| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now move to the next debate.
Park Homes
11 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): I am delighted to have had the good fortune to secure this debate--I expect that the Chamber will be packed to the rafters before long--and to have the chance to air the problems and, indeed, opportunities involved in park home living as it affects my constituents on some 1,000 pitches in 47 parks in the district of Wyre, as it affects some 200,000 people in the United Kingdom, and as it affects older people living in rural areas. That last category is quite relevant to the earlier debate.
It is, I suppose, the inevitable fate of Governments coming to power after a hiatus of 18 years to be faced with problems that should have been resolved years earlier, which have been compounded over time, and which have been sorely neglected for so long that people have despaired of their ever being sorted out. I doubt, however, whether many problems discussed in the House have involved such a basic difficulty in regard to definition. Nowhere in the legislation--which is sorely inadequate for the purpose of providing all park home owners with the security and consideration that most of us take for granted--is there so much as a definition of "park home".
The Mobile Homes Act 1983, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 contain no better definition than that contained in housing booklet 30, "Mobile Homes", published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It states:
Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport):
The hon. Gentleman mentioned holiday homes. People who obtain mobile homes often have to sign a document containing the word "holiday", and are not aware what that means. Many authorities are able to turn such people away from sites. The Government should tackle the problem. The word "holiday" should not be taken into consideration when people sign deeds or other documents relating to mobile homes.
Mr. Dawson:
I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and I share his concern. Personally,
Park homes are not caravans. Usually, they are mobile only once, when they are installed, as I learned when I first visited a park home. Park homes are delivered--often to delightful rural locations--as prefabricated units; but once they have been installed with mains services bricked in, capable of being extended, adapted and reroofed, of having their insulation improved and, in principle, of being completely replaced part by part over time, they can hardly be described as mobile. They are homes, some valued at under £10,000 but others costing as much as £100,000. They are sited in parks owned by others, for which a pitch fee is paid, but they are still homes, which can provide a very comfortable, pleasant way of life--especially for older and semi-retired people who want a quiet existence.
Two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Ward of Wyre Vale park and Lodge park in my constituency, are Park Home and Holiday Caravan magazine's park owners of 1999. I am told by my constituents in Cabus and Catterall that they provide two splendid, safe, secure parks for older people. They have made a serious long-term investment in their parks, enabling them to develop high standards and excellent relationships with park residents in attractive surroundings. They plainly have a good, expanding business, for their parks are permanently full. News of impending vacancies is conveyed by word of mouth rather than advertisement. They intend to be around for a long time, and good luck to them.
Unfortunately, however, park home living is not all like that. I am hardly an expert on the subject; until about three years ago, I had never heard of park homes. But one day when I was campaigning in Poulton-Le-Fylde, I got talking to someone who had a story to tell. As a result, we decided to get together with some other people and hold a public meeting. We booked a room for 25. Given that it was a warm summer evening in Garstang, and that the subject was aimed at older, retired people who presumably would be keen on a quiet life, I expected half a dozen people to turn up; in fact, 72 turned up.
We ended up outside, in a grassy area, holding an impromptu meeting at which I heard tale after tale of people made vulnerable by age and infirmity who, having invested their life savings in park homes in isolated rural surroundings, had been verbally abused by park owners and their staff. They had been encouraged to move on so that the owners could claim a 10 per cent. commission on a sale. Annual pitch fee increases way above the rate of inflation had been imposed on them with no negotiation or discussion. Their parks, in which they lived and in which they had invested money--often their life savings--had been redesigned without consultation. Park owners had undermined their ability to sell their own property, and had then offered to buy it themselves for a much lower price. I have heard of inadequate electricity supplies--whereby putting on a kettle at the wrong time blew the electricity supply of the entire site--and of cases in which parks' physical standards were poor, and sometimes dangerous. I have also heard of cases in which attempts at building a residents association, to start a
reasonable dialogue, were constantly thwarted and undermined, and in which people were unsure of their rights, confused, angry and afraid.
Subsequently, we had a succession of meetings. As soon as we received publicity, I started receiving letters from people across the country who were concerned about the issue. We organised a local conference to put people in touch with some excellent residents associations, such as the National Association of Park Home Residents, the British Park Home Residents Association and, perhaps above all, the Independent Park Home Advisory Service. We then went to meet Lord Graham--who I contend knows more about park homes than all the Members of this place and the other place put together. He has campaigned on the issue for years, and is held in great respect everywhere.
Spurred on by all that encouragement, we started to talk to the listening and progressive council leader--Councillor Richard Anyon--of Wyre borough council, which was quick to develop its practice on the matter. The council produced an information booklet for local park home residents, began to give more attention to site licences and pioneered home insulation schemes for park home residents. However, although a great amount of work is continuing at local level, that work is a mere drop in the ocean of painstaking casework and campaigning undertaken for so long by so many people.
As recently as last month, when I spoke to the annual conference of a very good park owners association--the British Holiday and Home Parks Association--in Edinburgh, I was told quite sincerely by a number of people that there really are no problems in park homes, and that any issues are stirred up by agitators and the permanently disgruntled.
At the conference, research was quoted--from about 1990--from the then Department of the Environment, stating that nine tenths of residents are happy with their lot. There are a great many knowledgeable, decent and honest park owners--I know that because I have met many of them--but, on that matter, they are absolutely wrong. I know that they are wrong because I have attended many public meetings, on many subjects--one man and his dog turn up at many of the meetings, although the dog usually goes away half way through them--and have come to realise that 70, 80 or 100 older people do not come along to such meetings if there is not a real problem.
I also know that those park owners are wrong because I have met Professor Philip Kenny, of the university of Northumbria, who has been a legal adviser on park homes for 15 years. He has called for radical reform of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, to align current law with housing legislation, and has commented that
Courage and integrity are qualities possessed also by Roy Waite, who for many years has been a driving force in park home residents organisations. Roy is watching this
debate and, after it, will probably tell me that I have it all wrong. However, if he were on the Floor of the House, he could tell hon. Members about local authorities that have completely failed to regulate and inspect parks; of councils whose own parks have been neglected; of the grotesque exploitation of vulnerable people, pressured to sell their homes way below market value; of residents harassed by park owners wanting to redevelop a site that the residents are entitled to occupy permanently; and of the outrageous, criminal treatment of the residents who came home to find their home towed off the site and dumped by the roadside.
I have seen some excellent examples of park home living. However, in a recent study of harassment, the centre for urban and rural studies, at the university of Birmingham, has shown that there is a general feeling that current arrangements are ineffective, and that the protection of residents' civil rights offered by the law, by industry self-regulation, by residents' associations and by other agencies is inadequate.
The loopholes afforded by legislation that was intended to apply to caravans, but that now applies to a very important part of the United Kingdom's housing resources, may create circumstances in which the vulnerable, poor and old--and those who are ignorant of their rights, or are without the self-confidence, knowledge or resources to enforce those rights--are exploited. It is an issue that cannot be ignored by any decent and responsible Government who are committed to meeting housing need, to ensuring supply of good-quality, affordable housing, and to fairness.
I believe in the truth of the words uttered by one of my constituents, at our very first meeting in Garstang, that, somewhere in the United Kingdom:
It is a good industry. That is demonstrated by nothing so well as the monthly magazine, Park Home and Holiday Caravan, which is indefatigably edited by Anne Webb and reports not only the good but the bad sides of the industry. The magazine reports on comfortable, secure, often extremely attractive and well-run parks, and on the ever-developing design of park homes. In a recent edition, I read an inspirational piece about the way in which a park home had been creatively adapted to meet the needs of a disabled person. This month, we heard of a group of residents who, between them, have bought the park in which they were living and are now managing it co-operatively.
The British Home and Holiday Parks Association and the National Park Homes Council are responsible organisations of park owners, run by competent and reasonable people. We have seen the industry attempt its own quality assurance--from the park homes charter to the gold seal assurance for park homes; the National Park Homes Council's quality awards for parks, which are setting high standards--and whose residents are now able
to access 25-year finance packages; and the forthcoming involvement of the independent housing ombudsman. Those are all worthy initiatives--let us make no mistake about it--but they are no substitute for fundamental reform of the law, and they should not be touted as such.
I was pleased to be part of an all-party delegation led by Lord Graham, in late 1997, to see the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), and was absolutely delighted that she agreed to establish a review of legislation on park homes and to involve in that review representatives of the main industry groups, the three residents associations and the Local Government Association.
I have been to one meeting and received the minutes. The group appears to be working well. It is a focus of national interest from people living in park homes throughout the country. It has commissioned research, defined many areas for discussion and developed good working relationships between all parties. People of good will on all sides are making positive contributions. It is rightly tackling the complex issues on which we need reform in primary and secondary legislation.
"The legal definition of a mobile home is the same as that for a caravan. Broadly speaking, it covers any structure designed or adapted for people to live in which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer). This does not include railway stock on a railway line which is in use, nor tents. It does include twin units separately constructed and designed for assembly on site, provided that the twin unit is physically capable of being moved when assembled. The twin unit must be no more than 60 foot long 20 foot wide and the living accommodation no more than 10 foot high."
I am glad that we are not discussing tents, but we should not really be discussing caravans either. I think that we should scrap all references to caravans and mobile homes when referring to park homes in residential parks that have planning permission for 365 days a year. We should be discussing housing needs, housing resources, housing law and housing policy. I do not propose to talk about holiday parks in which people often live for 11 months of the year. Although they give rise to serious anomalies and problems that will need to be dealt with in the future, our first priority must be to deal with residential parks.
"persons who are strangers to the world of mobile homes would be astounded by the absolute power of financial oppression that one person has over another."
I also know that they are wrong because I have listened to the experience of IPHAS's advisers--people of courage and integrity--such as Joan Aylott, Alan Savory, Colin Packman and Bernard Johnson. It takes courage and integrity to do the work that they have done over so many years.
"Rachman is alive and well and running a residential park."
I believe that, among the great majority of perfectly decent people running residential parks, there are some rogues from whom people should be protected. I believe that we have a potentially very fine, very important industry that is being undermined. Its reputation is being damaged. It could do so much better, both in meeting housing need and in providing business opportunities, but only if we get the problems sorted out and if--this is probably an insult to cowboys--we kick out the cowboys.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |