Peter Black a Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Gorllewin De Cymru

Having spoken in an earlier debate on which I achieved consensus across the Chamber, I do not feel that I will do the same on this issue. However, I will do my best. I will say, from the outset, that the Welfare Reform Bill, which is going through Parliament now, would not be the Bill that the Liberal Democrats would have brought if they were in Government on their own. However, at the same time-[Interruption.] I am coming to that bit now-it is a different Bill because the Liberal Democrats are in Government. I believe that we have mitigated a number of particularly difficult aspects and removed the things we felt were unacceptable. That debate is still ongoing in the House of Commons, and it may go back to the House of Lords on some of the amendments. Therefore, I do not think that the Bill as it currently stands is in any way a finished document, and the Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for our views, both in Government and in Parliament, particularly in the House of Lords.

Joyce Watson: Thank you for taking an intervention. You referred to helping people back into work, but the Government with which you share power in Westminster is not actually helping people back to work. The first thing that it did was to immediately cut the fund set up by the previous Labour Government to help people back to work-the Future Jobs fund. How do you think the benefit changes that currently allow tax breaks for working mothers for childcare are helping those mothers get back to work? I can assure you that it is not helping them to get back to work; it is plunging them into debt.

Peter Black: Thank you for that, Deputy Presiding Officer. Joyce, you will know as well as I do that Labour supported the universal credit in principle, because it supports the principle of getting people back to work and ensuring that the benefit system does not undermine people's ability to do that.

I mentioned universal credit, but I want to move on to some of the other issues that Leanne Wood raised. Many of the examples that will be cited by Members, particularly with regard to disability benefits, will relate to the assessment process, which, in my view, is not fit for purpose. Surprisingly, it is run by Atos Healthcare, but that system, which was put in place some years ago, has a massive failure rate given the number of appeals against decisions in which people are successful and have their benefit reinstated. That, more than anything else, underlines the fact that that system needs to be reformed and changed. As Leanne said, all of the parties here-with the exception of Plaid Cymru which is not in Government at a UK level and has no experience of that-believe that there has to be some form of reform. How that reform is to be pitched is the subject of debate here. As Leanne said, Labour's commitment to a regional cap on benefit is an indication that it too recognises that there has to be reform, although I would not support that initiative.

Peter Black: I thank all those Members who have spoken today. The evidence of cross-party support will be heartening to the park home residents in the public gallery listening to this debate and to the residents who were not able to get here today, who have suffered over the years from the injustices and the lack of protection that the park home regime subjects them to. The passion of many Members here, in speaking on this issue, is worth noting. It is evident that they have had to deal with these problems for many years. I, Kirsty, Ann and everyone else feel strongly about the injustice being visited upon residents as a result of malpractice and abuse in the park home regime. There are a few points that I wish to mention. Julie James is absolutely right: if you get the enforcement and licensing regime right then you can solve many of these problems. We will look to do that, but whether that will be by creating the framework for the Minister to issue guidance or by putting it on the face of the Bill will need to be discussed. However, it is a priority to get that right.

I support the concept that residents should be able to take control of their site, but that may well be an issue for the housing Bill as opposed to this one because it will fall outside the scope of this Bill. We do not deal with tenure in this Bill, but I would support including that if the Minister brought that forward as part of the housing Bill.

Finally, on Rebecca Evans's contribution, it is key that the police are made aware of the issues on the site. I have a document from DCI Colquhoun of West Mercia Police, and we will look to meet with him over the next few months as part of our work in putting this Bill together. The police's approach to the low-level harassment on park home sites is crucial. We cannot do much about it in the Bill, but we certainly need to raise awareness with police forces about these issues and how they should be handled. That document is an important resource that police forces need to take on board. Evidence from the meeting earlier today indicated that most police forces in Wales still need to take note of that and still need to act appropriately when they receive such complaints. That is on my and other Members' radars, and as a result of this debate and of Members having their attention drawn to this document, they will no doubt raise this with their own police forces and ask them to look into this, particularly when such problems are brought to their attention by their own constituents.

Park homes are timber-framed bungalows built in residential parks and used by their owners all year around as their primary residence. There are approximately 100 residential park home sites in Wales, with around 5,500 homes housing about 10,000 people. Park homes tend to be largely retirement properties and a popular choice for older people wishing to downsize. However, this means that many people living in park homes are particularly vulnerable, not only because of their age, but because of their inability to effectively represent themselves out of fear and a lack of confidence. Difficulties are caused because part-time residents own their homes while a site operator owns the land. Site operators can withhold consent to park home residents reselling their homes, although this consent should not be unreasonably withheld. Some residents have reported sale blocking by site operators, which causes great financial loss to the park home owner and an easy profit for some rogue site operators. There is also evidence of severe fuel poverty, problems with the supply of electricity, gas and water, and allegations of harassment and intimidation in addition to numerous other issues.

The purpose of this proposed Bill is to regulate more fairly the process by which residential caravans and mobile homes are managed and sold in Wales. The intention is that the Bill will ensure that negotiations between site owners and park home owners are independently monitored and that there will be a system of arbitration for owners who have cause for concern about the process. I also wish to establish a requirement that site owners must pass a fit-and-proper-person test as part of the licensing system.

Of the 803 park home sites on 392 parks surveyed by the park home owners' JUSTICE campaign, 48% said that they believed they were living under the regime of an unscrupulous park owner. There are some specific examples. In one case, a gentleman who had retired to live in a mid Wales park home site complained about an increase in pitch fees, just months after fees on the site had already gone up. The owner spat in his face. The second increase meant fees were 20% higher on the site than they had been 12 months earlier. Similar tales can be found on park home sites all around Wales.

The reality is that if you own and live in a park home you simply do not have the same rights as other homeowners. There have been cases where residents have been harassed and threatened until they feel they must leave their homes, at which point they are faced by a new problem: the right of the site owner to veto the sale of their home. Under the 1983 Act, a park home owner can sell only if they find a buyer

There are cases where this rule has been actively abused, with site owners unreasonably blocking sales until the resident, in desperation, decides to sell to the site owner at a massively reduced rate. In England, there have been cases where homes have been set on fire by unscrupulous site owners in order to drive out existing residents, and yet, despite convictions for arson, these people are allowed to continue running park home sites in other parts of the UK. There is no fit-and-proper-person test for a site owner. What about the legal avenues open to both site owners and residents who are in dispute? Licensing and planning issues relating to park home sites are dealt with by local authorities. Other legal issues are primarily dealt with by the county courts, which is a highly intimidating and expensive process.

The success of the residential tribunal service in England has been limited, with some site owners refusing to acknowledge rulings that go against them. To enforce rulings, residents have to go back to court. Many disputes do not fall under the jurisdiction of the tribunals, rendering the service ineffective. This is a stressful and expensive process and one that many people living in park homes cannot face. The system as it currently stands is failing these residents.

Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, a local authority has the discretionary power to revoke a site licence by applying to the magistrates' court. However, it can only do so on a third or a subsequent conviction for breach of a licence condition. Many local councils are reluctant to get involved in investigating cases. This could be because there is no duty on them to investigate or prosecute when wrongdoing is found, and because local authorities lack the resources to take action or do not wish to get involved because there is no suitable housing provision for the park home residents to go to if they were to lose their homes. The police are also reluctant to involve themselves in what they consider to be a civil law issue.

The Minister referred to me harking back to previous schemes. I think that that is still relevant, because, although we have this model in front of us-I suppose that we have moved from a Ford Focus to a Prius, perhaps-we still have no guarantees that it is going to work, and I still have concerns that, unless we start to involve local government and the money it spends-unless we start bending its programmes as well as our own-we will still not achieve that. If you are going to introduce a top-down structure, effectively controlled from the centre, you are not going to get that buy-in from those other partners who operate on a local level, who will feel disenchanted and disempowered by the way that this new scheme will be delivered.

We believe that one of the biggest weaknesses of the Communities First programme since its inception has been the failure to engage with the private sector, particularly local businesses, in regenerating local communities. There needs to be a set of indicators that shows specifically how money that is being spent in the Communities First area will produce an outcome and which will measure how successful it is. Clear targets must be set for that money and not necessarily for the whole range of programmes of which it performs a small part. Empowerment is very much a part of that and of how we deliver it.