The Social Fund (Hansard, 16 March 1992)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)
My Lords, we welcome the constructive approach of this report. It endorses many of the principles on which the fund's operation rests and acknowledges the excellent service which Social Fund officers provide. Several of the points made in the report have already been acted on and improvements in the operation of the fund, including new allocations for next year, have recently been announced. We will be considering the report's recommendations carefully.

§ Baroness Jeger
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the findings of the Government's committee that it is not only a matter of money but of changing the structure of the fund? Although we know that this moribund Government have fallen in love with lotteries, does the Minister agree with the report that it is leaving too much to luck when applicants to the Social Fund are either refused money or in some cases are granted it according to where they live? This is because budgets are allocated locally and according to the time of year when the application is made. The budget for the fund is granted annually on a cash-limited basis. Can the Minister say whether the same arrangements apply in Northern Ireland for the Social Fund?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not accept the noble Baroness's allegation that the Social Fund's operation is a lottery. Obviously, there will be some variation between decisions of individual Social Fund officers and between one office and another. That is an inevitable consequence of a system with discretion. A rigid system like the old single payment was much less likely to get resources out responsively to individual 1563 needs. It was far more arbitrary in its operation and by the end 80 per cent. of all the money from single payments was going to 17 per cent. of eligible claimants.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Social Fund—inadequate, cash-limited and mainly based on loans rather than grants—has forced many thousands of vulnerable people not only into unacceptable poverty but into unacceptable debt? Does he agree that the constructive points made by the Social Security Advisory Committee, his own committee, reiterate what was said from the Labour Front Bench in the debate five years ago by my noble friend Lady Jeger and myself?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, what the noble Lord does not accept is that the old system of single payments was growing out of control at far too fast a rate. There had to be budget limits, and that is what we came up with. We brought in the Social Fund which is working very well. I accept that criticisms have been made by the Social Security Advisory Committee: we shall respond to those in due course.

§ Baroness Jeger
My Lords, I am sorry to rise again but I did not hear the noble Lord answer my question about Northern Ireland.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I did not respond to the noble Baroness on Northern Ireland because she asked quite a few—certainly, in excess of two—questions. The Question on the Order Paper does not relate to Northern Ireland.

Lord Wallace of Coslany
My Lords, was the social security committee made aware of the Government's intention to provide uniforms for social security staff at a cost of several million pounds?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I honestly do not see how that question relates in any way whatever to the Question on the Order Paper.

§ The Lord Bishop of Ripon
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the evidence reaching the General Synod of the Church of England through its clergy and parishes is that the operation of the fund is uneven and that on one occasion a need may be met whereas on another occasion the same need may not be met? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that due to the policy of awarding loans rather than grants there is a mounting debt problem? Does he agree with the recommendation of the advisory committee that a longer period for repayment of debt should be allowed?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I have already accepted that there are variations from one office to another and from one time to another but that is the inevitable consequence of there being discretion in the scheme. There was a far greater degree of arbitrariness under the old system of single payments. The right reverend Prelate also asked why we should award loans and whether these could be converted to grants. I must say that other people on low incomes have to budget for 1564 larger, one-off items of expenditure and I see no reason why those on income support should not be put in the same position.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, does the Minister accept the validity of the main arguments put by his own advisory committee?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, we welcomed the report. We said that it was a useful contribution to a very difficult area of social security policy, but obviously we have many queries about the details of the points put forward. I do not accept the noble Lord's claim that the amount of money available in the fund is inadequate.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, does the Minister agree that applicants to the Social Fund should be treated equally at the time of their need, at the place of their need and according to their need? Does the Minister accept the findings not only of his Social Security Advisory Committee but also those of the Government's National Audit Office which stated last year that there were significant and unacceptable variations between offices and within offices according to the time of year? Does the Minister also accept, along with the Social Security Advisory Committee, the National Audit Office, the Church of England, the Rowntree Trust, the CAB and these Benches, that the Social Fund is severely flawed and must be reformed?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I simply do not accept what the noble Baroness says. I repeat again what I said before. Obviously, there will be variation in decisions of individual officers: that is an inevitable consequence of a discretionary system. The rigid system of single payments that existed before produced far, far greater discrepancies of treatment between one individual and another.