Welfare Reform Bill

My Lords, we have added our names to Amendments 86ZZZB, 86ZZZC and 86ZZZD and we support the other amendments in this group. We have our own amendment, Amendment 86ZZZEB, and I should say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that I am happy to accept his amendments to my amendment. Perhaps we can go through the Lobby together when the opportunity arises. The Social Fund, particularly the discretionary component, helps some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised individuals in the country. We have been given a lot of historical perspective on this, but my brief says that the fund has its origins in the exceptional needs payments scheme introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. However, some may go back a bit further. We should recognise that the fund as it operates today is not perfect. Indeed, a number of noble Lords have made that point. When we were in Government, we paved the way for change and consulted on it. The case we made was the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord German, which was that the system was short-term, passive and complex. Its role was as a sticking plaster to deal with short-term crises and did not address the longer term challenges which individuals face, particularly those of financial and social exclusion. That said, we should never lose sight of the importance of a safety net for those who are in desperate need. We have all received powerful testimony from a range of organisations to the difference that a crisis loan or a community care grant can make when individuals with acute needs are faced with very difficult circumstances. It helps the poorest and the most vulnerable people in our society and we know how an early intervention can prevent a slide into even more desperate circumstances. The case has been made by others, particularly in a very powerful presentation by my noble friend Lady Lister, as to why we should continue to support this. I would like to comment on some of the other contributions. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that the great mistake he made was to confront Derek Hatton with a Socialist Worker under his arm. It should have been Militant, and then he might have got a better reception. So far as ring-fencing is concerned, I recall one party conference when a certain Dennis Skinner was speaking from the platform. He addressed the mayor who had come to open the conference and suggested that he should melt down his chain and put it into the housing revenue account, so there are precedents as well. One of the difficulties I have with the government proposals is in trying to understand precisely their vision of what should result from this process. On page 25 of Local support to replace Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans for living expenses in England, the Government’s response to the call for evidence, they say: "““There is no expectation or desire from central government that the new service will mirror the current Social Fund scheme in whole or in part””." If that is right, what is the Government’s vision? What are they seeking to achieve? My blood ran cold when I turned to page 27—this was the point made by my noble friend Lady Lister—where it says: "““One of the design issues raised by a large number of respondents is whether provision should be in the form of cash payments or goods and services, including for example food parcels and both new and re-conditioned household items””." The next paragraph says: "““The need to offer recipients choice or control over the item they received was not generally considered a requirement and by a number of respondents it was thought to be undesirable. There was a strong sense that if there is a genuine need recipients will accept the support that is offered””." What sort of country are we living in where we have those sorts of rules? It is ““take it or leave it””, living off the scraps from the supermarket when they clear the shelves at night. My noble friend Lady Sherlock pressed on a range of points concerning funding. I shall address Appendix C of the document I just referred to. Bandied around somewhere in the text is a figure of £178 million, but this annexe says it gives us, "““National-level data from the latest available financial year and 2005-6””." The year then was 2009-10, so it was not as up to date as my noble friend. It says: "““We have indicated our intention and already taken action to manage the current levels of demand and spend for Crisis Loans back towards 2005-06 levels. 2005-06 data should therefore be regarded as more representative of the levels of demand and spend at the point of transition to the new local provision””." The gross spend on crisis loans in 2009-10 was £67 million, but what was it in 2005-6? It was £20 million. Is that what the Government are about now, trying to scale back from even the 2009-10 figures to just £20 million in allocating monies to start this process? It is an absolute disgrace if that is the proposition, and this is supposedly not meant to be about saving money. Notwithstanding that, the information we have had is that the Government are cutting back on some of these arrangements. Crisis loans for items only following a disaster and crisis loans for living expenses have been cut back from 75 per cent to 60 per cent, supposedly aligning with the hardship payment rate under JSA. Crisis loans for living expenses are limited to three in a rolling 12-month period. There is already a process under way to cut back on this spend before we get into the new arrangements. I would like to understand the rationale and the justification for that. I thoroughly and wholeheartedly support the proposition concerning ring-fencing. What we are talking about is money that goes into local authority budgets, ring-fenced for a specific purpose. The Government have made great play of reducing ring-fencing on local authorities—as we did in Government to a certain extent—but as a technique and as a means of ensuring that the money that goes through to local authorities is spent on that endeavour, it is well tried and tested. There is not a problem in doing it. Indeed, one of the experiences we need to reflect on is what happened to the ““Supporting People”” programme. That programme was originally ring-fenced. It was then un-ring-fenced, I think with the support of the CLG Select Committee, but at least in those circumstances local authorities were required to continue to report centrally about how that allocation had been dealt with. It was not rigid but at least there was a reporting requirement. I do not know, but perhaps the Minister can tell us, whether any such arrangements are proposed so far as the Social Fund is concerned. My noble friend Lady Hollis was absolutely right to identify the issues that will arise under two-tier authorities. She suggested that one way of dealing with this would be to have a mandatory allocation to districts, but that raises the whole question of who people will engage with at the local level to get the support they need. Most of their needs will be related to housing, which is at the district level, but some may be related to adult services, which are the functions of a county council. Where people go and what the process will be is entirely unclear. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, supported the issues around ring-fencing. He made the point, as did other noble Lords, about the pressure that is on local authorities at this time. They have had dramatic cuts made to their budgets and some of those cuts have been front-end loaded. In some respects, they have had greater responsibilities imposed on them under the Localism Bill. Indeed, what are hard-pressed councils to do when such extraordinary pressures are placed on them? They must try to make decent decisions so as to protect and support their communities. This is another example of the Government, in the guise of localism, pushing down on local authorities and giving them the supposed problem that they are not prepared to face up to and deal with themselves. My noble friend Lady Turner centred her speech on issues around domestic violence. I wholeheartedly agree with her, and that is why the amendment should be supported. The greatest difficulty with all this is being able to see what the Government’s vision is. Local authorities are innovative and many of them will work very hard to protect in every way they can the vulnerable citizens in their communities, and indeed those from outside their communities. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made the point about connections. If local authorities put in place a focus on people with local connections, it will particularly disadvantage those whom the Social Fund is designed to help—the people who are settling back into a community and perhaps do not yet have a fixed abode. They may be rough sleepers or—I think this is the expression—they sofa-surf, which is when they kip down for the night on friends’ sofas here, there and everywhere. Helping those people means that a barrier cannot be put on some localised connection. I would support all the amendments which seek to avoid that. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was absolutely right to say that we need consistency of approach and transparency in all this. In part, that is what our amendment seeks to do: it would establish that there should be mechanisms to make sure that we get consistency. As I say, that has to be on an England basis because separate and well funded schemes will operate in Scotland and Wales. That is fine, and we should be happy with that. One of the other challenges here is that these changes are being introduced at a time when there is a whole maelstrom of change going on around localism, welfare reform, our health and social care provisions, and what legal aid support people can receive. In the midst of all that, these changes are being brought forward. They will affect the most vulnerable people in our society, and if we have a duty as Members of Parliament and certainly as members of a Government, above all we should look to protect them. These provisions simply do not do that.