Local Welfare Asssistance Scheme consultation response

.. and CPAG reaction ..

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/child-poverty-action-group-criticises-local-welfare-decision

Also see:

http://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-spending-power-to-fall-by-18/37850

Thanks for the links and updates. But I do not fully understand the implications for my local authority, Bradford in West Yorkshire. As I read the statement, the government has confirmed withdrawal of its LWA funds and said it’s up to local government to decide what’s appropriate in each local area.

But then it also said: “we have separately identified an amount relating to local welfare provision in each upper-tier authority’s general grant, totalling £129.6 million nationally.”

That might suggest an ‘expectation’ (though not a ringfenced requirement) from national government that this amount is to be used for LWA purposes by local government overall, in ways that must be locally defined. The questions that I am unclear about are:

1) has each local council been given an ‘indicative’ LWA figure, within the national figure of £129.6 million?

2) if so, is there external pressure on, or accountability process for, local councils to say what it they are actually going to allocate to LWA next year?

As an advocate of local advice services and their clients, that would be an interesting piece of information to have.

Anyone able to comment?

There is a blog on the New Statesmen website by Megan Jarvie and Lindsay Judge from our policy and campaigns team on yesterday’s announcement.

”“The last backstop for the most vulnerable”: what now for local welfare schemes?

In terms of what this means at a local level, if you open the top Excel table on this page Breakdown of settlement funding assessment: provisional local government finance settlement 2015 to 2016 you should be able to find the provisional arrangements for your area.

We’ve heard that there’s likely to be a Ministerial statement on the government’s response to the LWAS consultation today.

Written statement issued by Kris Hopkins.  Seems to include an additional £74 M for upper tier authorities but no detail beyond that yet.

Link here:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/February 2015/3rd February/1.DCLG-Local-govt-finance.pdf

Extra £74million announced Local Government Finance

Having considered the views of all those who commented on the provisional settlement, we have decided to confirm the proposals for the settlement for 2015-16 as announced. We are confirming our proposal that the council tax referendum principle for 2015-16 will be set at two per cent. In addition, we are providing a further £74 million to upper-tier authorities to recognise that councils have asked for additional support, including to help them respond to local welfare needs and to i mprove social care provision.

We’re very pleased with the outcome, it’s not as much as was cut originally but it’s a darned sight better than it could have been.

Those pesky Hansard links ... Written Statement attached

Great work Paul ..

Thanks for fixing the link Shawn.

Have to say, having read through the formal government response, it’s fair to say that we were slightly staggered to come across this section:

A number of respondents mention providing funding to people on benefit sanctions, or who have had their benefits reduced as part of other reforms. Councils already receive funding to help with the transitional effects of welfare reform and it could be argued that providing this funding to those who have been sanctioned undermines the intention behind it;

Those darned local welfare schemes, feeding starving people who’ve had sanctions applied to their benefits…...

Paul_Treloar_CPAG - 04 February 2015 11:19 AM

Those darned local welfare schemes, feeding starving people who’ve had sanctions applied to their benefits…...

Indeed. other LAs, such as Calderdale, have a deliberate policy of not assisting anyone who has been sanctioned because it goes against the policy intent of sanctioning.

Have I understood this correctly. In Jan 15 we were told it would probably drop to £129.6m for 15/16, now after much pressure a total of £74 will be paid instead, so from £180m to £74m wow that s brill!
OR is it £129.6 plus £74m, no I don’t think I’m that optimisitic!

It’s complicated by the smoke and mirrors approach they’ve adopted Barbara.

Although £129m was “identified” in the provisional local government settlement as being for LWAS, this was actually from the existing core grant from central government to local government. Although identified, it is not ring-fenced at all.

Previously, there had been £172.1m for 2014-15 which was provided to DLCG and then onto local authorities from the DWP budget, and which was specifically for LWAS. Although this funding wasn’t ring-fenced either, there was a strong steer from central government as to how it should be spent.

Now, with yesterday’s announcement, an extra £74m is being provided to local authorities from DCLG specifically for LWAS over 2015-16 and which again is not ring-fenced.

Thus effectively, there’s a net loss in comparison to 2014-15 of just under £100m for 2015-16 in terms of the level of dedicated funding for LWAS, but it is also £74m more than would have been available without the Judicial Review, the subsequent consultation, and then yesterday’s response from government.

There was no additional money in the initial settlement.  The £129.6m was funny money in that it was money identified after the settlement was made in response to the opposition point that after only two years the support was to be abolished.  Optimistically I would say that £74m is new money.

Many thanks

Shaun

The £74 million is new money, but note that the DHP budget the other day was cut by £40 million.

Incidently the £74 Million only goes to upper tier Authorities, so if you are not a upper tier you might not see much of this coming your way.

As the additional money is not ring fenced, there is no guarentee that every council will run a scheme.

Although by providing the additional £74 million the govt can argue that they have responded to the public demand for additional funds.

I have previously argued that the key to understanding all this is transparency, we need to see this funding is making a real difference on the ground.

Thank you for the clarification, sadly I now understand.