To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the benefit entitlement of 16 to 18-year-olds.

We are continuing to monitor the effects of the 1988 reforms. Our overall policy remains correct, but I am pleased to announce that we are making a number of administrative improvements to ensure that all claims from 16 and 17-year-olds are handled more effectively and sympathetically. I will. with permission, put details of these changes in the Library.

We are grateful to the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that 16 to 18-year-olds have been badly treated as a result of the social security changes? Does she accept that sometimes these young men and women are among the most vulnerable people in our society? When will she listen to the people who matter most in terms of advising her and the Government on these matters—people such as those in the National Association of Probation Officers, the Children's Society and the Salvation Army? All those bodies say that the policies have failed lamentably and need to be reviewed immediately.

I do not agree that those young people have been badly treated. There is no need for any of them to be without an income because there is a YTS place for every 16 and 17-year-old in the country—at present there is a surplus of 110,000—together with the accompanying allowance. Our policy has operated without difficulty for the vast majority of young people, and 400,000 are benefiting from YTS. However, our monitoring arrangements, including our close liaison with voluntary groups —some of which, as the hon. Gentleman said, have recently produced reports—show that there have been some difficulties in a small number of cases. We are, therefore, taking steps to ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds are interviewed about their claims for income support unless there is no doubt about their entitlement. All claims will be automatically considered.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the present arrangements are a great improvement on those that existed under the previous Labour Government whereby young people were paid welfare benefit and allowed to sit at home without making any attempt to find work or to go on a scheme? The present scheme helps young people to train for the future.

I certainly agree that it is in the interests of young people to take advantage of training if they do not wish to continue in education or to take a job. I should like to continue my announcement. All claims will automatically be considered for the severe hardship provision where young people are not otherwise entitled. The rest of the details in the announcement will be placed in the Library.

I welcome the Minister's announcement. One of the most disturbing conclusions reached by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in its important report produced in October was that the availability of crisis loans and the severe hardship provisions were not being revealed to young homeless people. If the announcement puts that right, I welcome it.

Will the Minister review the level of benefits available to 16 and 17-year-olds? It seems iniquitous and wrong that somebody who is living independently should be penalised simply because he is young.

The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the information that is available to those young people. The details of the announcement will be placed in the Library, and the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are producing a leaflet aimed specifically at the group. It will be produced with the aid of the voluntary organisations, including the citizens advice bureaux, which have expressed concern.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the level of benefit that is available. The Government have responded already to that concern by making the level of benefit available to these young people equal to that for 18 to 24-year-olds. This was announced in July.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some parents are cynically pushing children out of their homes to rid themselves of a financial responsibility? It is no fault of the children. Has my hon. Friend any plans to recover some of the costs of the social security benefits from families who are taking this action deliberately so that claims can be made on the social security system?

We have no such plans, and the Department has no evidence that that is taking place. It is clear that parental action would not be in the interests of young people.

Instead of the Minister trying to make a statement at Question Time, it would be helpful if the Government came forward with a proper statement at 3.30 pm. How can young people get jobs unless they have somewhere to live? How can they get somewhere to live unless they have the money to pay landlords the large down-payment that they demand? The Government refuse to provide any benefit to young people to make that payment. Do not the Government care about the tens of thousands of young people who are sleeping rough in freezing weather in cardboard boxes?

Despite the hon. Gentleman's tone, I welcome him to Opposition Dispatch Box. I say again that there is no need for any young person to be without income. If young people take up the offer and the opportunity of a youth training place, they will receive an allowance. I remind the hon. Gentleman that responsibilities in this area cut across many Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced recently the new measures that his Department is taking. The Government have not ignored young people's housing needs, and 21,000 places have been approved in hostels and shared housing since 1981. Many measures were announced by my right hon. Friend last week and I advise the hon. Gentleman to take careful note of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the implications for social security benefits of the Government's plans for community care.

The Government's proposals which were published in the White Paper "Caring for People" on 16 November, will be a substantial improvement on current arrangements.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, the Government's announcement of an increase in income support for next year and the clear commitment in the recent White Paper for preserved income support for existing residents of care homes. Does my right hon. Friend recognise, however, the need to uprate preserved income support in the future so as to avoid any erosion of the value of the benefit? Such an erosion would lead to a deterioration in the availability and standard of care home places in the private and voluntary sectors which are so crucial to the Government's plans for community care.

Yes. We have no intention of altering our approach to the uprating statement once we change to the new system. We shall apply exactly the same criteria after 1991.

In considering the Government's response to community care in the White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the problems of many elderly people in private residential care who are forced to spend their weekly personal allowances on things which are necessary for their care because of the inadequacy of income support? Is he aware of the many people who do not have a penny to spend on new underwear, hairdos or even a packet of sweets, who in some instances have to be subsidised by relatives, some of whom are low paid and from low-income families?

I find nothing offensive in relatives helping the elderly in residential or nursing homes with their fees. It was never the intention from the introduction of income support that it should meet the cost of all fees, however high they may be set. We are still confident that the system meets the majority of fees being charged, but other methods of topping up—by relatives, charities and other sources—are a central part of the system.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the community care proposal is really about improving the quality of care, and that the arrangements have enough sensibility to take account of the demographic changes in society in the next 20 years? When I reach the age of 70 in 27 years' time, there will be only two people in work compared with the three people currently in work for every person aged 70.

I reinforce my hon. Friend's observation that the changes have nothing to do with saving money but are about improving the quality of care. The decision whether a person should enter residential care or be supported in his own home should be a financially neutral one for local authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review his decision not to uprate pensions in line with earnings.

I have no plans to change the basis on which pensions are uprated.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the result of the Government breaking Labour's link between pensions and earnings is that the single pensioner is being robbed of £12·65 per week and a married couple of £20 per week? Instead of allowing pensioners to share in the nation's increasing wealth, and at a time when the national insurance fund is in surplus to the tune of £10 billion, the Government are cheating pensioners to pay for their tax handouts to the wealthy. Where is the fairness in that? Will the Government think again?

I can confirm that pensioners' incomes as a whole have improved much faster under the present Government than they did under the Labour Government. That is because, above all, of the dramatic drop in inflation —which did so much to erode pensioners' other incomes when Labour was in office. Under this Government, pensioners' total net incomes have on average risen by one quarter, which is massively faster than under the previous Labour Government.

Did not the previous Labour Government fail to honour their pledge on pensions, and did they not have a dismal record of increasing real earnings—by contrast with the record of the present Government? Given that 80 per cent. of pensioners have incomes from private sources—that figure is improving all the time—is it not better to concentrate help on poorer pensioners, as the Government are doing, than go for an across-the-board increase?

Four out of five of the recently retired have an income from savings, and about three quarters of them enjoy substantial occupational pensions. In those circumstances, I agree with my hon. Friend that the right course for the Government is to concentrate additional state help on those who have not had the opportunity to build up savings and occupational pensions. That is what we did with the major increases in income support for many older and disabled pensioners last month.

Is the Minister aware that under the Labour Government, pensioners' incomes increased in real terms by more than 20 per cent. above the rate of inflation? If the Minister is not prepared to do anything about uprating, will he do something about the Christmas bonus and see to it that pensioners receive a real return in that way?

That is a pretty major own goal from the Minister for Social Security in the Labour Government who failed to pay the Christmas bonus for two years.

If pensions are lower than they might reasonably be, is that not because people paid for their pensions with real money in the 1950s and 1960s and had it confiscated by a Labour Government in the 1970s? Will my right hon. Friend see to it that that never happens again?

I shall certainly do my best, and we have succeeded so far. Under the present Government, the value of pensioners' incomes from savings has risen by 64p in the £1. Under the Labour Government it fell by 16p in the £1.

Have the Minister and his party lost contact completely with what is happening in Britain? Does not the Secretary of State know that millions of pensioners find it very difficult to manage every week—especially at this time of year, when high heating bills must be met? The reason for their difficulties is that the Government deliberately broke the link with earnings and deprived pensioners of a massive sum of money—£20 per week for couples and £12·65 for single people—to give tax cuts to the well-off. The British people do not support that action and are increasingly worried that the country is becoming too divided. We do not want pensioners to be left out of improvements in the nation's wealth. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the matter and re-establish the link between pensions and increases in earnings or prices— whichever is higher?

I share the hon. Lady's entirely proper wish to do more for pensioners who have not benefited from occupational pensions and the other items that I mentioned. I hope that I carry her with me when I say that it was exactly that thought which led only last month to increases of up to £3·50 a week for about 2·5 million single pensioners and pensioner couples. Those are the people whom we need to do more to help, and the people whom we have done more to help.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I should like —in my capacity as joint chairman of the all-party pensioners group—to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra help he intends to give to old people and families on low incomes to assist with heating bills this winter; and if he will make a statement.

Income support is intended to meet all day-to-day needs, including heating. Groups with extra needs, such as the elderly, the disabled and families, receive additional help through the premiums. When the weather is very cold, those people receiving income support who are elderly, disabled or have a child under five are eligible for a cold weather payment from the social fund.

Will the Minister take it from me—if not, he can check with local offices in the Yorkshire region—that a tremendous number of widows, pensioners and families on low incomes will face a cold, bleak winter because they receive insufficient support to meet the costs of heating, hot water, cooking fuel and lighting? When will the Minister do something, instead of hiding behind certain categories of payment that are due?

I have here a gas bill for £10·60 received by a pensioner. Of that amount, £1·66 is for energy consumption and £8·70 is the standing charge. When will the Minister act to ensure that pensioners do not pay £2·50 a therm for gas, given that everyone in this Chamber pays much less? Can we have some action to deal with energy poverty?

It is precisely because we recognise the extra pressures on those with low incomes—whether they are in or out of work—and the poorer pensioners that we have singled out those groups for special help rather than spread resources thinly across the board.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that anyone on a basic pension, with no other income such as an occupational pension, is entitled to a supplementary pension to help with exactly those costs?

That is true. It is also worth reminding ourselves that an extra £2·50 for single pensioners and £3·50 for couples was introduced in the October package, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced enhanced upratings for those on the family premium, the disability premium and the disabled child premium, to be implemented next April.

Is the Minister aware that, even if the bitter weather of the past 48 hours continues for another five days, not a single person in England and Wales will qualify for this miserly scheme? Is he also aware that the life-saving scheme for loft insulation and draughtproofing is on the point of collapse in at least seven English counties? Does he realise that every winter 40,000 people die because they are either old as well as cold, or very young as well as cold? When will the Government give us a policy to deal with those unnecessary deaths?

The incidence of excess winter mortality has been diminishing steadily, and we should all be glad about that. Last week I launched the latest "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, which not only provides advice for those who are at risk from cold weather but seeks to raise the awareness of their relatives and neighbours about the dangers that cold weather can pose to vulnerable groups.

I believe that the £5 payment scheme will provide significant help for vulnerable groups when the weather becomes especially cold.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest available figure for the number of households receiving family credit.

More than 320,000 families received family credit for the last week in July. That is the latest date for which comprehensive information is available.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that family credit represents the best method of giving help to families on low incomes? Is not everyone who is concerned about the cost-effective use of resources now obliged to do their best to promote the take-up of family credit rather than to argue about child benefit?

I should welcome any efforts to improve take-up still further, but I am very pleased with the results of the campaign that we waged last spring. It raised the number of those in receipt of family credit by about 40,000. I hope that the campaign that we are about to mount will increase still further the numbers receiving family credit.

Although I acknowledge the Department's efforts to increase the take-up of this benefit, will the Minister consider enlisting the aid of a range of voluntary organisations?

I shall gladly enlist the help of anyone who would like to help, because it is an important objective.

Is family credit usually paid to the mother? Are there certain families on low incomes who benefit from family credit but who would not benefit from an increase in child benefit?

It is difficult to conceive of a rate of child benefit that would give as much help to many families as family credit gives, which may range between £25 and £30 a week, or more. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, family credit is received by the mother in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Why does it take so long to get a new order book when the family credit order book is used up? Due to administrative bungling, families might have to live without any benefit whatsoever for five or six weeks. They also live in fear that their benefit may never be restored. Are those who qualified for family credit in July, but who did not get any money, included in the July figures?

The July figures include those whom we know were entitled to family credit in July and who have received it in respect of July. I acknowledge that there have been some administrative difficulties. We are seeking to improve our performance. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I shall gladly look into it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what special arrangements are made to pay benefit to mobile claimants, including those who attend pop festivals.

If there are large numbers of these claims, the Department of Social Security will bring together a mobile team of officers to handle them. This, as my hon. Friend knows, occurred twice in the west country in 1989.

Does my hon. Friend know that the cost of policing a recent pop festival in Cornwall was nearly £250,000? Is she aware of the anger felt by many people that taxpayers are financing this type of claimant? Is she able to explain how on earth these people can qualify for benefit, using the old qualification of availability for work, let alone the new one of actively seeking work, when they go from festival to festival during the summer months?

I understand my hon. Friend's exasperation, and that of his constituents, about the cost of policing these festivals. As he knows, it is separate from the Department of Social Security cost, which is very modest-in the region of £6,700. I assure my hon. Friend that mobile claimants, like all other claimants, have to satisfy Department of Employment officials that they are available for work and, with effect from 9 October, that they are actively seeking work. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to satisfy those requirements.

Is it not ironic that the Tory Member of Parliament who asks about the cost of policing these festivals failed to tell us how much much it cost to organise and control the recent Tory party conference?

Over £1 million.

Order. The Minister is not responsible for that.

The point that I am trying to make is that if it is right to complain about the heavy cost to the taxpayer of policing festivals, what about the Tory party conference, which cost £1 million?

Order. That has nothing to do with social security benefits.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must take his chances where he finds them.

Are we really being told that all the individuals who attend pop festivals are potential pop stars and not layabouts?

The issue is whether those who attend pop festivals—whether or not they aspire to be pop stars —can demonstrate effectively to Department officials that they are actively seeking work. That remains to be seen, as I have said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to visit Arcola street social security office in Hackney.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit the Arcola street social security office.

Is the Minister aware of recent reports that the transfer of social security records from London offices to provincial centres and to Glasgow has resulted in an appalling error rate, possibly as high as 80 per cent., but certainly much higher than the national average? Does she agree that that error rate means that hundreds and thousands of the poorest people in London are being cheated of the money that they need to live on? When will the Minister make money available so that local offices such as my local office in Arcola street in Hackney can provide the professional service that the staff wish to provide but are prevented from providing because of the Government's meanness?

I can reassure the hon. Lady that there are no plans at present to relocate work from her social security office in Arcola street. I shall refer briefly to the Ealing office, to which the hon. Lady alluded. I believe that the hon. Lady obtained her information from a report in The Guardian this morning. I can reassure her that the error rate cited in The Guardian was vastly overstated—the actual rate was about 34 per cent. when the scheme began in August. However, not all the errors concern payments. As cases are converted from clerical to computer records, points such as whether the correct postal codes or national insurance numbers are held will be picked up. If I may return to the—[Interruption.]

Order. That was a very good and sufficient answer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers he expects will be helped by the proposed introduction of a carers' premium.

We expect the new £10 premium, being introduced next October, to help 30,000 carers—one third through income support and the remainder through housing benefit or community charge benefit.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very good news and congratulate him on being part of the first Government to give formal and financial recognition to the unsung band of heroes and heroines who look after the elderly and the sick. As my right hon. Friend's policy progresses, will he consider particularly the perhaps 20 per cent. of carers who are themselves elderly and may have a small second pension which precludes them from benefiting from the premium? Will he also consider the whole question of respite, because many more people could act as carers or remain as carers if they had a break from time to time? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will take that into account when working out the funding for community care.

I should make it clear, of course, that a pensioner in receipt of invalid care allowance would be entitled to the premium. People cannot qualify for invalid care allowance after retirement age because the allowance is intended specifically for those who have given up work or refrained from work to look after someone. However, I will bear in mind both the points made by my hon. Friend.

Instead of polite gestures to carers, is it not time to recognise that looking after severely disabled people is a full-time job which should bring a proper income? When can carers expect that?

The Labour Government failed to proved any recognition for the role of carers. This measure is a modest but important recognition of their important role.

Does the Minister accept that in 1985 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys identified 6 million informal carers in Britain, 3·7 million of whom were bearing the main care burden? Does not the Minister's figure of 30,000 pale into significance compared with that need? Will he make resources available to meet the main need of the bulk of carers?

As the hon. Gentleman says, many carers are caring for people in their own homes in an informal manner. We should need vast resources to pay a significant premium to every one of them. Incidentally, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally a very generous man, did not at least acknowledge that we have taken a step in the right direction.

Is it not irresponsible for the Opposition to try to pretend that only they care for the carers?

Indeed. I believe that by this significant move in introducing the premium we have shown that we recognise the role of carers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to review the uprating of child benefit

It remains the Government's policy to review the rate of child benefit each year in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

What does the Minister have to say to the poor people in my constituency who, for more than two years, have had to live on a pittance of £7·25 a week from a miserable and miserly Government? Will he tell us what is the Government's estimate of the cost of bringing up a child in any part of today's Britain that he cares to consider?

I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, so far as I am aware, under no Government has it been suggested that either child benefit or its predecessors would meet the full costs of bringing up children. The benefits make a contribution. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman really means the poor people in his constituency, the increases above the normal uprating, which I made in income support and in family credit, and which were of more benefit than a child benefit increase, would have benefited nearly a quarter of the nation's children.

Nonetheless, with the increase in the rate of inflation, which is at least 60 per cent. more than we expected by now, and the fact that high interest rates also add to the rate of inflation, could the Government look at this matter again?

My hon. Friend will have heard what I said. I am well aware of his views on the matter. I ask him to take into account the fact that, at more or less the same time as the uprating statement, virtually every family in the land benefited by about £3 a week—if both partners were working, they benefited by about £6 a week—from reductions in national insurance contributions and consequent increases in take-home pay.

Why has the Secretary of State cynically abandoned the Government's clear election pledge in 1987 to continue to uprate child benefit as then? If his argument is targeting, why does he not regard child benefit with a 100 per cent. take-up as much better targeted than family credit, which has less than 60 per cent. take-up? If his argument is incentives, why does he not accept that child benefit, which is not means tested, offers a much bigger incentive to return to work than family credit does? Why should mothers with child benefit not get an increase just as much as mothers with family credit?

First, the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented what was in the Conservative manifesto. [Interruption.] He has quite straightforwardly misrepresented it. Secondly, as I said in response to an earlier question, there is no possibility, under any Government, of levels of child benefit that would do as much for the less well-off working families as is done by family credit. In the present circumstances, it is right to steer additional help in that direction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the social security computerisation programme.

The Department's highly complex £1·7 billion strategy for the computerisation of the payment of social security benefits is proceeding as planned. The pilot exercise in 23 local offices has been completed and the systems are being introduced nationally office by office.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the work is being carried out sufficiently quickly and can she give us any idea when the programme will be implemented?

My hon. Friend asks about the speed of completion. As one would expect with an operation of this scale, the Department has had some anxiety about teething problems with the introduction of the computerised programme. We are, in fact, proceeding according to programme but because of staff anxieties about some of the problems of introducing specific programmes we are extending the time scale for staff savings to July 1990. Within those limits, the programme is proceeding according to plan.

Question No. 11. Mr. Terry Fields—[Interruption.] Question No. 12. Mr. Michael Stern—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why was no Opposition Member called to ask a supplementary question to Question No. 10?

Because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) was not present. I called Mr. Michael Stern for the next Question.

rose—

I call Mr. Michael Stern. It is now 10 minutes past three.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances costs incurred by the parent of a child at boarding school during term time are recognised for social security purposes.

There is no explicit provision in social security to meet such costs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain areas of social pressure, such as those that I represent in Southmead and Lockleaze, a child who is sent into boarding provision, with clear educational need for such provision, can often suffer because the parent is deprived of income support or child benefit? Will my hon. Friend look into any possible easement of the provisions?

I understand that my hon. Friend has written to me about a particular case and as soon as I receive his letter, I shall, of course, look into the circumstances of it.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from people in the east midlands on the Wilding report.

I have received many representations from individuals and organisations in the east midlands about the Wilding report.

Is the Minister aware that we in the east midlands are not very happy about the Wilding report? If the Minister takes note of what we are saying, he will realise that the report suggests creating a massive region from Chesterfield all the way down to Worcester, so how remote will the east midlands be then? I am making representations to the Minister and I should like him to have a serious look at this and to leave the east midlands where it is. It should be considered a region in its own right, as it is now, so far as the arts are concerned so that a proper service can be provided to the east midlands.

I am beginning to think that an Arts Council grant should be earmarked to preserve the excellent and colourful contributions that the hon. Gentleman always makes to this House.

The purpose of the Wilding report is to bring coherence to the way in which funds for the arts are administered in order to serve the arts better and to enable the public to enjoy the best in the arts. That is the whole point of the Wilding report. Of course, I shall take into account the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about boundaries. That matter can be looked at, but the report contains many recommendations that should be taken seriously.

To ask the Minister for the Arts by what percentage the Arts Council's grant will rise over the three years to 1992–93.

I am glad to have been able to announce recently an increase of 22 per cent. in the Arts Council's grant-in-aid over the next three years.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that significant increase. Will it facilitate an increase in incentive funding which, as my right hon. Friend knows, is important for the future of the arts?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The increase shows a renewed sense of strong commitment to the expansion of the arts in this country. My hon. Friend has put his finger on it because in the past few years there has been a dramatic increase in private sector funding for the arts. There have also been increased audiences and increased attendances at museums. There has been a dramatic expansion of the arts. In the 1987 manifesto, we committed ourselves to maintain taxpayers' support for the arts so as to underpin that expansion.

The Minister will be aware that I and many others congratulate him on the fight that he has put up for expenditure on the arts, but unfortunately he is up against a philistine Government. If one adds the percentage increase for last year to that for this year, it is barely above the inflation rate and for the next two years, to 1992–93, it is massively below the inflation rate. 'We congratulate the Minister on his fight, but we deplore the behaviour of the philistine Government.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous opening remarks, but if he regards the Government as philistine, when real resources for the arts overall have gone up in the past 10 years, what would he call the Labour Government of the 1970s? There has been a dramatic expansion in the arts—attendance at theatres, orchestras and cinemas has gone up, museums have expanded and galleries have been refurbished. Under this Government the arts have expanded dramatically.

Does not the splendid increase of £66 million prove once and for all that the Conservative Government are not philistines, but truly care about the arts? Is it not time that the Opposition stopped displaying their carping and miserable attitude?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a Government we have repeatedly committed ourselves to maintaining taxpayers' support for the arts, and that is precisely what we have done. With that basic underpinning from the taxpayer, real resources have expanded as a result of fuelling from the private sector, which has provided extra money for the arts.

I warmly congratulate the Minister on his achievement, but before he collapses from shock I must point out to him that, even after this increase, Britain is still at the bottom of the European league for arts and cultural spending, spending just one third of 1 per cent. of central Government expenditure. I ask the Minister to join me in a public campaign with the slogan "I per cent. for the arts". If the Minister could achieve that, the arts would be truly valued in this country and artists and arts audiences given the status that they deserve.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous opening remarks about the expansion of funding available for the arts. The benchmark for the arts in this country is whether we have a higher standard of drama, music and higher standards in our museums than in any other European country. We can say with great pride that our standards are as good as—and, in some cases, better than—those in other countries. That is the litmus test and the benchmark—it is not how much taxpayers' money is spent overall, but whether we have succeeded in having the best quality arts. I believe that we have.

To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will visit the northern region to receive representations on the Wilding report.

I frequently visit the northern region and I have already received many representations from individuals and organisations there about the Wilding report.

When my right hon. Friend receives representations about the Wilding report, will he bear in mind that Yorkshire Arts has a good record for balancing the interests of different metropolitan areas, whereas Northern Arts has consistently followed a Newcastle-based bias in the allocation of funding in the northern region? Many advantages would come from amalgamating the two regions—not least, Teesside would gain a proper level of resourcing and would also benefit from the streamlining of funding, and the recent increase which we welcome.

I note the views that my hon. Friend has expressed. There are conflicting views about what the boundaries should be and I shall take them all seriously into account. I attach importance to the cohesion of regional arts associations and I pay tribute to the excellent work done by administrators all over the country. My concern, like theirs, must be to minimise bureaucracy and to streamline administration so that the arts benefit.

Does the Minister realise that the proposal to join Northern Arts and Yorkshire Arts can only be classed as an imaginative piece of science fiction? Nobody could reasonably attempt to plan local concerts, arts support and promotion in areas as far apart as Berwick-upon-Tweed, Alnwick and Bradford.

Again I note the hon. Gentleman's views. Consultation will continue until the end of December and I shall take all views into account. I remind the House that the Wilding report is about ensuring that when we distribute taxpayers' money to the arts those arts benefit, that the public's accessibility to the best in arts benefits, and that we have a good non-bureaucratic administration to distrubute that money.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council; and what was discussed.

I meet Mr. Palumbo regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

I understand that Mr. Peter Palumbo greeted my right hon. Friend's historic settlement by saying that it was a historic day for the arts. It was not a historic day for the disabled. I have totally failed in my capacity as chairman of ADAPT to get any of that money to help us identify and alter arts premises in public libraries to be disabled-friendly. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, is with us. Will he and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts join together to try to obtain some money from the Arts Council for that? Since we have turned the House of Commons into a place of entertainment, will the Minister with responsibility for the disabled join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that subtitling for the deaf is built into the televising of the House of Commons?

I acknowledge and thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does as chairman of ADAPT, which is intended to improve accessibility for disabled people to arts organisations of all kinds. With that in mind, I recently agreed to earmark money from my own central budget to help this process along. The Arts Council has a disability officer, as does the Museums and Galleries Commission. I shall do whatever I can to ensure that ADAPT meets with great success.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from the Yorkshire and Humberside area regarding the contents of the Wilding report.

I have received many representations from individuals and organisations in Yorkshire and Humberside about the Wilding report.

Is the Minister aware of the fundamental differences between the cultural identity of Yorkshire and the north-east—in particular, the fact that Yorkshire has a much closer cultural identity with the Humberside area, which the report includes in a different region? Is the Minister aware that there are fundamental differences between the Geordie and the Tyke?

I note the hon. Gentleman's views. In my experience, both Northern Arts and Yorkshire Arts do an outstanding job, and I will certainly take that into account.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.

I meet representatives of the Civil Service unions from time to time. A wide range of subjects is discussed.

When the Minister meets the unions, will he give an undertaking that he will not seek to break the national agreement which exists? He knows that if he did so in relation to the south bank, there would be a domino effect on other arts centres around the country which would be disastrous and lead to chaos throughout the arts.

Although that is principally a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I know of no policy to break national agreements in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It is important for recruitment and retention that we develop policies of the greatest possible degree of pay flexibility. That is being developed in the Civil Service. It enables us to deal more effectively with the recruitment and retention problems which are our responsibility.

When my right hon. Friend meets the people with a vested interest in national negotiations, will he discuss with them the purchasing power of pay in different parts of the country? Will he bear in mind that areas such as Gravesham which are slightly beyond the limits of the Greater London and fringe allowance are being short-changed? Is it not time that we changed to a regional pay system?

My hon. Friend is right—there is increasing recognition of the need to allow variations and flexibility for skills and geographic areas if we are to recruit the right people and skills. That is already developing within the agency process of the Civil Service. For instance HMSO in Norwich has considerable freedom when negotiating pay agreements.

Will the Minister confirm that since the Government took office more than 10 years ago and abolished pay comparability with the private sector, civil servants' pay has fallen behind by 20 per cent.? Is that not why the Government cannot find Civil Service staff in London, and why, on the Minister's own admission, more than a third—34 per cent.—of benefit claims at the Ealing social security office contain errors and why morale is at rock bottom?

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of questions. To suggest, as he did, that morale is at rock bottom is far from the truth. I travel round the country and see the Civil Service in varying roles and showing standards of excellent and ever better service to the public. Broader questions about Civil Service pay are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Has my right hon. Friend had discussions on further management training with Civil Service trade unions? Surely we need better management training for civil servants in these difficult times.

My hon. Friend is right. The Civil Service spends about 6 per cent. of the total cost of salaries—that is £300 million—on training and improving standards in the Civil Service. I am pleased to be able to say that I have earmarked a further £1 million of challenge fund money to enhance training standards further in the Civil Service next year.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement concerning the progress of ethnic monitoring within the Civil Service.

Departments are making good progress in developing monitoring systems in line with the code of practice of the Commission for Racial Equality.

Does the Minister accept that there is not one black person in grade one, two or three of the Civil Service, only two in grade four and a handful in grades five, six and seven? In the interests of equality and fairness, which apparently some of his hon. Friends do not want, will he accept that those figures show gross discrimination? What steps is he taking to avoid that continuing in the future?

Although black and Asian people are broadly fairly represented in proportion to the working population in the Civil Service—some 4·2 per cent.—it is true that in grades seven and above black and Asian people represent only about 1·5 per cent. Civil Service promotion is based on equality of opportunity and on merit. For that reason, we are devising a programme of action to ensure that equality of opportunity works effectively in all areas, including ethnic minorities.

Will my right hon. Friend look very carefully at the implications of dividing people by race, as the one area in which that would get the overwhelming support of the population of Britain is in relation to the people who are allowed to immigrate into this country?

My concern is employment in the Civil Service. l want the Civil Service to be open to all people based on merit, if they can prove ability, whatever their background, sex or ethnic origin. We want the broadest-based service that we can achieve.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will issue guidelines on appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against senior civil servants who authorise the disclosure of Law Officers' advice to the Government.

General guidelines already exist.

As we know from Sir Leon Brittan that they improperly approved the leaking of a letter from the Law Officers, may we assume that the Minister for the Civil Service will be giving a carpeting to Mr. Bernard Ingham and to Charles Powell? Is the reason that he did not give them a carpeting that the Prime Minister, on 26 January 1986, did something that, were I so indelicate as to mention it, would mean that Mr. Speaker would suspend me for five days?

What we can assume from the experience of the past four years, is that the hon. Gentleman has an obsession with that issue. We have debated those matters time and again, and I am delighted to be able to defend both Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham, who are outstanding civil servants who are prepared to serve Governments of whatever complexion.

Would my right hon. Friend consider riot issuing disciplinary action against civil servants, but shutting up the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) by encouraging civil servants not to have a protective attitude towards the Law Officers' advice? As my right hon. Friend is the Minister for open government, is it riot in the public interest for Law Officers' advice to be known? The Law Officers were not backward in publishing their advice on the "Spycatcher" affair. Why should it not be possible, for example for the Law Officers' advice in relation to the haemophiliacs' action to obtain compensation, to be published freely with encouragement from the Government?

That is a matter of judgment for the Law Officers. The guidelines are quite clear. Further to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, if I succeed in shutting up the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I think that it will be my most outstanding achievement ever.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he has had with trade unions representing the Civil Service.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).

I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on their policy to redistribute Civil Service jobs to other regions away from the south-east. Will he consider a little more carefully the possibility of getting some balance in that redistribution? In the east midlands, and particularly in Nottingham, we have appropriate sites and skilled personnel who would be happy if jobs were relocated in the region, yet we always seem to be bypassed. Will the Minister consider that and consult his colleagues so that some of the redistributed Civil Service jobs come to the east midlands?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the Civil Service as a whole. Questions about relocation are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I must stress the number of civil servants we are moving north and to the hon. Gentleman's area. For example, it has already been announced that a large number of Inland Revenue civil servants will move to Nottingham. Since 1987, various Departments have identified no fewer than 14,000 jobs to be moved out of the south-east to various parts of the country. I think that that is solid progress in the right direction.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress there has been in setting up Civil Service agencies; and if he will make a statement.

Progress is good. There are now 10 agencies and a further 41 candidates under consideration, including three in Northern Ireland. Improvements in management fostered by Next Steps are already resulting in more efficient service to customers and better value for the taxpayer.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the rate of progress with which agencies are being set up, particularly with the conversion of some of the larger Civil Service functions to agency status?

Yes, I am. We are making remarkable progress. No fewer than 180,000 jobs on the list of candidates are now designed or planned to become agencies in due course.

The most important point to stress is that, as part of the process of creating agencies, it is crucial to try to improve the quality of service to the public. That is already beginning to be achieved with new agencies such as the vehicle inspectorate and companies house. We can look forward to similar improvements on a much wider scale.