§ 17. Mr. Dixonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will consider legislation whereby payments made to strikers should in the first instance be payable from union founds.
§ Sir K. JosephAs my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 7th November, it is clearly right that trade unions should bear their proper share of financial responsibility for official disputes. The larger issue of which this is part is under thorough review by Ministers.—[Vol. 845, c. 799–800.]
§ Mr. DixonIs it not true that a system whereby the first call for striker's benefit should be on union funds has been practised in a number of other countries and has been extremely successful, not least in countries such as Denmark, which has a strong social democratic tradition?
§ Sir K. JosephI would welcome such a practice here being universally followed. But it is not necessarily possible to move from that to enforcing such a practice. It is one possibility that Ministers are having considered at the moment. But it is only one of them.
§ Mr. Michael StewartDoes the Secretary of State agree that what is in issue in this Question is the payment of social security benefits to the wives and children of men on strike? Does he agree that it is now accepted in this civilised country that in no circumstances should the standard of life of mothers and children fall below a certain level, modest though it is, and that if in the course of an industrial dispute employers want to bash their employees they must find some other way of doing it than starving their wives and children?
§ Sir K. JosephI do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has the issue correct at all. The issue is, while fully respecting the right to strike, whether the payment of benefits to the wives and 225 children of strikers marginally or more than marginally influences the number of strikes disproportionate in their effect on the public to the grievance of those concerned.