The issue of park homes has been debated in this Chamber and in the House for a number of years. Different Governments and different Ministers have tried to grapple with the complex problems of those who seek a simpler lifestyle in a park home. I shall define what a park home is, because a lot of people, when they hear “park home”, have the idea that it is some little chalet by the sea. A park home is not a chalet by the sea. It is, by and large, a mobile home—what we used to call a caravan once upon a time—which is not a home fixed to the ground but one that rests on a pitch. I understand that to be the definition.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Before I have even started?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important subject before the House. My constituency has the biggest and best park home site in the country; more than 1,000 people live on it. The homes there are not caravans, and they are not mobile. They are like small chalet bungalows. They are beautiful little homes that offer their residents an awful lot, as I will say if I catch your eye, Mr. Jones.

The point is that park homes are not fixed to the ground. That is important. They are mobile, and can be moved. Often, when they are moved, they are dragged rather than towed.

There are wonderful magazines that promote the purchase of park homes. I have here a magazine called Park and Holiday Homes. The picture on the front cover shows a wonderful little chalet-style property with big windows that probably measures 40 ft by 20 ft. Such homes are rather different from the sort of mobile home in which I was brought up. My parents had the misfortune to run into financial troubles, and we ended up living in a caravan—we called them caravans then—between 1964 and 1969. Ours was 22 ft by 7 ft. Modern ones are entirely different, and people live in them for entirely different reasons. For us it was the force of economic circumstance, or perhaps lack of economic circumstance—I am not sure which, but we were certainly forced—but nowadays people take a lifestyle choice to move somewhere beautiful to a home that is compact and easy to maintain, and often sold to them with the idea that they can be part of a wonderful community.

For many people, that is the reality. I can visit many beautiful park homes in my constituency that are located in an idyllic part of Devon—we all know that Devon is idyllic—where people wish to reside. However, not all of them are beautiful. There are some issues with the legislation, particularly concerning what sort of people should be allowed to run the parks. Some fail to run them fully and properly, and there is always debate about whether the people who run them should be fit and proper. On Second Reading of the Housing and Regeneration Bill, I highlighted for the House how one particular park owner, Mr. J. Small, dealt with the residents of his park.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that greater protection is needed for park home residents, particularly when they want to sell, and that communication of their rights and responsibilities could be greatly improved?

I agree entirely. I believe that Mr. Small may have purchased, or may be about to purchase, a site in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I recommend that he visits it to see how Mr. Small gets on.

Park homes, although they are predominantly in coastal and tourist areas, are not found only there. They are an inexpensive alternative for many people, but one of the things inhibiting mobility is continuing high commission on the sale of park home sites. Although it has decreased from 20 to 15 to 10 per cent. over the years, two-thirds of people who responded to the recent Government consultation supported the view that it should be reduced further to 7.5 per cent., or perhaps even lower. Is the hon. Gentleman disappointed that the Government have yet to respond to that suggestion in any positive way?

I hope that the Government will consider the issue again and respond to it. I note that they have consulted, but the question about the drop from 10 to 7.5 per cent. involved no corresponding rise in pitch fee. If one talks to those in the industry, they say, “We get our money from here, and we get it from there”—I shall come to the three main sources later—so they want to balance their income. If there is a cut in commission, as there probably should be, how should the pitch fee be adjusted to account for that loss of income? The Department for Communities and Local Government should be considering that, and perhaps some slightly deeper and more complex consultation should be undertaken. I am sure that the Minister, unless he wishes to intervene now, will respond in the—sadly—brief time available to him at the end of the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter to the attention of the House, but I do not want to leave Mr. Small. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have two park homes in my constituency where Mr. Small behaves like a latter-day Rachman? He terrifies the residents, frightens the inmates and does none of the work that he has committed to do. Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea what we can do to drive Mr. Small out of our area of Teignbridge and south Devon?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I noticed some laughter when he used the word “inmate”, but some people on those sites do feel like inmates. They feel imprisoned, particularly if they are unable to sell their park home because of the park owner’s interference. I shall come to that in greater length and detail. If I may have an opportunity to progress, I shall come also to Mr. Small and what we might be able to do with him.

I used parliamentary privilege to name Mr. Small during a previous debate. He responded by saying that he did not think that I had ever been to Buckingham Orchard, the site that I named. For the record, I have visited it on probably a dozen occasions, although I do not have records beyond that. According to the Herald Express, Mr. Small responded:

“It is complete rubbish. If I thought it was somebody sensible saying all this, I might be concerned, but my mother always told me never to take any notice of politicians and clergy.”

I did not realise that our profile had risen to such a stock.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although Mr. Small may have no regard for politicians or the clergy there are court proceedings against him, as well as a number of judgments that are currently unsatisfied? That is an entirely different matter. As well as not liking politicians and the clergy, he is trying to flout the law.

The hon. Gentleman is slightly ahead of me, because I was about to say that it is clear that Mr. Small appears to have no regard or respect not only for politicians, but also for the laws that we pass and for the residents of his parks.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, we can resolve the problem by introducing legislation requiring site licence owners to be “fit and proper people”. That has been raised on a number of occasions and certainly by the working party set up by the Government in 1998, which reported in 2000. One of its recommendations was that licensees should be “fit and proper people”. The Government’s response in 2000 stated:

“The Government accepts in principle that a licensee should be a ‘fit and proper person’”.

We tabled an amendment to the Housing and Regeneration Bill in Committee, and I have tabled another for Third Reading, requiring the Government to consider legislation defining a “fit and proper person”. I hope that the Minister will explain how he plans to make progress on that. He should bear in mind that some Members’ patience is stretched, given that the Government responded positively eight years ago to indicate that they were considering such an approach. I hope, therefore, to hear something positive and firm about how that will progress. From conversations with the Minister, I know that he is concerned about the situation, but I emphasise the point that some Members have been here several times before and had hoped for more progress.

Why the need for “fit and proper people”? The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) described Mr. Small as a Rachman—

A latter-day Rachman.

Indeed, although I am not sure that I would necessarily go along with that description, because it implies intent, and I am not sure that in Mr. Small’s case there was intent. In some cases, he has shown careless disregard for residents, but he has not deliberately tried to force them off the site. However, that does not mean that the hon. Gentleman is not right in saying that some park home owners have a policy of trying to force people off. I heard evidence yesterday about a site in southern England being stripped of park homes, one by one, with what appears to be a clear view on the part of the owner to constructing a bricks and blocks development when all the park homes have been removed.

I shall leave Mr. Small for a moment and read out a letter sent to me by a park homes residents association that does excellent work. I shall keep the location and the person anonymous, because I do not have their consent, but I can name the site owner. The person writes:

“My distress centres around a visit from Mr Asa Hartley at approximately 10.30 on Friday…informing me that the ground rent I pay must be increased from £84 to £105 per month and that my contract, which has been in place since 1990, must be changed.

I would stress that Mr Hartley was the epitome of politeness, and was in no way abrasive, however he was very persuasive. I am afraid that my advanced years and lack of understanding in legislative matters caused me to panic and I signed a document agreeing to comply with the new proposed arrangements. Mr Hartley took away my old agreement, saying it would be shredded and I would receive a new replacement.

Various people are now telling me that the Park Owner is not in order in making demands and that I took the wrong course of action.”

That is, of course, entirely true. Many park home owners rely on the fact that most people who move to park homes do so after retirement and that some of them are quite elderly, frail and easily intimidated by a persuasive, polite gentleman, who says things such as, “I am going to put up your park home pitch fee; if you disagree, I shall take you to court.” For many people, the mere threat of being taken to court is enough to make them comply and sign.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he share my view that many people who purchase park homes have no understanding of the relationship between themselves and the site landlord and assume, as with normal property transactions, that they are caught up in landlord and tenant legislation, which does not apply to park homes?

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Many people purchase park homes with no legal advice, believing that the site is some ideal little park. It is rather like going on holiday—they think that they simply need to book their plot and go and live on it, and that everything will be ideal. It seems like an extended holiday; it is not a holiday, but a permanent residence. When taking out a long-term lease on a property, one would probably take legal advice. When purchasing a property, one would certainly take legal advice, from the estate agents, who have duties and things that they can and cannot do, and from solicitors. For park homes, people do not do that.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem is that these dwellings—as I refer to them—are defined legally not as homes, but as chattels? We must change that.

I agree; that is part of the problem. The definition of a park home can be misleading. They are not deemed to be homes because they are not fixed, so their legal status is different from what it would be if they were built of blocks on the ground. The mere fact that some people brick up the gap around their park homes, which effectively fixes them to the ground, or that they build verandas and porches, which are fixed to the ground, should, in some senses, change the status of the home. Sadly, as the law stands, that is not the case, so the homes end up in limbo with regard to the protection afforded to an ordinary owner.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating this important debate. There are several park homes in my constituency, mainly around the River Crouch, and many people who have chosen to live there are retired. I reiterate the point about the 10 per cent. commission. For many people who decide to sell, for whatever reason, it rankles that they have to pay 10 per cent. commission to the site owner. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of my constituents would like that provision to be reviewed? I hope that the Minister, like me, listened to what he said about it and that there will be an opportunity to reconsider the commission.

I am sure that the Minister has heard those comments, because the issue needs to be considered fully. I have attended a number of meetings at many park homes—some large, some very small—in my constituency, and often I ask, “Do you want a change in the 10 per cent. commission?” Some people say, “Yes, because we are looking to move and it is a large sum of money to be taken from us”, but others say, “No, because this is my last home and, therefore, only the executors of my estate will have to pay that commission, and I would rather have a lower pitch fee in the interim.” There are arguments on both sides, so we need to consult on that point. On balance, I think that 10 per cent. is too high, but that going down to 2 or 3 per cent. would make the pitch fees too high. We ought to seek a compromise of about 6, 7 or 8 per cent.—that is the sort of figure we ought to be aiming for. However, it is a matter for consultation. It is for those who live in park homes to say what they want in consultation. I am sure that the Minister has heard our points and will respond later.

To provide a larger picture of the life that one can live if one happens to reside on a badly run park home site, I return to the issue of who is a fit and proper person. Buckingham Orchard was a problem site before Mr. Small bought it in 2001, shortly after I was elected. Over the years, I have not had much cause to praise my predecessor, Patrick Nicholls, but he worked on park homes issues, including Buckingham Orchard and other sites, and was part of a working group that came up with some sensible recommendations, some of which have been implemented, some of which we still await. I have a note dated 11 November 2005, when there were 79 units on the site, of which only 69 were on the licence. Mr.—

Small.

Mr. Small—shall I ever forget his name?—applied for an extension to the park. The planning authority and the councillors granted it in the belief that it would be in compliance with the 6 m rule. The local authority insisted on that, even though, in my view, the standards that it demanded involved such minor breaches that it was not worth the effort of moving a park home. Indeed, several local authorities take a different view from the one Teignbridge took at the time. Before Mr. Small had even completed the roads or reconfigured any of the old site, however, he moved new park home owners on to the new part of the site. Indeed, he moved owners not only on to that part of the site, but on to land that did not have planning consent because he had extended the boundaries—by accident and oversight, of course—and was then required to move them. The garages were non-compliant, and he was required to move some of them back.

For the people on the rest of the site, there began a long and slow process of making the site fit. Mr. Small would tell a resident that the park home was going to be moved but not exactly when, because between the two events there must be a signed agreement that the move can go ahead. He would eventually move the resident’s home, but if it was damaged during the process he would argue that that was down to their insurance, that it had nothing to do with him and that he had no responsibility for any of the damage. He denied that it was his fault.

The homes would then be put on a new site. It was not the home owners’ fault that historically, for some reason, their park homes were 5.9 m apart rather than 6 m apart. It was not their fault that the planning authority and the park home site owner allowed the park homes to be 1.5 m from a boundary rather than the regulatory 3 m; they were moved, and legislation should not allow someone who is forced to move in those circumstances to end up with a loss. Damage was certainly caused to their homes.

If one looks at park home magazines, one sees that many home owners have beautiful gardens. Being retired, they spend a lot of time on very small gardens, laying patios, building verandas, putting in small ponds, ornaments and plants, and spending money on plants from the garden centre; yet their gardens are sometimes totally trashed by the moving of a park home. It may be moved only 1 m or 3 m, but at the end of the day, their beautiful garden becomes, yet again, a pile of muck and rubble. That was the condition in which some gardens were left; they were destroyed but they were not put back.

The hon. Gentleman and I share a common campaign, and the name “Mr. Small” always results in me jumping up. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that of the three sites in my constituency, which are all well run, two are owned by Mr. Small? The hon. Gentleman is describing matters with which I am very familiar, because they have happened at the two park home sites in my constituency owned by Mr. Small. Torbay unitary authority is doing everything it can, and very well, with a full-time employee, to deal with the situation, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of that full-time official, the law is not strong enough to help a well intentioned local authority do anything much about the situation?

That is very much the case, which is why I am arguing for new regulations that would require licence owners to be fit and proper people, ensuring that if they did not comply with the site licence, it would be removed from them and they would be forced to sell up.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that Mr. Small owns a couple of park home sites in his constituency, and the National Association of Park Home Residents advises me that Mr. Small and his family have a number of sites. I shall read the names into the record. They are Battisford Park homes at Plympton, Beauford Park at Norton Fitzwarren in Taunton, Beechdown Park, Totnes road in Paignton, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, Bickington Park in Barnstaple, Brimley Gardens in Bovey Tracey in my constituency, and Brookmeadow Park, High street, Wroughton, in Swindon. I remember the former Member for Swindon, Julia Drown, complaining about Mr. Small and the difficulties experienced in tracking him down. We had some conversations then about the difficulties that the Smalls were causing on the site in her constituency.

Mr. Small also owns Broughton Park, Shoreditch, in Taunton, Buckingham Orchard, which I have already mentioned, in Chudleigh Knighton, Byways Park, Strode road, in Clevedon, north Somerset, Green Lane Park Homes at Breinton in Hereford, Hillside Park, Totnes road in Paignton—his other site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Totnes—Kingsway Park, Tower Lane, Tower road north, Warmley in Bristol, Manleaze Park at Cannards Grave, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, Moorland Park on Old Moorland road, Bovey Tracey, again in my constituency, Newlands Park on Sidmouth road, Aylesbeare, Ringswell Park, Middlemoor in Exeter and Woodlands Park in Tedburn St. Mary, also in my constituency.

I have never had any complaints from my constituents about Woodlands Park, but I know that Members have had problems with many of the other parks, so if the media pick up any of this story, I recommend that they have a look at those parks, talk to the residents and find out whether there is a problem with the management in their area. I am not saying that all those parks are badly managed, but in my experience and that of the hon. Member for Totnes, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who sadly cannot be present, and others, Mr. Small has caused problems.

Mr. Small is not the only one, however. In relation to sales and commission, there are difficulties not only with the percentage fee, but with the requirement of the park home owner to determine who can buy, and move on to, the pitch. The Government amended the legislation, and they were wise to do so, because it had been recommended. However, they have not got rid of all the problems.

For example, Mrs. Hughes, a resident of the United States of America contacted me. Her mother, who lived at Buckingham Orchard but has since sadly died, had her park home valued by an estate agent at £60,000. She eventually sold it to Mr. Small for £10,000 and, to add insult to injury, I think he may have been entitled to take 10 per cent. commission on top. He did so, I believe, on the ground that the home was in breach of regulations—regulations that, to my knowledge, the local authorities had been telling him and the previous site owner to comply with for the past 15 years. Now, when someone wishes to sell, they are told, “You can’t sell, you’re in breach of regulation, therefore I am not permitting the sale.”

Mrs. Hughes was, I believe, defrauded of £50,000, if the valuation was £60,000. In my view, she was certainly defrauded of some money, but she is not the only one. I apologise for not having mentioned the next case to the Member in whose constituency it occurred, but I could not find the hon. Member concerned. I have a letter here from residents of a park home in Radcliffe on Trent. It says that Wyldecrest Properties Ltd is

“repeatedly putting obstacles in the way to prevent her”—

a person living there—

“from selling, as she is aware that legally she can assign a home to a new purchaser at the same rent as it is at present”.

In other words, Wyldecrest Properties Ltd is trying to put up the rent and the pitch fees—a point I shall come on to. The person was also told that her property could not be sold because

“It’s too close to other properties.”

Another park home in another part of the country is using exactly the same excuse to block a sale. In that instance, I do not know whether the park home owner could buy the park home at a knock-down price or not, but I suspect that might be the case.

I would like to reveal the other problems that people on these sites may face. I come back to Mr. Small again, because earlier I mentioned the site at Bickington Park, near Barnstaple, North Devon. In that case, the installation of a new home that had been sold was moved. One might think that if someone bought a new home, it would be fault-free. However, in this case the son of the people who moved there alleged that there had been incorrect installation of the home. I shall read from his letter:

“This is…the most serious issue of them all. Upon visiting the home, it was pointed out to a representative from Homeseeker”—

who provided the home—

“that some of the interior doors were not closing properly. Upon further inspection, he discovered a bulge in the floor. The Homeseeker representative was of the opinion that the axle stands on which the home stands were not placed correctly, and in addition there did not appear to be enough of them. He emphasised that it was the responsibility of the site owners to rectify this fault, but unsurprisingly the site owners are insisting that Homeseeker are culpable.”

Even when a new property is moved, which one would expect to be fairly straightforward and achieved in a competent matter, homes are badly installed.

I return to Mr. Small. A “Park Profile” for Somerset—I am not sure of its date—said that “Jeff”—that is, Jeff Small—

“was determined that his residents should settle into their new homes in peace and quiet and not feel as if they were living in the middle of a building site”.

Well, I hate to say it, but although that might make for good reading in a magazine about park homes, the reality for people in Buckingham Orchard is that they have been living on a building site for the last five years.

During that time, the local authority chief executive in the area and some of the other local authority officers have changed and the new officers are far more robust than their predecessors. However, the original local authority chief executive wrote to me to say that it would take several years for the work at Buckingham Orchard to be completed. That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that we allow elderly people who have retired to what they hope will be comfort and quiet decent living to be subjected to life on a tip, and Buckingham Orchard at times was a tip, with wrecked park homes left piled up and rubbish strewn over empty pitches. That is not the quality of life that the residents expected; it is not the quality of life that they deserve, and it is not the quality of life that we should allow them to endure just because we are unable to come up with the right legislation to correct some of the problems.

I have a final point about pitch fees. Again, the Government wisely listened to the working group and introduced legislation on the issue. I must say that the Government were loth to introduce changes to the legislation in the first place and they said that they did not want to introduce them in the Housing Bill.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who was at the time the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, stated at a meeting of the all-party group on park home owners that she would not introduce those changes. She was confronted by me and a Conservative shadow spokesman on housing—not the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman)—but we persuaded the Under-Secretary, as she was then, that we would not oppose the Bill and we would support it if the Government accepted the changes that we suggested. As they did not take up extra time, the Government introduced the changes. They are to be congratulated on that. It also shows that all-party working on some issues can be effective.

I can tell the Minister that there are other issues on which we need some all-party work and I hope that we can make some of the other changes that we need. He will find that there is common cause among Members in Westminster Hall today on some of those changes.

Pitch fees were changed so that the Government could allow other regulatory changes to be factored in. I believe that there is a site somewhere in Hampshire—I do not have a note of the name on my file—where the pitch fee review took inflation into consideration. There was an appendix of some of the additional costs. I shall list some of them:

“Costs of letters advising owners of C&LG fact sheet”—

the Communities and Local Government fact sheet—

“£0.28 / annum.

‘One off’ costs training / revision of M H acts…£0.22 / annum

Ongoing costs administration – 14 day notices…£1.25 / annum

Park home base fund…£21.74 / annum

Fire regulations…£1.77 / annum”.

I know that a lot of those costs may appear feasible, if perhaps a little petty—“£0.22 /annum”—but over a large number of sites in an area they add up. In addition, one would think that such cost for fact sheets would be part of the general administrative cost included in people’s pitch fees.

However, for the life of me, I do not know how the park home owners came up with the idea that they would charge “£15.76/annum” for “Additional maternity entitlement” regulations. I am at a loss to understand how someone can justify making that charge on people, in addition to their pitch fee, so that they can place their park home on a site.

I know that the Minister has an interest in this subject. He responded to the debate on Second Reading of the Housing and Regeneration Bill. I have also heard what he has said informally, as well as what he has said in Committee. I hope that he will respond positively when he is given the opportunity. There is cross-party consensus that something more needs to be done to protect park home residents, certainly on ensuring that fit and proper people run the sites. I hope that we can make progress and I look forward to hearing from him later.

rose—

Order. It appears that four or five hon. Members wish to speak. If they can all keep to about five minutes each, I think that I can get them all in.

Mr. Jones, I shall be brief, although the seriousness of the points that I will make should not be underestimated because of their brevity.

I have two basic points to make to the Minister. The first is that I recall, many years ago as a young butcher’s lad, making deliveries on Elland road in Leeds to the “pre-fabs”, or pre-fabricated houses. My question to the Minister is simple. The construction of a pre-fab, of which there were many in that area of Leeds at that time, and the construction of a park home are somewhat similar, and in terms of dwelling space and so on they are also somewhat similar. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that there is a different status in law for park homes. When the Minister is considering what to do, it seems that that legal status is a potential route for him to explore, because the pre-fabs were constructed, of course, immediately after world war two, allegedly temporarily but it was only 45 or 50 years later that they were removed, often with protests by the occupants. So I pose that as an issue for the Minister’s delectation.

I would like to make a second point. I do not claim to have the expertise with which the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) so eloquently introduced the debate, and I certainly have not done the same amount of research as him. However, I can smell injustice from a fair distance. When it comes to the park homes in my constituency, I can smell the injustice from here, because we have Mr. Adams, who is perhaps a relative, in some way, of Mr. Small—I do not know. Perhaps he is the bad cousin of Mr. Small, because Mr. Adams has been forcing people out of the park homes in my constituency at the cost of £1,000 per home.

It is fair to say that some of these issues have been hidden away because they are internalised within the self-described Gypsy community. Within that community, people have been removed from their park homes, and they are people who have lived there, or whose relatives have lived there, for many generations. In the Five Acres caravan site in Scrooby in my constituency, which is the worst example, a range of people have been, in essence, forced out for different reasons.

I have a key question for the Minister and it is also a question for the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on the Opposition Front Bench. My Conservative district council seems unwilling to take any legal action, despite requests from me and my constituents to take such action.

I seek clarification about the law in this area, and if my understanding of it is right, I shall seek action from the Conservatives about their recalcitrant councillors in Bassetlaw. I understand that when there have been serious breaches of the law, local authorities have the power—in essence, a duty—to take legal action on behalf of the relevant people. My constituents have requested that such action should be taken, but that has not happened.

After suggesting that the local authority was empowered to take action on this issue, I received letters from the chief executive of Bassetlaw district council, this year, suggesting that the illegal eviction of a resident from a park home is a private matter that should be resolved between individuals. Such cases often involve elderly people who have never been to court in their lives and who do not have the resources to do so. I am no expert in taking such matters forward, but it seems to me that if the law obliges the local authority to act, it should act. If my reading of the law is correct, and local authorities have those powers, they should use them. Two years ago, Bassetlaw claimed to have such powers. Will the Minister write to the council, outlining what its powers are and why it would be appropriate, if there have been clear breaches of the law, to use them?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing the debate, and on his consistent campaigning on behalf of park home residents across the country. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann); I was born in his constituency, and well know many of the issues that he has raised. I, too, shall attempt to be brief, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I rattle through the key points. Park homes play a significant role in providing low-cost accommodation, and the hon. Member for Teignbridge is right to highlight the prevalence of retired people who live in park homes. There are a significant number on the east Lincolnshire coast, particularly around Skegness and Ingoldmells in my constituency.

There are four key issues that I want the Minister and his civil servants to consider, the first of which is the pitch fee. Despite the relevant changes to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, a landlord in my constituency is trying to raise the pitch fee by 25 per cent., with absolutely no consultation with residents and certainly with no agreement. In another park, the landlord is attempting to impose a pitch fee increase that is above the retail price index, again without consultation. When residents resist, through the residents association, the landlord issues letters, via a solicitor, threatening not only to evict individuals but to shut down the whole park, by taking it to court, thereby evicting everyone. The Minister and hon. Members will understand that that causes great concern and consternation. The problem gets worse. An elderly couple is in dispute with that site owner, who used to be a residents association chairman. They have managed to obtain grants for a lift to help the wife get into her home, but the landlord refused to give permission for the works to be carried out while they were in dispute about the pitch fee. Those are the sorts of people with whom we are dealing, and that issue should be considered closely.

The second issue, which the hon. Member for Teignbridge has also mentioned, is the wheeze that some landlords use of adding costs for the provision of services such as road improvements, water and sewerage. In one park in my constituency, the sewerage system does not work properly and the landlord will not put it right.

The third issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and other hon. Members raised, is the commission rate of properties that are bought and sold. I understand that good park home owners sometimes invest the vast majority of that 10 per cent. figure into the park to provide or better facilities and services to residents. More often than not, however, that is not the case. There needs to be much greater transparency, so that residents and residents associations, as the representatives of people who live on the park, can see how that money is being spent and whether it is going straight into the landlord’s pocket or is being reinvested into the park. It is important that residents understand what they are getting into when they buy on to a park, but that is not the case in my constituency—other hon. Members are nodding—where there is not a fundamental understanding. The point about legal advice that was made earlier is absolutely right.

The fourth area that the Minister should consider is the role of the local authority. There is no duty on the local authority to enforce when there is a breach of site licence conditions. However, I understand that, to some extent, because, ultimately, a local authority’s only sanction is to remove a site’s licence, in which case the residents would no longer be allowed to stay there and the local authority would have a duty to house them. Clearly, no local authority is going to do that, because of the additional cost.

Further changes to the 1983 Act are needed, but there are things that the Minister could do now, without changing the current law or introducing primary legislation. At the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for the welfare of park home owners that the Minister kindly attended, he mentioned that he was considering a tribunal system. It would help if he were to update us regarding the implementation of a tribunal system by which disputes between landlords and residents may be resolved. It would also be helpful if his Department provided a simplified guide for residents about their legal rights, so that they understand exactly where the law stands on protecting their rights. His Department should also put more pressure on local authorities to implement existing law and should ensure that they enforce site licences, because that clearly is not happening across the country. Will he compile a list of park homes and owners for the public, so that people can see which park owners are doing their job properly and which are not? That would effectively be a name and shame operation.

In conclusion, it is clear that the current legislative structure is not working. It still allows inappropriate behaviour by many landlords to the detriment of park home residents, many of whom bought their homes in good faith but are not being allowed quiet enjoyment of them. I believe that the Minister is serious about looking into this issue, and he needs to look carefully at the issues that I have raised.

Time is short, so I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing this timely debate on this ongoing issue. Many of the points that I was going to make have been made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), so I shall skate quickly over them.

I should like to put on record my thanks to those who have run the all-party group for the welfare of park home owners for a number of years. It was set up by Hilton Dawson, the former MP for Lancaster and Wyre, and now the noble Lord Graham of Edmonton does a lot of the work. It is one of the best all-party groups, because it brings people together, including—dare I say it—site owners and park home residents. The group is important, and we should listen to it.

Park homes are an invaluable source of good accommodation, largely for older people, so I do not wish to diminish them. I wish that the public sector were a little more involved with them, because moving into such homes is an ideal way for people to downsize affordably and with dignity. I know that there have been comments about the need to revisit this issue, but I congratulate the Government on grappling with it, after their initial hesitation. They have made changes in the Housing Act 2004 and the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 2006, which uprated the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Those changes have brought greater protection and transparency and have legitimised and formalised some of the paperwork that I know, having considered this issue over the years, was not in a good state. The situation is much better now.

In the late 1990s, I did a survey of my park homes—I have about half a dozen—and found that residents overwhelmingly want improvements to council tax, which is an ongoing source of anger. When and if the Government eventually look at changing council tax banding, I hope that they look at that. Park home owners feel that they pay unduly, given the communalisation of services. I know that it is probably above the Minister’s pay grade to talk about that now, but it is important that we encourage people to choose that form of living by giving them some incentives. Hon. Members have discussed pitch fees and commissions, so I do not need to say much more about them.

I shall finish with two sources of worry, one of which is current—I shall not mention names, as I have not checked whether I can. Given the nature of the people who live in park homes, it is obvious that there is a need, over time, for home improvements to deal with energy efficiency, accessibility and so on. I have just come across a case of a site owner who is basically saying that if the lady in question were to put in a stair lift, it would affect his public liability insurance. To me, that sounds like a bit of a ruse, but it would be interesting to know where park homes stand in respect of home improvement activity.

I have been the director of a care and repair agency for 20 years. It would be stupid if the work that that agency does with older people could not be done for those in park homes, because they are often some of the most vulnerable people. We need to ensure that the legislation in that area is working.

The second point of concern is the usual one. It is not so much about individual homes—in a sense, that is up to owners in liaison with site owners—but more particularly about how site improvements are made. It is sad that, by going on site, one can see where money has supposedly been saved—the state of the roads is poor, the sewerage is causing difficulties, and there may be problems with electricity and gas.

The question is how one forces site owners to recognise their responsibilities. Their response is, “I am sorry, I keep the pitch fees low and cannot afford to do the work.” That simply is not good enough. Some sites are dangerous because of poor maintenance, which is unacceptable. It would be interesting to know the degree to which the Government are prepared to put pressure on site owners to ensure general upkeep of the site. If that were done, we could encourage many older people to consider a park home.

It is always a pleasure to follow eloquent and decent MPs, such as those who have spoken today. I mention in particular the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is a great campaigner. He always works assiduously for his constituents and always brings common sense and decency to this House.

I want to bring an alternative view and balance to the debate, because it is right to have balance in our debates. I have in my constituency Britannia Parks, which now owns Kings Park, perhaps the biggest and certainly one of the best park homes in the country. People who live there feel that it is as close to an idyllic community as they could possibly get, given their circumstances. A wonderful set of more than 1,000 residents live on the site. There are great staff who are caring and who work assiduously for the residents. The site is attractive: there are trees and a huge lake with fish in it, and there is a pond on the village green with ducks and geese on it.

It is a superb community, and residents take fantastic pride in their park homes, which are new. They are modern and extremely well insulated, and they are extremely well kept. The site facilities are all superb—better than most new housing estates, actually. The site is fenced with security on the gate, and people take great pride in their homes, gardens and environment.

I put that balancing view on the record, although I admit that there are rogue operators. I congratulate the Government on their recent legislation, which tackled many of the issues. I have met the Minister on several occasions, and I have taken the Kings Park owner to discuss the regulations with him. What we really need now is stricter enforcement of the existing regulations, and, of course, we also need the tribunal system. However, we should not be seduced into rushing at the 10 per cent. commission, which may be an error. Many people may take the view that they prefer to have smaller pitch fees and to pay the money at the end, when it is easier for them.

Park homes offer an alternative and a choice. I believe in offering people choice, but it must be informed choice. Several points have been made about ensuring that people are forced to get sound legal advice on exactly what they are entering into with a park home, but, provided that they get that advice, giving them a choice is a good thing.

Park homes provide affordable, low-cost housing, and offer a viable option for some people. They allow people to avoid rip-off bank and building society equity release schemes. Some of my constituents received £25,000, £30,000 or £40,000 from such schemes, but now they must pay back £160,000 or £180,000 they feel totally ripped off. Park homes give people a choice of avoiding that, even though there is a 10 per cent. commission when and if they sell.

Park homes create secure, close communities in which people know and care for each other. There are clubs and activities, and people, particularly those who become frail and vulnerable as they get older, can feel secure. Where demand for low-cost housing is high and there is a shortage of such housing, the Government should support good park home operators in the creation of sustainable communities. Pro-park home planning policies, the extension and intensification of existing sites, if appropriate, and consideration in national planning policy of the demand for such sites are needed. Planning policies at local level tend to be anti-park home, which is regrettable. Such homes have a part to play in the housing market. I am pleased that you have allowed me to make those balancing points, Mr. Jones.

In the two and a half minutes that I have to speak, I want to say, in congratulating the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing the debate, that Mr. Small’s name is obviously wrong, because he is a Mr. Big given how the situation is developing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has made a good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) also made that point to the all-party group on park home owners. He said that park homes are a life choice that many people make and should be encouraged to make. The problem is that, at present, because of the way in which the law is structured, and because of the inability of local authorities and other agencies to take action, people are actively discouraged from making that excellent life choice at a particular time in their lives. I want to suggest three ways in which the Minister could address that. Many of these points have been touched on.

First, on the sale of park homes, I shall describe a factual scenario. I am not dressing this up—it happened in my constituency. Somebody was selling their park home for a similar figure to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). She was a widow, and had to go into residential care. She agreed a price with a buyer—£60,000 or £70,000, I believe—and, as required, they went to see the site owner. He said, “Absolutely fine. I agree that she would be perfect on this site. By the way”, he said to the purchaser, “when you come here, I will make your life hell. I will put more pitches close to you. I will remove parking spaces and put up the pitch fees as much as I can. I will be at you day and night.” That person said, “I’m not going to live here in the evening of my life,” and quit. The park home site owner then purchased the home at a knock-down price, and added insult to injury by charging 10 per cent. on the sale. I hope that the Minister will address that, because it is one of the greatest unfairnesses of the current system.

I also suggest that we consider tribunals. The Minister made some good points in a recent meeting of the all-party group on park home owners. I tried to amend the then Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill so that disputes relating to issues such as residents’ associations—a problem in some park homes in my constituency—do not have to go to the Crown court and can instead go to a tribunal set up, for example, by the local authority. That is a much less difficult scenario for people to deal with.

Having made those two key points, my final point is that residents’ associations are still being subjected to unbearable pressure. People in park homes in my constituency have not been able to set up a residents association because of pressure by the park owner. That is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will address these key points.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), not just for securing this debate—I congratulate him on doing so—but for his constructive work in this area for a number of years. He has held discussions with the Minister in the hope of taking forward some of these issues, and he has participated in the all-party group on park home owners, which hon. Members have mentioned. The all-party group is a constructive and useful forum for moving forward on the issue of park homes.

My hon. Friend was keen to say that it is not always a sad story—people live happily on park home sites that are run well and park homes make a positive contribution—and he was right to do so. However, we are discussing this matter today, because that is not everybody’s experience. My hon. Friend clearly set out the problems, which he was keen to say may, in some cases, be down to negligence on the part of park owners rather than design. Hon. Members have mentioned park owners using the rules as they currently stand to intimidate or press residents to fit in with their plans. However, I am sure that there are park owners out there who see parks as a valuable source of income, which is the key driver for them. It happens not so much by design, but through negligence.

My hon. Friend has been an advocate of the concept of a fit and proper person. There may be questions about such a concept, if it is a disincentive for people involved. Having said already that much good can be done in providing park homes, in terms of people’s lifestyle choice, we would not want to impose artificial barriers that would prevent people from doing that. However, my hon. Friend is right to mention the concept, because often site owners do not just have one site, although some do. The gentleman that he mentioned—the infamous Mr. Small—has a large number of sites, as do many other owners, so they are significant people. Using the concept of a fit and proper person may be a way of looking at people who are such a significant figure in so many people’s lives.

My hon. Friend identified a range of problems: not just the obvious ones in respect of the financial issues to do with commission and increasing ground rents, but those to do with the moving of homes, which are the assets in which people have invested. People do not have so much control over the rest of the site—they accept that they are paying ground rent and that they are on someone else’s land—but they have invested in the home itself and, perhaps, in providing some extra facilities around it, as my hon. Friend has described. So it is extremely distressing and damaging for people to have that work undermined and their investment damaged in any way.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the lack of maintenance. Many hon. Members have experienced that in respect of homes in their constituencies, where the park home owner is not meeting their side of the bargain and providing a pleasant environment in which people can enjoy park homes.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) talked about the legal situation in respect of particular local circumstances. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) made a number of points, including the key point about transparency, which is important. People who are looking at park homes as a way of enjoying their retirement—we are, in many cases, talking about people in retirement—need to understand the issues. Although the written agreements that are a feature of this process have a part to play, he was right to identify the fact that more can be done in terms of the transparency of financial arrangements, in all the ways that those are applied, whether at the point of sale and transference of a park home or a site or in respect of ground rent or any other fees that are levied.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was keen to put the positive side of the case. Park homes are a positive lifestyle choice, and there is potential for them to do more in meeting housing need and allowing people to downsize, and so on. He mentioned council tax, which is a problem for park home residents. I am sure that the Minister will want to take that away with him, because it might not be a main focus of our deliberations today.

The hon. Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) courteously made brief contributions. The hon. Member for Castle Point spoke about the positive side of the issue, particularly in respect of the large sites in his constituency. If I ever have the opportunity to visit those, it will be interesting to see the size of the community that has developed there. The hon. Member for Newbury mentioned a more formalised arbitration process to allow some issues to be resolved without recourse to the courts. As other hon. Members have said, we are often dealing with residents who do not have the financial resources to pursue legal cases and, even if they are able to get access to legal advice, with support, they may be distressed by that process, so they are not best placed to represent their interests or to put those things across effectively. Therefore they may rather acquiesce in the face of bullying.

In responding to the issues more generally, park homes make a positive contribution. In respect of the park home sites in my large, rural constituency, in nearly three years as a Member of Parliament only one case has been brought to my attention—it involved the new owner of a park taking a slightly different view of parking permissions that the previous owner had been happy to allow. That was one of those vexed issues, but it was not the sort of problem that we have heard about elsewhere in the country. In the past, I visited a site in the south of England where such problems were occurring. However, I will not mention the constituency, because I have not had the opportunity to discuss that matter with the hon. Member concerned. There was great dilapidation of the site area, park homes were being removed and the owner seemed to want to replace them with new park homes with a view to the profit that was to be made. So he was running down the site to persuade existing occupants of park homes to move on and sell to him—again, at a knock-down rate.

We are talking about people who are often older and on fixed incomes, who are particularly vulnerable to the bullying and distressing actions that we have heard about—particularly in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider my hon. Friend’s suggestion about a fit and proper person. If he feels that that is not the appropriate route to go down at this stage, perhaps he will be able to offer interim arrangements that may reassure people out there on park home sites who are suffering at the moment from unjust treatment. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw mentioned his ability to sniff out injustice at some distance. One thing that unites all of us here is our determination to see that anybody who is currently living in a park home should not suffer injustice.

Finally, I want to probe the Minister on commission and the consultation undertaken in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) in July 2007, when the Department for Communities and Local Government set out responses, and the balance of those responses, to the different options that were presented. There seemed to be a will to shift towards 7.5 per cent. commission and to consider other ways of creating income for park home owners, but the proposals that eventually emerged from the Department were to stick with the 10 per cent. I shall be interested to hear whether the Government will re-examine that, and on what the final decision was based, given that so many responders wanted a change.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Jones.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on luring a small but select body of colleagues into the Chamber this morning for this debate—[Interruption.] It may not be as small as some bodies that come here, and there has been great interest in the issue. He spoke with great lucidity and charm when introducing the debate.

One matter that the hon. Gentleman has conveyed clearly, and to which other hon. Members have referred, is that people who decide to live in park homes have made a lifestyle choice, and devote considerable care to improving their verandas, tending their gardens, and building porches. They take great care of their park homes. That rang a bell with me, because for six months of the year my grandparents—they are dead now—lived in a fixed caravan on a park home site, so I have some small acquaintance from my summer holidays back in the 1970s with the park home lifestyle. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s observations rang true.

The hon. Gentleman introduced us to Mr. Small. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) described him as a latter-day Rachman, but the hon. Member for Teignbridge was more cautious and said that the Mr. Small showed a careless disregard for people who live in park homes on his site, and he listed some of those sites in detail. I am sure that the media in his area, whose interest he was trying to arouse, will not have missed that list—they certainly should not miss it.

What emerged during the debate is that, as all hon. Members who are present have described, there are other Mr. Smalls. There is clearly a difficulty. During the debate, I was reflecting on the fact that the whole arrangement for park homes is unique and difficult. The occupier owns the home, but not the site. The site owner can charge pitch fees and commission of up to 10 per cent., and they can try to block the sale of homes. We heard details of complaints about all those matters this morning. There is structural difficulty in the whole relationship from the start.

I thought that the idea of the hon. Member for Teignbridge of occupiers having to pass a test to show that they are fit and proper people—I am not a lawyer, but I believe that that phrase is well recognised in law—is worth exploring, and hon. Members will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. It is worth looking back at the legislation, and at the tensions between site owners and occupiers. The tendency over the years has been increasingly to protect occupiers all the way through from the original Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which first gave security of tenure to residents.

There is agreement that there should be proper protection for residents, and that more should be done in that regard. I have referred to the idea of the hon. Member for Teignbridge about fit and proper persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) made an important point about transparency, and I shall ask the Minister about that. Other hon. Members have referred to a tribunal system, which is being explored in discussions between the all-party park homes owners group and the Minister. We all want proper protection. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Small and other comments during the debate that there is a problem with unscrupulous owners.

It is important to add for the record that no evidence has yet been produced in this debate to suggest that the majority of owners run their homes other than decently, so it is worth pausing to reflect on a general law of life that often arises—our old friend the law of unexpected consequences. If we rush carelessly into action on, for example, commission, there could be a consequence in what the site owners do with pitch fees, and so on. Care is necessary, and I am sure that the Minister will refer to that.

To pick up a point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) has made about the Government’s consultation, it is worth reflecting on the figures. The Government received 834 responses favouring a reduction in the maximum commission from 10 per cent. to 7 per cent, and 161 responses favouring keeping it at 10 per cent. The Government have not yet responded favourably to the overwhelming majority of the responses to their consultation. We are, naturally, curious to know why. Do they believe that the number of responses was too low, or is there another reason? We look forward to hearing from the Minister.

In March 2007, the Government announced plans to improve transparency in the commission—the very matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness has referred. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect any planned changes to take effect? On site conditions and licensing, will he give the Chamber a timetable for the implementation of any plans to address difficulties with the current site licensing system announced in the Housing Act 2004?

This has been a good and useful debate. The hon. Member for Teignbridge should be congratulated on securing it and on his work more generally. We all look forward to the Minister’s reply.

I have enjoyed today’s debate, which has been excellent, and well chaired by your good self, Mr. Jones. I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing it, and I hope that he agrees that our meeting yesterday was productive and useful in setting out our respective lines, on which there is an element of consensus.

I do.

The debate has illustrated an important point, which is a key matter for many constituents of hon. Members here today, including the good constituents of Elmtree Park in Hartlepool in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman’s debate has provided a much-needed opportunity to discuss this matter, and the excellent contributions from many hon. Members have illustrated its importance. The subject is worthy of a debate longer than the 90 minutes available in Westminster Hall, and I would press for a three-hour debate on a Thursday afternoon to tease out in more detail the important issues that have been raised.

As other hon. Gentlemen have done, it is worth paying tribute to the work of the all-party park home owners group, which is excellently chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), and benefits from the commitment and wisdom of my noble Friend Lord Graham of Edmonton—Lord Ted of Ed, as he describes himself—who is its secretary and driving force, and who is a fellow north-easterner. Support for the group and its members concern for park home constituents was demonstrated by the high turnout of hon. Members at the most recent meeting in November last year. I do not believe that I have ever seen so many hon. Members attend an all-party group, which demonstrates the strength of feeling about the matter.

The driver for today’s debate is hon. Members’ concerns about bad practices by owners of park home sites. I believe that hon. Members accept that those owners represent a minority in the sector and that most sites are managed by professional, competent people. That point was made well by the hon. Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink), for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). In support of that view I am aware of the efforts of trade organisations to secure high standards of performance among their members and to promote good practice. However, as hon. Members have graphically illustrated today and as I can confirm from the correspondence that I have received in my role as the relevant Minister, professionalism is not universal in the sector. Indeed, I admit that standards of management at some sites are sometimes woefully inadequate and in some cases border on the criminal, as we have heard.

I start from the principle of wanting to incentivise good park home site owners, while penalising the bad ones. In a minority of cases, only enforcement with meaningful and appropriate penalties will change behaviour or drive unprofessional operators out of the sector. I acknowledge that further change is necessary, and I confirm my commitment to reforming the sector, specifically in the field of site licensing. However, we are not starting from a low base and, in a moment, I shall outline the improvements that have already been made to the sector.

It is right that I now address the central matter of the debate, site licensing. I recognise that there is a need to bring forward a comprehensive and effective system of site licensing to replace the scheme introduced under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The comments of hon. Members have reinforced my conviction that something needs to be done to prevent unscrupulous individuals from operating in the sector. Action also needs to be taken where an individual has acted in a criminal manner that is relevant to their fitness to be engaged in the management of a park home site. Therefore, let me make it clear to hon. Members that I intend to introduce a licensing regime that requires managers of park homes and other caravan sites to be confirmed as fit and proper persons, and to have the relevant competencies to manage a specific and, as hon. Members have said, in some cases unique type of accommodation.

As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I also want to ensure that local authorities have the right tools to enforce licensing requirements and that they are properly resourced to do so. We need to ensure that any regulation is light touch, that it is clear and easy to understand and that it will neither drive good owners out of the market nor discourage suitable other persons from entering it, which is a point well made by the hon. Member for Wycombe.

A new licensing regime must meet the needs of all, be comprehensive and work in the 21st century housing market. Park homes could have in increased role in addressing the need to supply suitable and affordable housing in the years to come. Therefore, before we embark on any detailed proposals, I think that hon. Members would agree that we need to consult on such proposals and assess their potential impact. I want to hear from residents, site owners, local authorities and their representatives about how we should take matters forward.

We cannot stand still on this issue. There is need for reform and although I fully understand that hon. Members are concerned that people’s patience has been stretched, I want to get it right. Knee-jerk or ill-thought-through legislation is rarely successful and often compounds the problem. We need to consider the specific details on matters such as licensing, the procedures to grant a licence, the fee regime, whether or not a licence can be transferred or assigned, how licences can be revoked on transfer of ownership or management, and other such detailed and technical matters. I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe agrees that we should try to avoid unintended consequences or unworkable solutions.

I aim to get my response to the issue right, rather than having a race to Royal Assent. With help and support from residents and the industry, we will get it right, but it will take time. For that reason, the amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, which are due to be considered on Monday, are not the appropriate vehicle to take the matter forward. However, I hope that he and other hon. Members will accept my clear commitment to deal with the issue.

With that reassurance, I am happy to withdraw my amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Bill.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. As I have said, I hope that he is clear about the commitment that I have made. I will keep him, the all-party group and the House informed on this matter.

In the short time available, I want to discuss my proposals on site licensing. As I mentioned earlier, they include a requirement that site owners or managers are fit and proper persons and that acceptable management practices that have been agreed with the council are in place. I wish to include a requirement that sites are or can be made suitable for the number of homes specified in the licence. I also want to introduce measures to increase the level of fines for breaches of a site licensing condition and, importantly, to give local authorities powers to refuse or revoke licences granted. I want to place a duty on local authorities to monitor compliance with the licences they have granted—my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has mentioned that point—and require them to grant such licences subject to appropriate conditions. If sites are licensable and no licence is in place, either because it has been revoked or because an application has been refused, I want to introduce special measures requiring the authority to put effective and proper management in place.

Of course, the powers and duties on local authorities will need to be funded, and I intend to give them a power to charge a reasonable fee for the licences they grant. Again, close discussions need to take place about how much of that fee would be transferred to park home residents and whether that is appropriate. We have had an important debate about pitch fee reviews, and it is crucial that the burden is not passed solely on to residents. We want to make sure that the right balance is struck.

On the timetable for my proposals, I intend to consult on the matter later in the year. Again, I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge and the whole House are reassured on my absolute commitment to the issue. As I said earlier, however, I am sure that hon. Members will acknowledge that we are not simply starting from scratch. Significant changes to enhance the protection given to park home owners have taken place in the past few years.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the park homes working party, which was established in 1998. The working party is comprised of members from across the sector who consider the operation of the existing controls on park homes. It made 30 recommendations designed to achieve a fair and workable balance between the needs and interests of home owners and park owners. The Government responded in 2001 and an in-principle commitment was made to take forward 25 of the working party’s 30 recommendations. We have delivered on 20 of those, and the remaining five relate to site licensing reform. As I have mentioned, primary legislation is required to bring that reform into effect. The revision of the model standards for sites, which was also recommended by the working party will be published next month.

As has been mentioned, I appreciate that many park home residents have been frustrated with the pace of change and think that the October 2006 changes have not had the intended effects. Therefore, they have asked for further legislation to address some of their concerns. I ask hon. Members and park home residents to allow time for reflection and bedding-in so that the initial problems relating to the creation and enactment of legislation are identified and addressed. As I mentioned with regard to site licensing, short-term and knee-jerk legislation very rarely works and often compounds the problem.

I understand that the Minister’s desire to get this right means that we should not be precipitate in our approach. However, there is a sense of urgency in relation to this issue. I have been dealing with the problem for nearly three years, but it goes back further than that. There is a degree of urgency, so can the Minister give us more of a commitment on when these matters will be resolved?

In direct reference to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I was about to say that we need to be clear about our communication methods. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) made a first-class contribution, in which he mentioned the importance of transparency. We are pushing further on that. It is important that residents are clear about their rights on who they can sell to, pitch fee reviews and the process of negotiation—the owner should not simply bestow changes from on high. They should also be made aware of residents associations, and I shall refer to that in a moment.

I am aware that professional trade bodies operate in the sector and that there are active residents groups. People involved with such groups give freely of their time, because they are committed to improving the lot of their members. Residents, site owners and local authorities need to engage with each other more effectively. In the first instance, the primary role for enforcing standards must rest with the local authority, and it should work with site owners to ensure they are complying with their site licences.

There are an awful lot of issues that I want to discuss, and I am disappointed that I will be unable to do so.

rose—

With the greatest of respect, I am unable to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have only a few seconds left. I will write to hon. Members on changing the law on property to ensure that park home sites have the same responsibilities as fixed dwellings. I shall also write to them on the Government’s policy on sales commission.

In conclusion, I condemn outright the bad practices about which we have heard today. I recognise the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Teignbridge on enforcing better standards. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members with my commitment to bring forward fit and proper persons in respect of site licensing. The Government and I are committed to ensuring that we have a vibrant park homes sector.

Order. We must move on to the next subject.