asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will review the regulations dealing with appeals from local tribunals to the National Insurance Commissioner with a view to allowing an automatic right of appeal in more cases.

I am not clear what cases the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Existing legislation already provides for an automatic right of appeal from any decision of a local tribunal to the National Insurance Commissioner.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport and General Workers Union has recently been in correspondence with the National Insurance Commissioner about certain cases which reflect a sense of injustice on the part of its members, particularly with reference to the holding of oral hearings? Would he look at the correspondence to see whether there is any need to review the arrangements?

Yes, Sir.

After the right hon. Gentleman has looked at the correspondence, will he undertake to have conversations with the Commissioner with a view to having more oral hearings, since there is a widespread feeling among appellants and trade union representatives that their cases are not getting a thorough hearing by having only written appeals?

I will hear that in mind when I read the correspondence, but I will give no undertakings.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will reconsider the rule by which a recipient of retirement pension or other national insurance benefit forfeits a portion of this benefit after a period in a National Health Service hospital.

No, Sir. Reductions of benefits after a beneficiary has been receiving free in-patient treatment in a hospital for some time have been a feature of the national insurance scheme since its inception and seem to me to be fully justified.

Although up to the present all Governments have maintained this rule, will the right hon. Gentleman seriously reconsider this matter because it is, after all, a contributory pension? Would not recipients of a private pension or a public service pension be indignant if their pension were cut because they were in hospital?

No, Sir, I cannot undertake to do that. It seems to have been generally accepted that public funds should not provide twice for the same contingency; and if a change were made it would, even though marginally, affect the level of contributions, which would have to be charged.

But has not the situation changed radically since the principle was introduced and since it was last reviewed in 1960? Can it be said today that the level of national insurance benefits is so lavish that such deductions are justified? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his advisory committee to have another look at this matter sympathetically, and will he convey to that committee the views of the House?

I am not sure the right hon. Lady is right, because I believe the National Insurance Advisory Committee has looked at this matter more recently than 1960. The fact remains that people are getting their keep while they are in-patients in hospital, and the adjustment is made sensitively in the light of their continuing commitments at home.

When we speak of the contributory principle, is it not fair to bear in mind that a person who retires today will probably have paid for about a tenth of the benefits he receives from national insurance?

That is true, but the bulk of the cost of the retirement pention is borne by contributors, with a large contribution from the taxpayer. One generation subsidises another.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a precise date when he proposes to commence the review of the rates of retirement pensions; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to begin the review of retirement pensions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he anticipates that the next review of retirement pensions will be started.

As I have already announced, the next uprating will be in October. The review will be timed accordingly and the details announced in due course.

But is the Secretary of State aware that recently I bought a pound of boiled gammon which cost 12 shillings, and that, coming to the slices, it worked out at nine old pence per slice? Would the Secretary of State agree that this, together with the soaring prices of other necessities, is beyond the purse of retirement pensioners at present? Would he agree that what is required is a substantial increase in retirement pensions now?

Despite the price mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, both the general price index and the pensioners' price index show that the pension increase given in September more than restored the purchasing power of the pensioner and added a marginal increase. Therefore the Government have brought great comfort to millions of pensioners in announcing—this was something that the previous Government were unable to do—that we are moving to annual upratings instead of biennial upratings.

Would the Secretary of State accept that the announcement today that pensions are not to be reviewed until October this year will be received with great dismay by the people of this country? Will he ensure that when this review is undertaken, those pensioners who, as a result of the last review. finished up being worse off than they were before the review, will not be the victims of the same policy?

I rejoice to remind the House that now that we are moving to annual upratings for both retirement pensions and supplementary benefits, there will no longer be any cause for the misunderstandings that have accompanied the biennial review of one and the annual review of the other.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking probably one of the greatest steps taken by any pensions Minister in bringing forward an annual review, which has given great satisfaction to many pensioners. Under the annual review, will my right hon. Friend consider the question of concessionary fares for elderly people in rural areas? At present, concessionary fares are being given in urban areas, backed by wealthy councils, whereas in rural areas the local councils cannot afford to back them.

My hon. Friend is tireless in his advocacy of benefits for the elderly. Therefore, I take his kind tribute very warmly. I will discuss his suggestion with my right hon. Friend, but I do not consider that upratings and reviews are normally the occasion for such a policy declaration.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government would never have introduced the annual review had it not been for the exceptional situation of the grotesque increase in prices caused by the Government's policy? As a result of that inflationary pressure, has not the whole value of the last increase been whittled away, and does not that mean that any further increase in prices between now and October will result in a systematic and steady reduction in the value of pensions that are already inadequate? Will he not take exceptional measures to deal with this situation?

The value of pensions always erodes between upratings and did so even when the Labour Government were in office. In fact, the buying power of the pension now, four months after the last unrating, is greater than it was four months after the last Labour up-rating in 1969.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further representations he has received regarding the scrutiny of applications for the attendance allowance.

None, Sir. The hon. Member will be aware, however, that the question whether anyone satisfies the statutory conditions relating to the need for attendance is entirely a matter for the Attendance Allowance Board.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a substantial proportion of those whose applications are turned down do not apply for a review? Bearing in mind that a very high proportion of those who apply for a review are ultimately successful, is he satisfied that sufficient is being done to get the people who are at first turned down to apply for a review?

I think that there is a case for revising the letter of decision to emphasise the right of review. That will be done.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many advertisements about the scheme tend to raise people's expectations rather high, with consequent disillusionment, if not anger, when their applications are later turned down? Will he, therefore, either tone down the advertisements or broaden the scheme so that those who do not at present qualify will qualify?

I take seriously the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. But we shall be shown to have proceeded on lines which will have brought the award to well over the number we originally anticipated, and to a handsome proportion of those who have applied.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tens of thousands of very hard-pressed disabled people have been refused this allowance? Will he reconsider his reply as a matter of urgency and tell us what further consideration his Department has given to a two-tier arrangement? Why should we have an all-or-nothing payment which means that many severely disabled people are excluded altogether?

There is a limit to the amount that can be done at one go both financially and, above all, administratively. I have told the House time and again that the Government intend to move forward at the right time, and that time will be as soon as practicable.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now able to make a statement on his investigations into the practicability of producing a three-wheeled vehicle suitable for a disabled person and one passenger.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 30th November.—[Vol. 827, c. 43.]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was yet another non-reply? He has been talking for some time about a review, for which we are all waiting, of the invalid vehicle scheme. Does he agree that he must first find out whether this kind of vehicle is mechanically possible and how much it would cost before bringing forth the conclusions in his review?

No. It would be a mistake to incur costs in designing or investigating a vehicle before the eligibility for it has been determined.

Has my hon. Friend satisfied himself that one of the mass-produced small cars fitted with automatic gears—for instance, a mini—could not be fairly cheaply adapted to a wide range of disability? It would not only meet the point made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) but it would be vastly cheaper to service and to provide spares for it.

Small cars are already issued by my Department to those who are eligible for them. The question whether there should be wider eligibility is precisely what we are considering.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the October increase to people living on supplementary benefits has given them a compensatory increase; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The increase in supplementary benefit rates in September, 1971, more than restored the purchasing power of the previous rates at the time of their introduction in November, 1970.

Is the Minister aware that if the value of the single person's supplementary allowance is plotted against the average industrial wage, increases granted over the past two years have left the recipients poorer than at any time since supplementary benefits were introduced in 1966? If that is not bad enough, old-age pensioners drawing supplementary benefits have part of their pension increase clawed back by the S.B.C.

That particular point will be dealt with completely as a result of the annual review of pensions announced by my right hon. Friend before Chirstmas.

Is the Minister aware that those on supplementary benefits and old-age pensions cannot possibly live on the miserable pittance allowed them by the State, because of the abnormal rise in prices fostered by the Government? It is no use whatever waiting until October, when some of them will probably have died from hypothermia. Will he do the decent thing and peg the allowance to the cost of living so that it rises when the cost of living rises?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman helps by making these emotive remarks. The increase provided last September more than restored the purchasing power of the pension. None the less, my right hon. Friend is very conscious of the needs of supplementary pensioners, and we are doing our utmost to improve the scheme all the time.

When will my hon. Friend be able to announce an increase in the additional coal allowance to the supplementary benefit?

A large number of those who are eligible for additional special allowances are now getting them. The scheme has been improved. Each allowance book is being looked at on review to see whether more people might be eligible for these special additions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give advice to local authorities on the desirability of compiling a register of old persons living alone.

Advice on the value of registers of the elderly and handicapped was given in Departmental circulars 19/71 and 45/71 issued last year, of which I am sending copies to the hon. Member.

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Is he aware that many thousands of old people who are living alone are unaware of the welfare services available to them? Surely a register, which can be compiled properly only by a local authority, is the way to deal with this situation. I am glad that the Minister is thinking along these lines. Will he please follow it up?

Yes. We are particularly conscious of the 8,000 severely handicapped elderly people living alone whom we are making a special attempt to identify and locate. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that an effective register has to be continually updated, and not all elderly folk like to be pried upon the whole time.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider introducing free or reduced telephone rentals for old people living alone, because for such people telephones are not a convenience or luxury but a matter of life or death?

That is another question, but I certainly note what my hon. Friend said.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the present methods for compiling such registers are satisfactory? In Bradford, an old man aged 79 had been dead for a week before that was discovered. He was unknown to the welfare department. Although that particular welfare department is most thorough in compiling its register, it admits that there are many such cases unknown to it. How does the Minister hope to cure that situation?

I should like details of that case. Registration is not a 100 per cent. foolproof system.

Will the Minister bear in mind that several local authorities, including the Bedworth Urban District Council in my constituency, are investigating the possibilities of compiling such registers? Will he tell the House what the circulars said about the need to preserve confidentiality of this information in certain categories?

I think that the best course would be for me to send both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend copies of the circulars.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are taken or contemplated by his Department to ensure that those who are or may be entitled to industrial disablement benefit or special hardship allowance are made aware of their rights.

It is standard procedure to include advice in the covering letters sent to claimants with their first and final injury benefit payments about possible title to disablement benefit and where they can obtain further information and claim forms. Further, claim forms for both disablement benefit and special hardship allowance are sent, without request, to a claimant who is still receiving injury benefit 19 weeks after his accident and in certain other cases where injury benefit ceases earlier and there is clear title to disablement benefit.

Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that certain offices are not restricting their notification of entitlement to disablement benefits to those who have been away from work for at least 20 weeks? Does not he consider that the probability is that a great many more are entitled to disablement benefit and special hardship allowance than are receiving them, and that this explains why only one-fifth of those who receive industrial injury benefit receive disablement benefit?

No, the reason for that is largely that many injuries, fortunately, clear up within a comparatively short time and those concerned are able to return to work. There was a case, about which the hon. Gentleman has corresponded with me, in which I freely admit that our local office did not carry out the full procedures, and I am taking steps to ensure that that does not happen again.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue a general direction to electricity boards to make a study of the number of cases of hardship, qualifying for benefit, which can be attributed to the system, whereby they demand quarterly payments, rather than weekly, fortnightly, or monthly payment.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to issue directions to electricity boards. But the Supplementary Benefits Commission maintains close contact with the boards about the problems which sometimes arise in this field and about practicable ways of avoiding hardship.

It is all very well to talk about the problems sometimes arising, but often the existence of a heavy quarter's bill is a source of debt starting.

I realise that this is a problem, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission has been discussing this with the Gas Council and Electricity Council and with representatives from local authorities. I hope it will be possible for an agreed method of avoiding these difficulties to be arrived at soon. It may well be that the fixed sum at monthly intervals arrangement will be the most satisfactory way of dealing with the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the total unsuitability for elderly people of quarterly billing based on internal electricity meters, which was the cause recently of the suicide of Mrs. Ann Hemmingway of Coventry on receipt of a deliberately inflated electricity bill?

Yes, we are very concerned about these matters. That is why the Commission is having discussions with the proper authorities to see whether we can arrive at more satisfactory arrangements.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong case for re-examination of this position? For example, it is contradicting the Government's policy on the movement of population from older areas into new towns. Why should those who decide to move to new towns be punished and penalised because of these restrictions, put forward by electricity boards or any other boards?

I hope that the assurances I have given to the House about the discussions which are taking place are felt to be satisfactory. I must reiterate that my right hon. Friend has no power to dictate to the electricity boards in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the forecasting of the population of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Government rely upon the profesional advice and services of the Government Actuary and the Registrars General in preparing population projections. These are prepared and published annually on the basis of what seems the best single set of assumptions to make about demographic trends.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that it is no reflection on him that I put down this Question several weeks ago to the Prime Minister, who passed it to the Lord President of the Council, who passed it to my right hon. Friend? Does not the prospect of over-population of these islands in the very near future pose a great threat, not only to our environment but also to our very existence? Does not this threat demand the urgent attention of the head of the Government and of the whole Cabinet?

My hon. Friend is immensely experienced in the ways of the House, but the way that he framed his Question puts it firmly in my field, as I am responsible for the procedure and calculations that lie behind population predictions. The implications of those are either for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or for my right hon. Friend the Lord President.

To avoid an excessive burden on his Department, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider persuading his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to drop his ridiculous Housing Finance Bill so that the housing position can be tackled in readiness for the increased population?

If I were to contact my right hon. Friend, it would be to encourage him in his policies.

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are very anxious to see a sensible population policy adopted and that we should support him if he were to set up an investigation in his Department about this matter? If he would make representations to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to see that this responsibility was given either to himself or to some other of his right hon. Friends, as a start, and if he were to indicate to the House that he would be prepared to make provision for family planning to be freely available on the National Health Service, would not make that a very valuable start in this direction?

That is another question, but I am sure that my right hon. Friends will note the views of hon. Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that in group practices the confidential nature of the patients' medical records is being respected; and if he will make a statement.

The preservation of the confidentiality of patients' medical records is a cardinal point of medical ethics and I am sure that, whatever the form of practice organisation, all general practitioners are fully aware of their responsibilities in this respect.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the traditional privacy of the doctor-patient relationship must be preserved in the increasing number of group practices which are now being built up in which large teams of staff have access to medical record cards, and will he take steps to safeguard the privacy of the patient?

I certainly agree on the importance of confidentiality, but I am sure that the medical profession and general practitioners are fully alive to its importance and will take the essential steps to maintain the confidentiality of their records.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will hold an inquiry into the effect of polluted soil on the health of those whose homes are built upon it.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the researches of a Dr. Pinsent of the Royal College of General Practitioners, there appears to be no information available about the long-term effects on life and health of living on toxic soil? In view of the grave public concern about pollution, will he initiate research into this important subject?

The hon. and learned Gentlemen I think knows that there is a good deal of current resarch into all aspects of environmental pollution, and we are very closely into touch with the research.

If my hon. Friend should have to consider this matter again, will he distinguish between objections that are put forward on genuine health grounds and objections that are put forward to prevent private housing development either because of party dogma or because it appears to change the party political pattern in a constituency?

I note my hon. Friend's Intervention. He will note that my Departmental Medical Adviser's advice was encouraging from the point of view of housing.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation which will permit partners in a marriage to obtain contraceptive medicines and devices without the written consent of their spouses.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are several general practitioners who, if they proffer contraceptive assistance, take the risk of being prosecuted for conspiracy? Will he not reconsider his answer in an attempt to emancipate doctors and wives from this insidious limitation of their freedom?

Strictly speaking, these are ethical matters between general practitioners and their patients, and there is no statutory provision requiring consent.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost to date to public funds of supplementary benefit paid to those involved in the miners' strike, and their dependants, respectively; and what estimate he has made of the extent to which this outlay would have been increased in the absence of the provisions of the Social Security Act, 1971.

From the beginning of the strike until 25th January, £3,070 was paid for strikers and £1,018,888 for dependants. Since income tax refunds and strike pay are not generally available in this strike, the provisions of the Social Security Act relating to these payments will not have a great deal of effect. In Scotland, however, where income tax refunds are being paid, the average payment has been £5·90 whereas in England where tax refunds are not generally available the average payment is £7·18.

Since the one certain consequence of the strike will be additional pit closures and redundancies concentrated in areas of high unemployment such as Scotland and the north of England, is it justifiable that tax payers should be obliged, at the rate of about £1 million a week, to subsidise the creation of additional unemployment? Will my hon. Friend look again at the workings of the 1971 Act and consider the case for returning to the Labour Government's 1948 Act and the provision for the establishment of need?

We intend to keep the working of the 1971 Act under close review, but I must remind my hon. Friend that, because in most cases there is no strike pay or tax refund, the main part of the Act does not apply. The part which will apply in a few months' time, namely, no payment after people have gone back to work, is also not relevant to the figures I have given because the men are still on strike.

Will the hon. Gentleman enlarge on the position of single miners who are on strike, particularly those whose parents are retired and who are receiving no income although they have previously paid a substantial proportion of their wages in tax? Will he give an assurance that single miners who are suffering genuine hardship will receive assistance and not be told to become strike breakers and go back to work?

The law for many years now, administered by Governments of all political colours, has been that money should not be available to single men who are on strike unless hardship is proved. Where hardship is proved, money is available, and I quoted a figure of over £3,000 which has already been paid during this strike under that category.

Will my hon. Friend consider the means by which this money can be repaid after the strike is over?

The 1971 Act has considerably tightened the conditions on which money can be made available. Before any further review, I think we should wait a little longer to see how the Act works.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there has never been a miners' strike which has had such public support as this one has and that he must turn a deaf ear to his hon. and right hon. Friends who would like to repeat the experience of 1926? The miners will not go back until they get justice, and it is up to the hon. Gentleman to see that they get as generous treatment as anyone else from the Supplementary Benefits Commmission.

The hon. Gentleman will not draw me into discussing the merits of the strike. The job of my Department is to administer the law, and I am sure the whole House will agree that the officers of my Department have been doing a very effective job under difficult circumstances in administering the law and giving the due assistance to the wives and children of strikers.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that other sections of his Department are not being mobilised to help strike breaking? Is he aware that local medical committees have been informed by his Department that regional medical officers are to speed up the scrutiny of claims for sickness benefit from miners as a group, and that they will call miner's for medical examination without waiting for a report from the miner's own doctor? Is not this an intolerable interference in the clinical judgment of doctors and the rights of miners under the health service in support of a policy designed to break the strike?

That is an entirely different question. I will of course consider what the right hon. Lady said, but I hope that she will agree that the special arrangements we have made to administer the law and to see that strikers' families receive their due benefit under the law are deserving of tribute to the officers concerned.

On a point of order. In view of the terms of my hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to arrange for the provision of facilities for emergency dental treatment over holiday periods.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to provide funds for the operation of an emergency dental service in Bradford.

No, Sir: I know of no evidence that demand for emergency dental treatment at week-ends and public holidays is sufficient to justify the cost of maintaining a standby service.

That is a disappointing reply. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is illogical that doctors, chemists and others are required to operate an emergency service but that dentists are not? Is he aware that dentists are willing to undertake such a service provided they receive financial assistance from the National Health Service?

I have no evidence that there is an acute need, particularly since I understand that most dentists are willing to give emergency treatment, if approached, at their homes.

Is the Minister aware that that is not the case in Bradford, that there have been complaints of an inability to obtain treatment over holiday periods, and that dentists in Bradford are willing to work such a service, for which premises are available? In those circumstances, and in view of the small amount of money involved, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

I am aware that proposals for a standby service in Bradford foundered on a question of finance, but I am not satisfied that the need for such a service in Bradford is great enough to justify public expenditure. However, if the hon. Gentleman cares to send me details I will study them.

Will the Minister bear in mind the serious situation caused not only by a shortage of dentists throughout the country but by the increasing number who are opting out of the National Health Service? Will he take urgent steps to discover why they are opting out and to remedy the situation?

Yes, Sir. I am studying the allegations about deficiencies in the service in certain areas. But I must emphasise that over the bulk of the country it is providing more treatment than ever for the public. If the hon. Lady has any particular point in mind, perhaps she will send the information to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to amend the definition of homelessness in the National Assistance Act, 1948.

We have no plans to do so at present.

That answer is profoundly unsatisfactory. The present definition of "homelessness" is totally inadequate, and results in a good deal of hardship. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain local authorities are not implementing even the present definition? For example, the London Borough of Richmond is refusing to supply Part III accommodation to evicted people, on the ground that their predicament could have been foreseen. Will the hon. Gentleman take action on that?

If the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the single homeless, it would be premature to redefine the term, because working parties are now considering the Greve Report and the Glastonbury Report. If the hon. Gentleman is speaking about homeless people with children, I can tell him that the working party set up to consider the Greve Report has reported to the Government, who have accepted its report. We now await a report from the London Boroughs Association on the implementation of the working party's recommendations. Therefore it can be seen that we have taken action already in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how the number of homeless families in temporary accommodation in London compares with the numbers in the rest of England and Wales.

At 30th September last there were 3,182 families in temporary accommodation in Greater London and 2,351 in the rest of England and Wales.

In view of the serious problem in London shown by those figures, what action is the hon. Gentleman taking to enable London local authorities to deal with it more effectively, recognising, as I am sure he will, that if the homeless are to be housed, they will be housed by local authorities, not by Shelter or any similar organisation?

One of the main recommendations of the working party we set up following the Greve Report is that the problem should be the responsibility of the housing authorities. As I said in reply to an earlier Question, the Government have accepted the working party's report. We now await a report from the London Boroughs Association on the implementation of the recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of his policies for the reduction of poverty.

Retirement pensions and related benefits were substantially increased in September, without any increase in national insurance contributions by the low paid, and we have introduced the Family Income Supplement, selective improvements for the chronic sick and the over-80s, the attendance allowance and pensions for younger widows. The Family Income Supplement will go up in April, and we are now committed to review pensions and benefits every year, beginning next October.

Despite that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that almost none of the families in receipt of family income supplement has even been brought up to the poverty line, and that amongst all the other poverty groups, entirely contrary to the Prime Minister's election commitments, there are now more than 250,000 more people in poverty than at the election? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about the scandal of this rapidly deteriorating position?

The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish when he says that 250,000 more people are in poverty. What has happened is that there are more elderly people and more unemployed than there were 18 months ago, and for these reasons more people are receiving supplementary benefit. But the last Government did not regard, nor do the present Government regard, those on supplementary benefit as falling in the category of family poverty, which both parties have undertaken to tackle. Judged by that standard, the number living below the supplementary benefit level is now less than it was.