HC Deb 25 April 1985 vol 77 cc1110-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

12 midnight

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is again intervening, in the case from outside the boundaries of the House. He might like to come and listen. He might learn a few important things.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to have this Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for turning up to listen and I hope to answer.

Yeovil, now known as south Somerset district council, is one of the most progressive in Britain in many ways. It was one of the first to consider installing the Piper communications system for old people. As the Minister will be aware, systems such as Piper provide elderly people with the means of emergency communications to obtain assistance. Piper uses the standard telephone system to connect the elderly person to a central switchboard which is manned by trained and qualified staff capable of providing or obtaining immediate expert help when it is required.

The system provides a natural extension of the traditional warden in sheltered accommodation. At least, that is how I and the National TV Licence Records Office see it. One might go further and say that it is how most sensible people might see it. It seems that we cannot include the Home Office in that category, but more of that later.

Piper and similar systems provide the modern new-technology method of delivering warden servic to old people. Like much other new technology, it has some significant advantages over the old ways. It is more convenient and available for old people, in particular, those in disbursed accommodation. It also enables the council to provide the same service more efficiently and cost-effectively. We are told that the Government wish to encourage local authorities to be more efficient and cost effective, but not it seems the Home Office. It seeks to penalise councils and old people who use such new efficiencies. Again, more of that later.

As common sense dictates that Piper should he considered as merely another method of providing warden service, common sense also leads one to the conclusion that it should be treated in the same way when it comes to consider eligibility for concessionary TV licences.

Being a responsible and prudent authority and perhaps even recognising prophetically that common sense is not always the predominant quality in Government Departments, south Somerset district council wrote in 1982 to the National TV Licence Records Office in Bristol to ask for its view on the matter. It asked whether it would be true that in public housing specially provided for the elderly under part V of the Housing Act, 1957 the Piper system would count in all respects as the same as communal warden service in deciding eligibility for concessionary TV licences.

The council received an unequivocal answer in a letter from the National TV Licence Records Office dated 12 October 1982. It said: Thus, if the Communication System terminates at a point at which such a person is employed, and that person makes regular calls to the old people, the conditions are satisfied. That was the case which Yeovil put forward.

If, in addition, that person is able to direct travelling wardens to the old persons as necessary the position is doubly fulfilled. Again, it was doubly fulfilled in the case of Yeovil.

We are cautious people in Yeovil. There then followed an exchange of letters to make assurance doubly sure between the south Somerset district council and the National TV Licence Records Office, and we were again categorically assured beyond a peradventure that Piper qualified the elderly in part V accommodation for concessionary licences.

I quote from another letter of 10 January 1983 from NTVLRO in Bristol: if suitable property, originally provided as main-stream housing, has been permanently modified to specially provide for the elderly standard and the Housing Manager is able to make a categorical statement"— which he could— in writing that the properties concerned have been permanently modified so that they can now be said to be specially provided for the elderly then, subject to acceptable communal facilities"— which were available— such as the warden controlled Piper Call intercomm system"— specifically said in that case— these will qualify. It would be impossible to get a clearer statement than that.

If the National TV Licence Record Office in Bristol says this, can we not accept it as the definitive, the final, word? Apparently we cannot. But south Somerset district council was not, of course, to know that. So it told the pensioners in my constituency, some 700 of them, in good faith — and I understand that similar problems have occurred elsewhere, in Rugby and in Colwyn—that they would get concessionary TV licences.

As the Minister will no doubt realise, that was important to old people on fixed incomes, because Piper is not provided free of charge. Last year the rent was £26 from old people's fixed incomes. But old people in my constituency and elsewhere felt that they could pay that to get the improved service that they required and that the council wanted to offer them, because it would be offset by the concessionary licence for their TV which was promised to them according to the NTVLRO. With their limited resources, this was precisely the basis on which they budgeted.

At this point all was well. The council had acted responsibly, and the National TV Licence Records Office had been clear in its advice. Old people in my constituency and elsewhere had been able to budget for a service which they needed. But we had reckoned without the Home Office. We had made the reasonable assumption that the Home Office knew what was going on in one of the sections for which it is responsible. We were just about to be disabused of such a comfortable notion.

The first I knew about it was when I received a letter from my chief housing officer written in March 1984—18 months after the NTVLRO had said that it would be all right. He said that there was some confusion, the Home Office was for some reason involved, and could I please find out what was going on. I duly wrote to the Secretary of State, who informed me boldly, three months later, in a letter of 18 June 1984 that We have concluded that it"— by which he meant Piper— does not satisfy the legal requirements. There was no word of why, and my first question to the Minister, which I hope that he will answer, is; what was the reason for that?

The letter goes on to admit, rather candidly, that this is "not particularly logical or fair". Those are the words of the Secretary of State himself — and that such decisions were "arbitary". Just like that, he abandoned the undertakings given by the National TV Licence Records Office; just like that he cut the ground from under the feet of south Somerset district council, which had given a promise in good faith on the advice of his own officials; just like that he dumped on 700 pensioners in my constituency and many more outside it a requirement to find £58 more this year than they had either bargained or budgeted for.

It is true that the Minister waived the remaining licence fees for last year, but that does nothing for those elderly who have been snared in what I must call the Minister's trap and who are having to find money which they had not budgeted for this year—and Piper is, of course, a resource which they will wish to continue to use.

For some of the elderly in my constituency, such casual and, to use the Minister's words arbitrary, illogical and unfair decisions—for which we have been given no reason — will mean hardship. For others it could mean getting rid of their televisions. For all it is a blow as unkind as any that they have received from the Government this year, and that, frankly, is saying quite a lot.

I have a number of questions which I hope the Minister will answer. First, is he satisfied with the behaviour of a section of his Department for which he is responsible in this miserable saga? Secondly, is he not sufficiently in control of his Department to prevent such a thing from happening? Thirdly, what steps has he taken? Have any heads rolled as a result of the inefficiencies that have caused such misery to so many? Fourthly, will he now explain precisely why—in terms that the elderly who have suffered can understand—the Piper communications system, appropriately resourced, cannot be treated in the same way as the old-style warden system when dealing with eligibility for concessionary television licences?

Lastly, how can the Minister justify this chain of events? How can he justify pulling out the rug from under the National TV Licence Records Office and its decision? How can he justify leaving South Somerset district council in the lurch, when it made a promise in good faith? How can he justify causing so much hardship to many elderly people in my constituency and elsewhere in Britain?

12.11 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) not only on obtaining an Adjournment debate on this issue but on putting his case with eloquence and a great deal of effectiveness. I am bound to say that coming to the Dispatch Box on this issue gives me no great pleasure, because I must seek to explain to him and, I trust, defend an action that undoubtedly has caused hardship to pensioners in his constituency, through no fault of theirs. That is the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I share it with him.

Substantial problems are associated with this development. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me—and I know that his courtesy is such that he will—I shall try to answer the questions that he posed with such firmness and explain the background to this case.

The concessionary 5p licence scheme which has been operating since 1969 was intended to rationalise the television licensing requirements in old people's homes, where previously residents in some homes had been treated as though they were exempt from licensing, while others were required to pay the full licence fee. The scheme was to cover not only old people's homes but sheltered housing schemes for pensioners because the residents in sheltered housing schemes for retired people were considered to be in a similar position to their contemporaries in old people's homes.

I suspect that I shall carry the hon. Gentleman with me when I say that that operation from 1969 has proved, over the course of time, a source of considerable difficulty—not just to the beneficiaries but primarily to those who are not beneficiaries. It has produced anomalies between pensioner and pensioner and extreme difficulty in both definition and application. I offer the hon. Gentleman at least the partial excuse that the complexity of the scheme has led to a number of anomalies of which the Piper system and its accessibility, tragically, has been one.

The scheme was introduced from the best of motives to correct what was seen as an anomaly. Perhaps underlying it was the assumption that residence in an old people's home or sheltered housing somehow equated to need. In fact, as I think the House would agree, those assumptions have proved questionable and the scheme has proved a source of very real difficulty since its inception. The number of people benefiting from the scheme now stands at nearly 600,000. The great majority of those beneficiaries live in sheltered housing schemes rather than in conventional residential homes.

The conditions of eligibility for the concessionary licence are laid down in the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) Regulations 1984. Although they were updated in that year, they have, broadly speaking, continued unchanged since 1969. The regulations form the statutory base and they are the means by which the National Television Licence Records Office has to interpret its authority in granting licences. Local authorities must abide by those regulations when determining whether a scheme is admissible. Sadly, the regulations are technical. Therefore, it is inevitable that there have been certain problems in interpretation, such as that raised by the hon. Member.

Under the regulations, entitlement to the concession depends on the kind of accommodation retired people live in, and not on their personal circumstances. For old people's sheltered housing schemes to qualify, they must fulfil two specific conditions. First, the accommodation must form part of a group of dwellings which is provided for retired persons of pensionable age either by a local authority under part V of the Housing Act 1957 or by a housing association. Secondly—I must stick to the wording of the regulations here—there must be provided in association with the old people's accommodation other accommodation or facilities intended for the common use of all the occupants of the dwellings". That is a crucially determining feature about the arrangements that the hon. Gentleman has described in relation to the Piper system.

It is the term "communal facilities", which is not defined in the regulations, which has given rise to particular difficulty. It has been the practice since the concessionary scheme was introduced to accept, for example, an official warden as a facility for qualifying purposes. However, when some other form of facility is provided, we can only judge in individual cases whether it can fulfil the second condition of eligibility which I have just described, that is, a facility that is common to all occupants. The question which the hon. Member has raised is essentially whether an intercommunication system can be interpreted as a facility for qualifying purposes. That is what it amounts to.

In recent years some local authorities have begun to install intercommunication systems in old people's accommodation. This enables elderly residents to contact the council if they are in difficulties or if some emergency has arisen. Clearly these systems provide a useful service, and they provide reassurance to elderly people. Certainly we would not wish to discourage local authorities from installing systems of this kind. Two or three years ago some councils represented to the National Television Licence Records Office, which deals with the applications, that the intercommunication systems were provided as an equivalent service to a warden, and should therefore count as a qualification for the concessionary licence.

The criteria by which the NTVLRO judges applications for the concessionary licence are laid down by the Home Office and it is expected to seek guidance from the Home Office in any case where entitlement is in doubt. The problem raised by the hon. Gentleman arose—I am sure no malice at all was involved—because on that occasion the Home Office was not invited to comment on the interpretation of the application by the NTVLRO. That action was not taken when local authorities first began to inquire about the acceptability of intercommunication systems as a qualification for the concessionary licence. Subsequently, when the matter was referred to the Home Office and when the Home Office took legal advice as to the position under the regulations, we had to conclude that intercommunication systems could not confer entitlement to the concessionary licence. That remains the significant point in relation to the question that the hon. Gentleman asked at the conclusion of his remarks.

Mr. Ashdown

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but this is the central issue. Although it is regrettable that there was a lack of consultation, the Minister has not yet explained why he cannot allow the Piper system to qualify. After all, it is communal in all senses; it is available to all and provides a warden service in a modern manner which the Government must be in favour of; it also helps the Government to make better use of resources. What is the reason why Piper could not be regarded as a communal service when, by the ordinary tenets of common sense, everyone would have thought that it would have been?

Mr. Shaw

Our reason for not accepting intercommunication systems as qualification for concessionary licences is essentially that they do not represent a facility of substance for elderly people living in accommodation specially provided for retirement pensioners. The concessionary licence is described in the regulations as the "Accommodation for Residential Care" licence. That is the full legal description.

An official warden system could and would confer entitlement to the concession so long as the warden made regular visits to the person or persons in his or her care and provided appropriate services according to need. In our view, that could genuinely be described as residential care—that is, caring for the residents.

An intercommunication system, however, is not a human and caring service provided by an individual but a communication system that is essentially technical in nature and individual in its particular application. We do not accept that residential care can be provided simply by installing such a system. If we did, the hon. Gentleman could argue that a telephone installed to provide the assistance of communication is sufficient substitute for the care that a warden service can provide.

Mr. Ashdown

There is a substantial and qualitative difference. The Piper system provides access to a resource which is in all senses the same as the resource that a warden would supply. It provides communication to a bank of people able to deliver exactly the same services but in a more efficient manner. In that sense, it is not the same as a telephone. It is a communication system in much the same way as ringing the warden's bell or putting a light on outside the house, except that it is a modem system and operates on a much more effective basis.

Mr. Shaw

The hon. Gentleman will agree that in residential accommodation there are usually certain communal facilities such as lounges where wardens may meet and the relationship between the wardens and the residents is one of regular human contact. He is describing a simple connection by technical means to someone who may have nothing to do with the home. The connection may be to a council office some distance away or to a bank of voluntary workers who are not even related to the same building.

The function of the licence is to license a location, a building. The hon. Gentleman and I have television licences relating to our addresses and our power to receive, not to our individual selves as we might have as keepers of a motor car. We are licensed to receive television signals in one, two or six rooms, but it is the power to receive that determines our liability to pay the licence fee.

I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand that there is a technical difference between acceptance of the communal services provided essentially in warden accommodation for residential care and an intercommunication system which may or may not relate to the individual dwelling in which the television is located and could reach a considerable distance away. My analogy with the telephone is thus not that far removed from the type of system that the hon. Gentleman has described, although I entirely accept that the benefit to the individual occupant may be much the same whether a warden is available along the passage or there is access to assistance through an intercommunication system reaching some distance away.

The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous and I have gone into what I regard as the guts of the issue as he raised it — that is, the incompatibility between a technical intercommunication system and the requirements for a concessionary licence. If—it is a big "if" — the hon. Gentleman is with me so far, I will try to deal with the other points that he raised in relation to his case.

As I have said, in our view the initial interpretation by the licence records office of the position under the regulations was misplaced, as my predecessor informed the hon. Gentleman by letter on 18 June. In so far as action had to be taken, it was taken in two respects. The first was to accept firmly that no further licences could be issued under that definition. Secondly, as the concessions had been offered not just to the good citizens of Yeovil and east Somerset but to some 2,200 pensioners in 32 different local authority areas and covering 110 licences, the Home Office took the view, with which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not disagree, that as those licences were issued in good faith they should continue for their full life.

It is now the case, as no doubt is the case in Yeovil too, that those licences are expiring, and have to be replaced. Therefore it is, in our view, the correct decision that the licence fee should now be paid at the current full rate, although, having accepted that in the initial information passed to it, the council and the individuals, the National Television Licence Records Office was taking a decision that it had come to without the benefit of Home Office approval under legal advice as should be required.

Therefore, I regret the significant inconvenience that has been caused by that clear definition of the policy. It is not a change in the policy; in fact it is the policy correctly applied, though the initial decision by the licensing office was in error.

I have tried to explain why the Piper system is not acceptable. The hon. Gentleman asked me how we can justify this train of events. The problem with which we are dealing is fundamentally the problem of the original 1969 regulations. The hon. Gentleman might reasonably say to me, "Look, we are in difficulty because we have licence fees of £58, a significant sum, so surely we are running into an absurdity to have problems of this character arising?" I must share the anxiety that the 1969 regulations no longer allow us to operate a simple scheme designed to bring reasonable reductions in costs for pensioners living in sheltered residential accommodation. The disparity between 5p and £58 is now very wide. The limit to which the concession can be tightly drawn has been shown to be very difficult. Some adjustments have been made for certain categories of disabled person and an adjustment has also been made to multiple use of television sets in hotels. However, I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman's underlying anxiety that the scheme is not as watertight as it should be if we are to provide a concession that is seen to be both equitable and fair. I agree that, although improvements have been made, much should be adjusted within the scheme.

Frankly, I am not contemplating more far-reaching concessions because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the cost of concessions under the present rate of licence fee is now very great. In withdrawing licences from pensioners as it were, we are talking about forgoing licence revenue for the corporation worth well over £300 million in a single year. Neither I nor the Government could contemplate that now.

However, I see that we should try to refine the equity of the scheme. It is still a matter that the Government—I know that it is not just my own inclination—are seeking to improve if we can within reasonable limits. We have not ruled out the possibility of making further improvements in the existing concessionary scheme, but we do not see that the answer lies in providing much broader concessions. Frankly, not only would that be unacceptably expensive, and would in any event not resolve the sorts of problem to which the hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn our attention, but intercommunication systems alone cannot, in all equity, be regarded as a reason to confer an entitlement of a 5p licence on pensioners, unless they are living in accommodation that is fully wardened and residential, and where there is human care rather than technical communication.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.