---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have entered into the spirit of this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a strong and effective advocate for Gypsy and Traveller issues, as is the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I share their concerns about the potential for abuse to occur in respect of pitch agreements for local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites once the provisions in the Mobile Homes Act apply in respect of such sites when Clause 316 of the Bill is brought into force. However, we would expect local authorities, as public bodies, to act reasonably and responsibly in agreeing the use of arbitration in resolving disputes that may arise with Gypsy and Traveller residents on their sites. If the existing power is abused at all, therefore, it is far more likely to be abused by unscrupulous private site owners than by local authority site owners. My noble friend Lady Whitaker was kind in her comments on reforms to the dispute resolution system under the Mobile Homes Act and referred to our proposal to transfer the jurisdiction of county courts to hear disputes, apart from possession proceedings, to residential property tribunals established under the Housing Act 2004. As part of that proposal, pitch agreements will no longer be able to require the use of arbitration for dispute resolution, so that injustice is particularly dealt with. She was also right to identify the pressing need to reform the current system of dispute resolution under the Mobile Homes Act. That is why the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Assembly are consulting very carefully on reform. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the conclusions that we will draw from that consultation exercise and I heard clearly what the right reverend Prelate said in this regard. There is an interesting debate to be had about the most preferential outcome and the potential costs in court as opposed to the informal but nevertheless proper procedures of a tribunal. The point he made about legal aid is also well understood. Comments have been invited from a wide sector of the community, including from those living, working with and owning homes in this residential sector, because it covers a variety of circumstances of which, of course, Travellers and Gypsies are an important part. No doubt my noble friend will be aware that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Welfare of Park Home Owners has long campaigned for reform in dispute resolution, and our consultation seeks to meet the concerns felt by many in the sector that the current system does not work as well or as fairly and proportionately as it should. We also understand the concern about the imbalance in tribunal proceedings between those who can afford to be legally represented and those who cannot. If such an inequality exists, it manifests itself through the courts as well because the complaint we often hear is that park home residents cannot afford to bring or defend proceedings for fear of having costs awarded against them, and of course not all residents will have access to legal aid funding. But residential property tribunals have a wealth of experience in the field of adjudication in landlord and tenant legislation and it is quite normal for parties to represent themselves at dispute resolution hearings. I say to all contributors to the debate that there is a consultation exercise in progress and I strongly advocate participating in it and making sure that the views which have been voiced today are expressed as part of that formal consultation. I will certainly ensure that those views are passed on. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is reminding me about his question on Hackney.