I believe that Parliament and, indeed, the Government have been helped by this expert advice, given impartially to all concerned. I believe that the Bill is better for their co-operation and the co-operation of others. With those few words I should like to welcome these amendments.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I should like to associate myself with almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, has just said, and to say how grateful I am for the measures taken by the Government.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the amendments, which achieve the purpose which we had outlined when we discussed the matter in Committee as long ago as 6th December, when several of us ventured to suggest that there was no reason for the retention of the site owner's right of first refusal on the sale. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, told us that the amendment that we were proposing, which was designed to achieve exactly what we are now doing, was a very sweeping one. So we are very grateful for the late conversion of the Government to the point of view that we expressed. We are also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for underlining the fact that it was again your Lordships who put forward the concept on which the amendment is based, although it was finally implemented in another place.

I share the good wishes for the Bill which have been expressed on all sides. It seems to me that over the last 15 years there has been a minor revolution in the attitude of Parliament to the relationships between mobile home residents and site operators. I say that because at the beginning of that period the mobile home resident had no protection whatsoever, even against immediate eviction. That protection was first secured in the 1968 Act, and then, in the 1975 Act we went a little further in consideration of formal agreements between the residents and the site operators. Now we have implemented a far more thorough scheme, which gives protection to the residents without I believe in any way undermining the ability of the site operators to provide a good service, and one for which they can obtain a fair reward.

I believe that we are at the beginning of a new era in the relationships between site operators and mobile home residents. Obviously, everything is not going to be all sweetness and light, and we are still receiving from residents indications which perhaps suggest that in some respects we could have done a little more. However, with good will between the residents and the owners, there is at last the possibility of ensuring that a harmonious system is developed, in which both groups will benefit from the legislation which Parliament is now passing.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

27 Page 8, line 13, at end insert— 1A. The sums payable by the occupier in pursuance of the agreement and the times at which they are to be paid.".

28 Page 8, line 14, leave out "payable by the occupier in pursuance of the agreement" and insert "so payable".

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Asking your Lordships to agree to these two amendments, to which I have earlier spoken, gives me the opportunity to thank for their help all noble Lords who have taken part in the passage of the Bill, from the end of last year until this afternoon. I think it right that I should remind your Lordships of the particular interest of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because it was in 1968, when he was an honourable Member in another place, that he first moved a caravan sites Bill. There has been a long, continued, and very active interest by the noble Lord in this matter, and I am sure that we are all grateful to him, and indeed to other noble Lords, for their help in regard to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 belong to the earlier block to which I spoke.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.