BISHOP Christopher has urged the government to ringfence emergency funds that allow local councils to help those in crisis.

Bishop Christopher

The bishop told the House of Lords he was concerned about the support offered for those who fall into unexpected temporary crisis. This includes women fleeing domestic violence, victims of flooding, homeless people, care leavers, the elderly and people suffering from chronic physical and mental health problems.

Local councils have been able to offer small grants to such people from emergency funds called Local Welfare Provision. But Bishop Christopher argued that the amount allocated for councils to spend in this way will be lower – and there is no obligation on councils to use the funding for this purpose. He was speaking as part of a House of Lords debate on the Local Government Finance Settlement.

“This is a vital service to people in crisis, many of whom are very vulnerable,” he said. “A single mother in Portsmouth, escaping domestic violence, lived for a while in overcrowded conditions with her mother. She successfully applied for her own accommodation but it was unfurnished, so she and her children shared a sofa bed, lived on sandwiches and take-aways. The local council, through the government’s’ allocation for Local Welfare Provision, awarded her money for beds, a cooker and a fridge freezer. This sort of situation is repeated many times in Portsmouth and in other places. A modest award of a few hundred pounds provides the essentials for the decent nourishment and reasonable comfort of a mother and children.

“I place on record my relief that the settlement announced in mid-December includes notional provision for the continuation of Local Welfare provision. I express both relief and gratitude. But there are two disappointments. First that the amount allocated, £129.6m, is substantially lower than in the past two settlements. Second there is no obligation on councils to use this funding for this purpose; even the reduced allocation is not ringfenced.

“It is possible, of course, to make a strong case for every item of local authority expenditure. However this emergency Local Welfare Provision should, surely, be an exceptional case.

“First, this is emergency help to very vulnerable people in crisis situations. Second, we are all aware that the tightening impact of welfare reform on mainstream benefits has increased the need and the importance of an effective safety net.

“Thirdly, the heavily reduced allocations for Local Welfare Provision since 2010/11 means that, in my own city of Portsmouth for instance, the amount spent since then has declined from £900,000 to £440,000 – by just over a half. But my anxiety is less about that particular decline and more about the considerable variation in local authority practice around the country.

“Only ringfenced allocations will guarantee this crisis provision will continue. This relatively small amount of non-discretionary funding would not significantly restrict the local government autonomy which many of us seek to preserve.

“Alongside the moral case I make is an economic rationale. Portsmouth City Council’s review of the provision concluded that this modest expenditure saved costs elsewhere. Loss of provision increases demand for mental health service, children’s social care, temporary accommodation provision and debt advice. Preventing a tenancy breakdown, for example, saves the authority nearly £7,000 per eviction.

“My Lords, on moral, economic and practical grounds I make a modest request about a small but significant matter in this settlement and invite the government, if it cannot maintain the level of local welfare allocation, at least to ringfence it and ensure that those in crisis need are helped.”