Welfare Reform Bill

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for tabling these amendments which focus on the Bill’s provisions for community care grants. Before I address the amendments I should outline the thinking behind these provisions. Community care grants are designed to allow the most vulnerable individuals and families to be resettled or remain in the community. They provide valuable support for those who frequently have nowhere else to turn. We feel that the current system whereby, in general, cash is provided to individuals will be enhanced by requiring the provision of goods or services in most cases. It will not only help to secure value for money from the award, but ensure that all items are of an acceptable quality. It will also ensure that the grant is spent on the item it is awarded for. We aim to achieve discounts on the items supplied under contract. The savings that will be created should therefore allow the community care grant budget to help more individuals in need and provide greater value for money to the taxpayer. Not only will we protect the most vulnerable individuals by helping to secure quality items, we will also allow those who have special requirements—for example, through ill-health or a disability—in appropriate cases, to receive items or services which are not part of the standard contract or even cash in some cases. Amendment 131 would require a voucher to be given to the customer that would then be exchanged for the goods or services from the supplier. I recognise that the amendment is probing. Prescribing that a voucher system must be used would severely restrict any room for flexibility and innovation regarding the potential delivery solution that could be utilised. How, exactly, this scheme is implemented must be flexible, user-friendly and, importantly, fit with both Jobcentre Plus and the suppliers. This is why we do not wish to commit to any specific method of delivery in the Bill. Indeed, it is possible that there may be very different solutions, say, for large goods that would need delivery; smaller items that it may be appropriate for the customer to collect; and unusual or specialist items that may not be subject to a contract. Specifying that level of detail in legislation could potentially discourage suppliers from bidding for a contract and could also impact on our ability to achieve the best price possible. A similar issue arises with Amendment 132, which would require all successful community care grant applicants to be awarded goods or services under the arrangements made by the Secretary of State regardless of the item they applied for or their individual circumstances. Due to the wide range of customer needs that the community care grants are designed to fulfil—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, outlined some of them—it is necessary to have the provision to award cash for goods or services not covered by the contracts. Not having these provisions would mean that some vulnerable individuals could be unsuccessful in their application purely because we did not have a contract with a supplier for the particular item that they needed. The alternative would be to have a wide range of contracts to cover every foreseeable circumstance. This would create problems in tendering for and managing contracts in order to maintain access to items that may be required infrequently, with the potential to diminish any savings that could be achieved. While we accept that as many awards as possible should be provided in the form of goods or services under the arrangements, there will be circumstances in which such an award would not be appropriate. There must be flexibility to provide cash or other goods or services in such circumstances. We will ensure that these circumstances are clearly defined to enable decision-makers and customers of Jobcentre Plus to understand when such an award is appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked me what services we are talking about. If we look, for instance, at white goods, a cooker would be the good, and the service would be the delivery and the fitting. Cooker plus delivery plus fitting equals goods and services. I was also asked about storage and payment. There would be no storage of items. The contract is with the supplier who will then deliver the item or arrange for the item to be collected. The payment will go directly from the DWP to the supplier. I hope that I have covered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and, with that, I would urge him to withdraw his amendment.