To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have received disability benefit in the present financial year; and how many received it in 1978–79.

Since 1978–79 there have been large increases in the numbers of people receiving benefits because of long-term sickness or disability. For example, the numbers receiving invalidity benefit have increased by 88 per cent. to 1·1 million; attendance allowance by 186 per cent. to 760,000; and mobility allowance by 458 per cent. to 530,000. I shall, with permission, circulate full details in the Official Report.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. It shows the Government's continuing commitment to helping those with disabilities. I am sure that it will be welcomed not only by disabled people, but by all members of the community. Will my hon. Friend comment on the expenditure required in real terms in the present year compared with that in 1978–79?

This year expenditure will amount to some £7·3 billion, which represents a £3·5 billion real terms increase over the 1978–79 figure.

Is the Minister aware that there are quite a number of people who are registered as disabled, yet who do not qualify as disabled for the purpose of housing benefit? Does he have any idea of the numbers involved? Does he have any proposals to remedy this, and to ensure that those who qualify receive their benefit more quickly than is sometimes the case?

We are always anxious to ensure that benefits are paid speedily once people have qualified for them. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point about housing benefit.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, while we can take pride in the fact that, as a party and a Government, we have been far more generous—quite rightly so—to the disabled than the Labour party, it is also fair to point out that, at this important Question Time, there are only four Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber?

I am afraid that the Opposition must answer for that.

While everyone knows that more claimants means higher costs, how many disablement benefits have not increased in real value since 1979? How many disabled people lost free prescriptions and free school meals last April? How many are on transitional protection and will thus have no increase in their benefits this April? Will their standard of living not, therefore, slump as rising prices eat further into this so-called protection? Again, how many disabled people have had their housing benefit cut?

I can understand the hon. Gentleman clutching at straws as he tries to protect the Labour Government's record. Of the £3·5 billion extra money in real terms which this Government are spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled, some £3 billion is because of the wider scope of those benefits—more people are applying for them—and £½ billion is because of increases in real terms in the level of benefits.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the social fund to date.

We have been closely monitoring the social fund, and the original fears which were expressed about the adequacy of its budget, the introduction of loans, the discretionary nature of the scheme and the review system, have proved to be unfounded. Loans have reached anticipated levels of expenditure and community care grants have steadily risen to 77 per cent. of anticipated monthly expenditure.

Over 600,000 interest-free loans have been made and more than 86,000 community care grants have been awarded. The review system is proving to be a speedy and effective means of handling disputed decisions. Reviews are completed in a matter of days rather than the weeks it took for an appeal to be completed.

Despite what the Minister has said. will he agree that urgent changes in the way that the social fund works are needed, especially if those who deserve grants are to be in a position to take them up? Will he agree that so far all the independent evidence shows that the social fund has failed to relieve the poverty which the Government said it was designed to tackle?

I had hoped that the hon. Lady would have listened to what I said before she read out her prepared question. I shall continue, as the Government must and should, to monitor the situation. I am not completely content because I believe that the officers have been applying the conditions for the community care grants too rigidly. I am determined to ensure that it is a success and that all of the fundamental objections raised when the social fund was first introduced are disproved.

I welcome a large part of my right hon. Friend's reply. Does that mean that the fears that have been expressed by some—dare I remind him, on both sides of the House—that the cash-limited arrangements may prove inadequate, are likely to be allayed? Is he satisfied that the money allocated will be adequate at least in this financial year? To put this matter in perspective, will my right hon. Friend remind the House what would happen if the amount allocated proved to be inadequate?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that we announced in the uprating statement the allocation for 1989–90, which was confirmed in the autumn statement and in the recent public expenditure White Paper. Despite a happy massive reduction in unemployment and therefore a major reduction in case load, those allocations have been maintained. Therefore there should be an increase per case in the funds available. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend. I know that he takes a serious interest in this and I know that he will have noted carefully what I said in my opening answer.

When the Minister reviews the social fund, will he consider particularly some of the problems that have arisen in Salford—I am sure similar problems have been encountered in other places—where people who have been in hospital a long time and those in residential care who cannot get other accommodation, have had to refuse private rented accommodation because the social fund does not cover deposits that are required in that sector? He also said that he would make some comment to the House on the Barnado's report on the problems of youngsters coming out of care and their accommodation difficulties. Will he do so now?

Obviously I will watch carefully how the social fund works because I am determined to ensure that this much more effective method of helping those in need is monitored and adjusted if necessary. Recently I met representatives of certain organisations who raised the difficulties that they believe are being faced by a particular group of 16 and 17-year-olds. Obviously I shall consider that matter with care.

I should stress to the hon. Lady that if one considers the different offices and the differential way in which the rules on community care grants in particular are applied, one realises that serious application by social workers, by local authorities and by diligent Members of Parliament—I know that the hon. Lady is such a Member—will ensure that community care grants are effectively spent.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there are any items or expenses, previously excluded from the single payment expenses, which are now covered under the social fund?

My hon. Friend is right to remind me that, because it is a discretionary fund, there are many examples of local expenditure that all sides of the House would welcome. One office, for example, paid for a holiday for a family whose young daughter had been seriously sexually abused—not surprisingly all the family had been under considerable stress. In another case a £500 grant was given for a teletext television for a deaf elderly pensioner, living alone, who had become extremely isolated. I could give many other illustrations of payments which could not have been covered under the old single payments system.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many offices are now reporting problems because people are having great difficulty in trying to fill in the 17-page form? Has he any ideas for changing that form, which is causing a great deal of trouble?

On a previous occasion my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that we were looking at the form and we shall continue to do so. When that form is filled out with the help of the staff at local offices, it is producing considerable success in terms of the numbers of applications for grants. I am constantly looking at all of our forms because I am anxious to ensure that those who are entitled to receive those benefits with the help of the form and our offices.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many personal pension schemes have been established at the latest available date.

Nearly I million people have opted so far to take out a personal pension, through 122 personal pension schemes.

I am most grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend recollect the way in which the Opposition fought the principle of personal pensions line by line and clause by clause during consideration of the Social Security Bill 1986? Does he agree that that shows, once again, how the Opposition object to any extension of freedom, although more than I million people have so far supported this extension of freedom?

My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that there was no enthusiasm by the Opposition for personal pensions. The figures that I have just given my hon. Friend show that there is enormous enthusiasm among those sections of the work force which, by and large, were not eligible to join the occupational pension schemes. Quite clearly, they wanted to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is acting on any of the recommendations made in the "Business of Service" report.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how relocation of social security office work out of London will affect service to the customer.

I have accepted most of the recommendations of the "Business of Service" report and I am in the process of implementing them. Relocating some social security work will enable us to improve the current unsatisfactory service that customers receive in some London offices. By moving backroom work out of London we shall be able to provide a better, more efficient and responsive service to our customers. All the affected London offices will remain open, some on better sites, and more branch offices will be opened in poorly served areas.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no social security offices in my constituency will be closed? If any are closed that will obviously result in a far worse service to my constituents.

As I have said, there are no proposals to close offices although some are not regarded by our staff as being in the best locations to serve my hon. Friend's customers who are also, happily, his constituents.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us the effect of moving the London social security offices to the regions? Are any scheduled to go to Sheffield, Hallam? Assuming that the answer is no, will he consider moving some there because I am sure that that would benefit the city greatly?

On this occasion I cannot give any joy to my hon. Friend. I commend him for the way in which he argues for his constituents. The three social security centres that I announced recently will be in Glasgow, Belfast and the Wigan area. We shall, of course, consider further relocation for parts of my headquarter operation. I shall take seriously the interests of the assisted areas in parts of the country where, tragically, there are still higher levels of unemployment than I would like.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the computer projects, on whose efficient operation the success of this proposal depends, the social fund program for example is now running on its sixth version and still contains 100 mistakes? Is he aware that when queries are made at local offices about delays and mistakes in the payment of benefits that are handled centrally, such as some disability benefits, the usual answer is, "That has nothing to do with us, it is a matter for Blackpool, Glasgow or Newcastle"—or wherever? It is widely believed that these delays occur because there is not enough staff at those locations to cope with the workload. Does the Secretary of State expect the House to believe that the proposals will lead to an improved service while still saving £4 million a year?

The hon. Lady is wrong, and not only on the detailed facts about the computer program. I had hoped that she would wish to commend it because, despite the initial teething troubles in parts of the computer program, it is one of the most successful operations by civil servants that I have seen in our country for generations. However, that is not relevant to the actual decisions. I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the key problems relate to the difficulties of many employers in London about high wastage, rates, working conditions and the costs of London work. I noted carefully the warm reaction by many hon. Members to the sensible relocation to those areas of the country that will benefit. That relocation also helps customers, staff and the taxpayer.

In his laudable attempts to improve the service to the customer by the relocation of Social Security Department facilities, will my right hon. Friend bend his mind to the facilities that have already been relocated? The attendance allowance delays that are reported to me in my surgery are getting far and away out of hand. There is inordinate delay in dealing with applications and appeals relating to attendance allowance. That needs to be corrected. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to do so?

Of course. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are discussing relocation and the ability of our centres to give good customer service, whether on family credit or attendance allowance. I am determined to achieve such a service. Despite current difficulties we have seen considerable improvements in the last year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the social fund allocation for his Department's offices in St. Helens for the next two years.

I will, with permission, circulate details of the social fund allocations for 1989–90 to offices in Great Britain in the Official Report. I shall also place a copy in the Library. The allocation to St. Helens is £806,802 comprising £574,468 for loans and £232,334 for grants. Decisions on the allocations for 1990–91 will be made nearer that time.

Is the Minister aware that in St. Helens, the DSS has spent less than 40 per cent. of this year's budget for community grants? Does he accept that one of the reasons for this is the bewildering complexity of the forms that applicants have to fill in? I recently spent over an hour filling in one of those forms for a confused pensioner. Will the Minister give an undertaking that when he fixes the budgets for the next two years, he will greatly simplify the application forms? That would greatly improve the take-up, because the problem is that people do not understand the forms.

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that the expenditure of his local office on grants in December went up to 50 per cent. I should like to place on record the appreciation of the local office of his interest in seeing that these grants are paid to the people who need them.

Such a constructive approach will help to ensure that this money, which is intended for those in most need, gets to them. If we can also assist by improving the forms still further, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we shall certainly do so. As these grants go to those in the community in most need of assistance, we depend on other organisations, local Members of Parliament and social services departments to assist in ensuring that the money reaches the people for whom it is intended.