Welfare Reform Bill

Having had several interesting and instructive debates about the merits of direct control, the benefits that will accrue to the individuals affected and the extent to which funding streams should be included, Amendments 167 and 169 deal with the implementation of right to control schemes. In a previous debate, we watched the Minister explain—perhaps "tussle with" would be a better phrase—the justification for excluding types of funding on the grounds that different moneys come from different departments. Regardless of where the money comes from, however, one thing is true: we are not dealing with new money. We have been debating who spends the money that is already swirling around government funds, and how. There is no suggestion that direct-control payments would increase costs to the relevant departments. That is not what noble Lords have been calling for. Indeed, it is not something that we could realistically expect to call for, as the Minister has just pointed out. Therefore, when I read Clause 34(3), I thought of a question. Subsection (3) allows a local authority to refuse a request for direct payments if it would create an unreasonable burden on finances. I accept that there may be circumstances to warrant this, such as a request to finance a service that would never reasonably be provided by that particular authority. However, what is there in this provision to prevent a local authority refusing a reasonable request on the ground that it cannot be afforded, a point made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner? I worry about a postcode lottery and that some local authorities, perhaps one that has mismanaged its finances, may use direct control as a fig leaf to cover its own failings by refusing reasonable requests on the inaccurate grounds that they cost too much. Amendment 169, which changes the word "subsection" to "section", does not do much by itself. I merely wanted to bring into our debates the pilot schemes for direct control. I do not wish to add much to the point that I made in the debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, which is that the Government have the luxury of the pilot scheme to road test ideas. I urge the Minister to be bold, to uphold the raised expectations that the White Paper aroused, and to give real teeth to direct-control payments. I suggest that, were he to do so, he would be pleasantly surprised with the results, an outcome that would please almost everyone. For the Government, there is, in the words of President Roosevelt, ""nothing to fear but fear itself"." I beg to move.