HC Deb 02 March 1978 vol 945 cc381-4W
Mr. Arthur Lewis

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish in the Official Report as detailed figures as may be available showing to what extent the hospital and social welfare facilities have improved in the parliamentary constituency of Ilford, North during each of the years from October 1974.

Mr. Moyle

Detailed figures are not available for this constituency as it covers part of East Roding Health District and of the London Borough of Redbridge. However, within East Roding Health District there have been a number of improvements in the health service, including the opening of two new health centres in October 1974 and July 1975; the opening of Brookside Psychiatric Unit for adolescents in September 1975; the upgrading of hospital wards for the elderly and mentally ill; the provision of a new accident and emergency department at King George Hospital, together with the appointment of additional consultant staff; and improvement in the paediatric services by an increase in the consultant time available.

Details of the social services provided by the London Borough of Redbridge are set out out in the following table:

Mr. Orme

A national insurance benefit can only attract an addition for one adult dependant at any one time. Such an addition would be payable for the legal wife or a woman who has the care of a child or children for whom the claimant is responsible.

As the hon. Member will be aware from my replies to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on 8th February and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) on 17th February, the position is different for the supplementary benefit scheme which is based on current financial need rather than contribution conditions.

If two persons are living together as husband and wife the Supplementary Benefits Act requires that they are treated as such for the purposes of calculating benefit. This ensures that unmarried couples living together as husband and wife are treated no more favourably than married couples. Information is not available regarding the number of claimants to whom this provision applies and it could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

In the truly exceptional situation where more than one wife or mistress is living in the same household, some account has to be taken of the financial needs of the second woman. To make no provision at all for a woman without resources living in those circumstances would be unreasonably harsh. The Supplementary Benefits Commission can therefore either treat the second woman as a dependant of the man and adjust his benefit accord-

Age East Sussex Isle of Wight Dorset West sussex Devon Tyne and Wear
Under 35 32 3 22 24 38 47
35–44 36 4 32 28 59 101
45–54 119 28 115 116 178 360
55–64 385 63 338 324 489 846
65–74 860 134 668 604 976 1,167
75 and over 927 128 681 731 1,007 935
All ages 2,359 360 1,856 1,827 2,747 3,456

Age Berkshire Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Wiltshire Oxfordshire
Under 35 24 21 30 17 26
35–44 31 27 30 33 32
45–54 133 117 93 96 118
55–64 301 222 221 212 215
65–74 419 364 391 387 377
75 and over 378 240 367 336 346
All ages 1,286 991 1,132 1,081 1,114

For the counties of Tyne and Wear, Berkshire and Cambridgeshire the principal available cancer site groups in rank order were:

  1. 1. Trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD 162)
  2. 2. Intestine and rectum (ICD 152–154)

ingly; or accept her as a claimant in her own right and pay her benefit direct. The Commission adopts the first course, which produces a lower cost to public funds. Precise information about the number of cases affected is not available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost, but very few instances are known.—[Vol. 943, c. 573–4; Vol. 944, c. 413–4.]

Forward to