Forum Home → Discussion → Other areas of social welfare law → Thread
LWAS funds designated ‘public funds’ for immigration purposes
Just seen this rightsnet news storyand am basically staggered beyond belief Local welfare funds designated ‘public funds’ for immigration purposes
So when someone rocks up at your advice agency and you find out they or a family member is a PSIC and they say they’ve got no money but you can’t advise them about their benefits as they need to see an immigration adviser first but they say they’re starving so you refer them to the local foodbank, you’re now putting them at risk of deportation anyway?
Really???!!!
Aren’t foodbanks funded independently? I rather assumed - without really reading it - that this refers to local welfare provision schemes, such as those set up to replace Crisis Loans/CCGs.
Aren’t foodbanks funded independently? I rather assumed - without really reading it - that this refers to local welfare provision schemes, such as those set up to replace Crisis Loans/CCGs.
Sorry, you’re right, I mean send them to the council for an LWAS payment.
All the same…
Yeah, it really is scraping the barrel to my mind isn’t it? I suppose it really shouldn’t continu to surprise me but it does.
Does anyone know, is it only (cash) payments that count, or other forms of assistance too?
Just checked an old handbook and social fund payments have always been classed as public funds, so it seems my ire was misplaced this time around….
Does anyone know, is it only (cash) payments that count, or other forms of assistance too?
Good question.
And I still say it’s scraping the barrel. Somehow, to me, there’s a difference between SF assistance and LWAS funds.
This is a bit weird, of course in some areas, a small proportion of a food bank might have been funded via LWPS say 5-10%.
Are they now going to give a food parcel but hold back a few tins of Irish Stew??
This potentially opens up a lot of issues. There are an increasing number of cases presenting where the person is locked out of the Social Welfare system, but with the correct immigration advice and subsequent application can get the change the customers status to enable them to access mainstream benefits/housing etc. The use of LWA schemes has been a useful way of getting that transaction paid for (as legal aid not available in most cases) in order that they then fall ‘inside’ the system. We have worked locally with ours very well locally in order to prevent longer term (much more expensive support provided by social services). This route out is now blocked because of this change and will cost the taxpayer much much more and for longer.
Consider also the person fleeing domestic violence on a spouse visa. It may be that they cannot get an OISC accredited rep to submit their Domestic Violence concession immigration application progressed for a few days. They have no recourse to public funds pending the application happening. A person in that ‘limbo’ has no access to housing/homelessness, no access to Welfare Benefits, does not have the right to rent and now no access to Local Welfare Assistance. Nothing more to say about that is there.
We were wondering what happens in e.g. a couple where she is okay to claim but partner has no rec to pub funds. What if she claims furniture but some of its for the partner to use? I have looked but cannot find answer. I’m wondering if there’s been any guidance on this? What about guidance from the old community care grants for example - because the social fund is a public fund.
The difference here of course is that the Social Fund was greater; ring-fenced; had some statutory basis and guidance which had to be taken account of. That entire layer has been removed and replaced with something which has none of the above. To then demarcate it as public funds really does feel like adding insult to injury. There must be a stronger way of putting that but I’m so unimaginative with my language as each new low is arrived at and then surpassed.
Sticking with language. Is it just me? Surely part of what we can do is not use terms like “social welfare”? It’s an offensive term derived from America and reinforced by people using social security and welfare interchangeably before realising too late that they ought to be no such thing. Is this a Citizens Advice thing or a Bolton thing? Worrying either way. It starts by accepting a status quo where social security involves stuff like welfare to work.
[/quote] Sticking with language. Is it just me? Surely part of what we can do is not use terms like “social welfare”? It’s an offensive term derived from America and reinforced by people using social security and welfare interchangeably before realising too late that they ought to be no such thing. Is this a Citizens Advice thing or a Bolton thing? Worrying either way. It starts by accepting a status quo where social security involves stuff like welfare to work. [/quote]
HI Mike,
Apologies, I didn’t pick up on this earlier. Social Welfare law as a term is used at Citizens Advice Bolton to describe the collective silos of legislation and rights in the areas of Immigration , Community Care, Housing, Welfare Benefits, Debt. Ie right pursuant to people being able to access collectively supported income, food, shelter, safety, ability to live in the community. To be honest we considered for ages the best way of describing these things in a collective manner - but totally open to a better way of describing it in the context of the point you make.
Rich