§ 11. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total cost to public funds of payments of supplementary benefit to strikers and their dependants during the first four months of 1971; and what estimate he has made of the change in that total resulting from the Social Security Bill.
§ Sir K. JosephThe provisional figures to 20th April show payments of about £3¾ million to strikers' dependants and about £3,500 to strikers themselves. Tiding-over payments after return to work totalled approximately £450,000. Had the Social Security Bill been in force this total of roughly £4¼ million would have been reduced by about £1 million; this figure would have been considerably larger—perhaps £2¼ million—if strike pay or tax refunds had been available in the postal dispute.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneI am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does it not show that even if the Bill had been in operation during this period the total level of this form of strike subsidy would have been running at about 30 times or more the level for the whole year in any year prior to the passage of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966? Does this not suggest that there is a case for reverting to the element of dis- 1154 cretion which was previously enjoyed by the National Assistance Board, set up by the Attlee Government, and by my right hon. Friend's Department?
§ Sir K. JosephI think we should try the system proposed by the Government in the new Bill. I have made it plain that the Government will have to keep the position under review.
§ Mr. OrmeI wonder how many times the right hon. Gentleman is going to answer the same question from the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneIt is not the same.
§ Mr. Orme—with a slight variation. Does not the Secretary of State feel that, in introducing the Social Security Bill, the Government now intend to intervene directly on one side in an industrial dispute? Does he think this is going to help industrial relations?
§ Sir K. JosephAll the Government are doing is removing an abuse of Parliament's intention, expressed in the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966.
§ 13. Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will delay the implementation of his proposals relating to reduced benefits for strikers and their families until proportionate income tax increases for the managers and directors of companies whose employees go on strike have been imposed.
§ Sir K. JosephNo, Sir.
§ Mr. JenkinsThe right hon. Gentleman has suggested that what is happening is an abuse. Is not he aware that all the examinations which have been made of strike causation have suggested that in at least half the cases the immediate cause is delinquent action on the part of managements? Is he not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, making it clear that the Government are for management even when management is wrong, and against the striker even when the striker is right?
§ Sir K. JosephThe hon. Gentleman will not draw me into questions outside my departmental responsibility. All we 1155 are doing with the Social Security Bill is carrying out the intention of Parliament, as I have just explained.