§ 37. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost to public funds of supplementary benefits paid to the families of persons involved in the Scottish transport strikes in recent weeks; and what has been the additional cost to his Department involved in administering the provision of such benefits.
§ Mr. O'MalleyWhile the recent Scottish transport strikes lasted, 6,805 payments of supplementary benefit totalling £41,216 were made to the dependants of persons involved. A further 2,775 payments totalling £16,192 were made to the men involved after the strikes had ended to tide them over until they received wages. The total administration and staff costs involved in making all these payments are estimated to be £3,400.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneIs the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the length of the bus strike a great many of the bus crews found alternative employment? Is it not a bit tough on Scottish commuters that they should be required to contribute towards the £60,000 paid not merely to prolong a strike but to inflict permanent damage on the service upon which they depend?
§ Mr. O'MalleyIf the hon. Gentleman is saying that people were in alternative employment and received supplementary benefit——
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneI did not say that.
§ Mr. O'Malley—I would want him to bring evidence of such cases before me. What has to be said is that strikers are paid supplementary benefit not for themselves at all but for their wives and children. It is a long-standing practice and when one realises that the average supplementary benefit payment to a striker is about £6 a week it can be seen that it is very small compared with the wages lost by the striker. It is clear that even with supplementary benefits strikers suffer very great financial loss as a result of being on strike.
§ Mr. William HamiltonIs my hon. Friend aware that every hon. Member on 1023 this side of the House, and the Scottish people, will object very much to the inference contained in this Question that the party opposite wants to starve strikers and their families into submission?
§ Sir G. NabarroRubbish.
§ Mr. O'MalleyThe hon. Gentleman says "rubbish", but it has certainly been the contention implicit in all the Questions that the hon. Gentleman has been asking recently. It is a long-standing practice in this country, under successive Governments for over 60 years, that the children and wives of strikers should be entitled to supplementary benefit. Originally it was poor law, then national assistance and now supplementary benefit. Nothing has changed.