HL Deb 19 January 1984 vol 446 cc1149-52

3.8 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government how they expect the cost of modernising and improving the existing voluntary residential homes for the elderly to he funded, given that many of these homes were set up over 30 years ago and that previous sources of finance such as local authorities, DHSS (for fire precautions) and the Centre for Policy on Ageing, have seriously diminished.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has raised several points and I know the House will bear with my somewhat lengthy answer. Where modernisation or improvements are needed, it is for the voluntary organisation concerned to raise the finance through the usual range of fund-raising activities. Significant encouragement to private donors has been made by changes in the taxation rules concerning covenants and in the raising of the exemption limit for capital transfer tax. Since 1974–75, the Centre for Policy on Ageing (and its predecessor the National Corporation for the Care of Old People) has distributed about £3 million from funds provided by the Hayward Foundation for improving residential homes run by voluntary bodies. We understand that this source of funding is still available.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, although not particularly encouraged by that reply. Will she accept that some £5 million a year needs to be spent on these homes to bring them up to acceptable modern standards? Will the Government consider matching pound for pound whatever money the voluntary bodies can raise for themselves, and in the longer run devise a system comparable to that which exists now for help through the housing corporation for sheltered housing and caring hostels?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, in the present financial circumstances there are no funds available for this service. Even if more resources became available we should have to consider very carefully whether this aspect was at the head of our list of priorities for people needing residential care. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, that is a matter for the voluntary homes themselves.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, since the severe cut-backs in public expenditure are starving these homes, and since the Minister's reply has made it quite clear that this aspect does not have a high priority, why do the Government continue to penalise voluntary organisations by charging VAT on maintenance and repair work in residential homes and sheltered housing for the elderly? Secondly, the Minister mentioned tax concessions on covenants. Why, then, do the Government not make equal tax exemptions in respect of charitable donations?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness has seen this consultation document which was issued on 16th January, but, if not, I shall put a copy into the Library for her. With regard to fees, the present registration fee of £1 is unrealistic and does not give registration authorities the means to carry out their responsibilities effectively or to provide the advisory services which are needed on residential care.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, with great respect, I am not sure that the Minister heard my question aright. The answer given may be in response to another question which has not been asked. My question referred to VAT and also to tax exemption in respect of charitable donations.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, in my original Answer I said that significant encouragement to private donors had been given by changes in the taxation rules concerning covenants and by raising the exemption limit on capital transfer tax. I have no further information on that subject, and perhaps I might write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether her department is aware of the enormous amount of money that has to be spent by old people's homes and other institutions because the chief fire officer in an area sends one officer one year, who makes recommendations which are extremely expensive but which must be carried out, and then a new fire officer comes along the following year and makes quite different recommendations, which those in charge of these homes feel must also be carried out? Is my noble friend aware that this is causing a great deal of worry in the statutory and voluntary sectors, and that it is taking up a great deal of money?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, responsibility for providing safe accommodation has always rested with the voluntary organisation providing the home. It falls to that organisation, and not to the Government, to deal with any changes in the fire regulations.

Lord Alport

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she will consider the fact that in many cases the additional expense incurred in fulfilling the fire regulations is probably unnecessary in so far as those homes have been in existence in many case for 30 or 40 years, or even longer? In view of the fact that it is so difficult for voluntary organisations to raise money, as she has said, would it not be better for the Government to accept that there is a risk in some homes but it is better to keep the homes going rather than to shut them down because of the financial situation in which organisations find themselves?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I think I have already answered that question. It is up to the voluntary homes to provide fire precautions themselves. I think the noble Lord really makes the point himself when he says that the homes have been running for 30 years or more. Plans for fire regulations and fire prevention arrangements in homes have been in force for many years now.

Lord Alport

My Lords, may I just add to that? In fact, the fire precaution rules are made more expensive and more elaborate, and they require more money to support them year by year, as my noble friend said. Does she not agree that it is not true to say that the regulations and their costs are the same now as they were 30 years ago?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to Section 64 grant aid for installing fire precautions having been discontinued, the main purpose of grants made by the DHSS to voluntary bodies under Section 64 was to help with the administration costs of the headquarters of national organisations, or to help with experimental projects of national significance. Past demand on the Section 64 budget has been such that the DHSS has been able to find a small amount to help meet the cost of fire precautions in individual homes. Current demand for the headquarters costs and experimental projects is unprecedented, in spite of an 11 per cent. increase in expected expenditure this year. The department is therefore not contemplating making any further grants in respect of fire precautions.

Lord Ennals

But is it not a fact, my Lords, that in the past three months, as part of the Government's privatisation policy, there has been a dramatic increase in the funds made available by the DHSS to pay the fees of residents of private homes (with increases of grants ranging from 20 per cent. to 150 per cent. in one case of which I know) at a time when local authority social services are being very tightly squeezed? Is the noble Baroness aware that as recently as last Friday directors of social services were complaining to me that this very large injection of additional funds to private homes, had it been made available to social service departments, would have enabled them to improve their own services in terms of residential accommodation and also their domiciliary services as well?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I am not aware of the consultation to which the noble Lord refers. I shall let him know.