To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of income-related benefits paid to lone parents.

In 1990–91 the expenditure was approximately £3·4 billion.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that less than one third of lone parents currently receive regular maintenance? If that is the case, both in equity and—given his answers—in the interests of the taxpayer, must not there be a greater effort to ensure that absent parents contribute and face their financial responsibilities?

In general terms, I can confirm that figure. I also confirm that only 23 per cent. of people on income support have their maintenance orders honoured. As my hon. Friend says, because absent parents do not honour their obligations to their children, the taxpayer has to make up the deficit, to the tune of £400 million a year. The Child Support Bill now in another place will deal with that problem.

What is the annual cost of the tax cuts and other advantages that the Government have given to the rich? Does the Minister agree that the rich have received far more from the Government than ever the poor have, which has widened the gap between rich and poor during the lifetime of the Government? Does not that reflect the reality that this is a Government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich?

The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me into areas more appropriately covered by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury. However, to answer his question and to focus again on the subject of lone parents, in 1981–82—these figures are in 1990–91 prices—we spent £2·169 billion on benefits for lone parents, while by 1990–91 that sum had risen to £4·476 billion. That shows how high a priority we give to some of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman alluded.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this has nothing to do with a battle between rich and poor but is about the fact that families on lower incomes who fall within the income tax net have to subsidise fathers who abscond and leave their wives and children so that the state has to pick up the burden?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct that people on low incomes make their contribution to the £400 million to which I referred. The Child Support Agency, to whose establishment the House agree last Thursday, will be able to attend to that matter.

For many lone parents the long-term answer has to be a job, with adequate child care. Does the Minister accept that he offers a choice between keeping women out of work on low benefits and subsidising low-paying employers through family credit? Why do he and the Government continue to refuse to support a national minimum wage of a measly £3·40 an hour? That would give many people on benefits the two things that they need—a decent job at a decent wage.

That question confirms that the Opposition see little point in continuing with family credit as a benefit. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's words show that, in their view, withering on the vine has become total decay. The contempt with which the Opposition deal with the issue of the minimum wage is summed up by a quotation from their spokesman on employment, the hon. Member for sedgefield (Mr. Blair):

"I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs … I have simply accepted that the econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact."

to ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the Christmas bonus for pensioners.

The Christmas bonus has been paid by this Government every year since we took office in 1979. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that it is paid to 12 million people each Christmas.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Christmas bonus will once again be paid this Christmas to every pensioner, by contrast with the performance of the previous Labour Government, who refused to pay it for two years running? Does she accept that keeping the payment level for some years raises the question of its viability due to increasing administrative costs? Will she review that level with a view to increasing it in due course?

I have pleasure in confirming that the bonus will be paid this year as in past years. It was this Government who made it statutory, rather than concessionary, as one of their first acts in 1979. That was a worthy successor to their first act, which was to introduce the bonus in the first place in 1972.

Does the Minister recall that a few moments ago the Under-Secretary of State referred to a benefit withering on the vine? If the Christmas bonus were paid allowing for inflation, it would now be worth £59·17.

And it would cost us £700 million to pay it at that level. We are trying to use money to target poorer pensioners. It ill becomes the Opposition to criticise us when for two years they did not pay the bonus at all. It is better to pay it regularly and by statute than to go for ambitious uprating programmes and then fail to deliver for two years running.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that disabled people and their representatives are consulted on the details of the two new disability benefits being introduced next year.

Disabled people have already been involved in testing early versions of the claim forms for disability living allowance and disability working allowance, with very encouraging results. We have now issued these forms to a number of organisations for comment, together with the draft regulations for the benefits and the first draft of the disability handbook which will be used by officials working on DLA.

I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend for responding to the need for full consultation with disabled people. I also congratulate him on the Government's record level of spending on the disabled.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind comments. We are determined to involve disabled people and the organisations that represent them as much as possible in developing the new benefits—we have already done that—and in the way that they are administered. That is working successfully.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter how good a benefit system is, it is important that it be accessible to those in need? What progress is being made on modernising social security offices and providing a much more sophisticated system for the future?

We are certainly making a great deal of progress with the introduction of the Benefits Agency and with the new system of district offices, both of which will improve the efficiency of our delivery of benefits. If the system is to be accessible to people they need information about it. I was especially pleased recently to be able to launch the national benefits inquiry line, which will significantly help disabled people to understand the benefits to which they may be entitled and how to claim them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the forecast extra cost of SERPS into the year 2035.

Expenditure on the state earnings-related pension scheme is estimated to rise from nearly £2 billion in 1991–92 to £16 billion in 2035–36, at 1990 prices.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is not it crystal clear that any Government or party which sought to satisfy the funding of pensions at that level solely through state provision would literally be going for broke?

If to that prospective rise in costs were added the cost of some of the promises that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is fond of making, the costs would at least be doubled in 2035–36 and we should be moving into a pension system which I doubt would be sustainable for those to whom the promises were made.

Will my right hon. Friend contemplate increasing the benefits for people who buy their own pensions? What would happen if by some misadventure we were not returned at the next general election?

I very much agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's question. The right course is exactly the one that we have been pursuing, which is to make sustainable promises about what the state will provide and to give maximum encouragement to people to build up their own occupational and personal provision. We have done that with huge success.

Can we understand from the Minister's earlier replies on this issue that he is confirming that the Government will not implement SERPS and have changed the uprating of pensions purely to cut the social security budget because they are too mean to give workers in this country the kind of pensions that people receive everywhere else in Europe?

Before the hon. Gentleman puts too much weight on that point, he should reflect on the fact that if we followed the pension arrangements of virtually all other European countries, 2 million married women in this country would not have pensions in their own right. Our policies are to ensure real promises to pensioners that can be kept. We have done that and our record compares very well with that of the last Labour Government, which included the non-payment of the Christmas bonus for two years running.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made of the effect on incentives to work for disabled people of the introduction of the disability working allowance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect on incentives to work for disabled people of the introduction of the disability working allowance.

The introduction of disability working allowance will provide a real opportunity to work for up to 50,000 disabled people who would like to do so, but whose earnings capacity is limited.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disability working allowance will provide an effective bridge for disabled people between total dependence on benefits and the world of work in a way that is rather similar to the job that family credit has done for families on low incomes?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Disability working allowance will remove a rigid distinction in the present benefit structure between ability and inability to work. As people become increasingly aware of the opportunities that are available to them, many will take those opportunities. One of the most important aspects of the allowance is that people who avail themselves of the opportunity to go into work will for two years retain underlying entitlement to whatever disability benefit they were drawing beforehand. That should give them confidence to try out work.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this new and radical initiative, which offers the opportunity for independence and promotes integration of the disabled. Does he agree that it is far better to target resources on those who are in most need, in this case low-income families, than to make uncosted and fanciful promises, as the Opposition have done, which can never be fulfilled?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have a good record on incremental improvements in the benefits that are available to the long-term sick and disabled. We have made an increase in real terms of more than £7 billion a year to meet the needs of those groups and we have concentrated on those who need most help. I am sure that that is the right approach.

Since we are talking about people with disabilities, may I raise a case that came my way this morning? It relates to a claim for attendance allowance in leaflet DS2(1990), which is straightforward. It is a good attendance allowance, but when trying to get hold of a DS1500 report from the local GP and from the hospital, my constituent encountered complete ignorance of DS1500 report writing. Has everyone been advised of the procedures, particularly those who will be approached by people asking for attendance allowance and for a DS1500 report?

I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman has said and I should be grateful if he would send me details of the case so that I can follow it up. We are anxious that those who have to produce such reports are fully aware of the necessary forms and how to complete them. We are conscious that there have been some difficulties and that is why, when we introduce disability living allowance next year, we shall, to a considerable extent, rely on the claimant's assessment of the effect of the disability on his life, supported by a carer, a general practitioner or some other professional so that we can substantially demedicalise the way in which we process a claim for benefit.

Will the Minister consider the following? He will be aware that fewer people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I can do it perfectly well without reading. He will be aware, as the House is, that over the past 12 months, fewer people with disabilities have gone into real jobs and that training and enterprise councils have recruited fewer people with disabilities for training courses than ever before. Will he now consider extending allowances to those who go on training courses so that eventually they can be encouraged to go into real jobs?

I believe that the allowances that are paid —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Certainly not. The allowances should be attractive to disabled people. We are anxious that they take part in training schemes and avail themselves of opportunities for employment. I am also conscious that new technology will make it possible for more disabled people either to take jobs in places of work, or, increasingly, to work from home.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the aim of the Government's policy to improve work incentives, to get people into work and to eliminate poverty? Bearing in mind those three points, would not it be extraordinarily stupid to introduce a minimum wage?

That matter has been dealt with effectively in the House on a number of occasions in recent days. I understand why those who analyse these matters are convinced that the introduction of a minimum wage would destroy, not create, jobs. Our approach is much better. When I meet disability organisations or disabled people, I find that the vast majority are keen to take the opportunity of employment. The Government have, for the first time, moved to a proper partial capacity benefit.

Has the Minister seen the all-party disablement group's briefing on these questions, with its strong criticism of the punitively high marginal tax rates that DWA involves for disabled people, leaving them with as little as 6p in the £1 of increased earnings? Is this not a fierce new poverty trap? The Government plan to save millions of pounds, as they have told me, by introducing the new allowance. Instead, why cannot they allow disabled people to keep more of their own earnings?

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that when one introduces benefits that relate to people's earnings, there is a balance to be struck between having too steep or too shallow a rate of withdrawal of benefits as earnings increase. Under the system for DWA, if earnings increase, the income of disabled people will also increase. We have moved away from the over 100 per cent. withdrawal of benefit that operated under the Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have income from occupational pensions or savings; and what was the comparable position in 1979.

We estimate that in 1988, 82 per cent. of pensioners had income from either savings or from an occupational pension, compared with only 73 per cent. in 1979.

Does not that figure give added weight to the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a few moments ago—that the best interests of pensioners are served by directing additional resources to those who rely entirely on the state pension, rather than on a general increase in pension benefits? Does not it also suggest that the best interests of pensioners as a whole are served by maintaining a stable economic climate and a low rate of inflation?

I entirely agree with the second point. As for the first, it is to assist those who are least well-off that we have focused additional resources on increasing pensioners' income support premiums in the past two or three years.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a difference between the pension arrangements for Members of Parliament and directors of privatised industries, who give themselves vast pay increases on which their pensions will be based, and those for people who have only just entered schemes and will therefore receive very little?

We have made it absolutely clear that, having fully and faithfully—a phrase which I have used before—uprated the basic state retirement pension throughout our period in office, we intend to continue to do so. I have always acknowledged that, although a growing number of pensioners have extra income of various kinds, a good many still have no such income. That is why we have increased income support premiums: we want to direct additional help to those people.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm, in the light of his answer, that now that more than 80 per cent. of pensioners receive additional income it is essential at times to talk of average earnings, rather than only of state pensions, as Opposition Members often do? That applies particularly to comparisons with other European countries.

I agree, but I know that my hon. Friend will accept that we should always remember that averages are averages and that they conceal the fact that some people receive less than the average. We should bear those people in mind.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make a statement regarding the operation of the social fund.

I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the 1991 annual report of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the operation of the social fund, which was laid before Parliament on 17 July.

Does the Minister accept that some areas do not spend their allocations, while others, such as Leicester, do not have nearly as much as they need? As a result, people such as my constituent, Jayne Cooper, of north Braunston—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not understand. Question Time is the time when we protect our constituents from all the bureaucracy that the Government impose on them.

Of course, I shall look at the case, if the hon. and learned Gentleman sends me the details. In both the north Leicester and south Leicester offices, all high-priority cases are being met and some medium-priority cases are being met in north Leicester. We are making arrangements to improve the method whereby funds are reallocated from offices with surplus resources to other offices that are under pressure.

The Lancashire county council welfare rights sub-committee—of which my right hon. Friend may have heard—fears that, in future, now that Kendal and Barrow are linked with Lancaster in the same office, when the statistics go on to the mainframe computer it may be impossible to obtain those that relate to Lancaster. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that they can be singled out? Lancaster has been given an assurance this year, but it is wondering about the future.

I have no reason to believe that the introduction of a new system will in any way inhibit our ability to obtain such information.

Is not it regrettable that people who apply to the social fund are often refused a grant and are then refused a loan because their income is not sufficient for them to repay it? Are not many people in urgent need thus prevented from receiving the assistance that they need so much?

Very few people are refused a loan by the social fund because of inability to pay; but, when someone clearly cannot pay, other procedures can be brought into play. Indeed, many thousands who apply for a loan in the first place end up with a grant instead.

The old system of single payments led to massive abuse and had to be changed, but will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the administrative cost of the social fund, as evidence to the Select Committee on Social Security showed clearly that the cost of handling individual applications was very high?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the old single payment scheme, and I seem to have the support of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury who said recently that nobody liked the system of single payments, which was extremely complicated for both claimants and staff. Any system which depends on discretion rather than on an automatic formula and precise regulations for the delivery of benefit is bound to be more expensive administratively because of the discretionary element involved in the decision-making process.

What is the point of the Prime Minister unveiling a citizens charter today if, as last week's report of the social fund shows, 27,000 of the very poorest citizens in our society got no help because they were too poor to repay it? That is not a very small figure, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Will any of the 185,000 people who were denied assistance from the social fund, because there was too little money in a cash-limited budget, get any redress today from the citizens charter? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the social fund, the administration costs of which last year, at £77 million, exceeded the total of all the grants paid throughout the year, which came to only £68 million?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to trespass on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's ground—the citizens charter—of later this afternoon. I can say, however, that the social fund, with its element of discretion, has proved to be a much more flexible and effective way of meeting exceptional need and exceptional circumstances than the old single payments scheme, or its predecessor schemes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current value in real terms of the £1,000 widow's payment announced in June 1985.

The widow's payment was introduced in April 1988. The current value of the payment at June 1991 prices is £789.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the widow's payment was announced six and not three years ago and that at that time the widow's allowance that it replaced was running at £50 a year, which would now be worth £72 a year, making the widow's payment not £1,000 but £1,450? Is it not a disgrace that the Government have allowed these almost invisible salami cuts against this most vulnerable group of people? Is it not about time that we had a widows' charter?

The reforms that we have already introduced and the changes that we have made to the widows' allowances effectively amount to a widows' charter. We have introduced reforms which direct benefits towards those widows who are older and who therefore do not have a work record and also towards those with dependent children. We keep the level of the widow's allowance regularly under review, but I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said in response to an earlier question. The allowance is payable to every widow. We have to consider the proper use of resources. It is better to direct them towards those in need, as we have done.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this benefit, which has only recently been introduced, is much better than the death grant, which was laughable, and that its introduction is a credit to the Government?

Yes, indeed. The death grant had long ceased to be a realistic figure. Benefits which provide immediate relief, through immediate payments, are very much to be preferred. Everybody with the necessary contributions record will benefit from this payment. It is therefore designed to relieve immediate need in a way that the death grant did not manage to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the levying of employers' NI contributions on all earnings.

Employers' national insurance contributions are levied on all earnings except where an employee earns below the lower earnings limit. Following a consultation exercise, we have received representations from employers' organisations expressing opposition to proposals put forward by the European Commission which would result in contributions being levied on earnings below that limit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of abolishing the upper earnings limit would be severe for many middle income earners, such as doctors, teachers and the like, who are absolutely essential to the proper running of our society?

My right hon. Friend alludes to a very important point. He is absolutely right that people such as teachers and members of the nursing profession would be included in a proposal to increase national insurance above the upper limit, but let nobody imagine that would be just those people. Anyone with a wage of, say, £250 per week who received a Christmas bonus of a similar amount would find part of that bonus taxed under the Opposition's proposals. We have flushed out a tax on Christmas.

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

Of the five proposals in the social action programme for which the Department of Social Security is responsible, one has already been dealt with and the Government are taking a positive line in negotiations on the other four. We expect to be able to respond positively to the proposals on convergence of schemes, minimum income guarantees, occupational pensions and the schedule of industrial diseases.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warning that we are about to have the Christmas Adjournment, not the summer Adjournment.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the general line that the Government are taking. We much applaud the principle of convergence of social security schemes and acknowledge the need for common provision for social security benefits, but we stick hard to the principle that the way in which the policies are worked out in each member country should be subject to the concept of subsidiarity. We adhere closely to that point of principle.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the level of the state pension.

In recent months, we have received several representations on the level of the state pension from individual pensioners and from pensioners' organisations.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although the state pension has more than kept pace with inflation, the great difficulty is that 750,000 pensioners receive only the basic old age pension and do not claim any income support? Will she see what steps can be taken to ensure that more of them accept their entitlement and claim income support?

All those who are entitled to income support should be given the necessary information. Even those who are unable to claim income support, not because they have failed to do so but because they are ineligible, are entitled to claim benefits such as housing benefit, community charge benefit and help towards national health service prescriptions. That fact should also be made widely known.

What would be the pension for a couple and for an individual if the Government had not broken the link between pensions and earnings?

It would be substantially higher, and the value of pensioners' incomes would be substantially lower. The Labour party practised a link with earnings, but pensioners' incomes rose by only 3 per cent. During our term in office, pensioners' incomes have risen by 33 per cent. It is much more valuable to pensioners that their overall income should rise rather than that the state pension should be linked to something theoretical, which would cost employees and employers £7 in national insurance, would not benefit less well-off people and would not result in an overall rise in incomes.

Nevertheless, as the Government have pledged to equalise the state pension for men and women, would not one small step in that direction be for prescriptions to be free for over 60-year-old men as they are for women? Will my hon. Friend make representations so that that small category of people, whom I shall be joining in 10 days' time, will not have to pay prescription charges?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his impending entitlement. We are considering all aspects of equal treatment and we have those matters under review. Any retired person who is on income support or is just a little above it is entitled to claim help towards NHS prescriptions. As I have said, we are taking steps to ensure that that fact is widely known.

Will the hon. Lady, who suddenly seems to have forgotten her facts, confirm that if Labour's link with earnings had been maintained, the single pension today would be £13 per week higher and the married couple's pension £21 per week higher? Will she also confirm that as a result of the abolition of that link, the saving at the expense of pensioners is no less than £26 billion? Will she reconsider the facts that she gave a moment ago? The state retirement pension under the previous Labour Government rose by 20 per cent. in real terms, whereas under the present Government it has risen by 2 per cent. Finally, will she confirm that the reason why occupational pensioners have done well in the past year is mainly the state earnings-related pension scheme, and that a single person retiring today on SERPS, which Labour introduced in 1975, would get a SERPS pension of an extra £40 a week?

Almost all the hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. He did not manage to get right even his basic question on the increases that there would be if we had maintained the earnings link, although I must give him credit for having got it wrong in our favour. The actual change would have been £64·80 for the single person and £103·75 basic for the couple. It is not true that pensioners' incomes have fallen. We have increased expenditure on benefits for pensioners by 29 per cent. The hon. Gentleman, whose party not only failed to pay the Christmas bonus but ruined pensioners' savings through inflationary policies, is on very weak ground. Why go back to a link which did not benefit pensioners because the 20 per cent. rise was wholly eroded by the overall decrease of 3 per cent? Pensioners' savings fell, the value of their pensions fell and the value of their incomes fell—that is the hon. Gentleman's record and it is not surprising that he is ashamed to talk about it.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the average total subsidy out of public funds paid for each seat for performances of opera in the Royal Opera house.

In 1990–91, the subsidy per seat for opera performances at the Royal Opera house was £27–28. By comparison, the figure at Welsh National Opera was £33–69.

Will the Minister explain to those of us who are having difficulties with the concept of citizenship why the citizen millionaire, Gerald Ronson had a state handout of £52 a fortnight ago when he attended the opera house with his wife, whereas a citizen who is homeless and 17-years-old gets nothing from the state and one who is unemployed and aged 24 receives the princely sum of £31 to last the entire week? Is that fair?

I will deal with the small part of the question which referred to the Royal Opera house, which falls within my responsibility. It is fairly obvious that the subsidy per seat goes very much more directly to those who sit in the cheap seats at the top of the house than to those who sit in the expensive seats at the bottom. It goes far more, for example, to those who pay £4 to sit in the upper slips. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that when I was at the opera house last week, I saw the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the noble Lord Varley. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they were not sitting in the cheap seats.

Does it weigh with my right hon. Friend and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that not only opera, but all the other arts and heritage, pull into Britain visitors whose spending on hotels, restaurants, shops and travel generates income, employment and a tax yield to the Government? Should not that and the possibility of a national lottery for the arts be taken into account?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is obvious that performances at the great theatres and opera houses in London are attractive to tourists from both within this country and without. That pulls in a great deal of money, including VAT revenue on tickets. It is also noticeable that the subsidy for performances at the Royal Opera house is much less than that in Rome, which is more than double that of London, and much less than that in Vienna or Berlin. It is clear that if we were to decide in due course to have a national lottery, the proceeds of that could be helpful in, for example, restoring the fabric of the Royal Opera house.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Arts Council for Wales to discuss funding.

I meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council from time to time to discuss topics of mutual interest. I visited the Welsh Arts Council's offices on 2 May and met the chairman and staff for a very useful meeting.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Neath-based West Glamorgan Theatre Company on its pioneering work in Welsh language productions, but will he recognise that it needs more funding, especially in view of the reductions in the centrally held funds of educational authorities? Will the Minister also encourage extra funding for the excellent Pontardawe music festival, which will be attended by 20,000 people on the weekend of 16 to 18 August but receives a derisory Arts Council grant of just £1,275, which would not even buy four seats in a box at Covent Garden? Does the Minister agree that our rich arts culture cannot survive on voluntary enthusiasm and dedication alone?

The hon. Gentleman has a point, but it is also true that that culture should not survive on public subsidy alone. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to persuade the local authorities in Wales to ensure that they, too, make their contribution to support the activities to which he referred. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that, following a series of constructive meetings with the festival arts organisers, West Wales Arts will be providing additional support. A joint action plan has also been agreed that will allow West Wales Arts to be more closely involved in the festival, particularly in its marketing activities. I wish the festival every success.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a national lottery would help not only Wales, but other areas of the country? My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am a member of the Brighton Festival Trust, which raises a great deal of money both from business sponsorship and from affluent individuals. However, that trust would be helped immensely if ordinary citizens in the street could subscribe, as in many ways they would like to, through a national lottery.

I note what my hon. Friend says. I had the great pleasure of opening the Brighton festival a few weeks ago. At the moment we are set on the course of the Pools Foundation for Sports and the Arts, which will provide about £40 millon per year to help sports and £20 million to help the arts, which will be beneficial to both those activities. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is worth while in the long run to consider how a national lottery, if a great many people subscribed to it, could help arts festivals as well as the fabric of art buildings.

When the Minister considers funding of arts in Wales, following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), will he consider conducting a survey of Welsh local authorities to see the impact of the poll tax on their arts and library budgets? A Labour party survey of the London boroughs revealed that more than £9 million this year has been squeezed out of local authority budgets by the Government's poll tax policies. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the courage to conduct such a survey in Wales to establish the facts and to see the malign effect that his Government's policies are having on the very local authorities that he is urging to back the arts in Wales?

Listening to the hon. Gentleman's nightmare prescriptions, I sometimes wonder whether, unlike Glasgow city corporation, he knows his art from his elbow. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that under this Government the arts have flourished up and down the country. The only difficulty at the moment lies with some local authorities—in Bristol and in London for instance—which are hesitant in matching the amount of money that I am contributing through the Arts Council. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having delivered the last of the lectures paid for by that well-known Labour supporter, Paul Hamlyn. He has become the paid piper of Hamlyn.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will be making an official visit to the 1991 Museums Association annual conference.

I shall visit the 1991 Museums Association annual conference in Newcastle tomorrow to make the opening address.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's plural funding policy for the arts has given museums and galleries much greater freedom, enabling them to be more dynamic and consumer conscious?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments. That is a point that I hope to make in my address to the Museums Association in Newcastle tomorrow. Our plural funding policy has enabled museums to attract sponsorship from the private sector—for instance, from the Leverhulme trust to the science museum, the Wolfson Foundation to the British museum and Agnew's to the national gallery, all of which have come forward in recent weeks and enabled the museums to undertake a number of ventures, including redecoration, refurbishment and putting on new exhibitions, which they would not otherwise have been able to undertake.

Is the Minister aware that, with the laudable exception of the British museum, more and more museums are now charging for entry? If they do not charge they threaten by suggesting a minimum payment of £3. That is having a direct effect on the number of children who can go to museums. Is the Minister not ashamed of the contribution that he is making to the poverty of many of our children's cultural life?

The hon. Lady's remarks are wholly misguided. As my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) said when he introduced that policy, it has been left to the individual museum or gallery to decide whether to charge. Those who have decided to charge, like the natural history museum and the science museum, are now putting on remarkably exciting exhibitions to which children are going. I opened the science lab exhibition at the science museum last week, and it was filled with children. I suggest that the hon. Lady goes there herself to see just how wrong her remarks are.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has yet made an official visit to the new Sainsbury wing at the national gallery.

I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the new wing by Her Majesty the Queen on 9 July; prior to that I had an informal preview on 27 June.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Sainsbury wing is a triumph in the way that it displays the pre-renaissance collection? Is not the Sainsbury family greatly to be congratulated on its most generous patronage? Does that not show the way forward for private patronage of national collections to work together to the great benefit of the nation?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. It is a remarkable act of generosity by the three brothers and it follows many similar acts of generosity by members of the Sainsbury family. The early renaissance pictures are extraordinarily well shown off in the new wing and many hon. Members might benefit from going there for a period of quiet contemplation.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what civil service facilities, and under what circumstances, are made available to former Prime Ministers.

Civil service facilities made available to all former Prime Ministers are physical protection advice and services on the same basis as for other public figures considered to be at risk; the use of an official car; access to the official papers of their Administration. Briefing and help from local posts may also be provided in connection with overseas visits. Those facilities are long standing.

What a wretched and ungrateful response that is, from a Minister who owes a great deal to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), for all the promotions that he got out of her. When Ronald Reagan can get public funding in America for a library to house his comics, why cannot the former Prime Minister get enough money to set up her own foundation, the Margaret Thatcher Institute for the Promotion of Political Humility, or whatever it may be called? Why can she not have some extra staff to mop up the tears every time she bumps into one of the back-stabbers on the Conservative Benches, to push her eyeballs back in after one of those BBC interviews, or to switch off the polygraph after she has recorded her memoirs telling us the truth about the Belgrano and Westland? The Minister could do far more for one of the great political loonies of the century. When we are in control, we shall give her everything she deserves.

I very much doubt whether the commitment just made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will be followed up by the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his extremely generous approach, and suggest that such generosity should also be made available to Lord Callaghan and Lord Wilson, who have not exactly been shrinking, blushing, quiet violets since they retired. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) might also benefit from substantially more secretarial services to help him with his speech writing.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify the circumstances in which access is granted for a former Prime Minister to his or her papers? Is it a privilege or a right? Does it extend to members of his or her staff? Where is he or she given access to those papers—in the Cabinet Office or elsewhere?

I think that it is probably correct to say that it is a privilege rather than a right. Former Prime Ministers and, occasionally, former Cabinet Ministers from time to time request—and, as my hon. Friend will know, are given—access to official papers from their Administration for research purposes. Given the nature of the papers, it is prudent as well as courteous to offer the reader a room in the Cabinet Office to read them.

Which of the facilities granted to former Prime Ministers are also granted to ex-Ministers of the Crown? There is great general interest in this question. To what extent have Prime Ministers made use of the various facilities in the past?

I was referring specifically to facilities made available to Prime Ministers. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), access to Cabinet papers is sometimes given to former Cabinet members when they request it. With regard to the new facilities announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, it would be invidious for me to go into financial details in the House, but I expect that those facilities will be widely used by all five former Prime Ministers. In comparison with what is available in other western countries, the facilities here are small beer.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he intends to take steps to ensure that the list of those being considered for service on public bodies adequately reflects the interests of women and ethnic minorities.

Yes, Sir. I keep under active review the range of good practices currently recommended to Departments to ensure equality of opportunity for women and members of the ethnic minorities. The public appointments unit in the Cabinet Office is always keen to receive names and details of anybody whom hon. Members or, indeed, the general public feel would be suitable for addition to the list.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an encouraging trend and in the right direction for the Government to take? Does he also agree that there is a big difference between positive discrimination, which is unacceptable, and acting positiviely, which is what the Government are doing?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that this is a good trend. The central list now contains more than 5,600 names—about one third of which are women, who are all well qualified for public appointment. I hope that the present trend, including the public nominating themselves, will continue.

Is the Minister aware that the recently formed all-party race and community group, of which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is a respected officer, is concerned about the trends, not only in the sector to which the question referred, but especially in the civil service, where the numbers of people from ethnic minorities in the top grades have fallen in the past year? Will the Minister undertake to look into the matter?

The hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates a question just ahead of us on the Order Paper. He is not right to say that the number of those from ethnic minorities in the civil service has fallen—[Interruption.] The number of those from ethnic minorities throughout the civil service has not fallen, but increased. However, I have no doubt that a further increase would be welcome. It is for that reason that the Cabinet Office gives out policy advice about the employment of ethnic minorities.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are currently seconded to private industry.

So far this year, some 250 civil servants have been on secondment to industry and commerce. In addition, 70 civil servants are currently serving as non-executive directors, and a further 50 have been selected for short-term attachments under this year's excellent programme organised by the Whitehall and Industry Group.

I welcome those figures, because the cross-fertilisation of ideas generated by those trends can only be helpful. Does my right hon. Friend expect a further increase in years to come?

Yes, I am sure that that will happen. The trend has been significantly upwards. One good aspect is that many civil servants are attached to customer-oriented industries, where they establish the right mood for next steps agencies—which in many respects serve as a curtain raiser for the citizens charter, about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may shortly have a few words to say.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements are now being made to ensure that women civil servants are able to maintain employment with the civil service during child-bearing years.

Departments and agencies have a range of measures to enable staff who so choose to combine a career with domestic responsibilities. They include flexible working arrangements, career breaks and child care provision.

Am I right in thinking that the majority of civil servants are women, but that fewer than one in three of those going into the fast stream are women? Is it not in the interests of the nation as a whole, as well as of women, to have the very best people working at the top of the civil service which should include far more women than is the case now?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly it is a matter for women themselves—whether or not they are mothers—to decide whether they want to enter or to remain in the civil service. As my hon. Friend has said, more women than men join the civil service. To help them, we have introduced provisions such as career breaks and part-time working, which mean that many more women can return to the civil service after taking a break due to child bearing.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what visits he has paid to next steps agencies to assess the morale of staff.

I have made several visits to next steps agencies, and have met many staff working there. From what I hear from chief executives, staff morale is generally very high.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of high-quality service to the public enhances job satisfaction for those working in executive agencies, and that the development of those agencies will play an important part in delivering the objectives of the citizens charter?

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.The purpose of next steps is to encourage executive agencies to provide a better service to the customer through good management and better staff training. In many ways, that serves as a prologue or curtain raiser to the citizens charter.