§ Q4. Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
§ Q8. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.
§ Mr. AdleyIs the Prime Minister aware of the current dispute at the BBC, where the Executive Committee of the NUJ has tried to impose a strike on the unwilling majority of NUJ members who are affiliated to the TUC? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential that the opportunity of a ballot be offered to workers, be it on the question of trade union membership or the closed shop? Will he take this matter up with the TUC and see if it will agree to include in future, as a recommendation to the member unions, the right to ballot on all these questions?
§ The Prime MinisterI shall examine the hon. Gentleman's question, but I do not want to give a reply this afternoon. With regard to the dispute between the BBC and the journalists, I believe that I am right in saying that this has now gone to ACAS. If so, ACAS should be allowed to arbitrate or conciliate on the matter, as seems to be necessary.
§ Mr. RidleyWhen the Prime Minister next meets the TUC will he tell it that he prefers the views of his own Secretary of State, who, after all, is accountable to this House, and who seems to be veering towards the minority report, rather than the views of Mr. Len Murray, who does not even seem to speak for the TUC now?
§ The Prime MinisterIt would be far better if the hon. Gentleman allowed us to begin the process of consultation. If we were to announce our decisions forthwith there would be an awful howl from the Opposition. What we are doing is to 228 announce the basis on which we shall consult. In due course, if the House will give us the time and the opportunity, we shall come forward with our proposals.
§ Mr. MartenMay I make a helpful suggestion to the Prime Minister? When he next meets the TUC, will he discuss with it the proposition that wage settlements in the major public sector industries should all be arrived at on one day—in other words, synchronised—to avoid the damage done by the leapfrogging of wage settlements?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is present on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure that he heard what the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said. For myself, I can see great practical difficulties, however desirable this might be in theory. If we could work towards it, I should want to encourage it, but I do not think that it is likely to happen in next year's wage round.
§ Mr. SpearingWhen my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he discuss his recent welcome statements about the redevelopment of our inner cities? Is he aware that it would be possible to redevelop a great deal of East End dockland without disadvantage to the development areas and without increasing Government expenditure, simply by moving some of the development capital from the South-East into the East London area and away from the new towns? Is he aware, further, that if he answers this question and it is published in the local Stratford Express, it will be printed in Milton Keynes?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is a great temptation to answer it. But we had a very useful discussion on this matter last weekend at the local government conference of the Labour Party. There is growing concern about the problem of our inner cities. I repeat what I have said already. As soon as resources become available, this is one of the priority problems that we must tackle. But we have to make resources available. The Government find themselves under considerable pressure from a great many sides to reduce public expenditure. That is what we have done. But we must deal with this problem as soon as we can.