To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the weekly cost to someone on one and a half times male average earnings of abolition of the national insurance upper earnings limit.

Someone earning £490 a week, which is about one and a half times average male earnings, would pay an extra £9 per week in national insurance contributions if the upper earnings limit was abolished.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that abolishing the upper earnings limit would hit well over 3 million people—for instance, policemen, health service workers and those in seasonal occupations—merely because overtime bonuses or profit-related pay would take their earnings over the average in any particular week? People in those categories certainly should not be described as rich.

It is absolutely true that a large number of people who could not remotely be described as rich would be hit by the proposal. What is more, they would receive absolutely nothing in return in the form of benefits: they need to be aware of that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that millions of people have been hit by the actions of his Department over the past 12 years? The Department has taken away the earnings-related supplement, and have got rid of death and maternity grant and income support for 16 and 17-year-olds who would not work on the Tory Government's slave labour schemes. Most of those measures were introduced by the present Prime Minister.

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's question about national insurance upper earnings limit?

Absolutely—and it is the Secretary of State's Department that is guilty of taking benefits away from millions of people who would have benefited if the Labour Government's policies had been maintained over the past 12 years by this tawdry, rotten Tory Government.

I am aware of two things. First, all the groups to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred were hit much harder by the policies of high taxation and raging inflation over which the Labour Government presided. Secondly, all the groups who are considered to be priorities by both the Government and the Opposition—low-income pensioners, low-income families and disabled people—have benefited significantly from what the Government have done in recent years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost to business if the lower earnings limit for employers' national insurance contributions were abolished.

We estimate that abolishing the lower earnings limit would cost business around £175 million a year in extra national insurance contributions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the substantial extra burden that will be placed on employers, well-meaning proposals to extend the benefits of the national insurance system to low-paid employees would have the opposite effect to the one intended, as most would lose their jobs?

My hon. Friend, in his usual perceptive way, has put his finger precisely on the import of such proposals. It is interesting to note that they come from the same stable that brought us the national insurance surcharge. It is also interesting to note that, when Labour was last in power, the combined contribution to the national insurance scheme by an employee earning £52 a week and his employer was £10·40, while under the present Government it is £3·43.

Will the Minister confirm that the present Government have introduced higher taxes than any other Government, and that they have increased national insurance contributions for those on average and low pay by a massive 40 per cent? Is it right that someone earning £200,000 a year should pay only 1 per cent. in national insurance? Should not such people bear their share of the burden?

It is amazing that the hon. Gentleman, who professes knowledge of social security matters, has not alluded to the fact that we restructured the national insurance scheme. I do not know where he has been for the past few years, but we have reduced the rates on lower earnings so that people now pay on average about £3 a week less in national insurance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what alterations he is considering to the disability working allowance scheme before it is introduced; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. The disability working allowance scheme, which will come into effect from April, will provide a radical new opportunity for disabled people who can and wish to work.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this very welcome new allowance will be extensively publicised and that the allowance itself is not taxable?

Yes. The disability working allowance—like its companion benefit, the disability living allowance—will be tax free. It will be extensively publicised on television and in the press through mail shots and other methods of communication. Incidentally, we shall introduce into our advertising campaign efforts to ensure that the information available can be well interpreted by those with sensory disabilities.

What is the Government's response to the increasingly strong feeling among disabled people that this measure is not an appropriate one for tackling their now, by common consent, quite shocking employment disadvantages? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the DWA, with its very high marginal tax rates—as high as 94 per cent., leaving disabled people with only 6p in the pound of their additional income as workers—simply substitutes a new poverty trap for the employment trap, making some disabled people actually worse off for earning more?

Hardly anyone will be worse off if they are on disability working allowance. For example, a couple with two children aged six and 11 would still be entitled to DWA if they had a net income of £189 a week. I believe that this is an important benefit. It has been widely welcomed by the organisations of and for disabled people outside the House. One of its most important aspects is that people who go on to DWA will retain their underlying entitlement to any benefit which they may have had before they went on to DWA and that they will not have to requalify, if they fail in their efforts to work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unemployment benefit claimants there were in York in June 1987 and currently; and if he will make a statement.

In June 1987, unemployment in York was 5,542. In December 1991 it was down to 3,816.

I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. Does he agree that, if my calculation is correct, that is a reduction of 31 per cent. and that the reverse would be the case if we were to move from our free enterprise and initiative policy to a policy whereby state nationalisation took over Northern Electric in York, Yorkshire Water, British Telecom and other similar companies? Is it not right that there would be a reversal of the excellent figures that my hon. Friend gave?

As somebody who, as a child, was brought up in the city of York, I have nothing but praise for the excellent way in which my hon. Friend has represented his constituents. I can confirm that a 31 per cent. reduction in unemployment is the correct figure. My hon. Friend has done much to boost the employment opportunities in York by championing the railways, tourism and other industries from which the city draws its economic well-being. The people of York will have noticed the mocking smiles on the faces of Opposition Members when I referred to my hon. Friend's record.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number and size of community care grants in Newcastle upon Tyne in the six months April to October 1991.

Between April and October 1991, Newcastle upon Tyne district office awarded 1,250 community care grants, worth over £290,000.

Will the Minister confirm that the office in Newcastle upon Tyne is in the habit of pricing its community care grants in two well-known catalogue shops and that unfortunately it failed to spot in April 1991 that the Government had increased value added tax? The result was that a constituent of mine—and no doubt many hundreds of others who have just been referred to by the Minister as being included in the 1,200 people who received grants—was short changed and not given the full amount. A disabled constituent of mine was short changed by more than £2 in his community care grant for an orthopaedic bed. Will the Minister investigate the matter urgently and ensure that the Department of Social Security office in Newcastle upon Tyne is made aware of the fact that the Government increased VAT last April?

Of course I shall examine the matter urgently and refer it to the Benefits Agency. Given its urgency, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not write to me about such a detailed case, which would have enabled me to deal with it earlier.

The Minister clearly has no understanding of the damage that the social fund is inflicting on thousands of the poorest people in cities such as Newcastle and Manchester. In 1991, 68 per cent. of applicants were refused community care grant and just over 50 per cent. were given a budgetary loan, which they had to repay from their meagre benefits. When will the Department publish the review of the social fund, which we have long awaited, and when will he restore the right of the poorest in our society to a grant for essential items such as clothing, furniture and cookers, which have been denied them under the current system?

I contest the hon. Gentleman's assertions at the end of his supplementary question. The social fund has given extensive help to people in real need. Some 60 per cent. of applicants are refused community care grant because they do not meet the basic criteria. We have not received the report of the social policy research unit at York, but when we do we will publish it urgently.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are in the top half of the income distribution; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.

Twenty eight per cent. of pensioners were in the top half of the income distribution in 1987 compared with 24 per cent. in 1979.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that pensioners are worried about a return to the rampant inflation of the mid-1970s and, although it does not directly affect people who have reached state retirement age, a 9 per cent. tax being put on the savings of people who are saving for retirement? People considering retiring early would be caught by that punitive tax.

Pensioners were among those who were hardest hit by the rates of taxation and inflation of the 1970s. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's second point, because it is not yet widely understood by the three quarters of people who go into retirement with savings of their own that, as they approach retirement, their ability to build up those savings would be subject to a 9 per cent. tax as a result of one of the Opposition's proposals.

If a higher proportion of pensioners are now in the top half of the distribution, who has taken their place in the lower half, and why? What part have the Government's unemployment policies played in that?

I do not think that there is any question of the Government pursuing a policy of unemployment, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The increased number of pensioners in the top half of the income distribution is the result of pensioners' average net incomes rising by a third or more in real terms because of the policies of the Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people confuse the level of the state pension with the amount of money that pensioners have available to pay all their weekly bills? Is not it true that the majority of pensioners have extra income from savings, from an occupational pension or from other benefits such as income support?

Yes, indeed. As I said earlier, more than three quarters of recently retiring pensioners now have income from savings, and more than 60 per cent. of them also have income from occupational pensions. In both cases, the incomes have risen substantially.

Will the Secretary of State concede that many people are doing better, which we welcome, because of the state earnings-related pension scheme which was introduced by the Labour Government? The people who are not doing well are those without additional income on lower incomes, such as single pensioners, who have lost the equivalent of £15 a week, and married couple pensioners, who have lost the equivalent of £25 a week. Will the Secretary of State take this chance—one of his last—to apologise to pensioners for what he has done?

I make two points: first, the incomes of pensioners in the lowest quintile have risen by 15 per cent. in real terms over this period, and those pensioners will have benefited further since those statistics were compiled by the increases amounting to a third of a billion pounds that have been made in income support premiums in the past three years. Secondly, it is not SERPS that is the major factor in this increase but the increased income from savings and occupational pensions.

Do not the figures given by my hon. Friend underline the point that many pensioners are well off—and we welcome that—and that that is a justification of the Government's policy of targeting extra help on those who really need it? When will the Opposition grasp that simple fact?

Certainly one of the satisfactory developments of recent years is that, taken as a whole and on average, pensioners' living standards have been rising. As I have said repeatedly, there remain a number of people for whom we think it is right to do more, and we have been doing more through the income support premiums.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of people in the Greater London area receiving social security benefits in 1978–79 and the total in 1990–91.

Statistics for the number of recipients of all benefits are not collected on a regional basis.

It does not surprise me that the Minister does not want to know the facts. She must know that, by any standards, the number of people in London who have been impoverished since 1979 has more than doubled. She knows that and the statistics are at least available from the Library but not with the precision that she could have given if she had chosen to give them to the House. I have never seen so many unemployed and homeless people begging on the streets of London. Thanks to the Prime Minister, 16 and 17-year-olds cannot claim social security. I suggest that, instead of choosing the mad scene from Lucia di Lammermoor for his desert island disc, the Prime Minister would have done better to have chosen something from the Beggar's Opera because there is a whole chorus on the London streets which could join in.

May I suggest that, for sheer consistency in the way in which the Opposition present their numbers, they should perhaps choose the Grand Old Duke of York as their theme. The hon. Gentleman can no more claim that poverty has doubled in London than he can claim that for Great Britain as a whole. Because we have taken more people into the net by raising income support and making other improvements, more are now assisted through the benefits system.

Is it not a fact that more and more generous benefits covering many different needs are available to people in London and elsewhere? Does my hon. Friend agree that one statistic that needs to be found is that of the number of Londoners who would lose if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions were to be removed?

Indeed. Given the average salary in London, I imagine that there would be an extensive loss if, as my hon. Friend says, that policy were to be implemented. What is more—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier—no compensating benefit would be received by those who would be hit by the abolition of the upper limit. In fact, it would turn Beveridge on its head and use the national insurance system as a tax system.

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

We regularly receive representations and inquiries from a wide range of interested organisations and individuals about the level of the retirement pension.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm an answer recently given to me by a junior Minister—it is in Hansard, of course—to the effect that a large number of pensioners—nearly 40 per cent.—have incomes of £70 or less out of which they pay about £10 to £15 in rent? Is it not a fact that if the link with earnings had not been broken by his Government 10 years ago—indeed, nearly 12 years ago—a married pensioner would be £28 a week better off this April? That is what the country is concerned about, not the lies, smears and distortions organised by Tory central office and the Tory press against the Labour party.

Such calculations take absolutely no account of the increased taxation and inflation which would have resulted from the pursuit of the policy that the hon. Gentleman is advocating. I leave with him the thought, especially as Labour is apparently committed to adding another £9 a week to national insurance contributions for 3 million or more people, that if such a policy had been pursued, contributions for an employee on average earnings and his employer would now be about £9 a week more than they are.

My right hon. Friend referred to the increase in the incomes of pensioners as a result of savings and of occupational pensions. Can he give any idea of what the level of occupational pensions will be by the turn of the century?

I will not attempt to predict what will happen on that front between now and the end of the century because that will depend on many factors. I can tell my hon. Friend that pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions—for those who have them—rose on average from £13·90 a week in 1979 to £27·70 in 1988. That is a virtual doubling of the income from occupational pensions over that period. I expect to see the trend continue if sensible policies continue to be pursued.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what representations he has received from the employees and pensioners of the Maxwell Communication Corporation and AGB companies about the level of their pensions? Is he aware that, due to his culpable negligence in sitting for 19 months on regulations under the Social Security Act 1990, which would have protected pensioners in the event of a company wind-up, thousands of pensioners now stand to lose most or all of their pensions for which they have contributed for up to 35 years? Does not he think it right that all such pensioners should receive compensation when they have lost so much pension due to his complacency and reprehensible laxity?

I presume that the hon. Gentleman thought it right to return to the matter in the House having notably failed to achieve the result for which he hoped by an overheated press release to the same effect which he issued at the end of last week. He knows that he has deliberately raised unnecessary alarm among many thousands of pensioners by the way in which he has presented the matter. It is simply not the case that pensioners in such schemes will get nothing or will be left penniless, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. Under existing regulations, if there are not sufficient assets to secure the guaranteed minimum pensions that is the equivalent of what the pensioners would have got under the state earnings-related pension scheme—the guaranteed minimum pensions can be and would be underwritten by the Government.

Will my right hon. Friend refuse the invitation from the Opposition to treat pensioners as a political underclass? Will he remember that more and more people reaching retirement age wish to have independence in their own hands, which means that they must be in receipt of policies that encourage that independence, including savings, during their working career?

That is absolutely right, and nothing has more clearly revealed the Opposition's attitude to people's wishes in the matter than their persistent hostility to the 4 million or more people who have taken out personal pensions for exactly that reason.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources for the social fund.

Each annual allocation of funds to district budgets has been designed to redistribute resources in a progressively more equitable way. As part of our routine annual review of allocations, we shall continue to consider how best to ensure that funds are targeted where they are most needed.

Does the Minister accept that the distribution of resources under the social fund is extremely inequitable and difficult to get right? Will he also accept the Opposition's view that, with the social fund, the Prime Minister first demonstrated on a national scale his dangerous incompetence? That incompetence later extended to the economy when he was promoted. Does the Minister agree that, in the present state of affairs, some parts of the country have too much money in the social fund and still have money over after meeting all claims, low and high priority, which are legitimate? Some areas can meet only high priority claims, whereas other areas can meet low and high priority claims but have no money over. Is not it an example of what is wrong with the country that the Prime Minister was promoted for trying to reinvent the Lady Bountiful in his first major act as Minister in 1988?

I do not claim—and I do not suppose that the Prime Minister would—that the social fund is perfect. I do claim that it is better than any of its predecessors in meeting exceptional need in exceptional circumstances. I recognise the local pressures which the hon. Gentleman perceives, but I reiterate that we endeavour to see that the resources allocated reflect the need in the localities. That is why South Glamorgan had an extra 10 per cent. allocated in August 1991 and another £50,000 in loans only a week or so ago. We try to ensure that any surplus resources are reallocated sensibly and flexibly.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he were to convert all loans under the social fund to grants, as has been promised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the cost would be about £130 million and would greatly prejudice the operation of the social fund as it now works?

I certainly understand my hon. Friend's point. I have heard suggestions that that will be Labour party policy, but I have not heard whether the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury agrees with such a policy.

If the Minister genuinely believes in the equitable distribution of the social fund, may I invite him to review cold weather payments, because the senior citizens in my area of east Cleveland have lost out during the past week? In addition, how are cold weather benefits assessed in the first place?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble both to read my announcement about the improvements in cold weather payments this year and to go to the Library to see how those allocations are made. All the information is there for him to find. In one of our coldest winters for the past 20 years, the system has been operating successfully and flexibly. I believe that the linkages to the meteorological stations have operated more effectively than hitherto. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a particular point about his locality, he should write to me about it and I shall ensure that account is taken of his views.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to ensure that existing recipients of attendance allowance and mobility allowance receive disability living allowance in April.

All attendance allowance beneficiaries aged under 65 and all mobility allowance beneficiaries will transfer automatically to the equivalent level of disability living allowance. We are writing to all existing claimants to let them know how the change will affect them. We are also inviting claimants who currently receive only one of the two existing benefits, and consequently will transfer to only one component of DLA to consider claiming the other component.

Will those in the third category, who are claiming extra money to help with personal care and who do not currently receive attendance allowance, have their claims determined by an adjudication officer or a medical practitioner? Will social factors be given equal weight with medical factors when determining such claims?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We shall be substantially demedicalising—to use my word—the whole process for claiming both the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance, and moving to judgments made by adjudication officers. That, in itself, will be an important step forward, but perhaps even more important is the fact that, because of the change, there will for the first time be a proper appeals procedure for those who need help with care.

In attempting to ensure that people are made aware of the DLA, which is something that we all want, will the Minister ensure that there is effective and efficient management? Although I realise that he cannot know of a particular incident that has been drawn to my attention today, is he aware that information has been sent to deceased claimants, thus causing a great deal of distress to the families concerned? If that was an isolated incident I am sure that the Minister will join me in apologising for it, but will he look at distribution methods to ensure that such incidents do not happen on any scale?

I certainly apologise for distress caused by any such incident. We have sent out more than 1 million letters to individual customers to advise them of the change that we are making and the benefits inquiry line has provided back-up information for those who have received such letters. We are doing our best, but I suppose that when something of this scale is embarked upon, it is almost inevitable that the occasional mistake will be made. I repeat that I am sorry if any distress has been caused.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that spending on disability benefits by this Government has increased by over 150 per cent., in contrast to the policies advocated by the Labour party, the priorities of which are pensions and child benefits?

I believe that the Government can be proud of their record on benefits for disabled people over the past 12 years. My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the progress that has already been made. The introduction of the two new benefits will help more than 300,000 people at a cost of about £300 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new disability working allowance will come into operation.

Disability working allowance will start on 7 April. The new benefit will be widely publicised from this week onwards. Claims can be made from 10 March 1992.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this new benefit will be widely welcomed? Will he confirm that if we had adopted a scatter-gun approach to benefits, as the Labour Government did, the substantial improvements in help for the disabled since 1979 would not have been possible? Can he say by how much the groups affected by the scheme will have benefited in those years?

As an earlier supplementary question made clear, we have increased expenditure on long-term sick and disabled people by 150 per cent. during the period of this Government at an annual rate of about £550 million compared with about £350 million under the Labour Government, using real-terms figures. Therefore, we have made substantial progress. What is more, we have sought to identify areas of disability that in the past have not had the attention that they deserve, and to meet them with the new benefits.

What will the Minister say to people who will receive the new allowance from April when they learn that last Friday a Conservative Back Bencher talked out the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Was that done with implied or expressed connivance of the Government? In any event, will the Minister condemn it?

If the hon. Gentleman took pains to read my speech on Friday and see my remarks, he would understand my approach to the matter. The Bill came on second, had less than two hours debate and, according to the normal customs and practices of this House, did not receive a Second Reading. We should see how well efforts to encourage and persuade employers to take note of the needs and the abilities of disabled people to contribute to their enterprises do, before we consider the need for further legislation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (a) men and (b) women pay national insurance contributions at the upper earnings limit.

On average, 3 million men and nearly 500,000 women who are employed or self-employed will pay national insurance contributions at the upper limit during 1991–92.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any proposal to abolish the upper limit on national insurance contributions would mean that millions of people who could never remotely be regarded as rich would pay a great deal more in contributions and get nothing extra in benefits?

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. It is interesting that he talks of people getting nothing for their additional contributions in the very week when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) writes an article in a magazine in praise of the contributory principle—indeed, in praise of Beveridge in this the 50th anniversary of his excellent proposals.

The hon. Gentleman is very efficient.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman says that I am very efficient because that is what we in the Department of Social Security strive to be.

Has my hon. Friend considered consulting people such as members of the Secondary Heads Association to see whether all the heads of comprehensive schoools in my constituency would relish the idea of paying an extra 9 per cent. from their earnings, if the upper limit were removed? While he is at it, he might consult about increased levels of taxation, because secondary heads will not like that.

I should be delighted if my hon. Friend's constituents would care to drop me a note with information on their individual salaries. I could do a little costing exercise for them. I am sure that they, like senior nurses, managers, middle managers and other experienced teachers, will all think carefully about what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) has said. He has put before the House an illustration of how the Labour party wants to increase the cost of national insurance. Even under the old Labour scheme somebody on £130 a week would pay £26 in national insurance—employers and employees contributions combined—whereas under the Conservative proposals somebody on the same earnings would pay only £19·24. We will stick by our national insurance arrangements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average pensioner's income from savings.

The latest figure, for 1988, shows that the average pensioner's income from savings is £19·90 per week.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many pensioners have built up savings throughout their lives, partly from income and, occasionally, from redundancy payments, and that it is rare that that income from savings is unearned? Is she aware of the great unease among pensioners about the fact that an additional surcharge may be put on their fairly modest level of income from savings? Will she confirm for those pensioners that their savings are safe with us?

Indeed, I would say that savings in general are safe with us. Those who are most likely to be affected by the Labour party's proposals to surcharge savings are those who are just coming up to retirement. They will want to save, but they will not enjoy the exemptions provided to pensioners. They have reached the crucial point at which they can save because they have discharged other liabilities, but they will find such saving difficult.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to improve sponsorship of the arts.

To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the operation of the business sponsorship incentive scheme.

The business sponsorship incentive scheme has been a great success and I am giving further encouragement to sponsorship of the arts by increasing its budget by £1 million a year to £4·5 million. From April this year, second-time sponsors will be matched by £1 of BSIS money to every £2 of extra sponsorship. Businesses that have sponsored for more than three years will also be brought back into the scheme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although business sponsorship of the arts is extremely important and welcome, it would be just as beneficial for the arts, particularly local theatres such as the Civic theatre in Chelmsford, if we had a national lottery to which everyone could contribute to help to raise funds for the arts? Can he confirm whether he will use his immense powers of persuasion to try to obtain a manifesto commitment to a national lottery?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to Chelmsford borough council for their regular support of the Civic theatre. I agree with my hon. Friend about the usefulness of a national lottery. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a warm welcome to the principle of a national lottery when he spoke in the House the other day. I am sure that the revenue from such a lottery could, for example, be useful for the repair of existing theatres and in helping to commission new arts buildings in the years ahead.

I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend was not able to accept my invitation to attend the concert of the Royal Choral Society on a European theme at the Festival hall on 7 March, particularly as I hope to take part in it. However, I understand his commitments. Is he aware that that concert is possible only because it is being sponsored by St. Ivel with a matching grant from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts—ABSA? That is a good example of the continuing success of the scheme.

I am very sorry that I will not be able to attend the concert at which my hon. Friend will be singing. He always sings in close harmony in the House, and I am sure that his voice will be harmonious on 7 March. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, because the significant fact about St. Ivel's sponsorship is that it is a perfect example of sponsorship working very well and of the use of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which I just mentioned.

I accept the valuable role played by the Minister, but does he accept that, although sponsorship is valuable, even more important is the fact that institutions such as the Royal Opera House cannot go much further in the sponsorship race and will require funding? Will he now look at those matters seriously because, in the present recession, those institutions are in a grievous plight about which the Minister must do something?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for recognising the value that I have put into the arts. I appreciate his comment. However, we have just had the third record increase in the amount of money that the Government have given to the Arts Council of Great Britain, which is directly responsible for passing on such moneys to the Royal Opera House, the Birmingham Royal Ballet and other companies. The increase for the year that has just begun is 14 per cent.—a further £27 million. I am delighted that that has happened, because it shows the Government's firm commitment to the cause of the arts throughout the country.

I believe that the Minister will soon come to the London borough of Newham on an official visit to hear about our arts policy. I hope that that does not come as a total surprise to him, as it appears to. His visit will give us an opportunity to show him the problems in getting sponsorship from businesses in an area like the east end of London. The recession is one of the problems and the sheer absence of businesses is another. Will the Minister therefore consider a way to equalise national sponsorship from business, so that areas with few opportunities can derive some of the benefits from areas with ample opportunities?

The reason why I consulted my brief was because I am to visit the Young Vic shortly and I was not certain whether the hon. Gentleman would appear on the stage or in the audience on that occasion. He is a natural actor and I thought that he might have a part in the play. May I remind him that the London Arts Board, which has just taken over from Greater London Arts, is settling down well to the work of funding arts associations throughout London. It is extremely well led by Clive Priestley as chairman and Tim Mason as director. I hope that the London borough grants scheme, which got into such a terrible muddle last year, will do much better this year in awarding available money to London boroughs.

To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet the chairman of the British library to discuss resources.

I meet the chairman of the British library regularly. Our discussions include the library's resources and other matters of interest of the board.

Will the Minister confirm that the British library's acquisitions budget has been cut by 41 per cent. in real terms, resulting in thousands of scientific periodicals no longer being stocked? Are not the Government bungling the building of the new British library, with expensive delays and omissions? In particular, is not the lack of reading space a fiasco, with the new reading room providing only 7 per cent. more space than the old one? In those circumstances, is not Treasury pressure to sell off the spare land on the site a national disgrace? [Interruption.] My last point—

Order. One question please.

The acquisitions budget for 1992–93 will be £250,000. The question of spare land is the subject of a study by the British Library Board into what the British library's needs will be after the new St. Pancras building has been opened in 1996 and how needs may be satisfied. No land will be sold before 1994 and there is every intention of having a serious study before then. I regret the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the British library, because it will be a great new building. There are difficulties at present, particularly with regard to paintwork and shelves in the new basement, but, once complete, it will be one of the finest buildings built in this country this century.

Will the Minister now answer my hon. Friend's excellent point about why the Government have cut the acquisitions budget of the British library by 41 per cent. in real terms in the past four years? If the British library is, as the Minister said, the greatest English language library in the world, why are the Government not providing acquisition money or adequate transitional money? Why has the Minister deliberately blocked the money promised by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), who promised in May 1990 that the Government would make money available for works of art for the opening of that new building? The Government are neglecting what should be a great jewel in the British crown.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman may be frothing at the mouth at the thought that, after all the years that he has spent preparing as shadow arts Minister, were the Labour party to be elected—horror of horrors—it would not be him but Melvyn "Time to Dance" Bragg who would be Labour's arts Minister. That must be a disappointment. There would be loud applause for the suggestion from Labour Back Benchers, but he has my sympathy.

A great deal of money.

As my hon. Friend says, it is a great deal of money. How the British library decides its acquisitions budget, as distinct from other parts of its budget, is up to that organisation. But it is receiving a large amount of money—in addition, it receives £61 million specifically for the new St. Pancras project.

To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will report on the museums and galleries improvement scheme.

I am very pleased to announce that, thanks to the generosity of the Wolfson Foundation and family charitable trust, the museums and galleries improvement fund has been extended for a further two years to 1995–96. It is already supporting more than 100 projects.

The whole House will want to congratulate the Minister on wresting the 14 per cent. increase in the arts budget from the Treasury. That will have a dramatic effect across the country as the money can be spent on all sorts of arts projects. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the 14 per cent. increase goes to arts projects—the museums and galleries improvement schemes and other proposals that his Department funds—and is not caught up in too much bureaucracy. I am particularly interested in the project in Dartington.

I thank my hon. Friend; I know of his interest in Dartington hall and the Cookworthy museum in Kingsbridge. I insisted that the large increase that I was able to give to the Arts Council of Great Britain be matched by a reduction in the administration costs between the council's headquarters and the regional arts boards. That meant that last year £1 million was knocked off the total administration budget so that as much as possible of that handsome increase should go to the artists and performers, not just in metropolitan London but throughout the country.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the "next steps" programme.

"Next steps" is progressing well. We plan to launch at least a dozen more agencies in April, when 50 per cent. of the civil service will be working fully on "next steps" lines. Agencies are achieving targets and are at the forefront of delivering the better services called for by the Government's citizens charter.

Is it not absolutely clear that the "next steps" agency approach of the 1980s proved extremely successful in improving accountability, promoting a better service to the public and giving agency employees greater job satisfaction? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the 1990s the citizens charter, particularly the charter mark, should continue and intensify those excellent developments?

Yes, I agree. I certainly hope that every executive agency will apply for a charter mark, which will be seen as a clear reward to those in public service who provide customer satisfaction, which all too often in the past has been sadly missing. That position has already changed with the executive agencies, and the improvement will be rewarded with the charter mark.

Is the Minister aware of the increasing acts of violence and threats against Benefits Agency staff by claimants? Is he aware that there has been at least one case in which, having seen a name badge, a claimant looked in the phone book and traced the Benefits Agency employee to his home. Is it not about time to bring to a halt the silly idea which threatens the safety of Benefits Agency staff?

I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I have been to the Benefits Agency in my constituency, where the manager and staff made it plain to me that if staff were concerned about their safety they would not wear a name badge—but most of them want to because they want to be able to be identified by the public, so that if someone rings up a week later he can identify the person to whom he spoke a week before. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks more to the Benefits Agency in his constituency to persuade its members of the wisdom of adopting this course.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on progress in increasing the number of women registered with the public appointments unit.

Yes, Sir. The number of women registered has increased from 18 per cent. of the total in 1986 to 33 per cent. in 1992. There are now clearly 2,000 women on our list. I welcome this increase.

I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome that increase, although there is clearly still a long way to go to reflect the fact that women constitute 51 per cent. of the population. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as the number of women on the list has increased, it is also important to increase the number of women appointed to various positions in the public service? Can he reassure the House that there is no risk of discrimination against women who possess excellent qualities when appointments are made to such positions?

Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course it takes time for the increased number of women on the list to work through into actual appointments, but one of the purposes behind the Prime Minister's initiative was to see that they did work through into actual appointments. Every Whitehall Department now has a nominated Minister who is specifically responsible for promoting equal opportunities in public appointments.

If the Minister cannot tell us how many women have been appointed, will he tell us a statistic that I am sure that he will know? How many of the extra women on the list are card-carrying members of the Conservative party?

Unlike the Labour party and the Militant Tendency we tend not to have card-carrying women, but I can tell the hon. Lady, although I was not asked this question, that precisely 50 per cent. of those appointed to public bodies as a result of public appointments unit nomination this year are women.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the calmness of being on his own, that all this is just trendy nonsense? What we want in the public service are the best people, irrespective of whether they are men or women.

I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend, whom I have known for many years and for whom I have a great affection, would agree that about half the best people are women.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of civil service unions to discuss morale and recognition.

I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a variety of issues. It is the job of managers in Departments and agencies to achieve our aim of having an efficient, effective and well-motivated civil service.

When the Minister next meets the trade unions will he explain to them why the Government threatened not to recognise trade unions representing employees on Ministry of Defence property when those trade unions are affiliated to the Labour party? Will he remove that slur on the loyalty and patriotism of those employees and give a categorical assurance that there is nothing incompatible about membership of the Labour party and membership of the trade unions in question?

Of course I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He knows the answer very well: the instance that he has mentioned was a matter for the Ministry of Defence, which looked further into the matter and decided not to pursue it.

If that is so, will the Minister go a bit further? The Universities Funding Council is resisting recognition of civil service unions. Professor Graeme Davies, its chief executive, says that he does not want any unions in his building. What can the Minister do about such "ignorant and proud of it" behaviour?

The hon. Gentleman knows well that the UFC is not one of my responsibilities. I am surprised by what he says; if he cares to write to me or to the Secretary of State for Education and Science I will certainly have the matter looked into.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what initiatives are being taken to introduce private sector practices into agencies.

The "next steps" initiative is making use of the best and most appropriate management practices from all sectors, such as contracting out, recruitment of chief executives from the private sector, performance pay, publication of reports and accounts, customer surveys, trading funds, and financial flexibility to carry money between financial years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most museums in the private sector have opening hours that suit the wishes of the public—the consumers and customers—whereas museums in the public sector tend to have opening hours that suit the wishes of the trade unions? Will he see what he can do to persuade the public sector to follow the private sector's practice in this case?

I take my hon. Friend's point about the independent museums. In defence of some of my clients in the national museums and galleries, I should point out that, for example, the Victoria and Albert museum has been able to extend its opening hours. One of the reasons why it has been able to do so is its policy of charging for special exhibitions. Therefore, I regret Labour's stated intention of abolishing all museums charges, because that would remove from museums the opportunity to be flexible about staying open later, to improve services and generally to meet the added requirements of the public.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants in employment at the latest date are (a) men or (b) women.

All of them.

Will the Minister confirm that when the Property Services Agency is privatised, many men and women will lose their jobs? Will he also condemn the scandalous proposal that when the PSA is privatised, up to £85 million of taxpayers' money should be handed over by the Government to Tarmac, which will take it over, so that any proposed redundancies of men and women in the PSA will be paid not by the privatising company but by the taxpayer? Since that is nothing short of a swindle, should not the Minister stop it?

The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the privatisation of PSA are fanciful and ridiculous in the extreme. Speaking of that, I wonder just what the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he tabled this question. Even with his fancifulness, it is hard to imagine the civil service employing anyone who is not either a man or a woman.