House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Feb 1990

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : One opens a can of worms when one goes back to the primary legislation from which a statutory instrument flows. I agree with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on the explanatory memorandum to the order. In all my time in the House I have never found it necessary, when reading a statutory instrument, to find about four previous references to help the House to arrive at a decision.

First, I went to the Library to find section 30 of the Data Protection Act 1984, the source of this statutory instrument and the order that was introduced in 1987 and which this one amends. The House would do well to remember why we have to have such statutory instruments. Section 30(1) of the 1984 Act, which comes under part IV headed

"Regulation of financial services etc",

states :

"Personal data held for the purpose of discharging statutory fuctions to which this section applies are exempt from the subject access provisions in any case in which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice the proper discharge of those functions."

That is the source of all our problems about data protection, the order that is before the House and the one that was introduced in 1987. Section 30 (2) of the 1984 Act states :

"This section applies to any functions designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State,". When the Home Secretary framed the Data Protection Act, I do not think that he had any idea of the number and scope of the statutory instruments that it would require.

I went to the Library earlier today to look up the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987 which this statutory instrument amends. I should like to make an urgent plea

Column 748

for the convenience of all hon. Members. The Library staff are quite expert at looking up references, but it took them a long time to trace the statutory instrument that we are amending. In future when an explanatory memorandum to a statutory instrument is brought before the House, it should have upon it the number of the statutory instrument to which it refers. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will support that plea.

Mr. Hanley : My hon. Friend and I were in the Library together trying to find the references. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Vote Office should have copies of the primary legislation at least on the day that an order is discussed? My hon. Friend and I were both in the Vote Office today and, as he knows, there was no copy of the Companies Act 1989 or the Companies Act 1985.

They are large volumes of weighty legislation, but surely two or three copies of the primary Act should be available so that we can refer to them before discussing such important issues.

Mr. Brown : My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He and I were reduced to photocopying the relevant extracts of the primary Act. We are amending a statutory instrument that has about 12 pages and discussing an order to amend one line on one page. Will there be other statutory instruments to take up the time of the House to amend that statutory instrument of 1987?

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I am pleased to note the hon. Gentleman's new-found and unprecedented interest in statutory instruments. Some of us have been examining them for much longer than the hon. Gentleman. Did he vote for or against the primary legislation which gives powers to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Brown : The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question, because he was not in the House between 1983 and 1987. He and other hon. Members will know that I have frequently taken an interest, as the hon. Gentleman has done, in secondary legislation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman serves on Standing Committees, but whenever I do so, I invariably raise points--sometimes to the chagrin of the Whip--regarding any clauses that

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman makes a great defence for himself, but perhaps he will return to the subject of the order.

Mr. Brown : The order makes an important amendment to a comprehensive statutory instrument. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure in future that when the House is asked to amend data protection legislation, the resultant measure is consolidated into one Act of Parliament.

9.50 pm

Mr. Randall : With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. The debate has been most interesting. The order is complex and badly drafted, but our debate was fundamental to the freedoms of the people of this country, and to ensuring that our institutions operate effectively and efficiently in wiping out corruption and malpractice wherever possible.

The essence of the debate has been the balance between protecting civil liberties and the freedom of individuals to

Column 749

see files about them, and at times restricting availability to information, to ensure that proper investigations into corruption can be undertaken.

I hope that, whenever we review the Data Protection Act 1984, those principles will be kept in the forefront of our minds.

9.52 pm

Mr. Peter Lloyd : The debate has been thorough and exhaustive, and the most pertinent intervention was made by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you said that the scope of the order is extremely narrow. So it is. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who referred to the complicated nature of the matter and sought an explanatory memorandum. That request was made by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having read the order myself, I understand the point that they make.

Mr. Hanley : I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but although the order may be narrow in scope, as he says, does he not agree that it is extremely wide in its effect and has international implications? The measure is not so narrow as to be unimportant, but is wide enough to be extremely vital to the protection of investors in this country and worldwide.

Mr. Lloyd : I did not say that the order is not important, for I agree with my hon. Friend that it is. However, the changes that it makes are relatively narrow in scope, even though they provide a very necessary additional opportunity for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to use his powers to combat malpractice. It was clear that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was asking not so much for an explanatory memorandum on the order as for the Data Protection Act 1984, and the Data Protection (Regulation of Finance Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1987 to be brought into line with the Companies Act 1989, which made it necessary to change some of the 1987 order.

The order does not extend the list of categories of information that may be withheld. Many hon. Members have the impression that it does. If it did that, I would have followed their argument. The order changes only one part of the 1984 Act, and that was identified by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West as part II, paragraph 5. I shall return to that in a few moments.

The balance of the law under these orders is very clear, and was set by the principal legislation, which it is not our place to discuss this evening, as it was exhaustively discussed at the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who is not with us at the moment, was on the Committee which considered the Data Protection Act 1984, and I suspect that he has the advantage over most of us, with the exception of my hon. Friend the deputy Patronage Secretary, who was also a member of the Committee.

Mr. Michael Brown : My hon. Friend rightly draws the House's attention to the fact that nothing is changed by what the House does tonight. We are merely tidying up, following the passage of the Companies Act 1989. That is why I strongly believe that now is the time for the powers

Column 750

that be to consolidate everything to do with data protection--the Data Protection Act 1984 and the Companies Act 1989. Is the time not coming when someone should consolidate all the legislation on data protection into one statute?

Mr. Lloyd : Many parts of our legislation could usefully be consolidated, but it is extremely time-consuming for the draftsmen and for the House. I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I cannot promise that consolidation can be carried out at an early date.

I disagree when my hon. Friend says that the Order is merely tidying up. It is consequential on the legislation, and it does two important things. First, it makes it possible for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to call experts, apart from officials in his Department, to investigate certain data. That is only sensible because the complexity, particularly in financial matters, is so great that one needs to call those people with special knowledge to assist--whether they are accountants, specialist lawyers or people with experience of banking. All those people will be bound by the rules of secrecy, and they will be operating on his behalf, seeking information and understanding so that the Home Secretary may use it for the purposes determined by the Act.

The second important thing that the Order will do is to enable the Home Secretary to make the information available to overseas regulators who have signed the convention, when he believes that it will be in the interests of uncovering malpractice. He does not have to supply the information, but he may decide to do so, and it is very much in our interests that we supply information to help investigators of fraud and malpractice by overseas officials who have powers in that area. It is also very much in our interests to receive such information in return.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) was right to draw our attention to Barlow Clowes, because that is a good example of alleged fraud or irregularity transcending international boundaries. In that case, it was necessary to be able to exchange information across frontiers, and it was a pity that we were not able to do that earlier. Some of the difficulties that investors have suffered might then have been avoided.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was extremely worried that what might be acceptable in general might be oppressive in practice. I remind him that the registrar is there and is required under the Act to keep an eye on the way in which the provisions are implemented and to make an annual report to Parliament.

I said that I would return to the question of advertising in paragraph 5 of the schedule. The provision now covers details of advertisements, particularly in unlisted securities where fraudulent claims may be the start of a malpractice that needs to be followed up. The order extends slightly the amount of information that may be withheld in such circumstances. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would want to avoid that. The Labour party usually emphasises that fraud in the City and in business should be pursued actively and hard, and I am sure that he would not want to deny the correct authorities powers to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who served on the Committee, wondered about the additional expertise--a point that I have mentioned. He talked about codes of practice. The codes of practice referred to in the order enable the Home Secretary to give guidance and indications to a primary regulator, such as the Securities

Column 751

and Investments Board, on how to conduct itself in the matter of the information that may be withheld. The order does not extend this information but gives guidance that is necessary to ensure that it may be obtained and used for the proper purposes.

Let me answer the questions of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I have explained that the order does not extend any of the items of information that can be withheld, except in the small area that I have outlined. The hon. Gentleman wanted the information that may be withheld set out clearly, but then went on to complain that it was set out extremely clearly and in great detail. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I agree with him that, when the information is set out in great detail so that one can see precisely what categories are included, there is quite a lot to get through, but that is part of the openness for which the hon. Gentleman called. He asked whether the registrar was content with the order : he was consulted and was certainly content.

I think that I have replied to most of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, who wanted to ensure that the philosophical approach was sensible and balanced, and I believe that it is. The basic philosophy is contained in the original Acts, which were exhaustively debated.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to several questions that he has tabled to Home Office Ministers. I cannot add to the answers that we gave him at the time, but I am glad that he is determined to chase us to ensure that information--especially relating to DNA and other means of identifying and getting to the root of particular sorts of crime--is thoroughly used and pursued. He is right in that. We are aware of what the hon. Gentleman seeks, and we agree with him, but I hope that he will accept that this is a complex matter and that discussions need to be carried through to ensure not merely that we make the best use of that avenue of information but that we make use of it in such a way that it does not impinge unnecessarily and in an unwarranted manner on the rights of individuals.

Mr. Dalyell : I realise that this is a complex matter, but I should not have thought that it would take six weeks to

Column 752

provide an answer to the question. Does the Home Office accept that it has a responsibility to make a fairly early statement on the report by Gordon Wasserman--one of its senior officials-- on related forensic issues? The sooner that happens, the better it will be for forensic science. Some of us recognise that there are real difficulties over recruiting forensic scientists. The Government ought to pay regard to that problem.

Mr. Lloyd : I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not a matter on which I ought to comment this evening.

It is a narrow order. It makes three changes that are, I believe, uncontroversial. Many questions have been asked and suspicions about the original legislation have been aroused. However, suspicions have not been aroused about the three changes that the order makes. Therefore, I happily commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5), (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).

Animal Waste

That this House takes note of Community Document No. 9728/89 relating to veterinary rules on animal waste and prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs ; and supports the Government's intention to secure an outcome which provides for the continued availability of a hygienic and practical means of disposal of animal waste.-- [Mr. Dorrell.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5), (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

Hill Livestock

That the draft Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.-- [Mr. Dorrell.]

Column 753

Concessionary Television Licences

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

10.6 pm

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster) : It is a great pleasure for me to raise the subject of sheltered housing and concessionary television licences. Earlier this evening I shrewdly suspected, and hoped, that I might be able to go home for dinner, but I underestimated the absorbing interest of data protection. Never in so short a time have I seen so many knowledgeable colleagues arrive in the Chamber--no doubt galvanised by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department--to participate in such a distinguished fashion in a highly interesting debate. I am grateful for the support of many hon. Members. Many of my colleagues have raised the subject in Adjournment debates. Not frequently do we find in constituency after constituency represented by colleagues on both sides of the House the anomalies with which I hope to deal. There is, therefore, much concern about the subject. My purpose is to find a way round over-rigid implementation by the Home Office--in the process becoming more bureaucratic than is strictly necessary--of the May 1988 regulations. I shall concentrate on those regulations and will pray in aid some constituency cases to illustrate the anomalies. There are many similar cases throughout the country about which I have heard and regarding which I have received letters from councils of all political persuasions. At a time when the Government are not enjoying universal popularity, we ought to concentrate on annoying the minimum number of people over such small measures. Sadly, that is not the case here.

I intend to refer briefly to the unsatisfactory state of affairs over wider concessions, causing unnecessary political damage, to which I have already referred. Successive Governments, whatever they might have done in opposition or as individual Members of Parliament, have never conceded free television licences for all pensioners. I do not urge that now and I do not propose to argue one way or the other, but as there was no overall granting of free television licences, quite rightly, concessions were granted to residential homes and to sheltered accommodation with communal services. That arrangement has continued for 20 years, and as with any such arrangement, there has been a constant challenge for the enlargement of those concessions. We then reach the Armageddon for the Home Office in the case of Kirklees metropolitan borough council against the Home Office of 1987, which is known as the Kirklees decision. It meant that visiting housing stewards and the presence of an alarm system in mainstream housing constituted a communal facility and therefore at least potential eligibility for the concession. Immediately, panic rose from the bottom floor to the top floor of the Home Office as it was realised that those concessions could go way beyond the Government's original intention some 20 years before, which the Home Office now sticks to, and which is for schemes

"equivalent or comparable to residential homes."

That led to the May 1988 revised regulations.

The Government's reaction has not been commendable. They have been unprepared to grant a total

Column 754

concession to the elderly--I would not quibble with that--and they could not withdraw from existing concessions for obvious political reasons, so instead of minimising the anomalies and making the best of a worthy situation, which dictates that concessions should be granted, the Government decided on extremely restrictive regulations of the existing concessions--the May 1988 revised regulations-- giving the absolute minimum and holding back everything they could. The result has been rigidity, anomaly and, politically, the worst of all worlds.

I shall not discuss the May 1988 regulations in any great detail. There are four regulations and I shall concentrate on the fourth, although for the information of the House, I shall refer briefly to the others. The first qualification for concession refers to accommodation specifically provided for retired people over the age of 65 and certain categories of disablement. The second qualification is a resident warden or one who works for at least 30 hours a week. The third is a communal facility within a common boundary and the fourth, on which I wish to concentrate, is :

"There shall be a group of at least four dwellings with a common and exclusive boundary encompassing all and only the accommodation." That is God's gift to anomaly. I shall criticise it specifically in a moment, but first I have a few general criticisms of the overall picture.

The Government are misguided and appear mean in their institution and rigid interpretation of the regulations. I regret that the unsatisfactory background, the unfairness and getting the balance wrong are not wholly restricted to the subject of this Adjournment debate. It is pretty obvious, bearing in mind the increased numbers of elderly people, that there is a tendency for more sheltered housing to be built or converted from mainstream housing by local councils, particularly in urban areas, although I represent a rural constituency. That is the worry to the Home Office of the Kirklees decision.

There are an increasing number of scattered units of accommodation for the elderly on many large estates across the country in the midst of mainstream housing. Instead of facing up to that and spending a little more money--and therefore not having to face this Adjournment debate tonight--the Government have retreated into their shell. They have performed a kind of Custer's last stand over what they claim to be the original intention of the scheme, which is now outdated. I cannot say that I shall play Sitting Bull to my hon. Friend the Minister's General Custer, but as my hon. Friend leaves this place--we must recall that General Custer did not leave--I hope that he will be prepared to consider the matter and perhaps have a word with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I believe that this is a matter more for Ministers than for the civil servants who loyally carry out their duties and who, when they are told to be restrictive, are--and with due deference and respect to my hon. Friend the Minister, no one can be more restrictive than the Home Office or, regrettably, be so more effectively.

Many anomalies have been drawn to my attention since notice of this Adjournment debate appeared on the Order Paper. There is widespread concern not only from Leominster district council, but from the National Federation of Housing Associations, Age Concern, the Consumers Association and district councils, which have contacted me from such places as far apart as Malden and Camden.

Column 755

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : What about Stockton?

Mr. Temple-Morris : Yes, and from Stockton.

I want to refer to two anomalies in Leominster, with which my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar. They are examples of this ridiculous anomaly, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I mention them specifically. The first relates to Burton gardens and Burton crescent in Wembley. The accommodation there is now a sheltered scheme and it has communal facilities, a warden and a clearly demarcated section on the housing estate. However, before the warden and alarm were installed and before restrictions were imposed in 1986 making it much more difficult for tenants to buy that type of council housing, the bold tenant--no doubt encouraged by the Government--of 25 Burton crescent decided to buy his old people's accommodation. He duly did that and became the only private owner on that estate.

At the moment, Burton gardens, which runs into Burton crescent, gets the concession in toto. The part of Burton crescent up to No. 25 also receives the concession. I am grateful in that regard to my hon. Friend the Minister, who granted an additional concession to the original adjudication after my first intervention in the matter. However, no one beyond No. 25, on exactly the same estate, receives the concession. No. 25 is preceded by the odd Nos. 21 and 23. Nos. 21, 23 and 25 are all joined together. They are old people's ground-floor flats in units of three, all joined together. Because Nos. 21 and 23 are joined to No. 25 and separated by a very small car parking space from the earlier numbers that receive the concession, they do not receive it. All the flats above No. 25 do not receive it either.

If that example is frankly ridiculous, then the second example of Cornwall gardens at Tenbury Wells in my constituency is even more so. That is a council-owned site and one turns into it from Berrington road in Tenbury Wells. Where one turns into it, there are two flats. Nos. 7 and 9 Berrington road, which are part of the wholly council-owned site. After those flats there is an entrance and right of way granted by the council to a pub car park. On the other side of that entrance the estate continues. The estate was bought as a whole, is administered as one estate and was built as one. Only that solitary little entrance to the pub car park separates Nos. 7 and 9 from the rest of the estate.

The estate has excellent communal facilities. I enjoyed a nice cup of coffee and some hospitality when I inspected it. Knowing that my hon. Friend the Minister might challenge me and say that I have not been there, I advise him that I went there in January. There is a recreation room, a laundry, a warden, an alarm system and so on. When the two existing sitting tenants at Nos. 7 and 9 eventually cause a re-let, the full television licence fee, rather than £5, will have to be paid. The Government should do something about that practice, but they do not seem to have learnt the lesson that, if one pleases a few of the people a lot of the time, one will at least make some progress. It is not for me to lecture my hon. Friend the Minister on that matter, and he would not be responsible for it either.

I shall review some possible policies and practical suggestions in a descending scale of generosity. The first is a general concession to all pensioners, a matter on which

Column 756

the House voted towards the end of the last Parliament, and which I do not press tonight. The second is a concession to all pensioners entitled to housing benefit or a community charge rebate--in other words, whether they are in or out of sheltered housing. The third is a concession to all pensioners living in purpose-built sheltered accommodation. That means the public sector and--an increasing bone of contention, as more and more people spend their last savings on buying sheltered accommodation--the private sector also.

The fourth policy, which I recommend to my hon. Friend, is a concession to all pensioners living in purpose-built or adapted local authority and/or housing association accommodation. That covers all developments--urban, rural, large and small estates. That represents a logical compromise.

My hon. Friend will forgive me when I say that I do not expect a generous response from him tonight. I will not even press him for one. However, I suggest that we have less rigidity in the application of the May 1988 rules. One method would be by way of ministerial discretion. I expect that my hon. Friend will say that Ministers do not have discretion, and that therefore we are stuck with rules that have been drafted as restrictively as possible.

I have been trying to be constructive. Concentrating on what I have called policy No. 4, I ask my hon. Friend to consider that there shall be a group of at least four dwellings with a common and exclusive boundary encompassing all and only the accommodation. Therefore, a little thing such as the entrance to a pub car park completely ruins those who happen to be caught out on the wrong side of it. I suggest that we should add the words, "save and except where the accommodation is clearly part of a coherent, unified and separate sheltered housing scheme." That would get shot of many anomalies. However, I am afraid that it would not alter the major problems, as that can be done only if we address purpose-built and/or adapted public housing as a whole. If my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point, we will make progress.

I can imagine the Minister's advisers going to him tomorrow morning, saying "It is a legal nightmare. They will be challenging us here and there. The only way in which we can defend it is to keep within the corral. Minister, you cannot do this or that." It would be nice if, once upon a time, we could see an Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office doing what I want- -and, if he viewed the matter reasonably independently, what he also would want.

Therefore, in the name of a little more decency, and certainly in the name of fairness, I commend what I have said and the limited, minimal solution that I have outlined to my hon. Friend.

10.24 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on securing this debate and on raising this subject. It is one in which he has taken a persistent and concerned interest on behalf of his constituents, as his detailed promenade down Burton gardens and other local streets, and his other many exchanges with the Home Office, have shown. I am grateful to him for providing a useful opportunity this evening to explain why we changed the

Column 757

concessionary licence scheme nearly two years ago, and to clear up, I hope, some of the misunderstandings and misconceptions that seem to have arisen since.

I start by explaining briefly how the scheme evolved, and why it became necessary to change it. The scheme was formally established on a statutory basis on 1 January 1969. It was intended to rationalise the television licence requirements in old people's homes. 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 also intended to cover sheltered housing schemes for pensioners run by local authorities or housing associations which were considered to be directly comparable with old people's homes. At a later date, the scheme was extended to cover disabled or mentally handicapped people living in similar accommodation. The scheme was thus introduced for the best of motives, to correct what was seen as an anomaly. Entitlement was clearly linked to the type of accommodation occupied, and the way in which it was run, rather than to the personal circumstances of the occupant.

Over the years, the number of people benefiting from the concession has steadily increased. When the regulations were changed in May 1988, that number stood at 776,000 people. It has since gone up by over 91,000. So the change was clearly not an effort--certainly not an effective effort--at covert restriction. It sprang from the necessity, after the court action to which I shall refer in a moment, to make what were believed to be the existing rules more coherent and sustainable at law.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd : Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I have only a little time.

Mr. Cryer : Does the Minister accept that changes are being made in those statistics even now? Some of my constituents who receive the concession are being told, even at this stage, that it will be withdrawn. Does not this need clarifying?

Mr. Lloyd : It has been clarified. That was the whole purpose of the change. The position was anomalous before, as the court decision suggested. Although some people have lost, undoubtedly a great many more can now benefit.

As I have said, the change sprang from necessity after that court action. Thus, the figure now exceeds 867,000 people, and 80 per cent. of those beneficiaries live in sheltered housing schemes rather than conventional residential homes. It is the application of the regulations to people in sheltered housing--my hon. Friend referred to this specifically--that seems to cause most uncertainty.

As hon. Members will remember, early in 1987 the scheme ran into particular difficulties following a successful High Court action by Kirklees metropolitan borough council. It had sought judicial review of our decision not to issue the licence to the occupants of some council accommodation. We had thought that the employment by the council of officials to visit all council

Column 758

tenants to collect rent and to sort out housing problems did not constitute a communal facility, as required by the regulations then in force.

The court disagreed, and that judgment has far-reaching implications. It called into question our other interpretation of the regulations--that the accommodation must form groups and be specially provided for pensioners or disabled people.

It quickly became clear that the Kirklees judgment had effectively opened the way for local authorities to bring within the scheme large numbers of people living in what was essentially mainstream housing. By providing some sort of visiting care service or communal alarm system, they could claim that the accommodation was specially provided and formed a group with a communal facility. It was never the intention that the scheme should expand in that way, as I think my hon. Friend will agree, and it would have been very expensive in terms of revenue lost to the BBC.

We therefore had to act to protect the BBC's finances, and to avoid the complete breakdown of the scheme. A simple solution would have been to abolish the scheme, but we did not want to take away a long-standing concession which had benefited many people. We therefore considered a number of options for change. These included the possibility of linking entitlement to a social security or other benefit ; but there was no consensus as to the most appropriate linkage, and to grant the concession to pensioners receiving a particular benefit would have provoked claims for similar treatment from non-pensioners in receipt of the same, or broadly comparable, benefit. That would have widened the scope of the scheme considerably, and could have been even more anomalous than the previous arrangements.

Moreover, we believe that that type of approach would have been wrong in principle. The television licence fee is not a proper instrument of social policy. The right way to help the less well-off is through the pensions and benefits system, leaving it to individuals to decide for themselves how best to spend their own money. After much thought, therefore, we concluded that the most sensible thing to do was to restore the underlying intention of the scheme. As I explained earlier, this was to benefit retirement pensioners and disabled people living in residential homes, or in sheltered housing schemes which were directly comparable with such homes.

To give effect to this decision, we introduced new regulations which defined more closely the type of sheltered accommodation that would qualify in future. These regulations came into force on 19 May 1988.

To qualify as equivalent to a residential home under the new regulations, sheltered accommodation must now satisfy the following conditions. First, it must form part of a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary. That is where the examples that my hon. Friend gave fall outside the rules. Secondly, it must be specially provided by way of erection or conversion for occupation only by retirement pensioners or disabled people. Thirdly, it must be provided or run by a local authority or a housing association. Fourthly, it must be served by a full-time or residents warden. Fifthly, there must be a communal facility within the boundary intended to meet the need of the resident. Perhaps I might explain why we imposed those conditions and say a little about how we apply them in practice.

Column 759

Mr. Devlin : I am dealing with a case where concessionary television licences have been withdrawn because the buildings are not joined together. That was not on my hon. Friend's list of five conditions. I raised the matter with the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), one Question Time but I have received no answer since.

Mr. Lloyd : The concession would not have been withdrawn from someone who was in receipt of the concession. Nor would it have been withdrawn because the buildings were not joined together. It might have been withdrawn because the buildings were not within an exclusive boundary. I cannot deal from the Dispatch Box with a case of which I know nothing except what my hon. Friend has just said. If he would like to communicate with me about it, I shall be happy to reply and explain.

The reason why there must be a group of four dwellings within a common boundary is that the housing must be seen to form a cohesive, self- contained group, encompassing all and only the accommodation in question-- just like a residential home.

We cannot accept, for instance, that a line drawn on a map round some parts of a mixed housing estate constitutes a common and exclusive boundary for the purposes of the regulations.

Thus, sheltered housing interspersed with mainstream housing cannot qualify. Nor can sheltered housing units physically separated from others by things such a shops, car parks or non-sheltered housing be regarded as part of the same scheme for concessionary television licence purposes.

We realise that local authorities sometimes choose to regard these separated housing units as part of a single scheme for their own administrative purposes, and find it hard to understand why we cannot do the same. The difficulty is that, when running a statutory scheme, it must be made clear--the Kirklees judgment established that--which accommodation qualifies and which does not. Hence our insistence on comparability with a residential home and the need for a common and exclusive boundary.

It would have been extremely difficult to devise a formula that would have allowed some separated housing units in reasonably close proximity to qualify, while excluding other units further afield which did not seem to

Next Section

Home Page