---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 116: 116: After Clause 316, insert the following new Clause— ““Mobile Homes Act: arbitration (1) Section 5(1) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c. 34) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (a) of the definition of ““the court””, the words ““or, where the parties have agreed in writing to submit any questions arising under this Act or, as the case may be, any agreement to which it applies to arbitration, the arbitrator”” are omitted. (3) In paragraph (b) of the definition of ““the court””, the words ““or, where the parties have so agreed, the arbiter”” are omitted.”” The noble Baroness said: Although I am a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Gypsies and Travellers, it is fair to say that the amendment is in the interests of all mobile home dwellers. The new clause seeks to amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to remedy a clear discrimination against all tenants of mobile home sites, whether Gypsy, Traveller or any other caravan dweller. All other tenants have the right ultimately to go to the courts to seek redress if there is a dispute with the landlord. Only mobile home park tenants have to put up with the site owners' choice of arbitrator. The most welcome extension of security of tenure to Gypsy and Traveller residents of such sites, on which I congratulate my noble friend, nevertheless brought them to share this unjust situation with other mobile home residents. The amendments are supported by the Traveller Law Reform Project and meet concerns expressed many times by groups representing mobile home residents. The concern is, briefly, that technically, under the present Section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, read with Section 5(1)(a), a ““court”” can be defined as ““arbitrator”” if there is an arbitration clause in the site tenancy agreement. The terms of such agreement are proposed by the landlord and, indeed, usually follow the national model form. Such agreements are very likely to be signed or marked by a Gypsy or a Traveller without their being fully aware of the implications. I do not need to explain to the Committee that the landlord's choice of arbitrator is not quite justice being seen to be done. In this country we have the courts as a last resort, not someone paid by one of the parties. It is a matter of straightforward justice to incorporate these amendments in the Bill. They do not, of course, preclude alternative dispute resolution. The new civil procedure rules of 1998 make it quite clear that the court must actively manage the case by, "““encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure””." The amendments provide only that, like everyone else, mobile home tenants can have recourse to the courts if all else fails. I hope that my noble friend will respect the wide support that the amendments have, and will accommodate them. Recently the Department for Communities and Local Government published a consultation document on a new approach for resolving the disputes of mobile home tenants, no doubt aware of the unsatisfactory nature of the whole regime. The document recommends putting such disputes within the framework of the residential property tribunals. In theory, tribunals are an economical and accessible form of justice, in that lawyers are not required and the panoply of the judges' courts can be dispensed with. That is the theory and it is attractive, but I have sat on tribunals and the fact is that at least one of the parties will be legally represented if they can afford it, which already creates an imbalance of expertise. Tribunals can be very drawn out, being much closer in nature to an inquisitorial process. The experience and the briskness of a judge have considerable advantages when we are dealing with a court of last instance and all other recourse has been tried. Although I commend the department's recognition that the present system is not right, our solution has much more to be said for it. I beg to move.