---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

I would like first to address my remarks to new clause 11, which was so ably discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), who put the case very well and made his points extremely eloquently. We all have experiences of mobile home parks in our constituencies. The vast majority are well run, well managed and enjoy a happy state of affairs, as in the case of the 10 or 11 in my constituency. That is endorsed by what I have heard from the National Association of Park Home Residents. There is none the less the danger that unscrupulous site managers or owners may want to adopt a particular course of action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, many of them are opposed to the idea of residents associations. Sometimes their agenda is to remove existing tenants who have sub-standard vans. There have been several examples of that around the country, including a case in Oxfordshire and one in Cambridgeshire, where a site changed hands and the new owners wanted to replace the existing vans with a much more upmarket type for which they could charge much more rent. They use every tactic in the book to try to frighten people off. There are examples of straightforward intimidation, noise harassment and blackmail, where people were told that if they did not sell their van and move on they would have services cut off and pitch fees increased. It was a catalogue of the most unscrupulous behaviour that I have ever seen. When such an example occurred in my constituency, on the Hardwick road site, I am pleased to say that some of the worst excesses of behaviour did not take place, but there were still grounds for concern. It belongs to the local authority, which had let it to a site owner. There was nothing in the lease to prevent the tenant from sub-letting it, so they sub-let it to a new site manager, who decided that he wanted to change the whole character and complexion of the site and move from fairly middle-of-the-range types of vans to smart, upmarket vans, each of which cost in excess of £60,000 or £70,000, and sometimes much more. As a result, we have a well managed, smart site, but at the expense of some of the tenants who wanted to stay there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury pointed out, many people adopt a lifestyle choice whereby they do not want the aggro of all the expense, commitment and responsibility that people have when they live in a normal home. It may well be that their marriage has broken down, that they have retired or that they have a house abroad. I would describe some of the people on mobile home sites in my constituency as being non-asset rich but cash-rich—they can have lovely holidays, go abroad a lot and make various choices. That is in direct contrast with many other pensioners who are asset-rich but cash-poor. We are talking about people who do not have many rights and can easily be exploited, and there are plenty of examples of that happening. Taking a dispute to the county court is a blunt instrument. By the time the case has been brought, we can imagine the amount of harassment that could have taken place and the amount of pressure that the individual could have been put under. It can be quite appalling. That is why we need a simple system to enable these people to resolve their disputes. I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s proposal is 100 per cent. workable or the ideal solution, but it is a brave and imaginative attempt to get to the bottom of a particularly difficult problem and to give people who are potentially among the most vulnerable in society a way of having their disputes and problems resolved at the minimum expense and with the minimum fuss. I congratulate him and hope that the Minister will be able to respond in a positive manner. We want a simple process that enables mobile home sites to work properly. Good will is required between the two parties—the site owner or manager and the residents—and if that breaks down, it creates serious problems. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue his campaign, because he will do a great deal of good for many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have experienced similar problems in their constituencies. Let me turn to new clause 3 and the consequential amendment No. 4, which stand in the names of the Liberal Democrats. When legal aid was debated in Committee, we took the view that the situation is in no way satisfactory. Of course, as the Minister explained at the time, it is possible to get legal aid if one has to take a case to tribunal or if a case in which one is involved is taken to tribunal, but that happens through ministerial approval and is a formal, distant process. I should like the process to be a great deal more flexible and consumer-friendly. We should bear in mind one key point. Most of our constituents, thankfully, do not have any interface with the legal system at all, but when they do it is usually through a tribunal. That is why it is important that tribunals are as user-friendly and informal as possible and that the applicant is put completely at ease and feels that they can relax and not be in any way intimidated. If too many lawyers are brought into the process, everything becomes more potentially intimidating and formal, and jargon is used. It so happens that all three Front Benchers today are barristers at law. We often appear in court without realising how our customs and idiosyncracies are not especially appealing to the wider public whom we are trying to represent. That system is not user-friendly. One of the great strengths of the tribunal system is that it can put people at ease and deal with their problems informally and effectively. Let us keep lawyers out of it if possible. However, on occasions, tribunal cases get extremely complicated. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) gave some examples in Committee. At some point, a tribunal case may be adjourned pending further information. Points of law may arise and the applicant may have to seek legal advice. Perhaps taking legal advice from a firm of solicitors is the only way in which the applicant can keep the case on the road. There should be an efficient, quick and effective system that allows such applicants to get legal aid. We are therefore sympathetic to new clause 3 and amendment No. 4.