§ 2.49 p.m.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how much a man and his family with two teenage children receives in supplementary benefit, rent allowances and other benefits whilst he is on strike; and how this total figure compares with benefits paid to strikers' families in Western Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden.
§ THE MINISTER Of STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)My Lords, a striker in the circumstances described would receive no benefit for himself. He would be entitled to supplementary benefit for his dependants as follows:
This sum would be increased by an allowance for rent and reduced if the husband had other income, including strike pay and P.A.Y.E. refunds, or substantial capital, or if his wife was earning. Comparative information about benefits payable in other countries could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. General information on arrangements in some European countries and the United States was published in the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT on June 13, 1972.
Per week £ Wife 4.60 Child aged 16 3.60 Child aged 14 3.00 Less family allowance 90 Total 10.30
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether it is true that in Sweden benefits in these circumstances are paid to strikers, or the families of 1117 strikers, only when there are cases of extreme hardship, and even then payments come from local authorities rather than from public funds? Is it not also true that in Sweden and Germany when payments are made they are made in the form of a loan, so that when the strike is over and the man is again earning he is able to pay back public funds in this manner? Lastly, do we not now in this country tend to be out of line with the benefits paid by our main industrial competitors in Western Europe? If that is so, are we wise in continuing with benefits on this scale? Ought we not to look at the possibility of a loan in place of a direct grant?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, in Sweden there are no centrally administered benefits which resemble supplementary benefits. Local authorities are required by law to administer "social help" in certain cases. It is true that benefit paid during a strike is repayable in Sweden, and may be repayable in Germany. Of the countries mentioned in the Question of my noble friend, none provides payments of social assistance from public funds to the families of strikers which are comparable to payments of supplementary benefit in Great Britain. On the last part of my noble friend's Question, we have to try to find a balance between inflicting undue hardship on the families of strikers and, at the same time, avoiding subsidising strikes from the Exchequer.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, is it not correct to say that in all cases where these social benefits are paid to people when the wage earner is on strike the payments are based upon hardship in the home? This is typical in Sweden. With regard to the reference to Sweden and the loan which is made, it is difficult to decide when there is real hardship in the home in which the social relief is given. Past experience of industrial troubles shows that when payments have been granted on a loan basis there has been tremendous difficulty and bitterness involved before any repayments were made and quite often loans had to be wiped off.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there are different considerations which have to be 1118 taken into account when loans are made rather than social security benefits given. This is one of the factors that has to be taken into account in arriving at the right balance of justice.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, would the Minister indicate, with regard to his original Answer, whether the wording "supplementary benefit" was confined in that case to National Assistance plus the other payments? Secondly, could he say whether there is any distinction in the; payments made between an official and an unofficial strike? Is there any limit to the duration that payments would be made during an unofficial strike?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, if a man is on strike and has no other income, he is entitled to the rates of benefit provided by the supplementary benefits regulations. I cannot add to my I original Answer; the striker gets no payment but his dependants do.
§ LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that relief by loan is a relic of the old board of guardian days which was abolished almost forty years ago? Is he further aware that, judging from the experience of 1926, it costs more to collect the loan than the loan is really worth?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I am not commenting on the merits of this matter. I was asked to compare the system in this country with the system in various other countries. It is true, as my noble friend has said, that in Sweden and Germany those loans are paid for by local subvention and may be repayable by the person concerned.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks he was quite fair in comparing the payment of supplementary benefits in this country with the non-payment of such benefits in the Common Market countries? We have been told from time to time that wages in those countries are so enormously high that the workers there have been able to save little nest eggs with which to tide them over periods of strikes or unemployment.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, there is always this great difficulty in making comparisons between one country and another, because circumstances differ. I 1119 am only trying to give factual answers to the questions that I have been asked.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, would not the Minister agree that at a time like this it is in the national interest for the Government to rebuild bridges that they have deliberately torn down between themselves, the trade union movement and the workers as a whole? The Government should be very careful indeed to make it quite clear, beyond any possible shadow of doubt, that they do not hope to solve industrial disputes by striking at the man's wife and family.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I would readily accept that. There is no intention of striking at a man's wife or family. My right honourable friend has said that he has this matter under review so that we can achieve the right balance in this matter.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, is it not true to say that in the Common Market countries both the Government and the industrialists woo their trade unions in a way that we do not, despite our humane arrangements for supplementary benefits?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, that is rather another question and I should not like to comment on it.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the suggestion in the answer he gave to a supplementary question put by my noble friend would be a retrograde step which the people of this country would not like? It goes back to the time when local authorities were brought in and their officers travelled up and down the country or within their particular district, and we called them the "pineapple men". Some of us had to subject ourselves to this experience durin the 1926 lockout and we know what it means. I sincerely hope that the progress that has been made—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is beginning to make a short speech.
§ LORD ABERDAREI know of the noble Lord's knowledge of these matters. I am only trying to put the situation as it is and to repeat that what we are trying to do in looking at this matter is to 1120 strike the right balance between keeping a civilised system of social security benefits, which will prevent the worst hardships which strikers' families might otherwise suffer, and not subsidising strikes at public expense.