Autism and Neurodiversity Research Funding

Debate between Steve Brine and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who rightly outlines some of the pressures on the system—the increase in diagnosis, which in many ways is a good thing, and the personnel and capacity issues that cause many of the delays in diagnosis, which are all too familiar a pattern for many families, including those in England, Wales and Scotland.

It is interesting to note that research by, I think, the Northern Ireland Assembly calculated the estimated cost to the country of the failure to deal with autism at a staggering £32 billion. Let us just think about that. What a cost to our country: resources wasted, lives wasted and lives lost as a result of these omissions. It does not have to be like this.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

It is such a shame to see my right hon. and learned Friend not in Government, but such a pleasure to have him on the Back Benches and to be here for his first speech from the Back Benches in what I suspect is a number of years. Seeing that we have a lot of time in tonight’s Adjournment debate, does he, as a former Lord Chancellor, agree that the way we look at people on the autistic spectrum within the secure estate, and the way he is proposing we might look afresh at that, might affect the way we look at the secure estate as a whole—to understand a lot more, and condemn a lot less? We have such a high prison population, many of whom, especially women, should not be in the secure estate. Could this be the issue that causes us to look afresh at our prison system?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In 2020, he and I visited his local prison in Winchester, a prison with many challenges and, there is no doubt about it, a share of the population with a brain condition, sometimes undiagnosed and often an acquired brain injury. Many people who are in for offences of violence have themselves been the subject of violence. Those issues are frankly endemic within the criminal justice system.

That is why, when I was Lord Chancellor, in last year’s sentencing White Paper, I announced a call for evidence on neurodiversity in the system. I was hugely grateful to Charlie Taylor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, and Justin Russell, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation, for leading that independent call for evidence. Charlie Taylor was a public servant who came from the education sector, specifically the special needs sector, had real frontline knowledge and experience of autism and brain conditions and previously ran the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

The good news is that, thanks to the published results of the call for evidence, the Government committed—I am pleased to say I committed—to training for frontline staff and the upskilling of those staff right across the criminal and youth justice system, as part of a new custody and detention apprenticeship that is being offered and that will be completed by all prison officers. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is developing a revised policy framework and guidance all about those issues, but in particular about children in custody with those conditions. This work is carrying on. I will develop those points a little further. I know people are anxious to come in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. I think we formed a pact on Sunday night that we would work together cross-party on these issues. There are plenty of others on the Labour Benches—the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) has a similar experience and knowledge of autism—who I know will put their shoulder to the wheel, and that will be incredibly powerful. She has done work on the issue of knife crime. All too often, there is a sad correlation between the isolation of people who might be suffering from anxiety driven by an undiagnosed condition and what I call a cycle of isolation that can often lead to the decision to arm themselves for their own protection. That is an aspect of knife crime—we always think and talk about gangs—that we misunderstand at our peril, so I am grateful to her for taking part in the debate.

I was talking about the golden opportunity we have. We are between the autism strategy as published and the White Paper, which I am waiting for with relish. The Prime Minister knows that that is another issue I will be pressing him and the Government on in the next few months. Many of us identify social care as an issue not just for older people, important though that this, but for adults with disabilities who need lifelong support. They must be part of the mix. More than half of local government expenditure is on adults with disabilities. If we do not pay regard to that in the plan, we are failing. Although I supported and am happy to support difficult decisions on national insurance and on funding issues, we have to make sure that the system that we are funding is well evidenced, produces the outcomes that we all want to see and has an element of accountability that, at the moment, is lacking. People talk about the black hole of health and social care funding. With respect to everybody concerned with that, that is what it feels like to us on the outside, and we have to change. That is why research on care will be so important.

[Steve Brine]

I am so pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend made the point that social care is not just about older people. That is so important. What he is actually talking about—who knew that the Back Benchers and Front Benchers were so joined up?—is levelling up. He is talking about realising the potential of everybody in our country. It is not that autism is therefore a condition to be managed and kept in its box, as we seek to minimise the damage, but that we want people to achieve their potential, and if everybody can achieve their potential, that is just levelling up really, is it not?

[Robert Buckland]

I could not have put it better myself. Levelling up is about people and communities, not things. Things are important and they deliver us levelling up, but levelling up is about people. That is why the Government have to show seriousness of purpose. I am with the Government on these things—I helped to author a lot of the documents on which they will be held to account. This matters, but if we do not focus on people, we are not going to level up. That is the point that my hon. Friend made so well.

I commend the Autistica report to hon. Members, but if I may crave the indulgence of the House for a little longer, I want to outline what Autistica suggests the key stages of support should be that will make a real difference. First, the report made the important point that support for autistic families around and shortly after the time that they receive a diagnosis has to be improved, because it is big news for families. It is a big moment when they get that diagnosis. I remember now the mixture between relief that the system is listening and deep sadness, grief and anger, and all the emotions that someone goes through as a result. These are big moments for families. It sounds axiomatic, but this does not happen, because we do not empower all families of people with autism to understand the diagnosis and to come to terms with what it means for them. This is a moment when services have an opportunity to get to know these families better and to ensure that their personal profile, which should be done, is really understood.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Steve Brine and Robert Buckland

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remember the wider family concerns, and the difficult position that grandparents—often on both sides of the divide—face when it comes to issues of contact and the welfare of much-loved grandchildren. He is right to remind us that that is a real dimension of the situation.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Perkins]

rose—

[Robert Buckland]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) first, but I will come back to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins).

[Steve Brine]

I have to be honest with the Lord Chancellor: I am troubled by his Bill, but I am not yet entirely sure why and I am listening for him to give me a reason. It almost feels as if we are trying to prevent something from pulling apart by seeking to bind it together even tighter—almost “What the law has bound together let no one put asunder.” Does he agrees that, as a society, we should invest more heavily in relationships, in preparation for marriage and in conflict resolution? I remember myself and Mrs Brine doing that, which is why we are so happily married—17 years next week. If that were the case, maybe fewer relationships would fail.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely eloquently that all of us are concerned about the institution of marriage. Those of us who value it and who are part of it can see its benefits, but we are concerned to see a decline in its use—a decline in committed relationships. This Bill will not solve those problems. It will not stop those problems. This is a Bill about the legal process. I do not pretend that, through this legislation, we can solve some of the sociological issues that he raises, but he is right to look through the telescope the right way. My worry is that, however well-intentioned those who are properly concerned about the details of the Bill might be, we are in danger of looking through the telescope the wrong way if we focus our attention on this process, as opposed to what might happen at the beginning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I will just make some progress. I will of course allow for interventions in a proportionate way, remembering the time pressures that we are all under.

The Bill purposefully does not seek to change the other aspects of divorce law for financial provision—I dealt with that issue in my response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). It is more than half a century since the Divorce Reform Act 1969 gave rise to the current law. There is only one legal ground for divorce or dissolution—namely that the marriage has broken down irretrievably—but existing law requires that the petitioner must satisfy the court of at least one of five facts before the court will hold that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Three of those facts—unreasonable behaviour; adultery, which does not apply in respect of civil partnerships; and desertion—rely on the conduct of the respondent. Two of those facts rely on the parties’ separation—namely two years, if both parties consent, and otherwise on the basis of five years’ separation.

Around two out of five divorces in England and Wales currently rely on the two years’ separation fact. The parties must have been separated for at least two years before the presentation of the divorce petition. However, that route to divorce can be used only if the respondent consents; if the respondent does not agree, it is a five-year wait before the divorce can be granted.

Around three out of five petitioners for divorce rely on the conduct facts—that is, unreasonable behaviour, adultery or, in rare cases, desertion. In only around 2% of cases does a respondent indicate an initial wish to contest a petition. Such initial opposition can often be driven by strong disagreement with what has been said about them by the other spouse in the petition. Of those contested petitions, each year a mere handful proceed to a trial at which the respondent’s case is heard. It is abundantly clear that marriages are not saved by the ability of a respondent to contest a divorce, because marriage is—has to be—above all things a consensual union.

I set out at the beginning that the current law incentivises many divorcing couples to engage in proceedings that quickly become acrimonious, even if it had been the intention to divorce amicably. Research shows that spouses are often surprised when told by a solicitor that they must either choose to wait a minimum of two years to divorce or be prepared to make allegations about the other spouse’s conduct. Although this is no longer the world of the staged scene of adultery in a hotel so criticised by the great A. P. Herbert, former Member of Parliament in this House and the author of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937, it is right that we pause for thought about a situation wherein the law and circumstances are stretched in a way that does not help anybody, least of all the lawmakers themselves. It is a great poetic irony that A. P. Herbert went on to write the smash-hit musical “Bless the Bride” some years after he helped to author that major reform to the law of divorce, but perhaps that story itself makes an eloquent point: those of us who seek to make changes in this sensitive area of the law can, in the same breath, absolutely celebrate the institution of marriage and the values that surround it.

[Steve Brine]

I have found the reason I referred to. I think the unease that many feel about this legislation is the timing of it—the so-called lockdown break-ups. I can understand why that is a sensitive issue at a sensitive time on what the Lord Chancellor rightly says is a sensitive matter. What would he say to those who oppose this legislation on the grounds that it is a difficult time to be introducing so-called quickie divorces?

[Robert Buckland]

First of all, no time is an easy time. This is a sensitive matter at all times. Secondly, these are not quickie divorces. We are regularising the position to end the so-called quickie and to equalise the position with regard to minimum terms. We must, I believe, accept that divorce is a sad and unhappy consequence of relationship breakdown, not a driver for it.

Cycling

Debate between Steve Brine and Robert Buckland

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

It is funny that my hon. Friend should say that, because my next line states that our report says that every local authority should appoint a lead politician who is responsible for cycling. I want the report to give birth to mini Borises across the country. Bearing in mind that we did not launch the report until April, that is quite a short gestation period.

I find it bizarre that we even needed to say that each local authority should have a lead politician. Winchester had a cycling champion long before the report was produced. This must not be about just giving somebody a new line on their letterhead. The cycling champion must be a councillor who is at the heart of the administration, as they should be at the national level. They must have the necessary political clout and authority to drive things through with their colleagues at cabinet level and with the key officers and the chief executive.

The cycling action plan should not be marked as being in the cycling folder; it should be part of the council’s health, tourism and economic strategy, and an integral part of the council’s strategy should be to make it work. How many MPs in the House have sent a copy of the report, or an e-mail with the link, to their chief executive or leader of their local council? How many know who the cycling champion is for their area and—more importantly—what they do?

I am not trying to be the lead councillor for cycling in my constituency—if I wanted to be a councillor, I could have a far easier life. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I notice the double-hatters looking at me—how to win friends and influence councillors. I am trying to push the issue up the agenda locally, working with the marvellous councillors I have in my constituency. I hope soon to sit down with councillors from Winchester and Hampshire county council, and start putting some lines on maps.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I think my hon. Friend is genuine in his praise for councillors such as the lead member in Swindon, Councillor Keith Williams, who is a triathlete and passionate cyclist. Does my hon. Friend agree that with local leadership such as that which I have described we will improve cycling facilities in towns such as Swindon? Department for Transport funding for improved links between west Swindon and the town centre is an example of how cyclists will find things safer in the long term.

[Steve Brine]

Yes, I agree. What I said about putting lines on maps is an expression I borrowed from Andrew Gilligan, who came to see the all-party cycling group on the eve of launching the Mayor’s cycling strategy for London. One thing he took us through was that putting lines on maps is not easy; land belongs to Transport for London or to the boroughs, and somebody had to try and pull that together. It was the leadership of the Mayor and of Andy—

Autism

Debate between Steve Brine and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

My local experience, which I am sure is shared by many hon. Members, is that the rate of diagnosis is increasing. Some years ago, when my daughter was diagnosed, I was startled to learn that, in certain parts of the country, there were no diagnoses of girls with autism. That was not because there were no girls with autism, but because the specialisations needed to make the diagnosis were not there. I am afraid that that patchiness applies today. We are at the early stages of fully identifying the range of needs. I accept that, at times, diagnoses are made in the wrong category and that children with other conditions are diagnosed as autistic, but that is inevitable when the system seeks to ensure that the needs of children are addressed in an increasingly sophisticated way.

I mentioned the need for parliamentarians and society to start viewing people with autism as people with huge potential. In a few years’ time, I want to stand here in the Chamber—or anywhere—and say that, in this country, we have cracked the code and ensured genuine opportunity for all people with autism and autism spectrum conditions.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate—he does such good work in this field. He has spoken very eloquently of his experiences as a parent. I have lost count of the number of parents who come to my surgery with an enormous folder after working so hard on behalf of their child. They are the ones with the sharp elbows, the time and the wherewithal to do all the reading and understanding, and to battle their child through the system. This debate is about the millions of children in this country who do not have such parental support, such as children in care, getting the same access to services as children whose parents can drive their way through the system.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am reminded of the famous quotation from F. E. Smith about the world offering glittering prizes to those with stout hearts and sharp swords—I think “sharp elbows” was the phrase my hon. Friend used. He is absolutely right. We need to move to a system where parents do not need to shout at the top of their voice to obtain provision for their child, or bang on the nearest door as loudly as possible or kick out at the authorities to get what they believe is in the best interests of their child. He is absolutely right about that.

Mobile Homes Bill

Debate between Steve Brine and Robert Buckland

Friday 19th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who has worked with many of us on the Bill over many years to get us to this day.

Like many other Members, I tend to be in my constituency on a Friday doing a surgery and numerous other engagements. I therefore often do not have the pleasure of being present on private Members’ Bill Fridays, unlike some other Members. In fact, the last time I came here on a Friday was to support the Second Reading of a private Member’s Bill—the Daylight Saving Bill—and that somewhat dates it. I remember that I had to get through an ice storm in Winchester, and I broke my paternity leave for my second child—I am still paying for that. I hope that gives the House and the promoter of the Bill some indication of the importance that I place on it. That is why I am here to speak in support of it today.

As others have, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on his success in the ballot and on taking up the cause. It is a complex issue, and he has taken to it with his usual gusto. We have had many conversations in which we have communicated to him how we have got this far, and it has been good to have him on board.

If I had a pound for every Member who has said to me in the two and a half years since I was elected that they have a lot of park homes in their constituency, I would be a very wealthy man. People sometimes think that this is a marginal issue that affects a small number of people living in coastal areas. Not so. There have been varying estimates of the park home population, and the Consumer Focus report that has already been mentioned many times this morning, and will be mentioned many times again, states that about 160,000 people in England live on just under 2,000 sites. I think that is about right, and it is the most up-to-date figure that we have seen.

I represent eight sites across Winchester and Chandler’s Ford in Hampshire, and I reckon that in the six and a half years for which I have been in post there, including the two and a half years since my election, I have knocked on pretty much every single door. I soon got a pretty good feel for what park home residents are saying, and I found that they—like most of my constituents —were not exactly shy in coming forward.

Let me be crystal clear: not all park home owners are rogues or difficult people. I have met many in my constituency, and elsewhere through the mobile homes all-party group, and most are decent people running legitimate businesses and providing genuinely affordable homes to many of our constituents. Furthermore, park home residents do not talk to their MP only about park home issues; they use the health service, schools, and experience the benefit system much like all our constituents, and we should remember that.

As I have said many times in the House and in meetings upstairs, my constituency contains good and bad site owners. It is fair to say, however, that by no means do I see the worst of the situation, and some might ask what my interest in the subject is. Having talked to park home residents over many years, I could see that there was a problem and a need to tighten the law. Since becoming an MP and dealing with my post bag and holding surgeries, I have seen this problem time and again. I have spoken to constituents who are frightened and intimidated, and who just want a bit of peace and quiet to go about their lives like the rest of us. That is not too much to ask.

During my short time in the House, many Members have asked questions about park home living. Already in this Parliament, questions have been raised with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions, and there have been debates in Westminster Hall and a Backbench Business Committee debate in this Chamber. As we have heard, and will no doubt hear again today, such debates are peppered with appalling stories of park home residents who are far from living the dream—they are living a nightmare. The trick is to make those stories count, and to get a real response so that we can change the law. My fellow vice-chair of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), has done more than most to get us to this point today, and we are incredibly grateful.

Hon. Members will hear a lot about the all-party group this morning. It is a real working group and I remember a meeting at the Department for Communities and Local Government that was held just before Christmas last year with the former Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), and also attended by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. We started to see the Bill coming together, and it was exciting to see years of work beginning to go down on the page. Let me recognise again the work of Consumer Focus in this area. Its report, “Living the Dream?”, launched last Tuesday, is a significant and first-class piece of work, and we should thank Consumer Focus for it.

It is a pleasure to support this Bill, which I hope will bring to an end years of uncertainty and suffering for thousands of mobile home residents across the country. I do not think it is perfect, and there are issues concerning the timing of some of the provisions and when they will become a legal reality. It does, however, contain many positive provisions for which we have long campaigned, and I will touch on a couple of those and highlight the experiences of some of my constituents.

Although many mobile home residents are content with the condition of their sites, a recent survey by Consumer Focus found that a quarter of all residents reported problems with maintenance, safety or security. Those issues often involved badly maintained roads or paths, inadequate street lighting, or problems with residents’ private or communal gardens. In some circumstances, the appalling condition of site roads can mean that rubbish trucks, and even ambulances, are unable to access the site.

Many park home residents in Winchester have written to me about their sites on a range of issues. One constituent wanted to draw poor parking facilities to my attention, as well as a badly maintained drainage system that resulted in water pouring into and flooding his garden on an almost daily basis. There was poor quality workmanship on parts of his plot and his home and, to make matters worse, the owner of the site refused to rectify any of those faults, and subjected my constituent to verbal abuse and barely concealed threats when he dared to complain. It is almost as if we have become desensitised to such stories, but they are real and should never be underplayed.

Another constituent wrote to me outlining serious concerns about the upkeep of the site on which he had lived for nearly eight years. During that time, no improvements had been made to the site, which he understandably found pretty frustrating. Perhaps more worryingly, since the site had been sold to a new owner, conditions had deteriorated further with potholes on the road becoming an increasing problem. On top of that, much of the street lighting was not in working order, making it pretty much pitch black in winter evenings. My constituent told me that he no longer felt safe taking the dog round the block after dark. One e-mail I received was sent on behalf of many residents on the site, some of whom, as we have heard, are elderly and have no access to e-mail. I was assured that the majority of residents felt the same way, although, as other hon. Members have said, many did not want to come forward and speak to their MP—that tells a story in itself.

Such problems are not minor inconveniences; they have a profoundly negative impact on the quality of life of residents in our constituencies, and that is why this Bill is important. Surely, as constituency MPs we are interested in the quality of life of our constituents, and time and again I have heard that that is being affected for those living on park home sites. That is not good enough.

The current licensing arrangements are inadequate because—perhaps understandably—local authorities often seem to place greater importance on breaches of licenses that pose a risk to the health and safety of the residents, as opposed to those relating to maintenance that do not on the surface appear to pose the same risk. Park home residents in my constituency frequently mention the provision of utility services and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, they are often left with much less consumer protection than individuals living in other sorts of homes, owing to the lack of any direct relationship with the provider of gas, electricity or water. I have been made aware of many examples across the country where residents pay for electricity through the site owner, but that way of operating is obviously open to abuse and leaves residents with little clarity. That is why, if this Bill gets to Committee, I will support calls by some of my colleague to increase the transparency provisions of the Bill to cover utilities.

Under the current law, if conditions attached to the granting of a licence are breached, the local authority has the power to prosecute the site owner only in the magistrates court, and they are not able to serve notice requiring works to be undertaken prior to prosecution. Many local authorities are therefore reluctant to prosecute because the statutory set fines are low—they were set in stone in the previous legislation; we would have required primary legislation to change that, which is another reason the Bill is important—and the resources required are considerable.

The Bill seeks to address those issues in several ways. Clause 4 amends section 9 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by providing that where a site owner fails to comply with a licence condition, the local authority may serve a compliance notice on the owner, outlining the steps that need to be taken to meet the licence condition. It is vital that a greater range of enforcement tools are available to local authorities, as that will make it easier for site conditions to be maintained. We have longed campaigned for that, and it is welcome in the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 enhance that measure by stating that a site owner who has been served with a compliance notice that has become operative under the proposed new section 9H, is guilty of an offence if they fail to take the steps outlined in the notice within the required time frame. Both changes provide local authorities with better enforcement powers and will go a long way to improving site conditions where necessary.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. At the moment, the only option available to local authorities is that of prosecution in the magistrates court. That is costly, the maximum sentence is quite low, and that deters enforcement authorities from taking action and provides an incentive to the site owner to evade his or her responsibilities. The powers in the Bill are essential if we are to improve enforcement against unscrupulous site owners.

[Steve Brine]

Absolutely. As usual my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. I hope that local authorities will not become litigious organisations as a result of the Bill, and I like to think that some of the sticks that have been brandished today will be noted loud and clear across the country. The provisions in the Bill are critical.

I welcome the fact that local authorities will be allowed to demand expenses when a compliance notice has been served under section 9A of the 1960 Act. It is crucial that local authorities are able to recover any expenses incurred, to ensure there is no disincentive for them to issue such notices. The provisions in the Bill that provide local authorities with the power to carry out works on a site in certain circumstances are also welcome, as that will surely put an end to some of the worst cases of neglect. I hope that a message goes out from the House that such actions should be the last resort for local authorities, and that the new powers will act as sufficient warning to site owners who continue to ignore their responsibilities. I suspect, however, that I am being naive in that regard, and that is why those clauses are in the Bill.

Under the current law, all privately owned sites are required to be licensed by the local authority. The conditions attached to the licences are designed to ensure that the site is in a suitable state of habitation and maintained to a good standard. However, because local authorities are currently unable to charge for their licensing role, such functions are often under-resourced. A Select Committee on Communities and Local Government report published in June found that the current law is inadequate because it does not provide local authorities with effective powers to monitor or improve site conditions.

I welcome the reforms to the licensing system in the Bill. By allowing local authorities to charge fees for the issue or varying of licences on relevant protected sites, the Bill will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the licensing regime. In doing so, the Bill recognises the importance of creating a self-funding model under which local authorities are not burdened with the costs of administering the licensing system. An effective licensing regime hinges on the cost of the licence being adequate to cover an appropriate inspection arrangement. An annual licence fee will act as a useful income source for local authorities—as we have heard, they can use it to offset the cost of enforcing licensing conditions. By providing better resources to police the system, the fee will help to raise maintenance standards and ensure that the licensing conditions are adhered to more thoroughly.

Although the Bill allows for the annual licensing fee to be recoverable through pitch fee increases—I recognise this is controversial—rather than through a new licence application, park home residents should not be liable for any costs that result from the new requirement for site operators to pay a site licensing fee annually. Ultimately, the revenue from the sale of park homes—the 10% commission that owners receive—should provide revenue to site owners for the licence fee. In an ideal world, the Bill would remove the 10% rule altogether—I have argued for many years that the rule is a scandal—but it does not. That is the context.

Under current legislation, park home residents who want to sell their home must have the new buyer approved by the site owner before any sale can proceed. The process can occasionally be used by site owners, in effect, to block the sale of a home in an attempt to get the current owner to sell their property back to the owner, which is clearly totally unacceptable—we have heard many examples of that, although I have thus far not heard of any from my constituency. Park home residents should have the right to sell their home freely and without unfair interference from the site owner. I am therefore very pleased that the Bill includes provisions to remove the requirement.

A number of constituents and many more park home owners across the country have written to me because they are worried about the bullying or intimidation that often accompanies such unfair interference.