Just clicked into the news section and started to read the governments response to the social fund. Did'nt get past the first page because I could'nt stop laughing.

"To help achieve this we are taking important legislation forward. This includes introducing advance payments of benefit, so that the crisis loans budget is reserved for those in genuine need and not put under pressure by those awaiting benefit payments"

Is this another offering from a merchant banker

it has James Parnell's name on it, so...Yes.

I forced myself past the first page and i wish i hadn't, i know Victoriana is back in fashion, but do the Govt really have bring back the concept of the "undeserving poor" with such enthusiasm.

The DWP contracting out loan facilities sounds very iffy. Will wait with clenched teeth for the finer detail on that one.

Providing goods and services instead of CCG's isn't new. The old single payments system (Pre 1988- Gawd! I'm old and I've turned into my dad) for a time provided beds knocked up in a facility from somewhere near newcastle.
I'm sure I did an appeal for a client given a bed but refused a mattress.

Nothing surprises me anymore which worries me.

you don't suppose they'll use the John Lewis catalogue like MPs?...nah...

sorry, just a passing spasm ...

But its a valid point, i'm always fascinated albeit in a really horrified way, at the way those least in need get all the perks, and perk out to the max shamelessly, and then begrudge those in most need in a punitive way with loads of strings attached and obstacles to overcome.

I think Ghandi was right about western civilisation.

I suspect they will struggle contracting out loan facilities (why would a credit union saddle themselves with it), but waste a lot of money in the process.

As for goods and services, well i can imagine them doing deals with the big national retail orgs e.g. Argos, errrrrrrrr Tesco's etc etc.

I'm worried too, actually the goods and services bit really amazed me.

The "Purnell diaries" of the Social Fund are the response to an "Informal Consultation" that took place over a 3 week period ending on 23/12/08. Note - The minimum consultation period for government is 13 weeks. I have been informed that a full wide range "Consultation" will take place this summer.

This should be widely publishised and full responces given by, not just organisations but individual welf's - not just commenting on the proposals set for "consultation" but on the problems with SF now (inc decision making, delays etc) and how these can be improved. This should be something for Nawra to discuss at the next meeting.

In a wonderful world it would be, better training, observing SF regs, CL claimed and awarded on the day (not waiting days for a call back), removing the review process by SF staff at SF section and giving this to the IRS.

It would appear the minister is paving the way for his own agenda on privatisation of the SF, his ignorance of the credit crunch and banking industry speaks for itself.

Col

1) why should we engage with consultation when consultation is meaningless (tax credits, welfare reform and social security act are a few that come to mind where my views matched the majority but were ignored) and we all have busy appointment schedules cleaning up the mess that the DWP leaves in its wake (much of coming from those changes mentioned above)?

We no longer engage in local liaison for this reason.

2) What did Ghandi say about western society?

I thought the "advance payments" bit was to get payments on account working properly so that people don't have to take out crisis loans while they're waiting for benefit, thus relieving this misuse of the social fund and freeing up the funds for real crisis loans.

But I share the scepticism about anyone wanting to tune the scheme if they can't charge interest.

Ghandi had come over to the UK, and was asked by a journalist, what did he think of western civilisation, and his response was along the lines of (i'm paraphrasing heavily, Ghandi put it eloquently and pithyly), fantastic idea, would be great if it ever happened.

In the old days before the Social Fund existed, the old style Social Security Offices (the ones where you could go and speak to the people handling your claim! novel idea!!) used to make advance payments called interim payments and part payments to help people through the difficult early part of a claim. Reinventing the wheel I think.

NAWRA has raised concerns about the proposed reform of the Social Fund with Kitty Ussher MP. A copy of her response can be viewed on the NAWRA website at http://nawra.org.uk/current_issues.htm.

There will also be a discussion on the future direction of the Social Fund at the next NAWRA meeting in Colchester on Friday 5th June. For details see www.nawra.org.uk.

Best wishes,

Alan Markey
NAWRA chair

Reporter: What do you think of western civilization?

Mahatma Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

The letter from Kitty Ussher contains some interesting information, not least of all:-

"External providers will not be part of the Social Fund, therefore, they will not be subject to the current Social fund internal review process or to the undependent review provided by the Independent review service. Any review or complaint process would be covered by the Financial service Assocition legilation governing the external provider"

But wait! what light in yonder window lifts the shadow long enough for us to ask, is this the same FSA that is charged with overseeing the Banking industry: the same FSA that oversaw that short but gloriously infamous era of mortgages of 110% of valuation?. woe and thrice woe, do we need to think of better reason for quietly shelving this less than glorious idea, particularly given the track record of the FSA in the past 12 months, which (one has to admit), does not instil one with confidence.

Ms Ussher still talks confidently about credit unions – with due respect they are good at what they do, but are they really capable of handling high volume business such as this, accurately and efficiently? JCP can’t handle the present volume of claims themselves, so how can they envisage that what are primarily amateur organisations are going to cope any better? Who is going to act as the decision makers – answerable to whom – the FSA?

She says in her letter that "We are still developing our ideas for reform of the Social Fund and I am aware that some of our proposals have raised concerns ..................."

Still developing ideas ? but the primary legislation is almost set in stone. is this a new departure - give us the skeleton and we'll think of something to pad it out with later....no would external organisationa are "expressing concern...."

I would be minded to forget all about Kitty Usher. Wholesale change is unlikely now until after the 2010 general election And when Labour gets the drubbing of its life in that election then its dreams(?) of reform will die with it.

We really should be scratching around for the Tory’s ideas on the future of the Social Fund (no doubt stolen in part from Labour). I’ll bet they make Labour’s ideas (of which I am no fan of either) look like a cash bonanza give away.

The image of young Kitty Ussher standing in front of a News camera, against the backdrop of the houses of Parliament, desperately back pedalling on the subject of external SF providers being allowed to charge interest, is one that I think I'd rather retain for a while .......

but the problem with the notion of farming various bits of the Social Fund out to the private sector (on what will be a piecemeal basis) will continue whatever happens in 2010 - the primary legislation is, or soon will be, on the statute books: once a system is in place it becomes very difficult to dismantle again.....

I would agree, wholesale change is on the horizon or so it would appear. i would suspect that despite Mike's splendid imagination of back pedalling Ministerial representatives of the Burnley region, attempting to defend the unthinkable topic of interest charges, will alas fail to materialise.

Leaving aside the obvious injustices and very relevant points Paul (my guess is that we will get a general election this autumn, whether the current governing regime want it or not) and Mike make.

There is something surreal about a Government whose ministers make pseudo-moral arguments for what they call reforms of the welfare state, on the basis of 'passive' systems and best value for tax payers money against the backdrop of MP's apparent abuse and in some cases alleged fraud involving Tax Payers money.

It would be interesting to hear Kitty Ussher reconcile her need to replace her 2nd home's artex ceilings on grounds of taste or delapidous appearance, and replace her 'strange' plumbing using MP's expenses. With what appear to be punitive measures that she feels appropriate to impose on the most disadvantaged (Socio economically) in our society. But felt no qualms about making the most of a 'passive' system that obviously didn't represent best value for the Tax payer. Or James Purnell reconciling using tax payers money to avoid paying his fair share of tax (it would appear) to fund public services.

Still, i suppose such incongruities are lost on her and him.