HC Deb 01 February 1972 vol 830 cc226-8
15. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

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.

Mr. Dean

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.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

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?

Mr. Dean

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.

Mr. Ashton

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?

Mr. Dean

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.

Mr. Hiley

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

Mr. Dean

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.

Mr. Fernyhough

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.

Mr. Dean

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.

Mrs. Castle

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?

Mr. Dean

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.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

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.