CHANGES TO THE DISCRETIONARY DISABLED FACILITIES
GRANT REGIME
62. Although not specified on the face of the Order, the
proposal will have implications for the way in which the current
Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) regime is funded in England.[45]
As noted above, DFG is available both on a mandatory and on a
discretionary basis. The Government meets 60% of the cost of both
mandatory and discretionary DFG from a ring-fenced 'pot' (worth
£87m in 2001-02); the rest being funded from authorities'
general Housing Investment Programme capital allocation. Discretionary
DFG accounts for about £3m of this £87m.
63. Mandatory DFG will be unaffected by the proposal. However,
the Order will effectively abolish discretionary DFG, and assistance
which would have been available by this means will be available
under the new general power. The implication of this change is
that discretionary DFG (under the new general power) will have
to be funded from authorities' general Housing Investment Programme
capital allocation, as is all other assistance. This effectively
represents a redistribution of resources from discretionary
DFG (or rather, from the funds available for all kinds of assistance
under the new general power) to mandatory DFG - since the
£3m of the DFG 'pot' currently spent on discretionary DFG
will now be available only for mandatory DFG.
64. The Department argues, "In practice we believe this will
make little or no practical difference. Overall the level of resources
available to authorities for DFGs and private sector renewal will
be unaffected. In particular the size of the ring-fenced DFG pot
will be the same as now. As most authorities run with a backlog
of mandatory DFG applications they can easily use the full ring-fenced
pot on mandatory grants (as they should). [Funds] will be available
from the single pot, as now, to provide additional top-up expenditure,
as now, for discretionary grants over and above what the DFG pot
provides. We will continue to redistribute authorities' underspending
on DFGs to those overspending as at present".[46]
65. We considered whether we ought to recommend that the Government
reduce the DFG pot by £3m and add this amount to that available
for authorities to distribute under the new general power to give
assistance. In view of the substantial backlog of mandatory DFG
applications across the country, we do not believe that such a
redistribution would be appropriate. However, we note the -
relatively small, but nevertheless significant - reduction in
the level of resources available for authorities for other private
sector housing renewal which this change represents, and suggest
that it adds further weight to the concerns about those resources
which we express above.
Report under Standing Order No. 141
66. We recommend that a draft Order in the same terms
as the proposal should be laid before the House.
25
But see para 58 below. Back
26
Para 13. Back
27
Appendix 1, para 2. Back
28
Appendix 4. Back
29
See article 3(6) and (7) of the proposed Order. See also paras
43-44 below. Back
30
See para 12 above. Back
31
Explanatory memorandum, p.43. Back
32
Appendix 1, para 5. Back
33
Appendix 8 Back
34
1989 Act, s.89(3). Back
35
Explanatory memorandum, para 29 Back
36
Appendix 1, para 6. Back
37
Appendix 2, s.6. Back
38
Appendix 2, s.10. We note also that article 8 of the proposed
Order, "Recovery of contributions", is intended for
cases of fraud or misuses of the grant power, and not for the
reclaiming of funds routinely allocated to local authorities for
the exercise of their powers under the Order. Back
39
See Appendix 6. Back
40
Appendix 2, s.8. Back
41
ibid. Back
42
Appendices 6 and 7. Back
43
Appendix 6. Back
44
Appendix 2, s.8. Back
45
But not in Wales (see Appendix 2, s.11) Back
46
Explanatory memorandum, pp. 36-37 Back
