asked the Minister of Social Security in how many cases her Department has appealed to the National Insurance Commissioner against a decision of the local tribunal made in favour of an applicant for industrial death benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act.

During 1967 there were 32 appeals by the insurance officer against awards of industrial death benefit made by local tribunals.

As there are so few cases, cannot the Ministry afford to be a little more generous to widows who have already won their appeals?

The Ministry is as generous as possible to widows, but I draw the attention of the Houe to the fact that we are here bound by independent procedures. The insurance officer acts as an independent person when making a reference of this kind, and if ultimately, as in this instance, a case goes to the Commissioner, he too, of course, is completely independent of the Ministry.

asked the Minister of Social Security for what sociological reasons the increase in family allowances for 1968–69 was arranged so that, when taken in conjunction with reduced Income Tax allowances, they leave married men with four or five children worse off than before at gross earnings of only £1,336 and £1,452 per year, resepectively.

The object of the tax changes is to restrict the benefit of the family allowances increases to those who most need them. The families quoted received a small additional net benefit in the last six months of 1967-68. Otherwise they will get the same net benefit this year as in previous years.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this apparent discrimination against the large family in no way reflects the strictures, made in a speech sponsored by the London Rubber Company, against the pro-creational proclivities of the British people, by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no relationship between my Answer and the speech of my right hon. Friend. I make it absolutely clear that there is no restriction on these families as he says. With all the tax and family allowance changes together, these families will receive in total the same amount by the end of October this year as they received at the end of October last year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is a married man with three children, who is a weaver earning £18 a week, who claims that the whole of the increase in family allowances has been eliminated by tax changes? Is he aware that I have had other cases at similar wage levels when it has been said that more than the family allowance has been taken by Income Tax?

My hon. Friend ought to let us have details of these cases, because one has to be careful about these things. I can give the definite assurance that the tax total on the family allowances pre the 7s. and 3s. increases, added to that which has to be paid in consequence of the give and take, result in no additional taxation to these families.

asked the Minister of Social Security what is her estimate of the number of families with four children or more who will have lower incomes in 1968–69 than in 1967–68 as a result of increased family allowances and reduced Income Tax allowances.

The Board of Inland Revenue estimate that about 300,000 families will be affected.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very serious number of families? Does he still stick to his previous statement that all these 300,000 families will be no worse off in 1968–69 than they were in 1967–68.

I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that these questions should be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Obviously, the Inland Revenue is a matter for the Chancellor—

Why did you not transfer the Question, then?

The hon. Gentleman put it down to us. The difficulty is that if we transfer the scream goes up, "Why did you tranfer?"—

Order. We have many Questions before us.

But I must answer the Question if it is put to me, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, I suggest that the hon. Gentle- man now puts the Question to the Chancellor.

On a point of order. Could you ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the House could be told now whether we can choose to which Ministers we put our Questions, since it would be most convenient to the House if we could put all Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

That is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

I hope that everyone is not quite as confused by the Parliamentary Secretary's answers as I am He said that 300,000 families will have lower incomes as a result of these changes. Is that right? Are we to understand that, as a result of these changes, these people will have lower incomes in 1968-69 than they had in 1967–68? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why there has been no liaison with the Chancellor of the Exchequer over this?

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is getting excited about this. He must realise that when we are talking about the offsets, that is, the give-and-take principle of family allowances and the Inland Revenue, we are talking about those families who are paying up to standard rate Income Tax. It is the families over that level who will be affected, and they are the 300,000 referred to in the second Question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are absolutely certain that there are families with four or five children who are worse off as a result of the changes being made this year? Is this an accident, or is it on purpose? If it is an accident, will he correct it?

Let me make it clear that up to the standard rate of Income Tax payment families will not this year be worse off. If one takes a global position in relation to family allowances as a whole, the 300,000 families to which I referred are those in the higher tax bracket than the standard rate.

Would not hon. Friend not agree that it is very strange that hon. Members opposite should clamour for selectivity but object strongly when it is applied to the higher income scale?

asked the Minister of Social Security what figures she has available of the average number of days sickness benefit paid annually to self-employed and employed persons; and if she will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a breakdown of these figures according to occupational groups.

Employed persons receive on average about 15 days sickness benefit a year whereas the average for self-employed people is less than 8 days. Such information as we have about occupational groupings is for employed people only and is contained in a comprehensive report on an "Enquiry into the Incidence of Incapacity for Work" produced by the Ministry of Pensions; and National Insurance in 1965. Copies are available in the Library.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will give an assurance that she will retain those powers which enable her Department to meet fully the additional rental costs met by old-age pensioners and others on supplementary benefits when they move into dearer housing accommodation.

I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of removing the statutory powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to meet reasonable rents payable by supplementary benefit claimants who need to be rehoused.

Would my hon. Friend accept that single elderly people often want a second room so as to have occasional visits from relatives or friends? Would he circulate local authorities to make it clear that it is his Department's policy to have the best possible social and economic accommodation available with no extra charge to these people?

Yes, Sir. This is a matter, of course, for the Supplementary Benefits Commission, but if, as I gathered from the tone of his supplementary question, my hon. Friend has any par- ticular case in mind and would like to draw it to my attention, I should be glad to look into it.

asked the Minister of Social Security how many of her department's local offices were merged in 1967 and to the nearest available date in 1968; if she will list the areas concerned; and what further merging is planned for the current year.

In 1967, offices of the former Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and of the National Assistance Board were merged in five places, and in 1968 up to 30th June, in ten places. In addition, work was transferred from 40 former National Insurance offices to neighbouring offices in 1967 and from another 11 up to 30th June, 1968. With permission, I will circulate lists of these offices in the OFFICIAL REPORT. By the end of this year, we expect that some 50 to 60 more changes of both kinds will be made. I cannot be more precise because they depend on premises becoming available.

Is my right hon. Friend certain that mergers which have taken place in the past and those which will take place in future have resulted in increased efficiency and not in too much inconvenience? What volume of correspondence has she had protesting about this matter?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have had no volume of protests at all from people affected by the closures, although I have had some discussion with one or two of his hon. Friends and with hon. Members opposite. What is sometimes not understood is that in almost all cases we keep open a caller office for the public. What is happening is that the backroom work is being merged. Since so many payments are now made by postal draft, this should have no substantial effect on the general public.

In considering these closures, would the right hon. Lady bear in mind the special problems of travel in rural areas, where it is very difficult?

I am intensely aware of these problems and I look very carefully at any proposals which affect the rural areas because of this point, which

asked the Minister of Social Security on what basis National Insurance benefits are now calculated.

To deal adequately with such a wide-ranging question would require an excessively long answer. In any case the answer would be different for different benefits. If the hon. Member will let me know what particular benefit, or benefits, he has in mind I will write to him.

Is not the plain fact that, in assessing contributions and benefits, we have lost all contact with reality in National Insurance? Is it not wrong that 2½ million families should need to take supplementary benefits on top of National Insurance? Has not the time come to wipe the slate clean and reconstitute the National Insurance Fund so that it does what is required of it?

Supplementary benefits, of course, are: a separate matter from National Insurance benefits. I am afraid that if the hon. Gentleman is asking me to discuss in a Parliamentary Question and Answer the reality of our social insurance scheme, I must advise him that he would do better to raise it in another way on another occasion.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether in order to end the hardship caused to people with low incomes by the cost of the flat rate National Insurance contribution, she will now introduce legislation to substitute an insurance contribution related to earnings.

asked the Minister of Social Security when she will publish her White Paper on proposed changes in the National Insurance Scheme.

asked the Minister of Social Security what progress has been made towards the production of a comprehensive scheme of social security based on graduated contributions and graduated benefits; and when she expects to introduce legislation.

As I have previously made clear, we hope to publish by the end of the year a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for a new scheme in which both contributions and benefits will be related to earnings, and to have the necessary legislation on the Statute Book within the present Parliament.

Would the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that the National Insurance contribution will be related to people's capacity to pay, so as to end the present situation in which it has become so high as to be actually a contributory cause of family poverty?

As I have said a number of times in the House in the last few months, the White Paper will put forward a scheme by which contributions will be related to earnings.

Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that, before she publishes this scheme, she will discuss it with those responsible for occupational pensions in the private sector, so that there shall be no disincentive effect on those pensions?

The hon. Gentleman need not be concerned about any failure to consult. We shall be and are very much aware of the need to have the right kind of consultation on this.

Would my right hon. Friend not consider the desirability of publishing a Green Paper rather than a White Paper, so that the House may be consulted before the legislation is introduced? Will she further undertake that this Government scheme will be very different from the Tory swindle which was introduced to finance the existing pensions?

I can give my hon. Friend a total and complete assurance on the last point which he raised. On the first, we envisage that there will be time between the publication of the White Paper and the actual preparation of the detailed legislation for full consideration to be given in the House, and I would suppose that the House will certainly wish to consider and discuss the White Paper very fully. It is a little difficult to envisage a Green Paper on the subject because, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, many of these are highly technical matters and it is not so easy to cover that kind of subject in Green Paper style.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement on the social security arrangements for housewives who become completely incapacitated, owing to illness or accident, but do not need to be in-patients in hospital.

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) and other hon. Members on 8th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 874–6.]

As such persons do not even qualify for supplementary benefits, and as I heard the right hon. Lady make a sympathetic speech on this subject yesterday afternoon in Trafalgar Square, why cannot she now be more definite about future action?

I appreciated the fact that the hon. Gentleman was there yesterday afternoon. I think that this was one of the few Trafalgar Square occasions when we rose above party politics. The hon. Gentleman will know from what I said in Trafalgar Square that I outlined the difficulties of moving, as it were, tomorrow or the day after, into a totally new scheme of this kind.

Despite this Government's all-time record in the raising of social security pensions, this nevertheless makes even worse the position of the ordinary housewife who is incapacitated. Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider meeting the officers of the Disablement Incomes Group to go into detail concerning this problem?

I assure my hon. Friend that on a number of occasions over the last few months I have met Mrs. du Boisson and other officials of the Disablement Incomes Group and we have discussed the whole range of problems involved here.

As I shared the platform with the right hon. Lady, might I ask her whether she accepts as a principle that disabled persons who cannot contribute to the insurance scheme and cannot receive supplementary benefits should be brought within the social security system?

. I think that I implied as much yesterday. I said that I recognised that there is a gap here. I explained the historical reasons why the gap existed and what I believe should be our philosophy of social insurance to enable us to cover the gap in our social security system.

asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to introduce measures to prevent abuses of the social services.

asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to publish her proposals designed to deal with fraudulent claims for social security benefits.

My Department has many well established checks designed to limit abuse of the schemes it administers. Plans are now well advanced to intensify these checks on able bodied unemployed people when they could reasonably be expected to find work. I shall indicate what these are very shortly.

While recognising that only a tiny minority cheat in this way, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady agrees, as she seemed to indicate in a recent speech in the country, that it is extremely important to maintain public confidence in the working of the social services by instituting the most rigorous safeguards against abuses of this kind?

Yes, indeed. In the very interesting debate that we had on Friday, I think we all examined various aspects of the problem. I am very much concerned about the reflection on our social security system that arises in the minds of the general public when they observe this tiny minority of cheaters getting away with it. For this reason I am proposing to tighten up in one or two respects which I shall make clear shortly. But it is extremely important that we in this House at least get the right balance and understand that it is only a small minority.

Will the Minister consider breaking down as between the regions the figure of 451, which was the figure she gave in the debate last Friday? Is the Minister also aware that her interjection in the debate was very interesting in that she said there were certain ex-public schoolboys who were cheaters in this regard?

Old Etonians!

Will the Minister give us the specific figure?

Not without advance notice. It is certainly true, and it is within my own experience on the basis of visits to offices in the London area, that there is a very tiny minority. We are considering only small figures, but there is undoubtedly a tiny minority of very well educated middle-class boys in the London area who apparently regard it as their right to receive social security support. I am as concerned about them as I am about the cheaters we find in other regions of the country in social groups less fortunate than they.

asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to introduce Regulations following the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the question of paying unemployment benefit to occupational pensioners.

I hope to refer draft Regulations to the National Insurance Advisory Committee in the near future.

Is the delay in implementing the recommendations of this Report due to the Minister not entirely agreeing with all the recommendations? When the Regulations are presented, can the right hon. Lady assure us that we will have a chance to debate them?

To answer the last part of the question first, when the Regulations are presented there will automatically be a debate in this House to consider them.

On the first point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is quite wrong in drawing any such conclusion. It is normal on matters of this kind for the Minister concerned to have ample time to discuss the proposed changes with interested parties. Over the last two or three months I have had a considerable number of discussions with interested bodies. But I am preparing to refer the draft Regulations shortly.

Can the Minister indicate whether these consultations have included those interested in Service pensions, because they are concerned about some of the provisions in this Report?

Yes, they have.

asked the Minister of Social Security how many families with fathers in full-time work she estimates will be living below supplementary benefit level after 7th October, 1968.

asked the Minister of Social Security what is the total number of families she estimates will be living below supplementary benefit level after 7th October, 1968.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) on 10th July, and to my remarks in last Friday's debate.— [Vol. 768, c. 99.]

Has the Minister any proposals to give real incentive to those breadwinners in families with very low wages to continue to stay in work and thereby forfeit their right to supplementary benefit rather than to stop work and move to a higher level of supplementary benefit out of work?

I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman, after such a short time in the House, has immediately perceived a point which I have been making in every debate on social security since I became Minister, namely, that the fundamental problem is that we have raised the level of social security payments, as it was necessary and right that we should, but that below that level there is a small minority whose wages do not match up to the level that the State guarantees. This is a very real problem and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is aware of it.

In last Friday's debate, the Minister said that she could not give these figures. Is it not a strong probability that the number has in fact increased? Could the Minister say whether proportionately it is a more serious problem in rural areas than in urban areas?

No, I do not think that it is. It naturally occurs more frequently in those regions and areas where wage levels tend to be low. If asked what I propose to do about it, this, of course, is tied up with the whole economy of the country. It is also linked with the degree to which trade unions and employers, in making wage agreements, succeed in establishing proportionately higher increases for the lower paid than for the better paid.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the application of the £15 a week minimum income will go a long way to rectify this situation, and that the employers could take some initiative in this regard?

I agree with my hon. Friend's last point. I think what is really encouraging is that during the last six or seven months there has been an increasing amount of discussion within and without the trade unions about this problem. To the extent that that is so, I am optimistic that we can look forward to what will inevitably be a gradual, steady improvement in the position of the low-wage earner compared with the high-wage earner.

asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she proposes to protect families with one child living below supplementary benefit level from the price increases following devaluation, in view of the fact that they will not be helped by current increases in family allowances.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) on 8th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 876.]

Did not that reply, which naturally I have in my mind, show how very indiscriminate and unselective are increases in family allowance payments right across the board and, therefore, that they do not help an identifiable group which could, under other circumstances, be more effectively helped?

I am not too sure whether the hon. Gentleman is now complaining that we are increasing supplementary benefits. If so, that is not the question which he put on the Order Paper. I have a great deal of sympathy with a number of families with one child. As my right hon. Friend said in a recent debate, the only way that we can see of assisting these families is through free school meals and rent and rates rebates. I do not think that it is possible to include them in the family allowances scheme.

asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to launch the general entitlement campaign to ensure that low-income families are aware of the various forms of help available to them which she is planning.

asked the Minister of Social Security why the campaign to inform low-paid workers of their rights to exemption from prescription charges has been deferred; and when it will take place.

It is starting this month.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in addition to the very large numbers of leaflets which she has had printed she will also use the Press, radio and television to try to motivate people to get benefits if they are qualified for them?

I am considering this in the hope that it will be possible to use this campaign not only for the purpose of ensuring that people have the benefits to which they are entitled but to try to indicate the type of response people have to different approaches of this kind. That, I think, in itself would be a rather useful exercise.

Will my right hon. Friend make sure that information is also broadcast firmly to those people—such as Members of Parliament, councillors and social workers—who are called upon to advise people about these proceedings?

Yes, indeed. I shall be writing to Members of Parliament concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of us."] —in the first stage of the exercise, and also to the local authorities. This is a matter of stages. The campaign is beginning this month, and certainly, as hon. Members are affected, I shall be communicating with them because I think they can give enormously valuable help.

Will the right hon. Lady write to all Members of Parliament, first of all, and bearing in mind particularly the agricultural areas, lay special emphasis on using local Press and television for people living in remote coun- try areas, so that they may be made aware of the benefits available to them?

Yes, indeed. There is a particular job which the local Press, radio and television can do here. Because of the complexity of the various means-tested benefits in local areas, my leaflet cannot tell everybody wanting assistance what level of income he would have to have to get a particular local benefit. Some amplification of my leaflet could very usefully be done by local agencies, and I shall certainly consider that.

asked the Minister of Social Security how many disabled persons have been helped so far by her Department's recommendations on the administration of the wage stop that the requirement to register for work could be removed and with it the obligation to apply the wage stop.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) on 11th June on this subject. Disabled claimants subject to the wage stop have, of course, benefited very considerably from the decisions of the Commission already implemented, and from the increases in family allowances—[Vol. 766, c. 24.]

While I appreciate the Answer previously given, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady, particularly after her experiences yesterday, does not appreciate that this Question deals with only a small section of those to whom she was addressing her remarks? Does not she feel that the suggestion made in the Question would, if quickly implemented, be of real effect to a large number of disabled people?

Yes, I think that it will. We certainly intend to implement it as quickly as we can. What the hon. Member does not, perhaps, appreciate is that every disabled case on the wage stop has to be examined individually by a member of my staff in consultation with the Department of Employment and Productivity and, perhaps, with the local authority. It is bound to take time simply to work one's way through the number of cases, but the process is now going on as fast as we can conduct it.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will seek to increase the increment in pensions received after retirement due to additional contributions paid after retirement age by those who continue in work, to an actuarial level.

No, Sir. Increments are complementary to the retirement condition and are not solely an actuarial matter.

If it is the Government's policy to encourage people to continue in work after reaching normal retirement age, is it not markedly inequitable that they should receive less than their actuarial entitlement later on? Does that happen in any other part of the pensions provision?

The opportunity to earn increments has never been one of the major factors influencing decisions to defer retirement until after pension age. The financial attraction of earning, the ability and, in many parts of the country, the opportunity to continue at work are much more important

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will make arrangements for retirement pensions to be paid during the first week of entitlement irrespective of the pension pay day.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will consider amending the National Insurance (Claims and Payments) Regulations (S.I. 1948, No. 1041) to provide more flexibility in the payment of the first instalment of a widow's pension.

The present system of weekly payments normally provides a payment of a week's benefit within at most a week of death or retirement, as the case may be, and links naturally with the customary methods of paying wages.

Will not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the present rules have the curious effect in some cases of depriving a person at a very difficult time of nearly a week's benefit? Would it not be worth looking at this again?

That is news to me. I had not seen that aspect. There is a week's delay in payment of benefit, but there is no depriving of the applicant of the benefit to which he or she is entitled.

asked the Minister of Social Security on how many occasions, and on what date, a 38-year-old bachelor, whose name has been supplied to her, has obtained supplementary benefit at Bristol, Yeovil, Truro, Bournemouth and Weymouth; what is the total amount he has received; and on how many occasions he has been gainfully employed.

Since 1959, this man has made 47 claims and has received payments of National Assistance or supplementary benefit amounting to £130 14s. in all. Of this sum, £82 3s. has been paid since 27th February, 1968, at the offices named. In spite of a long history of mental disturbance he had a fair work record until the beginning of 1967, since when he has worked for a few weeks in the spring and one day in August of that year.

Is not this case of a man of 38, with no family responsibilities, wandering from resort to resort along the South Coast and living on taxpayers' money, something of an abuse of the generosity of the Minister?

Surely, the hon. Member will be fully aware of this case. The man in question is mentally disturbed. He has had to live rough many times. Indeed, we think that he has always claimed when he has been entitled to do so. Apart from short periods—and this has been when he has been living rough —he has had his full entitlement whenever he has claimed. I might add that the people in our offices have done everything possible for this man.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us, certainly on this side, consider it somewhat mean and spiteful for this case to be brought to the Floor of the House in view of the mental disturbance from which this person obviously suffers and of which we have now been informed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I thought, in anticipation of the Question, that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) would compliment our officers on what they have done for this man.

On a point of order. May I explain, Mr. Speaker, that I asked the office and was not informed of the mental disturbance? Had I been so informed, the Question would not have been put down.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will take steps to give pension as of right to those persons over 80 years of age excluded in the National Insurance Scheme when it started in 1948, when she raises the supplementary benefit levels this autumn.

No, Sir, because the supplementary benefits scheme provides a supplementary pension for those who need one.

As this is a small and, by the nature of things, a rapidly diminishing group of people, nearly half of whom are already drawing supplementary benefits, would it not be both administratively simpler and socially welcome if they could be given some pension as of right?

They can have supplementary benefit as of right, as agreed by Parliament. I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that 70.000 of the group of non-pensioners about whom he is concerned are already drawing supplementary pension and that the increased rates which will come into force in the autumn will also extend those benefits even to some who are at present not able to receive supplementary benefit.

asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she plans to take to prevent an unemployed person receiving more in social security payments than he could reasonably expect to earn in his own district.

Improvement of family allowances, which are paid whether a man is in work or not, and the corres- ponding reduction of National Insurance children's allowances, which are paid when a man is unemployed, have already eased the position and the process will be taken a step further with the changes due in October. Supplementary benefit payments are already restricted, where necessary, so that a person's income is no greater than it would be if he were working full time in his normal occupation.

In thanking the right hon. Lady for her Answer to this and previous Questions on the subject, may I ask whether she would not agree with and stress the importance of a man being in employment and also ensure that incentives will be given to such people to go out and get work?

It is because this is very much in our minds that it is important that the increases in family allowances themselves improve the relative position very considerably.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the responsibility here lies largely with employers who are paying too low salaries for employment? Would not my right hon. Friend accept that the situation which applies in this Question and also in Question No. 15 will continue to arise to some extent until we have a form of something like negative Income Tax?

No, I would not agree entirely with the conclusion drawn by my hon. Friend towards the end of that question. A number of very difficult problems are involved in the concept of negative Income Tax, some of which can be answered and some of which it is difficult to answer. It is, however, true that low wage earners tend to consist, in part at least, of wage earners in occupations which have traditionally been paid very low wages. There are also special problems such as those of the partly disabled and the disabled worker. These are separate problems requiring separate attention.

asked the Minister of Social Security how much the last increase in supplementary benefits cost in the first full year; and how much the previous increase cost.

The increase in supplementary benefits in October, 1967, would have cost about £40 million in a full year taken by itself, but as there was a larger increase in National Insurance benefits at the same time, there was a net saving of £23 million. The wide-ranging improvements introduced in November, 1966, when the supplementary benefit scheme replaced National Assistance, are estimated to have cost in all about £80 million in the first full year, including the payments made to the large number of claimants attracted by the new scheme.

Would not the Minister agree that, having pledged himself to help the poorest people in the community, these additional benefits have been lost through inflation?

No, they have not been lost at all. I advise the hon. Member to read last Friday morning's debate, in which he will find an ample answer.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will consider giving some National Insurance benefit to deserted wives in her Social Security Review.

Under the National Insurance Scheme, a deserted wife retains her right to retirement pension and widow's benefit on her husband's insurance, and the husband, when sick or unemployed, can receive dependency benefit for her provided he contributes to her support. Apart from this, State provision for deserted wives is through the supplementary benefit scheme. To have National Insurance benefit for this purpose would involve considerable difficulties.

Does not the right hon. Lady, on reflection, think that desertion ought to be recognised as an insurance risk? What would be the approximate numbers and cost involved in carrying out this proposal?

I must confess to the hon. Member that the same thought has passed through my mind. I will not deny it. It is not so much the cost, it is the sheer difficulty of this. For example, how would one define desertion? What account would one take of the support a wife was continuing to get from her husband? These are the kinds of difficulties which have led me so far to suppose that we are probably still right to regard the supplementary benefit scheme as being the best and most flexible method of helping deserted wives.

Yes, but would the right hon. Lady agree that the whole position of women in the social security system— deserted wives, widows, disabled housewives—should be given the very highest priority in the reconstruction of the scheme?

Yes, indeed I do. I have always taken the view, as one of my colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, that social security is to a considerable extent about women, but I think that it does not necessarily follow that one must throw overboard the whole of the existing scheme. I think it means we have to look very closely at the provisions we have rather than replace them with something new.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that at least she will move very much more quickly than did the party opposite when it was in power? Would she examine the possibility of having legislation introduced which would make it easier to help wives to get maintenance from their husbands who make no effort to give it?

There has been a recent report from a Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on points connected with this. It is, of course, a question in which we are concerned simultaneously with the courts and with our social security system. There are a great many points here worth a great consideration—that I will certainly agree—but I am not yet convinced that we would be right, as we are asked in the Question to do, to replace the supplementary benefit scheme by insurance benefits.

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will give preferential help to the chronic sick and persons over 65 years of age when she raises the supplementary benefit levels in the autumn.

Such claimants already receive, on top of the basic scale rate, a 9s. long-term addition and this is being increased by 1s. in the autumn.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am glad that my Question has proved unnecessary?

asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will increase the amount of savings and income disregarded for the purposes of paying supplementary benefit when the rates are increased on 7th October this year.

No, Sir. This would benefit only those who are already living above the normal supplementary benefit level.

Does the Minister appreciate that the sharp increase in prices following devaluation has fallen particularly heavily on those who are just above the supplementary benefit level because they still retain some small savings of their own?

Yes, but during the 18 years of the National Assistance scheme disregards were increased only once, and that was in 1959. We think, in general, it is better to improve the position of all recipients of supplementary benefit by increasing the rates of benefit.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one of the hardest hit sections of recipients is that of those who are not receiving ordinary pension— the people over the age of 80 whom we are talking about? Will he not look at the question again particularly with regard to them?

As I have already said, if these people come within the range of the supplementary benefits scheme, if they have a capital of £800, they will receive supplementary benefit, and in addition to that the Supplementary Benefits Commission has discretionary powers which it can apply in cases of dire need.

asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she has for ensuring that all persons entitled to pensions are informed of their rights.

A great deal of publicity and effort is directed by my Ministry to telling people about the benefits of the National Insurance Scheme, but the responsibility for ascertaining his rights must at the end of the day rest with the insured person.

But does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that those people still in work at retirement age are informed, while those people who retire earlier, possibly for health reasons, and who are, therefore, the needier cases, are not informed? Is there not some way in which the Ministry can do something to tell those people they are entitled to pension, if pension is due?

We do everything possible to do this. The hon. Gentleman will not have overlooked the fact that the Ministry has a very large number of local offices to help people with inquiries, and there is also a comprehensive leaflet, about retirement pension in particular, which is available from our local offices.

asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she has for altering the provision in the National Insurance Act, 1965, which prevents payment of benefit in respect of any period more than six months before the claim is made.

The National Insurance Advisory Committee has recommended an extension of this and related time limits to 12 months. My right hon. Friend has accepted the Committee's recommendations and will implement them as soon as there is an opportunity of doing so.

But does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary feel that this is a fraud? He knows a case I have brought to his attention, that of the lady who lost pension for four years nine months—a pension which she paid in for. Why do we have this silly regulation? Surely the Ministry should pay her the full amount?

No. We fully debated the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, with whom he is concerned, in an Adjournment debate to which I replied only recently. The National Insurance Advisory Committee pointed out in its Report that absolute time limits are necessary both to avoid making nonsense of the initial time limits for claiming, and to avoid wasteful administrative expense.

Will the hon. Gentleman look at this in a rather more generous way? Is he not aware of these cases of real hardship, particularly of separated wives who do not know of their husbands' death, or something of that sort? Would he look at it again?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the National Insurance Advisory Committee has looked at this and made recommendations only a few months ago, and my right hon. Friend has said she will accept the recommendations.

asked the Minister of Social Security what proposals she has under consideration for reducing the payment of benefits to the parents of large families.

None, Sir.

Will the Minister now categorically dissociate herself from the sterile speeches, made by her own Parliamentary Private Secretary and also the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, in which they suggested that the raising of large families is anti-social behaviour?

In fact, the hon. Gentleman may not know that on 4th July, after my right hon. Friend's speech, my own Ministry issued a Press statement in which we said that my right hon. Friend was certainly speaking for himself, and the Government took the view that the size of a family is certainly a private and personal matter. This, therefore, is my view. I believe myself that we are still a very considerable way from the horrors of 1984.

asked the Minister of Social Security in what circumstances rent is not allowed in full in assessing the requirements of an applicant for exemption from prescription charges on grounds of low income.