House of Lords written question – answered on 11 August 2011.
Baroness King of Bow
Labour
To ask Her Majesty's Government who were the 68 individuals and organisations who responded to the Department for Work and Pensions Green Paper on Social Fund reform published in March 2010, and whether they will publish a summary of those responses.
Lord Freud
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Including late submissions, a total of 72 responses were received to the Department for Work and Pensions consultation paper Social Fund Reform: Debt, Credit and Low-income Households (Cm 7750), which was published in March 2010.
Details of the respondents to the consultation are set out in table 1 and a summary of responses to the proposals are in table 2.
Table 1: consultation respondents
1. A4E
2. Association of British Credit Unions
3. Access to Benefits (Northern Ireland)
4. Advice Centres for Avon
5. Advice NI
6. Advice Services Coventry
7. Age UK
8. Alzheimer's Scotland
9. Barnardo's
10. Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
11. BM and C Howard Funeral Services
12. Brighton and Hove Multi Agency
13. British Bankers Association
14. Broadway Homelessness Support
15. Trevor Buck
16. Calderdale CAB
17. Christians Against Poverty
18. Citizen's Advice
19. Connection Floating Support Team
20. Consumer Focus
21. Child Poverty Action Group
22. Credit Action
23. Crisis
24. Committee for Social Development, Northern Ireland Assembly
26. Essex County Council Evansabove
27. Teresa Evans
28. Family Action
29. Furniture Reuse Network
30. Gingerbread
31. Gary Greaves
32. Hertfordshire County Council
33. HLG
34. Home Group
35. Homeless Link
36. Brian Howard
37. Federation of Irish Societies
38. Financial Inclusion Taskforce
40. Law Centre NI/Housing Rights Service
41. Local Government Association
42. Money Advice Trust
43. National Association of Funeral Directors
44. National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers
45. Northern Irish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
46. National Offender Management Service
47. National Union of Students
48. Peabody Trust
49. Personal Finance Research Centre, University of Bristol
51. Public & Commercial Services Union
52. Reading Refugee Support Group
53. Refugee Action
54. Richmond Aid
55. RL Glasspool Charity Trust
56. Saskia Szokolovics
58. SAY Women
59. Scope
61. Solihull Churches Action on Homelessness
62. South East Homeless Forum
64. Social Security Advisory Committee
65. Stockport Advice
66. Stonham Floating Support
67. Swansea Council
68. Toynbee Hall
69. Trades Union Council
70. Wavertree CAB
71. Wonga
72. Yorkshire Housing
| Table 2: summary of consultation questions and responses | ||
| Proposal | Description | Summary of Stakeholder Responses |
| Proposals for early change: "a simpler loans structure with transparency around eligibility criteria and much more targeted discretion". | The Green Paper suggested this could be achieved through: •Easier, lighter-touch access to budgeting loans (BL); •BLs from day one for most customers; •Signposting to the Money Guidance service; •A lower maximum award amount in the first six months of benefit (than currently awarded for budgeting loans (BLs)); A requirement for an interview on second application for a crisis loan (CL). | •Support for easier access to BLs and eligibility from day one, but at same rate in first 6 months. • Support for signposting to services enhancing financial inclusion and opportunities for increased support but not for it to be conditional, and delivered at appropriate time, dependent on individual's circumstances. |
| Longer-term proposals: "changes which will reduce complexity and increase the levels of support available to address customers' longer-term needs". | The Green Paper was fairly open on how this might be achieved, but made a number of suggestions: •a single point of entry to the loans scheme (rather than the present three); •a full financial health check at a suitable stage; •requiring those who need frequent help to draw up plans with advisers; •active engagement with support services as a requirement for receiving a loan. The Green Paper also asked which organisations would be best placed to provide greater support. | •Support for single application gateway, with calls to include CCG applications in process. •Support for financial health checks and further engagement, on personalised basis and not conditional to award. • Responses identified Third Sector organisations as best to carry out interventions, CAB most referenced. |
| "a reformed grants system should ensure that payments go to those who are experiencing the most exceptional need". | The Green Paper proposed that the grants scheme could be better focused by: •targeting the discretionary grant scheme on those facing exceptional need with a greater element of support; •provision of goods and services instead of cash for grants; and •a new standardised resettlement grant, potentially delivered through a regulated scheme, but with separate arrangements for those leaving prison. | •General backing for provision of goods and services instead of cash for grants in principle, with concerns around reduction of choice, fear of stigmatisation, contradictory to wider message of developing financial independence. •Wide support for regulated resettlement grants: call for extending eligibility beyond groups currently eligible for CCGs, including those leaving prison. |
| "we are considering whether to extend help with funeral costs to... students who do not qualify for welfare benefits" | The Green Paper asked whether students not in receipt of benefits should be eligible for a funeral payment where they meet all the other qualifying conditions and how they should be identified. | •General support for widening to students in full-time higher education •Queries over why extension of eligibility limited to students only - why not those on contributions-based benefits, young people on lower rates of benefits |
| "Community Care Grants... may lend themselves more easily [than loans] to be delivered by an alternative provider to Jobcentre Plus" | The Green Paper asked whether the power to make Community Care Grants and a per capita proportion of the CCG budget should be devolved to the Scottish Government and what the benefits would be. | Limited response to this issue. Majority responded negatively to proposals. Two responses from Scottish organisations: one advised caution, one supportive. |
Yes1 person thinks so
No0 people think not
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.
