To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review the grant element of the social fund.

We have no plans to do so.

Will the Minister acknowledge that people who apply for grants from the social fund are among the poorest in the land? How can he pretend that there is any fairness or equity, when offices such as the one serving most of my constituency in Erdington will consider applications for grants only under the heading of high priority, which means that the majority of those applying for grants are refused before their case is considered? Will he now study the operation of the social fund grants and loans scheme, with a view to removing the cash limits and thereby making it fairer?

Expenditure on community care grants increased by 16 per cent. compared with the same period last year, so extra resources have been devoted to the system. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's local office is able only to consider high priority cases. We monitor carefully every aspect of the social fund and its operations, and later this year we shall have the results of the York survey and research into the operation of the fund and will take it into account at the time.

My right hon. Friend is aware of my somewhat dissident view upon the social fund. Could I suggest to him that, while I have no wish to return to the extravagent single payment scheme which was in existence under the previous Government, there is a case for assessing whether we have the balance between loans and grants absolutely right? Does he agree that, by giving loans to people in this section of society—they are indeed among the poorest in the land—we risk perpetuating the problem by not encouraging them to climb out of their difficulties and to cease to be reliant upon state benefits?

I certainly take account of what my hon. Friend says. I believe that in practice the social fund has proved to be much more flexible in giving help to the most vulnerable in our society than single payments ever were. We should not forget local authorities' responsibilities to enable people to establish or to maintain themselves within the local community.

As the Comptroller and Auditor General has said that the accounts that the Government submitted to him were largely worthless and meaningless, why should the House accept the Government's reassurance that the scheme is working well?

First, I think that the hon. Gentleman has somewhat exaggerated the Comptroller and Auditor General's comments and I am not surprised at that. In essence, we need to await the research findings which, as I have already said, will come out later this year. We have had a number of other reports which were mainly based upon small, unrepresentative samples. When we review the workings of the scheme we shall take account of all of that.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to be able to tell the House how much it would cost to reintroduce a grant-based system, as suggested by the Labour party?

If we had projected the rise in single payments up to the present date at the rate at which it was growing when it was abolished we would be spending more than £1·1 billion on that scheme this year.

Are not the fund's rules in urgent need of change to address the plight of mentally ill patients, discharged from hospitals? How many of them are among the 779,000 who were refused help last year? How does he respond to the National Audit Office's strong criticisms of the fund and to Saul Becker, the benefits expert at Loughborough university, who described it as "an overwhelming disaster"?

I do not accept for a single moment that anyone who was really familiar with the workings of the social fund would support that. Of course, mentally-ill and mentally-handicapped people are a priority when community care grants are considered.