Welfare Reform Bill

Before my noble friend responds, I wonder whether in his reply he could help us further by giving us some of the relevant stats—he may have done so; I am sorry, but I had to leave the Room briefly to help a colleague. Can he remind us how many loans and grants are given? What is the degree of rotation and therefore possible arrears? What are the grounds for refusal, beyond the instances cited by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—ineligibility by virtue of non-benefit dependency, for example, or that on any points system or previous pattern the entitlement to loans has already been exceeded? In other words, can my noble friend tell me how many loans have been refused simply by virtue of financial capping from within the local Jobcentre Plus, as opposed to categories in the Bill or by regulation? That used to be the case: they were cash-limited by local office. If that is the case, given that now, seven years down the line, I understand that almost all the moneys originally lent out are recovered, is there any reason why that cash limitation should continue to apply? That money is recovered fairly quickly, over two to five years, and goes back to the department. As a result, we could avoid some of the real problems of debt, with very high APRs and the grey economy of pawnbrokers and the like. The huge advantage of Social Fund loans is that they are cheap. As a result, taking out a loan does not send you into further debt in the way that almost all other areas of finance do. Can my noble friend tell us whether the main restriction is on ineligibility grounds—where, as the noble Lord said, there may be paper hearings that simply say, "You are not within the framework of the law or the regulations"—or is it cash-limited, in which case I suggest that my noble friend tells us how much of a problem that is? In the current climate, the Government should be investing in people with cheap credit to avoid the worst problems that come from expensive credit.