Scottish Welfare Fund
Item 5 is an evidence-taking session with our next panel of witnesses on the guidance for the Scottish welfare fund. I would be grateful if the witnesses could introduce themselves and briefly outline their views and any concerns that they have about the guidance. It would give us a useful start before we move to members’ questions.
Richard Gass (Rights Advice Scotland)
Good morning. I am the manager of Glasgow City Council’s welfare rights and money advice service, but this morning I am giving evidence in my capacity as the chair of Rights Advice Scotland, which is the umbrella organisation for all local authority welfare rights workers in Scotland.
The guidance that we have seen so far seems to be a slimmed-down version of current DWP guidance, which extends over far more pages. On the one hand, it gives more discretion at a local level; on the other, the ability to exercise it will in many ways be restricted by the availability of funds.
Indeed, there are concerns about the amount of money that is being made available. We are aware that the Scottish Government has put in additional resources for year 1 to make up for the fact that the funds coming forward are less than current spend, but, given the welfare reform changes and the fact that you cannot take large sums of money out of welfare without folk having less money in their pockets, I expect there to be an increase in demand for this benefit, particularly given that part of it is made up of crisis grants. With the previous loans system, people effectively borrowed their own money; as crisis grants do not have to be repaid, they will be a more attractive proposition and we expect an increase in applications in that respect.
Moreover, I note that universal credit, which is on the horizon, will be paid monthly. At the moment, folk claim crisis payments because they have lost their money or whatever and need something to tide them over until their next benefit payment. As a result of the changes, the crisis payments will need to be significantly larger because the period between the loss of their money and the next benefit payment date could be up to a month.
The guidance is still silent on the second-tier review and we would be keen for the right to an independent review rather than something done in-house. There are also concerns over DWP alignment payments, which appear to be available where there is an entitlement to benefit. We foresee problems emerging in situations in which someone might make a claim for benefit but entitlement has not yet been established; they might be directed to the Scottish welfare fund when, in fact, a payment is due from DWP.
The guidance is also silent on the eligibility criteria once we have universal credit. The entitlement is clear in relation to existing means-tested benefits, but for those who move on to universal credit towards the end of the year, will entitlement to universal credit be sufficient to allow an application to the welfare fund?
My other comments are less to do with the guidance, so I will draw breath at that point.
Nicole Bethune (Midlothian Council)
Hi, I am a senior welfare rights officer at Midlothian Council. I have been dealing with welfare rights for getting on for 20 years.
I have had a look at the guidance, and I agree with what Richard Gass has said. There is an issue with part 4 of the guidance, which is about the funding. It is clear from the options that are given that there could come a point at which there is no money left in a given month. The exclusions that apply for community care grants and crisis loans mean that someone cannot reapply for the same item within a 28-day period. If someone wished to ask for a first-tier review, the guidance suggests that the review would not proceed if the budget had been exhausted, so a problem could arise that someone who applies for a community care grant or a crisis loan and has their application refused because the budget has been exhausted could then be refused again if they apply for the same item before the 28 days are up. There will be confusion about that, so the issue needs to be clarified in the guidance.
Another issue that I have noted relates to the second-tier review. Under the present scheme, we have the social fund inspectors. That will not be the case, but it is important that the second-tier review involves independent scrutiny and is seen to be transparent. The options that have been put forward include a cross-local authority approach. I think that that is a good way forward, because it would involve looking at things independently. It would show that there is a grievance procedure and would provide an overview of how the scheme is working.
Those are the main points that I noted.
Tommy Gorman (Macmillan Cancer Support)
Hello, I am the senior project manager for Macmillan Cancer Support.
I have responsibility for Macmillan benefit services throughout Scotland, which provide advice and support for people who are affected by cancer. Those services cover the five main cancer treatment centres in Scotland, which are in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness. In partnership with the Scottish Government, we offer significant advice resources. The services have been designed to meet the needs of people who are affected by cancer and who experience financial hardship as a direct result of a cancer diagnosis of themselves or someone in their family, through loss of income or increased expenditure.
It is quite appropriate that Macmillan invests considerably in meeting the crisis needs of people who are affected by cancer and in attempting to prevent such crisis situations from arising. We also work with other organisations such as the local authorities, citizens advice bureaux and other advice-giving organisations to maximise the value of the investment that Macmillan makes.
All our work is done in partnership, so my contribution to the meeting might be a bit different from that of the other two witnesses, who provide front-line services.
The discussion is about how we tackle crises among people who are affected by cancer—and, very often, the economic impact of long-term conditions such as serious heart conditions and Alzheimer’s is the same as the impact of a cancer diagnosis.
We are just starting to see the results of the change from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. The contributions-based element of ESA lasts for only 12 months, so we are seeing reductions in weekly household income.
Next year’s change from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment is approaching, and it is predicted that 500,000 people who currently receive disability living allowance will not receive the replacement benefit. Also very worrying is that in April the housing underoccupancy rules—what is colloquially called “the bedroom tax”—will be introduced. We anticipate significant problems for low-income families and especially for people with cancer and other disabilities who require an extra bedroom for a carer, whose housing benefit will be reduced by 14 per cent.
That is the context in which the discussion is taking place. Some of Macmillan’s partners have approached us to ask what our position is on food banks, which is quite alarming. It does not take much expertise for someone to know that there will be much more pressure on the Scottish welfare fund than there has been on the social fund that it replaces, even though roughly the same amount of money will be available.
In 2011, Macmillan awarded £10.6 million UK-wide, reaching just under 32,000 low-income cancer patients and providing a range of items. In 2011 in Scotland, Macmillan paid out £1.8 million and assisted 4,652 low-income cancer patients. Of relevance to the committee is that in 2011 we helped 2,825 low-income cancer patients in fuel poverty through our grants system, paying out £565,318 in the process, which was 33 per cent of our grant expenditure in Scotland in that year.
Macmillan is investing heavily in trying to meet the crisis that people who are affected by cancer face because of low income, and we are very concerned that the new arrangements will not meet the need that we will encounter in 2013, 2014 and beyond. The charity has discussed what we know is an interim welfare fund, and we think that contributions can be made to policy in relation to the fixed scheme that will be introduced in legislation.
11:45
We are concerned to make it clear that what charities and other organisations provide should not be regarded as a substitute for a state scheme. I am talking about not only Macmillan; Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland, CLIC Sargent, Society of St Vincent de Paul and other organisations have progressive grant schemes, and there needs to be a discussion with all of them to find out how we maximise the benefits that we give to individuals and families in crisis. Macmillan has made—and will continue to make—a contribution in that respect, but one of the deficits in this situation is the pressure on advice organisations such as those that Richard Gass and Nicole Bethune represent and our Macmillan offices throughout the country.
Another issue with the Scottish welfare fund is that we are having to deal with so much bureaucracy to cope with the previous issue I mentioned that it will be very difficult to get to the same number of people that we previously managed to reach.
Those are my initial thoughts, but I will say something later about the items that we fund and how we might work with the Government and other charities to realise the economies of scale that, to some extent, can mitigate the limitations on the budget as a result of moving from the social fund to the Scottish welfare fund.
Thank you for opening this evidence session with a lot of thought-provoking information.
Iain Gray will open committee members’ questioning.
I appreciate that, convener.
In our earlier discussions on the welfare fund, I, for one, was quite concerned to take evidence from those who work with the social fund, which the Scottish welfare fund will replace. Richard Gass has said that the guidance for the welfare fund largely tries to replicate the existing guidance for discretionary elements of the social fund, but all the panellists have made it very clear that, because of what is happening elsewhere in the benefits system, the pressure on the welfare fund will be even greater than the pressure on the current social fund. I guess, therefore, that my question is for Richard Gass and Nicole Bethune, who have experience of working with the social fund. How often are low and medium-priority applications successful?
The realistic response is not very often. The social fund inspector’s journal gives quite a lot of examples and makes it clear that, because of the circumstances, in the second-tier review they will look at lifting the priority if it has been set at a lower level locally. Generally, you do not often get medium-priority items; they are usually high priority.
So although the guidance sets out low, medium and high-priority categories of applicant and item, the truth is that low and medium-priority items will almost never be available to anyone.
My experience suggests that that is the case.
Of course, that is where the skills of welfare rights workers might come in. If an item is perceived as being of a lower priority, the welfare rights worker might be able to bring forward evidence about the individual’s need for the item that increases its importance. However, that happens not at the initial application stage but at review or second-tier review stage.
Nevertheless, even if, as a result of a welfare rights officer’s skills, a person’s application comes to be seen as high priority, the local authority will still be able to refuse it if the budget for that period—which, according to the guidance, would be a month—has run out.
Nicole Bethune mentioned the capacity—or lack thereof—to appeal against such a decision. I think that you were being generous, because the guidance states that review cannot be sought for the level of priority set for awards in that period. In effect, that means that a review cannot be requested when an application has been rejected solely on the basis that the budget has been exhausted. As it stands, the guidance says not just that a review will not be successful, but that it cannot even be requested. Is that a reduction of people’s rights under the social fund? Is that a reasonable response to those you represent, who are trying to apply to the fund?
I agree that the guidance saying that an application is not reviewable is a change. At present, an application would be looked at by social fund inspectors. Even if there is a priority at the second tier, the inspectors can overturn a decision and say that they are going to pay, even if the budget—
It is a reduction in people’s rights.
Yes it is.
Okay. That plays into the other issue around second-tier review. The guidance is quite honest in saying that the second-tier review has not been decided on yet. Earlier today, we heard evidence from the minister and her officials about the work to develop second-tier reviews. They said that they were looking at options such as using existing local authority review procedures such as housing or social work panels within the same local authority but separate from welfare fund decision making, or possibly some kind of peer review involving other councils. I think it was Nicole Bethune who said that there should be an independent second-tier review. Would the option that the minister talked about constitute an independent review? If not, what do you have in mind?
It is important for such a review to be independent. If we use an existing local authority procedure, as was mentioned, that would not be sufficient. The guidance needs to be looked at objectively. The Tribunals Service is being considered for the future. It will come down to someone who is able to look at the guidance legalistically and see that it is transparent and fair. If the review is done within the local authority, that might be seen as not being transparent.
Does the review need to be done by someone who operates outside the system altogether?
Yes. It could be done by the Tribunals Service or the social fund commissioners, because they are used to looking at regulations and guidance. The social fund inspectors have said that there must be that sort of scrutiny and it must be separate.
With your forbearance, convener, I will ask a final question. I have loads of questions, but I will restrict myself to one further area. In the discussions about the setting up of the welfare fund and the need for emergency or crisis support because of the other changes that will be happening in the welfare system, it has sometimes been implied that the proposed new system might be a way of supporting people who have been sanctioned by the DWP and therefore have no other source of income. However, paragraph 6.9 in the draft guidance says that crisis grants and community care grants should not undermine DWP sanctions and disallowances. If someone has been sanctioned by the DWP and is left with no means of feeding their family, for example, but they have not suffered any other crisis or disaster, do you interpret the guidance as saying that they would be turned away from the social welfare fund?
The reading of paragraph 6.9 takes us in that direction. We must remember that the person who has been sanctioned is one member of a family and that, if there are children in the household, they will in effect take the penalty of the sanction. To deal with that, perhaps paragraph 6.9 needs to have some leniency.
Thank you all for coming along. I have a number of queries about the evidence that has been given. It seems from paragraph 6.9 that a crisis grant can be given to meet expenses in circumstances that are the consequence of a disaster, so it would be up to the relevant official to make the decision, which would not be foreclosed per se. Is that the case or am I missing something in the language?
Perhaps we require expansion of the guidance so that it is clear that local authorities are to consider all a family’s circumstances. The paragraph at present would benefit from elaboration.
I imagine that the general overarching principles would apply to such decision making as they do to all other decision making, subject to the guidance, but your point has been made.
Paragraph 6.6 links to DWP benefits. I will take that a wee bit more broadly. What arrangements are being made with your DWP counterparts to drive forward not just changes in the social fund but the changes that are coming down the line to the whole welfare system, which is currently reserved to the UK Government in London? Is a proactive planning process under way? I do not imagine that that would solve all the problems, but having in place good planning and engagement would certainly help to mitigate some problems.
More can be done. The DWP is keen to ensure that, locally, it knows where to direct people on day 1 of the new Scottish welfare fund, because it expects folk to come through its doors and it will want to move them on to the appropriate places.
However, as far as I can see, the DWP’s position on most of the other changes is a case of saying, “These changes are happening—it’s over to you, local authorities, to get the information out.” The DWP will not take a proactive role, so local authorities will need to pick that up. Having said that, I know that there are meetings—one is happening this afternoon in Glasgow—to look at joint work. I do not want to be completely unfair to the DWP, but it could certainly do more.
I understand that steering groups are being set up in some areas of Scotland, which involve many stakeholders, such as advice services outwith councils, council welfare rights services and the DWP. Perhaps I have got that wrong—you are looking at me blankly.
There is activity across all local authority areas to engage with other sectors but, to my knowledge, the DWP’s participation in that is minimal. What is happening today is perhaps the start of such participation in the Glasgow area.
I presume that, the greater the DWP’s involvement is in the arrangements that you will have to deal with, the better that will be for people such as you.
Yes—the DWP’s involvement needs to be greater.
I commend the submission from Macmillan Cancer Support. It is extremely impressive that Macmillan is supporting folk at this moment, before the welfare changes bite. The amount of money that it pays out to support people is amazing; many of us would have thought that the state should pick up those bills.
Unfortunately, we have the massive changes from the Westminster Government, many of which we are aghast at. Today, we are looking at the Scottish welfare fund. A hit has been taken in relation to that, too, but the Scottish Government has put in more money to mitigate the disastrous consequences of the Westminster cuts.
12:00
As for the social fund itself, I want to concentrate on the second-tier appeals system. Although we obviously want a system that works, I suggest that we also want a system that does not cost a lot of money, to ensure that we put money into delivering the grants that will become necessary as the other welfare cuts bite.
I was interested in Ms Bethune’s comments about existing housing and social work panels, which, as they deal with extremely serious cases, I would like to think are independent, objective and—as I think you described it—legalistic. Why could those existing panels not take on the final arbiter role?
My concern relates to the fact that the size of local authorities differs across Scotland. Glasgow, for example, is a large local authority that processes large discretionary housing payments, section 12 and section 24 payments and so on. The same happens in smaller authorities but I think that, sometimes, the way in which the guidance is interpreted has a certain influence. Someone who is independent might well look at the guidance differently. We should take as a guide the social fund commissioners, who were—and are—independent and still regularly overturn decisions. Of course, they do not overturn them all the time and are clear about their decisions with regard to increasing priorities or agreeing with the initial decision. Perhaps local authorities should set out their decisions on the same basis, although the question then is how such an approach might be scrutinised.
Many local authority appeals processes are entirely dealt with by local authorities. Are you saying that, in those cases, they are not independent?
No, I am not saying that at all, but they might be influenced by—
If you are saying that they are influenced, they are not independent.
I think what I am—
You cannot be independent and be influenced. Either you are independent or you are not.
I would probably say, then, that they are not totally independent.
Okay. I will move on. How much does the current commissioner set-up cost?
I am sorry, I cannot give you that information.
Okay. Do you want to come in on these questions, Mr Gass?
I simply draw the committee’s attention to what was the housing benefit review board, which was an appeals mechanism that was dealt with by the local authority. A number of years ago, the function was transferred to the Tribunals Service. I cannot give you the reasoning behind that, but there must have been some reason for making the change. It might give the committee some information about the appropriate place for such appeals.
We might well look at that. Do you have any idea what the commissioners cost?
I cannot give you that figure, but I am sure that the DWP can.
I am sure that as practitioners you will want the maximum amount of money to go to people who are actually in need instead of being spent on the establishment of a big bureaucratic system.
Absolutely.
And you would agree, Ms Bethune.
Absolutely.
In that case, if, for example, COSLA and other stakeholders were to set up a cross-cutting appeals system across local authorities that perhaps involved members from a number of local authorities plus laypeople, how would you feel about that? Obviously, there has been no decision to do that.
That would probably achieve the required level of independence.
Ms Bethune?
I agree.
Mr Gorman, I missed you out there, but I am interested in your take on what would be a realistic spend on the appeals system. Obviously, the current approach is costly. I want to maximise the amount of money that we give to those who are in most need.
One point that I was going to make was that, obviously, any system with lay representation would be less costly than one with legal professionals and it would perhaps be more informed about people’s actual needs.
In my current role with Macmillan and in my previous role with West Dunbartonshire Council, I had significant experience of the Independent Review Service for the Social Fund and I have been in its offices in Birmingham on several occasions. The problem that faces any system of adjudication on the new Scottish welfare scheme is the reputation of the Independent Review Service. Even when an award or claim was refused, people knew that it was refused on a proper basis. The big issue for any new scheme and any decision-making process is to try, at as low a cost as possible, to emulate the transparency of the Independent Review Service, with its independent commissioner and social fund inspectors. That does not have to be an overly expensive scheme. We can look again at economies of scale and organisations working together.
Perhaps the scheme can be joined up with an existing scheme that is proven to be open and transparent. Do you agree that one difficulty with any new organisation is that it takes a while to build up that level of trust?
I agree, but it will also take a period to build up case law and experience. From day 1, we should aim at a decision-making process that people can understand—so that we do not need banks of lawyers in the process—and to which laypeople can make a significant contribution. We had that experience in the social security system, when trade unions and employers organisations had representatives on the panels, but they were removed for reasons best known to the DWP and the people who made those decisions at the time. There is a model of a system that is as transparent as possible and that laypeople can understand.
My first question is for all three witnesses. We are looking at draft guidance. I presume that your comments this morning have been fed in through the various professional organisations, COSLA and individual local authorities to the minister and her department.
Today is not the first time that I have made these points.
The second issue that I want to discuss, which is important, is about paragraph 1.4 in the draft guidance, which points out that the scheme is discretionary and is
“a framework for decision makers”
in local authorities, who should
“use discretion to ensure that the underlying objectives of the fund are met.”
Further on in the guidance, quite a lot of discretion is given to local authorities. For example, on financial management, there are facilities for virement and carry-forwards, whether of deficits or surpluses—wouldn’t that be wonderful?—and the ability to augment, in the same way as the Scottish Government has augmented the money that has been transferred from Westminster. Given the responses that we have had, are the practitioners saying that, actually, they would like some of that discretion to be removed and much tighter guidance put in place, or do they want local authorities to have the ability to work out the needs for their area and manage accordingly?
The big difficulty, I guess, is that the amount of money that will be available will restrict discretion. If you have local discretion but insufficient funds, there is a concern that locally you will be seen to be excluding people because of discretion, whereas you will not have been able to exercise discretion because of the level of funding.
Would you rather be able to say, “I am terribly sorry but we do not have discretion, so you are not getting the money—go away”, or would you rather be able to say, “With this scheme bedding in, we now have a fixed sum that has been augmented by the Scottish Government, so let us work out what is best for our area and how we move forward with this”?
I am also a bit confused about the issue that people cannot make another application if they have been refused on the ground of the budget being exhausted. Surely discretion would allow you not to take the application forward, so that the person is not disadvantaged from coming back in April if you happen to refuse them in March.
In the guidance, that is not clear.
Perhaps that is a matter of interpretation. Discretion can override an awful lot.
Under “Exclusions for Both Crisis Grants and Community Care Grants”, paragraph 6.15 states:
“If a person has applied for a Community Care Grant or a Crisis Grant for the same items or services within the last 28 days for which an award has been made or refused and there has not been a relevant change of circumstances ... This means that one of the determining factors in making the previous decision has changed, for example a change in the circumstances of the applicant.”
However, in the “Review” section, paragraph 11.2 states:
“Review cannot be sought for the level of priority set for awards in that period—see financial management at section 4. In effect, this means that a review cannot be requested where the applicant has been rejected solely on the basis that the budget has been exhausted.”
My point is that an applicant who has been assessed as a high priority could be refused on the basis that the budget has been exhausted. In section 4, it is suggested that one option would be for local authorities to carry forward applications, but 28 days must pass before someone can reapply for the same item. It is not clear to applicants that if they claim again for the same item within a 28-day period—they might say, “Oh well, I didn’t get it this month, so I will put in for it next month”—they will come up against the same problem if they have not waited the full 28 days. Perhaps there needs to be greater clarity in the guidance.
I guess that that is an issue of interpretation. If there is confusion about that, I am sure that it will be picked up from this meeting. As with so many of these things, a lot depends on one’s reading and interpretation of the guidance.
However, my main question is: do practitioners wish something absolutely rigid that cannot be moved from, or do they wish to have discretion within their own local authorities? That is a very basic question. Yes, I understand Mr Gass’s point about the limited amount of money that is available, but the fact is that the fixed budget is being augmented by the Scottish Government to the best of its ability in hard times. It is incumbent on all of us to try to manage as best as possible.
Unfortunately, I cannot give you a straight answer to a very straight question. The issue for debate is whether we want a strict statutory entitlement, under which rights are enforced, or a discretionary scheme, where the result may sometimes be good and sometimes not be good. Within the welfare rights community, that is an issue that we could discuss for several hours and still not come to an agreement on.
12:15
I guess that that is true.
Mr Gorman, when you were talking about the great work that Macmillan and many other charities do throughout the country to augment services that many of us wish were provided better by central and local government, you made an interesting point about the ability to make economies of scale. I have often thought that many charities and voluntary organisations could make economies of scale, as could national and local government. Is there on-going discussion about that?
There is certainly on-going discussion in Macmillan, because we constantly speak to other charities, local government and partners. The worrying issue of food banks, which I mentioned, is part of the on-going discussion. In the context of economies of scale, I was talking about organisations that help in communities, including but not exclusively Macmillan and the other charities that we might speak about every day.
People in the community—I am talking mainly from a long-term disability perspective—apply for grants for items such as tumble-driers, cookers, washing machines, fridge freezers, beds, bedding and clothing. Those are the big asks of the Macmillan grants system. That will be pretty typical for Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland, CLIC Sargent and the Society of St Vincent de Paul, too, so surely we can all get round the table and consider how, rather than provide items and services separately, we might collectively find a way of getting a better outcome for the investment. That is why I mentioned economies of scale. We could put in place practical approaches that would make things better in the current difficult situation.
Thank you.
I was interested in what Mr Gorman said about economies of scale, so I am pleased that Linda Fabiani asked about that. Mr Gorman made a helpful, constructive and important point.
We talked about discretion, which is important for many reasons. I can understand that witnesses feel that they have been put on the spot when we ask for a yes or no answer, but I cannot see why there would be a no, from the local authority perspective. Leaving aside other issues, I would have thought that we should be factoring community care into the preventative spend agenda. Over time, we want to ameliorate people’s situations, so I would have thought that it was important for a local authority, in focusing its spend, to have the discretion that the guidance seems to provide to take account of its preventative spend agenda.
If I have come across as being opposed to discretion, that is not really where I want to be. I was simply saying that where there is strict entitlement, we can say to someone, “You meet the rules. Here you are; you’re entitled,” and if there are insufficient funds the blame can be placed at the door of the fundholder, whereas if there is discretion, entitlement must be tempered by the management of a pot, which can compromise things. We might say yes on one occasion and no on another. From a strict welfare rights perspective, that is difficult. However, I agree with what you said about the ability to control spending.
Just to get a bit of clarity on the point about the money possibly running out at the end of a month, would a local authority normally divide the money that it has equally across 12 months or would it know that in certain periods—during winter, for example—there is more pressure? Does a local authority have the discretion locally to skew the money towards the winter months and ease off during the summer months? Is that how it would normally operate?
I would hope that that approach is taken. In order to predict the amount per month, we need some data from the DWP, because it introduced a social fund that replaced a statutory grants system. The DWP was given a discretionary budget to manage over the different months and it has years of experience of when the peaks and troughs are and which particular items have a seasonal uptake. That information would be useful going forward but we have not seen it. However, the DWP was not operating crisis grants. We will be operating crisis grants as opposed to loans, so there might be a slight difference—things might change to a degree—but there is probably some helpful data lying within DWP records. It would be useful if we could get hold of that.
There is some educated guesswork involved in it all then.
There is a practical consideration. As soon as someone receives an application, is that automatically when the application would start or can they suggest to the applicant that it might be worth their while to hold off for two or three days because it is the end of the month and the applicant might not get any money? Can the person who receives the application explain that if the applicant does not get the money, they have denied themselves the opportunity to get it for the next 28 days? Would they have the discretion to say, “You could hold off on that application for a few days”?
Nicole Bethune is looking for a reference to that in the guidance because there may be something about it there.
The danger with that is that two or three applications may be held off at the end of the first month and if they are taken forward into the second month and money is granted, the money would run out earlier in the second month. You could end up with four or five applications to hold off at the end of that month, so where would it end?
Among the options that are open to local authorities, section 4 of the draft guidance mentions that if the funds are exhausted, applications can be held over to the following month. That is another issue in terms of the guidance—on a practical matter, if the application is not processed and it is held over, that gets by that 28-day waiting time. That point needs to be firmed up in the guidance.
Again, I assume that representations have been made by organisations such as yours for clarity around that issue.
I hope so. I had not looked at it in great detail before being invited here, but I will raise the point.
It would be useful, if you are looking at those issues collectively or individually, to write to us about them. We could possibly take them forward and ensure that the Government is aware of any concerns about the practical application of the guidance and where there needs to be some clarity or some enhancement of what is currently in the framework. We would be happy to raise any outstanding questions if you want to use us as a means of getting that information. That offer extends to Mr Gorman, if he thinks that we could ask any questions that would clarify matters for him.
Mr Gorman, do Macmillan and other charities that support people through grants have to factor in issues such as when they expect there will be greater demand? Do they try to judge that for the crisis loans system at the moment? Do they expect to get more pressure at a given time, so they know that they have to hold back and wait for some of those issues?
We try to be as expansive as possible. As indicated in our written submission, cancer incidence is increasing, so there is much more pressure on Macmillan’s funding. One notable issue in the past four to five years is the amount of the Macmillan grant expenditure that is awarded for energy costs—fuel poverty, to put it simply. That really concerns us. It is an issue that would not be covered by community care grants.
Macmillan makes payments for other items and services that would not be covered by the new Scottish welfare fund. For example, annex C says:
“A person should not get a Crisis Grant or Community Care Grant for a range of excluded needs”
including
“removal or storage charges if the person is being re-housed following a compulsory purchase order”.
We would certainly consider giving a grant to a low-income cancer patient in that position.
Also among the excluded needs are debts and debt interest payments. I mentioned the fuel poverty situation. Most of the grants that are made to deal with energy costs are to meet a high fuel bill that people cannot afford.
Another excluded need is the need for medical, surgical or optical items or services. Macmillan would provide funds for people to buy wigs, for example, which are quite expensive.
Work-related expenses are also excluded. If a grant from Macmillan would help someone who had a difficulty with work-related expenses because of their cancer situation, we would consider that.
Macmillan has also helped with people’s holidays. If people, particularly older couples, require a break away from home, we look on that favourably.
On travelling expenses, people often meet difficulties because they do not fit into the hospital travel scheme. Macmillan spends a significant amount on travelling expenses for cancer patients who are going to have chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
The final item on the list of excluded needs is expenses to meet the needs of people who have no recourse to public funds. If, for example, someone had no legal status in the country—such as a refugee—and were a cancer sufferer, we would have a look at that situation.
Macmillan would look sympathetically at cases involving people subject to all of those exclusions from the Scottish welfare fund, if they met the appropriate savings and income conditions. We consider the peaks of pressure on our grant expenditure. We have an expert team in London that deals with these issues every day. We are happy to make information from that expert group available to the committee.
We are more than happy to receive any information that you think might be useful to us. If that leads to us raising points with the Government in order to get clarity, we can do that. Feel free to contact us.
Thank you for your contribution this morning. It was interesting.
We will suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes to allow the witnesses to leave.
12:28
Meeting suspended.
12:29
On resuming—