§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 3rd February.
§ Mr. FormanWhen the Prime Minister last met the TUC, did he make clear 700 that he is now prepared to shelve the damaging and controversial proposals in the Bullock majority recommendation for putting trade unionists on the board? Is not one of the reasons why the prospects for further pay restraint beyond the end of July are now so dim—and perhaps fatally damaging that the Government's policies on direct taxation have put a crushing burden on ordinary working people?
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to what I have previously said in the House about the Bullock Report. We are entering a period of intense negotiation in order to try, if possible, to see how we can secure a lasting settlement, but that will take a great deal of negotiation to achieve. I do not know whether we can achieve it, but it is worth trying because there is no doubt that the idea of industrial democracy and participation has come to stay. Therefore, we ought to try to find a solution and introduce legislation to achieve it.
As to direct taxation, everybody is suffering from that, always has done and always will, but no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have more to say about that when he introduces his Budget.
§ Mr. John MendelsonHas the Prime Minister seen that, in the statement which arose from the meeting of the economic committee of the General Council of the TUC, great stress was laid on the measures that Government should take to reduce unemployment? Is he aware that the President of the United States is implementing the programme of the American trade union movement with whose support he was elected and is spending $25,000 million to create 1,100,000 new jobs? In his forthcoming discussions with the President, will my right hon. Friend agree that Great Britain should have a similar policy and should abandon the policy of not spending more public money to save jobs but rather of allowing unemployment to remain at its present high level?
§ The Prime MinisterSuch a policy will be appropriate when the Government secure, as they intend, a level of inflation and a balance of payments surplus that are comparable to those of the United States. Even apart from that, 701 the two cases are not equal and the same remedies are not applicable.
§ Mrs. ThatcherCan the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is, in his view, that when we had the pay dispute with the seamen their claim was able to be resolved generously and satisfactorily within the pay policy but that the Government seem totally unable to respond in the same way to the police claim? Is he aware that this is giving rise to very considerable concern and that we all hope that the Government will be able to respond and solve the dispute generously within the pay policy?
§ The Prime MinisterIf it is possible to settle the policemen's pay claim within the pay policy, the right hon. Lady need have no doubt that it will be done. The Home Secretary is the responsible Minister, but I try to keep myself apprised of such matters in case I get asked the sort of question that the right hon. Lady asked. From my cursory examination, it appears that the cases of the policemen and the seamen are not on all fours and are not altogether comparable. The Home Secretary is doing what he can to get a settlement. I have always taken the view that the police service should get the best possible conditions, but we cannot break a Pay Code which has been generally accepted, even for the most deserving cases. If we can find something within the limits of the Pay Code, I agree that we should do so.
§ Mrs. ThatcherIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one in my party has ever sought a breach of the Government's Pay Code and that I said this when we had the National Union of Seamen's dispute? As the right hon. Gentleman does not hesitate to take over responsibilities from other Departments, will he intervene personally in this case? After all, he has a special knowledge of the police claim and it is one that is very important indeed for the future safety of the citizens of this country.
§ The Prime MinisterI have listened to the right hon. Lady's proposals, but she knows that I have not taken over responsibilities from other Ministers—though she insists on continuing to say that I have. It would not be right for me to do so in this case, but, of course, these matters will receive overall Government consideration.
§ Mr. SpeakerBusiness Question, Mrs. Thatcher.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was about to address you on the question of a Standing Order No. 9 application in relation to the Agee and Hosenball case. I recognise that you have said that this should be done at the end of business questions, but rise to warn my hon. Friends that they had better come back from the Tea Room at the appropriate time.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat was more a matter of strategy than a point of order.