Social Fund: SPRU Report (Hansard, 28 April 1993)

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, we are currently considering carefully the operation of the Social Fund in response to the research commissioned from York University's Social Policy Research Unit, along with a number of other reports and our own close monitoring of the fund.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the Social Fund targets help on the neediest; but it does not. Does the Minister accept the findings of his own research that the better-off and owner/occupiers receive grants, the poorer-off and overcrowded are more likely to receive loans and the poorest of all get nothing at all because they cannot repay those loans? Does the Minister agree with his own research that: the Social Fund is simply not reaching those in the greatest financial distress". If he does agree with that, what is he doing about it?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, the Social Fund aims to direct help to the most vulnerable groups. It must be remembered that the Social Fund accounts for only a very small part of the Government's overall expenditure on social security, which is currently £80 billion per year.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, did the Minister say that the Social Fund is a small part of the Government's expenditure on social security? If so, how did the Government decide on the size of that part? Is it based on any calculation of need? If so how was it calculated? Was the figure merely plucked out of the air?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, Ministers must look at the full spread of social security expenditure and must consider the relevant priorities of the various calls on the overall social security budget.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, will the Minister agree that the results of the research confirm all that was said in this House about the dangers of the Social Fund and the effect that it would have by producing loans for very poor people who would not be able to repay them? Have the Government not reacted merely because the research was so critical of the Social Fund? Is it not time that they looked at the whole operation of the Social Fund?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, the recent report on credit and debt from the Policy Studies Institute did not indicate that loans from the Social Fund are creating debts that people find difficult to clear.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the report of the research the government sponsored through the SPRU tends to agree with the report from the Social Security Consortium which he rubbished, and which the Government have been rubbishing for many years, which has constantly criticised the Government's approach to the Social Fund, especially to people in need, and so on? This latest government sponsored report produced by a large organisation agrees with all those independent research units. The Minister has not mentioned that point. Therefore will he now pay more heed to the latest report and tell us what he will do about the findings?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, some difficulties are to be expected with a radical new provision in a traditionally difficult area, but the fund is far better than previous schemes. There is nothing to justify altering the fund's basic principles. The fund has succeeded in helping larger numbers of people while keeping expenditure under control.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is everything to be expected as a result of change, because the report made it clear that the Social Fund fails to meet the needs of very poor people? That means that they are having to do without beds, ovens, coats and shoes. That is the reality. No matter how understanding and articulate the noble Viscount, no Minister can justify that failure. The discretionary element should be abolished and people should be given the right to have those basic necessities.

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, the Social Fund has achieved a great deal. In the past year alone, nearly 2 million awards, worth well over £300 million, have been made. The discretionary nature of the fund provides flexibility and allows resources to be directed to the most vulnerable groups. Unlike the previous single payment scheme, there are few rigid rules on what can be provided.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the Minister has continued to repeat this afternoon that the Social Fund has been a success in helping the neediest. How, then, will he respond to the National Audit Office, the CAB, the local authorities, the Public Accounts Committee, his own Social Security Advisory Committee, and the report which he has had since January 1992, all of which without exception, 344 have damned the Social Fund as a failure and a lottery? Will he please act? He has had the report since January 1992.

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, income support helps groups with the greatest general need. The fund helps with specific needs, which are not necessarily the same. Awards are made to those who are in the greatest need of help with specific, exceptional and large expenses. They will not always be those who appear to have the lowest living standards.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, the noble Viscount continues to insist that the fund is helping those in the greatest need but the SPRU and other reports demonstrate clearly that those in greatest need are not being helped. Those who are being helped are the people who know where to go to obtain the help. They are usually the middle classes and the better off.

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, I can only repeat the successes of the Social Fund. The gross budget for 1993–94 is £346 million, an increase of £44 million (15 per cent.) compared with that of April 1992.—