that removes the cost of electricity for heating from the collected data. […] The fact that 7.4 % of the households taking part in the survey do not list expenditure for electricity […] does not call into question the securing of a dignified minimum existence as a whole. Such expenditure is neither hypothetically allocated to the households giving no information nor was it ensured by means of questioning, a counter sample according to the basket-of-goods model or by any other method that the values here are not distorted in an unobjective way. It is within the legislature’s leeway to decide how the consumption information of these households is included in any realistic calculation of standard needs for securing existence; that they must be included, however, is unquestionable. cc) The decision of the legislature not to recognise expenditure on motor vehicles, alcohol and tobacco goods, cut flowers and house plants, cafeteria meals, dry cleaning, job interviews and examination fees as relevant in terms of standard needs does not meet with serious constitutional objections. These decisions are within the scope of the legislature’s leeway to design its approach. The reasoning provided in the draft bill put forward at the time by the parliamentary groups of the then-governing parties […] is transparent and not unobjective. Where it is clear that such decisions pose a danger of underfunding, the legislature must act to balance them out (see f below). 113 In particular, the decision by the legislature that a motor vehicle should not be considered necessary for existence in terms of securing standard subsistence is justified; however, the necessarily increasing expenses incurred by those in need of assistance for public transport must be taken into consideration (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <240>). Mobility is important not only in socio-cultural terms, in order to facilitate participation, but it may also be necessary to secure the needs of everyday life for those who live outside core locations with corresponding infrastructure. In the future, the legislature will have to ensure, with regard to the cost of living, that existential mobility needs can in fact be covered. (see f below). 114 f) The statistical calculation of standard needs oriented to consumer expenditure of one part of the population calculated on the basis of a survey involves the risk that the cost of individual necessary goods may in fact not be covered by the total sum fixed for covering standard needs. This is especially the case if, as happened here, individual items are subsequently removed as in a basket-of-goods-model, from the total sum of the determined consumer expenditure. If the legislature is ever aware of existential needs not being met, it must react to ensure that current needs are covered (cf. BVerfGE 132, 134 <163, para. 72>; see C I 1 b cc above). Within the scope of its leeway to design its approach, the legislature may however decide whether this compensation should be provided by means of additional claims to benefits in addition to the standard benefits (aa). It may also stipulate internal compensation within existing lump sum benefits, but must then ensure that the requisite financial leeway exists (bb). From a constitutional perspective, it is only imperative that needs to secure subsistence be in fact covered overall. 115 21/29