HC Deb 02 July 1996 vol 280 cc729-36 '.—(1)Part II of Schedule 2 to the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) regulations 1991 (SI., 1991, No. 436) shall be amended as follows. (2) After paragraph 8 there shall be inserted— "9.—(1) Any person in possession of a licence to install and use a television receiver at their normal place of residence shall not require an additional licence to install or use a television receiver in a caravan, provided that—
  1. (a) the licence entitles them to install and use the additional receiver
  2. (b) the caravan is not used for permanent residential purposes or made available for commercial hire or let.
 (2) In this paragraph "caravan" means any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted." '.—[Dr. Moonie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.48 pm
Dr. Lewis Moonie (Kirkcaldy)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 42—Concessionary television licence schemes (sheltered accommodation)— '.—(1) Part II of Schedule 2 to the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulation 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 436) shall be amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 1(c), for the words "either lines in one of the dwellings within the group or" shall be omitted.'.

Dr. Moonie

I shall say at the outset, in case anyone is in any doubt, that I shall not seek to divide the House on new clause 18, which seeks to exempt caravans and mobile homes—used for holidays, not for permanent residential purposes—from the requirement to possess a television licence. New clause 18 would amend the television licensing regulations, and we have tabled it to highlight an anomaly that many hon. Members will have noticed through the contents of their postbags.

Only in recent months has the BBC, through the licensing authority, been collecting licence fees for caravans and in a number of other areas. At present, only tens of thousands of pounds have been collected from that source, compared with the £1.7 billion from the general licence fee.

A legal ruling forced the BBC to start collecting that money, although it is obvious from the regulations that every holiday home, even if a television is taken there for only a week, every caravan, every boat, even every lorry driver's cab, has always required a separate licence.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) highlighted an anomaly in the licensing regulations relating to sheltered accommodation. The Minister kindly agreed to table new regulations to rectify the problem. I hope that, in turn, the Minister will agree to consider this matter in some detail.

It is obvious that second homes that are occupied for much of the year, such as those that hon. Members occupy in London, should be subject to the full licence fee. It is also obvious that commercially let properties should be subject to the full fee. But it may be possible to come up with a scheme for a lower-price supplementary licence in certain cases, or a similar, more pragmatic, arrangement.

The new clause gives the Minister the opportunity to undertake to review the regulations in general, in order to make them more satisfactory and to tidy them up. I hope that, for everyone's benefit, he will take that opportunity.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

I want to comment on new clause 18, but my main remarks will be addressed to new clause 42 in my name.

As we all know, caravan sites comprise a variety of establishments. I have recently received letters from one in my constituency which consists mainly of static caravans, and I have written to the Department on the issue. Most of those static caravans are used by old-age pensioners. The possibility exists for a rebate on their television licences for the five months during which the caravan site is closed, but that means a substantial amount of administrative work and bureaucracy.

I wonder what expense such organisations face in ensuring that those who are eligible benefit from that concession. To reclaim such a sum would involve a huge amount of bureaucracy and cost. I hope that the Minister will refer to that.

New clause 42 relates to sheltered housing, which I understand was debated in Committee. I want to consider some of the anomalies that have resulted from the various regulations on that issue. This is a complex sphere, which must be addressed in order to give people in sheltered accommodation a concession on their television licence fee.

Having read the papers, I understand that the redefinition of sheltered housing eligible for concessions appears in SI 1988/899, and consolidation regulations were brought into force by SI 1991/436. That meant that a communal facility was not required. The Department of National Heritage is responsible for setting the fees and the content of the regulations.

The Department of National Heritage and its predecessor have left huge anomalies in the regulations. Since I tabled the new clause, hon. Members from other parties have spoken to me on the subject. Those anomalies are causing much concern, and often anger.

A sheltered housing complex in my constituency has one warden and one deputy warden, who take equal responsibility for all the residents. There are no communal facilities, but the warden visits all the residents each day, monitors the alarm system and assists with medical appointments. Concessionary television licences are allocated to the residents in one group of houses, but not to those in the other section of the complex, because the warden is resident there. I cannot see the rationale behind that argument, and I ask the House and the Minister to look again at the anomaly.

Yesterday and today, we have been celebrating the memory of those who lost their lives in the battle of the Somme. The elderly community deserve our support. We have a piecemeal approach to concessionary television licences for sheltered accommodation. The anomalies must be addressed, to eradicate the sense of injustice felt by many of my constituents. I sincerely ask the Minister to take on board the possibility of reviewing all the legislation which applies to the concept of concessionary licences for those who live in sheltered accommodation.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet)

As I represent a constituency with a large number of mobile home parks and touring caravan parks—in common with other hon. Members representing Kent and south coast constituencies—I must express my sympathy with new clause 18.

Those who take trailer caravans on holiday and park them in the excellent caravan parks in Thanet find it quite incomprehensible that, while they are away—not using the television at home—they should suddenly require a second television licence to use a portable television in the caravan. That applies equally to those using portable televisions in canal boats and other forms of mobile habitation. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look sympathetically at the new clause.

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)

A couple of years ago, I sat on the Select Committee on National Heritage when it examined in depth the anomalies relating to television licences. As any hon. Member who receives representations on this will know, the system is a shambles from top to bottom.

Many of my constituents are pensioners. Some are unemployed miners who had to take early retirement. They use some of their redundancy pay to spend the summer on caravan sites at places such as Skegness. They enjoy watching television when they are away, and they continue paying for it when their houses are locked up. Suddenly, out of the blue, they receive a letter saying that they now have to pay again.

I took up the matter with the BBC licence fee unit. The Select Committee discovered that, since that unit took over from the Home Office about five years ago, it has been much tougher and harder, without achieving much more success—except for sitting ducks such as poor pensioners.

The letter I received from the licence fee unit referred to a change as a result of legal advice we received". Who asked for legal advice? Who demanded that lawyers should look into the matter? The licence fee unit demanded it, in order to take more cash. It was nobody else. The letter states that the licence fee was called into question and we took legal advice. Nobody asked the licence fee unit to take legal advice. The House did not ask it to do that. I do not know whether the Minister made such a request. There was certainly no debate in the House. Those people receive a bonus according to what they bring in.

The letter referred to my constituent Mrs. Perry, who lives in Holderness close, Harworth, South Yorkshire. The local council gives pensioners free bus passes. If pensioners do not want bus passes, they can exchange them for the equivalent of a black and white television licence costing about £35 a year. Astonishingly for a niral area, 30 per cent. of pensioners prefer a television licence to a free bus pass. Many of them shop in the village shop. They do not travel long distances on buses, and travel into town only about twice a year at Christmas, so a television licence is extremely useful.

Anomalies have existed for many years. At one time, big hotels such as the Savoy had one television licence for 400 bedrooms. Very smartly, the Labour Government of 1968 changed that. When I first became a Member of Parliament, we told the then Labour Government that the Savoy hotel should be treated no differently from old people's sheltered accommodation. There is a link, although it may be horizontal rather than vertical. That was how the cheap television licence came into being. Every pensioner in sheltered accommodation with a warden paid a shilling—5p—and the BBC did not like it at all.

That arrangement was spoilt by a council in Huddersfield, which said that rent collectors were like wardens, and that every pensioner from whom rent was collected was therefore entitled to a cheap television licence. The BBC went to court, and the system was stopped. It has always been the BBC's aggression, rather than the House, that has caused anomalies.

Our Select Committee then said, in the context of the Savoy hotel, that any hotel with more than 50 bedrooms—it did not want small boarding houses to be included—ought to pay a licence for each television set in each of the extra bedrooms. The licensing unit people would riot have that, however. The law was amended, and the Savoy must now pay a licence for every 15 sets; but if the Savoy can have just one licence for 15 television sets when it charges £150 a night for each room, why the hell cannot pensioners and other hard-up people continue to have their television sets at the seaside? It is time that the Minister looked into what the licensing unit is doing.

4 pm

The Select Committee discovered that 40 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland never pay for television licences. They call the licence fee an English tax, and stick two fingers up at the men in the detector vans. The men in the vans are terrified to do anything about it, and avoid certain parts of Belfast because of the problems that there have been in the past. The Committee found that, in the east end of London, 15 per cent. of licence fees had not been collected: owing to the rapid turnover Of bedsitters, with six people living in a house divided into six rooms, no one knew who owned the television set. As the authorities did not know who should be prosecuted, they simply walked away.

Representatives of the magistrates courts begged the Committee on bended knees to do something about the problem. They were fed up with sending people—mainly women—to gaol. Last year, nearly 800 people were imprisoned for non-payment of licence fees. The magistrates told us that they were not people who would not pay, but people who could not. They did not have the £84. They were single parents, faced with the choice between having their electricity cut off and not paying their television licence fee.

People do not go to gaol if they do not pay their water, gas or electricity bills; they are disconnected. But if they cannot pay for their television licences, and cannot pay the fine, they go to gaol. The magistrates, the Lord Chief Justice and other members of the legal profession have protested about that. People who do not pay may be imprisoned for only seven days, but, if a single mother with three kids goes to gaol for seven days, it costs the local council £2,000 to look after those children.

The people at the licensing unit receive bonuses related to the amount they collect. That is why women, kids and pensioners are roped in. They do not visit homes at night, when it is dark; they visit them during the day, when it is mainly unemployed people, pensioners and one-parent families who are sitting at home. They are continually chasing revenue with which to enhance their bonuses. They do not bother about the Savoy hotel; no legislation has been introduced to deal with it. This is simply vindictive revenue gathering, in the knowledge that people must pay or go to gaol.

That is what is wrong with the legislation: it hits the people who cannot afford to pay, rather than catching the people in the big hotels who can. I hope that the Minister will reconsider, and withdraw the measure. If he does so, he will be a very popular man.

Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North)

I support new clause 18. Let me draw the Minister's attention to my early-day motion 972, which seeks to persuade the Government to do something very similar.

It is always useful for Opposition Members to be able to blame the Government for just about everything. The BBC asked for the new interpretation. If it had not, there would be no change, because the interpretation used to be that, if there was a licence for the main home, there was no need for another one. That is sensible, because no one can simultaneously watch television in his home and in his caravan or holiday home.

The BBC sought an interpretation, and presumably it got the answer it wanted, which will cost some people a great deal of money. But the interpretation is ludicrous, because, as I have said, people cannot watch two television sets at the same time. I accept that, if part of a family is watching television at home while the other family members are watching another set, they should be required to buy two licences, but it is not fair to ask people to pay twice for one service, and I can think of no other area in which that happens.

Many thousands of people—including many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members—enjoy their caravans and holiday chalets over the summer, and should not be penalised by having to pay twice for one service. I urge the Minister to accept the sentiments of the early-day motion and the new clause. He should revisit the situation and come up with a reinterpretation, so that people are not penalised in this way.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) for putting such good points. The provision has given rise to massive grievance; many hon. Members are getting representations about it from people with caravans, chalets or other such accommodation.

The BBC has been forced into the situation by the licensing system. The licence fee is not increased by as much as it should be or by the rate that BBC costs are increasing, so the BBC is forced to extract the maximum revenue from it, and that leads to bullying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, people dare not use such bullying in Northern Ireland, where there is massive unpaid revenue. The process is exercised against the poor, the vulnerable, the old, and those who happen to be at home when the detector van calls.

I, too, went to see Grimsby magistrates about the sending of people, especially women, to prison. The magistrates do not want to do it: it is a question of unpaid fees. The problem seems to arise because, when the detector vans call, it is often the woman who is at home watching television, while the man may be down at the pub boozing away the licence fee. Therefore, it is the woman who is charged. It is monstrous that, in effect, the BBC has opened a massive grievance to extract its revenue. We should do something about that.

Our new clause is modest—it is a moderate clause from a moderate party—and covers only caravans that are used for holiday accommodation and are not let. It should also cover chalets and other such accommodation, which I do not know how to describe. There is exotic architecture along the sea front, especially in my area. It is "Costa del Caravan" there.

In the summer, some people who live in Grimsby migrate two or three miles down the coast to get the better weather in Cleethorpes. They live in caravans or chalets, and they take the television set with them. They do not leave it at home, where it and the video could be stolen. It is not a question of watching one service: there is only one set, and it has to be portable—if it were not, it might be stolen.

Those people naturally feel a grievance. They are told that they must have two licences, but that they can claim a rebate in each place for the part of the year that they are not in that place. The rebate, however, is not enough to reduce the charge to a fair level, so that is not a satisfactory solution. Our new clause is a sensible way of approaching the matter.

I also support the proposals in new clause 42, which deals with another long-standing grievance. The matter has been argued over so much. It causes much bitterness that one set of pensioners can get the reduced licence fee and another set cannot. I am amazed that, after all this time, the Government have still done nothing about that grievance, which has been festering. Indeed, they have allowed the BBC to add the other grievance about caravans and chalets, which is dealt with in our new clause. I strongly support both new clauses.

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey)

I want to concentrate mainly on new clause 42. Since my election, the grievance about who has the concessionary television licence and who cannot qualify for it has been the one most affecting the elderly population in Wallasey, and the one about which they often write to me. One of the difficulties is its perceived unfairness, which new clause 42 seeks to deal with. It is about time that the Government considered what can be done about it.

The inconsistency infuriates people. They often live next door to someone in the same circumstances and in sheltered accommodation of the same size. There is no difference, apart from the time when an individual moved in and qualified for the concessionary licence, but there is a large difference in the two payments that those neighbours must make. The licence fee is £89.50, which is a significant sum for some of our pensioners on low fixed incomes to have to come up with every year.

We know that many elderly people rely on television for their entertainment. If they are on a low income, they have few other pleasures. I therefore hope that the Government will take both the new clauses seriously. I know that it is a tangled problem, particularly in relation to sheltered accommodation, but I would be interested if the Government could come up with a way of solving some of the anomalies, and of at least helping neighbours to get on better with each other instead of rowing about one paying the £5 concessionary fee while the other must come up with nearly £100 for the same entertainment and service.

The problem exists for many of our constituents, and I look forward to hearing what ingenious ways the Government have come up with for dealing with the problem, which has persisted for too long.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat)

May I address myself to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) first? She has explained the purpose of her new clause. In responding, I shall refer to the "warden requirement" as a convenient shorthand for the term in the qualifying criteria for the concessionary television licence scheme: a person whose function is to care for the needs of (the residents)". As we understand it, the new clause's intention is to relax the warden requirement in the regulations, so as to bring within the concessionary scheme sheltered accommodation with visiting warden services. I say to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that I take the matter extremely seriously. She and the hon. Member for Moray will know what we have done in Committee.

The Government fully appreciate the importance of television to elderly and disabled people, and understand that those who narrowly fail to qualify for concessionary television licences may feel disappointed. However, having responded to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), in Committee, we changed the circumstance where, in sheltered accommodation, if only one person owned their flat, no one else could get a concessionary licence. That is coming forward.

As the hon. Member for Wallasey said, it is a tangled matter. I try to go one step at a time. I have solved one problem, which was bitterly felt by many people in Merthyr Tydfil, in Worcester, and no doubt in other places, but we cannot accept new clause 42. I have considered it, as I have considered the other one. I found a solution to the other problem, but I cannot, at this moment at any rate, find a solution to this one.

Mrs. Ewing

I think that we all appreciate the concession that was granted in Committee. However, the warden in the sheltered housing complex about which I am concerned tells me that her responsibilities are the same for both groups of residents. Therefore, she cannot for the life of her understand why there should be a difference in application of the concessionary licence. Is not that another anomaly that should be looked at? I ask the Minister again to undertake a total review of the way in which we deal with concessionary licences for the elderly, disabled and vulnerable in our society.

Mr. Sproat

I will certainly look at the anomaly in the hon. Lady's constituency, and I will see where that leads me.

On new clause 18, the Government sympathise with the concern expressed by caravan owners and the tourist industry that a second television licence may be needed for those who wish to watch television in caravans.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) must have many caravans in his constituency. He has spoken to me about this matter before. In response to what he has said, and in response to the Opposition's amendment, I am glad to say that we will introduce regulations to take account of changes in the use of television in recent years, including those affecting touring caravans and other types of vehicles and vessels. We will aim to do that as soon as possible. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) will withdraw the motion.

Dr. Moonie

I thank the Minister for his helpful remarks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to