asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will ask the Scottish Law Commission to review the law relating to industrial disputes, in the light of the British Leyland case in the Court of Session.

No, Sir.

As one who spent many hours over several days in the Court of Session, may I ask whether it would not be wise for the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General to have a serious meeting with their right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment before he rushes precipitately to change his Employment Bill, in the light of the fascinating judgments of the Law Lords in the Leyland and Plessey cases, the latter being no longer sub judice?

My understanding is that an interim interdict is still outstanding in the British Leyland case. Accordingly, in terms of what I understand to be the ruling on matters sub judice, I make no further comment. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that yesterday the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh gave its decision on the Plessey case under section 13 of the 1974 Act. I am aware that their Lordships resolved that leave to appeal to the House of Lords should not be given, but I have not yet had the opportunity to consider the details of their decision.

As the Solicitor-General has said, we understand that in the Plessey case leave to appeal has not been given. Surely it must be for the Government to clarify the position, which their Lordships themselves said was obscure. One understands that their judgment is only a temporary statement of the law as they understand it to apply to this case. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?

The decision arrived at in Edinburgh yesterday is an important one and clearly Ministers with responsibility for employment will want to consider it carefully. Beyond what I have already said, I cannot properly add any further personal comments.