Agreements To Bind Successive Owners
I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 24, after owner' insert:
The amendment covers the problem of a successor in title. We gave some consideration to this matter in Committee. Such a successor must obviously be someone who is willing to carry on the running of a site and who is legally entitled to do so—in other words, he must hold a site licence. A person who had no licence to operate a caravan site would, if he permitted the stationing of caravans on his land, be committing an offence. The amendment is therefore designed to ensure that an agreement will be binding on a new site owner only if he holds a site licence. This is an important clarification.'who hold a site licence for the time being in force in respect of the site to which the agreement relates'.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 33, at end add:
I return to a point which greatly exercised the Standing Committee. The point was made originally by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) during the third week of the proceedings of the Committee—that there might well be many people living in mobile homes who were not covered by the precise wording of new Clause 4—as it then was—subsection (2)(a). In substance, new Clause 4 has gone into the Bill as Clause 5. The two subsections remain as they were at the time of the Committee. I do not wish to rehearse the worries that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, some of my hon. Friends and myself—the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) in particular—had on this point, but it seemed to us that, particularly because of the nature of some of the motives of people going to live on mobile home sites, perhaps far away from their original places of residence, there could well be a number of situations in which the partnership was not a regular one in law, although of long standing. The point about common law wives, mistresses and illegitimate children was raised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, and the Minister was asked the hypothetical question: what would happen under this legislation—that is to say, Clause 5 as it now is—if a couple had been living with a child, or a person had been living with a child of 16 or 17 on a mobile home site, and the person known as and defined in the Bill and in the lease as the mobile home owner were to die suddenly, after which it was discovered that the dependants fell into the category either of common law wife, mistress or dependent illegitimate child? What protection would they have? They would not be defined as'or other dependants who have been resident in the mobile home for not less than one year'.
The Minister said that Rent Act law worked perfectly satisfactorily—I dispute that for a start—and that if such a case were to go to the courts on the precedent of Rent Act law a common law wife's claim would be acknowledged. As I said in Committee, it is precisely this category of person—the dependent common law wife or a person with no particular legal standing and no legal claim on the estate of the deceased—who is least likely to go, and will have the most inhibitions about going, to the court. We know so much from social security legislation about the difficulty of getting take up when people are entitled to social security benefits, and one realises that there are considerable difficulties and inhibitions experienced by dependent people in this category. If their status were to emerge as a result of the sudden death of the mobile home owner, we felt that there would be an additional coercive element entering into the relationship between the site owner, assuming—as one has to assume—that he is an unscrupulous and ruffianly individual, and the dependants who are left on the site. The Minister challenged me in Committee, having given me assurance, to have a shot between then and Report to consider a further draft amendment. He said:"the widow or widower of the occupier; or in default of a widow or widower so residing, any member of the occupier's family".
I accept the situation in terms of valid law. As I have had only one day in which to reconsider this matter since the Bill and the Government's amendments have been published, and as the various expressions of concern from the Government Front Bench and from the sponsor of the Bill have come to naught in terms of tangible amendments on the Paper, I thought it necessary to put before the House another form of words to meet my original purpose and the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, who cannot be here today but who I know would want this point made, about the status of a certain category of dependant. For this reason I suggest that we add to Clause 5 the words set out in the amendment."I should advise him also that we should have to look at that in the light of valid law rather than in the light of what he quite admirably would seek to do."— [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30th April 1975, c. 135.]
May I ask a question in clarification? If the amendment were carried, what would be the position if there were dependants living with an occupier as the hon. Gentleman has described, but the occupier left in his will the mobile home to some other relative who was not one of those dependants living in the mobile home? In that situation the mobile home would pass into the possession of the legatee, but nevertheless some form of right would be bestowed by the amendment and possibly by other parts of the Bill on the dependants living in the mobile home. There would then be two forms of right.
I accept that. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the famous phrase of a former distinguished leader of his party, which he used frequently in order to override his civil servants— "Do not argue the difficulties. The difficulties will argue for themselves." As the hon. Gentleman says, the terms of the will would bestow the ownership of the mobile home upon a third party outside the site, but presumably if a claim were made in court some kind of residual right to live on the site might be with the dependants. That is a situation which, no doubt, would lead to difficulties.
We are discussing a dilemma which may involve—and this may be one of the statistics not included in my hon. Friend's comprehensive survey—a small minority of people who have gone to live on mobile home sites because of personal difficulties in their own lives and who hope to make a fresh start—a fresh start which would be cruelly undone by the decease of the owner. It is right that we should express this concern and attempt to protect them. My justification of the form of words which I have proposed, putting in the stipulation of "not less than one year" is to indicate that this it not an attempt to give wholly unjustified rights to some casual girl friend who had arrived a week or two before and had taken up residence in the mobile home. If we include a minimum period of this kind, it assumes and presumes a stable relationship between the mobile home owner and his dependant. It is in the light of the real distress which could affect dependants in those cases and their lack of legal rights that I am moving the amendment.In Committee, while commending my hon. Friend's objective, I gave voice to the fear that he would not be able successfully to embody that objective in the amendment. I regret to tell him that my misgivings have been justified.
The problem about this amendment which immediately obtrudes itself is that it would not necessarily achieve its objective because a common law wife is not necessarily a dependant. Therefore, a common law wife could be excluded even if the amendment were accepted. There is considerable practical difficulty in trying to define who, beyond an occupier's widow or family, should inherit an unexpired portion of an agreement. When one talks of family one talks of children. My hon. Friend asked about a situation in which a common law wife might be left with a child of herself and the deceased occupier. My understanding—I am open to correction—is that the child would be a member of the family regardless of the status of the common law wife and, therefore, that difficulty which my hon. Friend apprehends would not arise. However, I repeat that neither a common law wife nor—to give a less worldly example but quite possible—the survivor of two retired elderly ladies in necessarily a dependant. To bring such categories of people within the scope of the Bill would necessitate a definition encompassing all co-residents who had lived with the deceased for a stipulated period before his death. Such a definition would be too broad and could lead to abuses. My hon. Friend—and I do not criticise him for this—discounts the protection under the Rent Act legislation which I mentioned in Committee.With respect, I did not discount it. What my hon. Friend has just said suggests that I dismissed it. I said that I objected to his saying that the legislation worked perfectly satisfactorily. Perfection is not something that should be ascribed to Rent Act legislation.
1.30 p.m.
I accept that, which is one reason why, when we have come to the end of our housing finance review, the Government will embark upon a review of the Rent Act legislation to make sure that we have the whole thing right. We are perfecting law at a rapid rate, and I hope that we shall be able to achieve perfection on that matter also before we successfully appeal to the electorate at the next General Election.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgwater must allow me an occasional spark as I travel down this consensus road with him.
It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North does not repose total confidence in the Rent Act legislation but it is the best legislation that we have. It would be better to use that than to specify in the way suggested in the amendment, since one of the problems of specificatory legislation is that it excludes what is not specifically included and might exclude persons whom my hon. Friend would wish to assist. The succession provisions in Clause 5 correspond with the Rent Act provisions as to rights of succession to statutory tenancies in conveying these to members of the dead person's family who lived with him at the time of his death. One of the things that my hon. Friend is doing in the amendment is one of the things that I feared might ensue. He is disadvantaging the people whom he is trying to help, because it is not satisfactory to specify a period within which a relationship can be termed stable and lasting. Relationships can exist for less than a year and still have the seeds of being a stable and lasting relationship which would have survived if the person concerned had lived. The Rent Act lays down a minimum period of residence not of one year but of six months, and I think that if Parliament were to desire a minimum period under the Bill it would be reasonable to follow the Rent Act rather than prescribe a minimum period of one year as my hon. Friend suggests. I am sorry to pour such cold water on my hon. Friend's amendment because, at the risk of being tedious, I say that I have total sympathy with what he is trying to do. It is just that he is not doing it in this amendment, and therefore it would not be satisfactory to include it in the Bill.I endorse the Minister's concluding words. This matter has given us concern because we are anxious to ensure that people who are genuinely co-residents in one form or another are covered as far as possible.
The advice that I have received—and it was repeated by the Minister in Committee—is that a common law wife and her children are regarded as members of the family. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) the Minister said that the Rent Act would leave the courts to decide in the way that my hon. Friend wished. I said:Going further than that is a difficulty which we recognise, but there is a further safeguard to which I hope we may draw attention. In the case of elderly companions who are not related and where, technically, there are no dependants, there is nothing to prevent a joint agreement by which, in the event of the death of one person, the agreement subsists in the other."…the three categories to whom my hon. Friend refers—common law wife, mistress and illegitimate dependent children—are covered." —[Official Report, Standing Committee C: 30th April 1975; c. 133.]
In the event of a joint tenancy being entered into in the names of Mr. and Mrs. X, if it is subsequently discovered, on the decease of Mr. X, that Mrs. X was not what she seemed but was merely his common law wife or mistress and she had signed the forms in a name that was not her own, will she be protected?
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not a lawyer, and he is taking me into a matter to which I am not sure of the answer. I do not know whether the Minister can enlighten his hon. Friend. This is a technical point of law to which I do not know the answer.
Speaking as a layman, my answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) is that this may have seemed more of a difficulty than it is. There is nothing in the Bill which says who actually owns the mobile home. The point has been made, and it has been underlined by the letter which many hon. Members have received from the Finance Houses Association Ltd., that the mobile home may be owned or charged against some other body, such as a finance house. If the dependants are living in a mobile home, and if on the death of the owner the home is left to a person somewhere else, those dependants will have the same rights as they would have if they were living in a flat. If somebody living in a flat with dependants dies and leaves the flat to somebody else, those dependants have rights. Under the Bill dependants living in a mobile home have similar rights to dependants living in an unfurnished flat.I have considerable sympathy with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about common law wives, but less sympathy when he talks about people living away from home and maintaining mistresses. I do not think that we can officially go on record as being sympathetic to that idea.
My hon. Friend must have some concern for my moral reputation in my constituency. I did not talk about people living away from home and having mistresses. I was referring to people who left home and established a new life, which many might do in the event of a marital breakdown.
I accept that. My real sympathy lies with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is right to say that to try to extend the definition in the Bill of dependant to to cover the point about mistresses, common law wives and all the other combinations that can be created would be impossible. In any case, this is the wrong vehicle by which to try to make that kind of sweeping and immensely important definition.
I believe that what we can usefully do in this short debate is to get it spelled out with some clarity that common law wives should be sensible enough, at the beginning of their long and happy relationship with their common law husband, to come to a sensible agreement, preferably backed by legal documentation, about the ownership and eventual disposition of their mutual assets should one or the other die. That is a better way, in these individual circumstances, of protecting the future of the surviving partner of such a relationship than to chance either the Rent Act or the definition which my hon. Friend is suggesting. My advice to any common law wife who, by some strange quirk of circumstance, happens to read Hansard is to get cracking immediately on drawing up a legal arrangement, duly recorded in the proper documentation, to safeguard her future. Mistresses who have a much more temporary relationship than common law wives should also exercise great caution if they want to protect their future tenancies. Leaving aside those categories, the real problem was touched on by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) when he talked about the elderly widow whose old friend moves in with her on becoming widowed. The problems which could arise in such a situation would, I suggest, command the respect and genuine sympathy of every hon. Member and, indeed, of every decent member of our society. I think that they need real protection and they could achieve it, as has been pointed out, by a joint agreement. However, they could certainly increase their chances of protection by joint ownership of the mobile home and by making clear in their respective dispositions for their demise the transfer of their share of such ownership to their partner living in those circumstances. At this stage in our law that is probably a better, more practical and common sense way of dealing with this serious situation than to try to make the amendment, which would not cover the people about whom I am most concerned—the elderly couple or the couple who, for reasons other than those set out by my hon. Friend, have come together to live in a partnership in a mobile home.Amendment negatived.