Welfare Reform Bill

Community care grants, to which Clause 18 relates, are the part of the Social Fund that provides money for emergency items, whereas the Minister told those of us who are anoraks—as his one-time rep, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, once described social security cognoscenti—that they can be used for educational purposes. It would be possible, for example, for a grant to be used to pay for a computer for a disabled person. More normally, they would be used for other capital equipment, such as cookers and fridges, which are irreparable and need to be replaced. I have never heard of a grant being sought or granted for repairs, but I assume that this might be appropriate in certain circumstances. Equally, the community care grant can be used for services—in theory, anyway, or perhaps by law. I confess that I have never understood quite what services are in this context and I am sure that the Minister will tell us which and what services can be applied for. Is it possible under this clause to bulk purchase services? I confess that I find that a difficult concept. I see new subsection (2B) of Section 138 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 as applying principally to capital items. I also see it as a money-saving provision driven by the Treasury. Surprise, surprise—I do not mind that. The Minister will remember that I had occasion last week to comment, "Look after the millions and the billions will look after themselves". Last year, social care grants cost the taxpayer £138.9 million, so perhaps that phrase is not quite so apt today. None the less, it is a great deal of money, and there is money to be saved by the bulk purchase of, say, fridges, cookers or computers. This is what new subsection (2B) is all about. These probing amendments are designed to discover how the new system, which I am all for, will work. It would be beyond credibility for bulk-purchased items to be stored in social security offices and it would be wasteful of resources if the applicant could go and choose their replacement cooker, or whatever, from a government-run store. What then is left? I would expect the wholesaler or local shop to have the bulk-purchased item that the grantee would ask for. The question then arises: how physically would the money get to the seller? At the moment, my understanding is that the grant is given cash-in-hand to the shop by the grantee. However, how does the local jobcentre know that this cash is not being spent on a cheaper item and the difference pocketed? Would this not be an extremely profligate use of taxpayers’ money? Under new subsection (2B) it appears to my noble friend and I that money still changes hands from the Social Fund to the recipient. The only way for the jobcentre which administers the fund to know the right amount of money to pay out would be to know the bulk purchase price of every likely replacement item and to pay the appropriate amount. That is not a practical proposition, especially as the bulk purchase would be done on a national or, at best, regional basis. I am suggesting in Amendment 131 that the cheapest and most cost-effective way for things to happen would be if the grantee were given a voucher for a specific item—a particular sort of cooker such as a Baby Belling, or whatever is appropriate—which has been pre-purchased under the bulk contract, preferably with the manufacturer; although in that case, some recompense to the wholesaler or the local shop would of course be required to cover their costs in the operation. I beg to move.