asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a ministerial broadcast in English and in Welsh to the people of Wales to explain to every Welsh household the expected consequences for their standard of living of the Government's policies to contain inflation.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's broadcast of 20th August drove the points home.

I am very sorry to hear that. Will the Secretary of State not now admit that if inflation is to be conquered there has to be a sharp drop in living standards, including the living standards of Socialist trade unionists? Is he aware that the Government's failure to bring this fact home at an earlier stage is a direct cause of the present record high level of unemployment in Wales? Will he further admit that if the Government persist in their Socialist policies of nationalisation, lavish Government expenditure and vindictive treatment of business, the dole queues next year will be 50 per cent. longer than they are now?

In view of the record of the Conservative Party, which the hon. Gentleman supported, I am surprised that he has the face to make the statement that he has now made. I assure him that it is the Government's intention to carry out their policies as expressed in their manifesto, on which they successfully fought the last election. The Government's prime aim is and always has been to cure inflation.

Does the Secretary of State agree that with the unacceptably high level of unemployment in many parts of Wales, the immediate need now is a cash injection to create work over the next few months in order at least to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment until the economy can reflate and job opportunities increase?

I am sure that in that respect the hon. Gentleman will welcome the steps taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Employment on 24th September with that aim in mind.

Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bear in mind the lavish promises made by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that if we were in the Common Market there would be more jobs and a lot of investment available? In fact, we now have massive unemployment and a decrease in the level of investment.

Whether we were in or out of the Common Market we would still be faced with the problems of inflation and unemployment. We are determined to conquer both.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales, if he is satisfied with the state of the dairy industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

I and the other agricultural Ministers have been considering, as a matter of urgency, what further measures are open to the Government to improve the position of dairy farmers, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is actively engaged on this issue in Luxembourg this week. He will be making a statement as soon as possible.

Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do everything in his power to prevent milk rationing this Christmas? Does he have any plans to import liquid milk?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very conscious of the problems of the milk industry. I am concerned by the figures revealed in the last June return. On rationing, although milk output has declined in recent months there is no reason to think that milk rationing will be necessary.

Has the Secretary of State represented to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the necessity for an urgent revaluation of the green pound?

I am not in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman what representations do or do not take place between Ministers. Obviously, the revaluation of the green pound is one of the matters which is of great concern to the farming industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the impact of the current milk situation not only on the income levels of farmers but on the job security of those employed in creameries? There are two creameries in my constituency and I am gravely concerned about the short-term position and the long-term viability of those units.

Yes, I am certainly fully aware of the position. Last week I met the two regional panel chairmen, who advised my right hon. Friend and myself concerning both North and South Wales. They set out their views to me at some length. In recent weeks I have also met one of the farming unions which, among other matters, set out to me the concern of the manufacturing industry.

But what is the Minister actually doing, other than being concerned? He has said that he is concerned about the June returns. They should not have surprised him. All the indicators have been there for over a year. What is he actually doing apart from being concerned?

If the hon. Gentleman had done me the favour of listening to my original answer he would have heard me say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is engaged on this matter in Luxembourg this week and will make a statement as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the index of industrial production in Wales in the second quarter of 1975.

The provisional estimate of the Index of Industrial Production for Wales in the second quarter of 1975, based on a figure of 100 in 1970, is 94.

Does the Secretary of State recall that when I asked a similar Question on 14th April he gave me a reply like the one he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and said that it was all the fault of the Conservative Government? Now that the Government have been in office for about 20 months, now that industrial production has plunged to a level far below that of 1970, and certainly way below that in the three-day working week, whom will he now blame? Will he for the first time acknowledge that the prime responsibility lies on the policies of the Government, and in particular, their reckless use of expenditure before corresponding increased production has been obtained?

The hon. Gentleman presents a very strange picture, because although in this House he advocates cuts in public expenditure, on any matters affecting his constituency he is a major advocate of public expenditure. I find his arguments remarkable in the extreme.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with representatives of building societies designed to make the societies more flexible in their lending policies to meet the needs of those who would in normal circumstances receive local authority mortgages.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has given to district councils in Wales about lending for local authority mortgages.

As I told the House on 7th July, local authority mortgage lending in Wales had to be suspended while a review was made of amounts committed. This review showed that the amount provided for local authority mortgage lending in Wales in 1975–76 had already been fully taken up. I cannot say at present when lending might be resumed.

This extra money is welcome, but will it go to those people, on limited means who are finding it difficult to obtain deposits and wish to buy the smaller terraced houses—of which there are many in Wales—and who would otherwise simply be on the council house waiting list? What evidence is there that the building societies will modify their policies in this respect? If they will not, should they not be made to do so?

This £5 million from the building societies is certainly an extra £5 million worth of business, some of which might have been undertaken by local authorities had it not been for the freeze. We have been holding discussions with the building societies and with the Council for the Principality. Whilst broad agreement has been reached on the sharing out of this money, it is somewhat early to make a detailed announcement, since there are further details to be discussed.

Is the Minister aware that, on past performance, money lent in Wales through the building societies has not noticeably found its way to people on low incomes, people wanting older property, and self-employed persons? Is he aware that, because of the preponderance of older property in Wales and of house buyers on low incomes, the withdrawal of local authority lending is a severe blow? Will he consider making up the deficiency by withdrawing tax relief on mortgages to people on higher incomes?

The question of tax relief is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We appreciated from the beginning that our decision to restrict mortgages for local authority lending at this time would present a serious difficulty to many people in Wales. There was considerable over- spending, and in view of the national economic and financial situation we felt that it was the only prudent step to be taken at this time. We are grateful to the building societies for coming partly to our help in this matter.

Can the Under-Secretary hold out no glimmer of hope about the restoration of local authority lending, which was brought to an abrupt end without any warning whatsoever? Does he not think that it would be far better to restore local authority lending than to spend between £50 million and £60 million implementing the Community Land Bill?

First, I do not think that the Community Land Bill is related to the question of local authority lending.

It is for housing.

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will get an answer. It is not related to local authority lending. But we are aware of the tremendous difficulties. It is somewhat early to make an announcement for next year, but we are holding discussions with the Council for the Principality to try to ensure that in the next financial year we establish priorities acceptable to the Government and to the local authorities in Wales to ensure that money for housing in Wales is spent in areas of greatest need.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that cutting off local authority mortgages at the same time as allowing the municipalisation of private housing demonstrates a strange language of priorities?

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the acquisition of houses was also stopped at the same time

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if Her Majesty's Government accept the recommendations of the Daniel Committee concerning water charges in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

The charging issue covered by the report is of such complexity and importance that it needs to be considered as a matter of priority and in the context of the forthcoming review of the Water Act which was announced on 15th August. Preparatory studies on charging and on the powers of a central authority are in hand, and when these are completed we intend to issue a consultation paper early next year.

I think that the people of Wales will be very amazed at the extraordinary delay that there has been in the publication of this report. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the delay between March and August in the publication of the report, if it did nothing else, should at least have given time for studying the complex problems to which it relates? Does he realise that there will be amazement in Wales if, by the next financial year, no formula is forthcoming which will alleviate the burden being put on the rates by water charges? Will the Government give top priority to sorting that problem out?

It is because the Government regard the matter with urgency that immediately on publication of the report we set up a committee to investigate the complicated recommendations and suggestions included in the Daniel Report. There was no delay in publishing the report from the Government's point of view. As soon as the report was received, it was sent to the printers. A number of factors, including industrial action, for instance, prevented its becoming available for issue until early in August.

In view of the fact that in any event, owing to inflation and other circumstances, water charges are likely to be rather high in the years ahead, will the Government contemplate extending to water charges the rate rebate which applies to ordinary local government rates?

The hon. Gentleman has given us a good example of the way in which the Opposition on the one hand call on us to reduce public expenditure and, on the other, when it suits their political convenience, call on us to increase it.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received his inspector's report on the New Inn bypass inquiry; and when he will be making his adjudication.

Yes, Sir. It is under examination but it is too early to forecast when my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to announce his decision.

I appreciate that the Secretary of State has to give very careful consideration if justice is to be obtained for all the representations which have been made, but does the Minister under stand that a considerable number of building and other schemes are waiting in a vacuum until a decision has been made? May we therefore have, as soon as possible, a decision which is commensurate with justice?

Yes, certainly. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. Indeed, he has campaigned vigorously for the people in that valley. I cannot say when the scheme will begin, because that depends on the completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay an official visit to Newport.

I have no immediate plans for doing so, Sir.

With 4, 000 families on the waiting list, plus massive redevelopment problems, Newport has become the housing black spot of Wales. Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State has now been in office for nearly two years, is it not time that he paid us an official visit?

I am deeply aware of the acute housing problems not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but in other parts of Wales. If he is suggesting that I have not been to Newport or Gwent, I remind him that I have paid three visits to Newport, on two of which I had the pleasure of his company. There have been six ministerial visits by Welsh Office Ministers to Newport and there have been 21 other ministerial visits to the county of Gwent and several by myself.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities in Wales concerning the present level of unemployment.

A number of authorities have expressed their concern to me about the rate of unemployment in their particular areas.

I appreciate that the Government's recruitment subsidy scheme for school leavers comes into effect today, but what is the Minister proposing to do about those young people who do not want to work immediately but would prefer to go on technical college courses, but cannot do so because the money is not available to those colleges? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that this is a serious problem in North Wales, particularly in Bangor and Colwyn Bay.

The number of places in technical colleges is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's questions, and I shall consult my right hon. Friend further on this issue.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on the success of the recent meeting between the Wales TUC and the Prime Minister on this very subject?

Last Friday, the Wales TUC discussed with a number of colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, its deep concern about unemployment. It was a very useful discussion, in that one was able, for a substantial period of time, to go over the many issues of deep concern to the Wales TUC.

Does the Secretary of State realise that in the present crisis we need more than just useful discussions, that he does not talk his way out of the problem by blaming me for pressing one priority instead of another in my constituency—hospital beds instead of the re-organisation of education—and that the present rate of unemployment is caused by the Government's failure to act last year, by their excessive expendi- tures, and by their ruthless squeeze on profits, and that the unemployment that will arise when they start to take action against inflation will have to be added to the present shameful levels?

I am in a difficulty in trying to analyse the question that the hon. Gentleman is asking. He must make up his mind. He will be labelled a political schizophrenic if he cannot decide whether he is for or against public expenditure in relation to his own parish.

Further to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment about the meeting with the Wales TUC, will he say whether the Government have given any commitment for additional funds to Wales for solving the economic problem and whether they have committed themselves to meeting the whole of the £18 million asked for, or a specific part of it?

The Government, in the discussions headed by the Prime Minister, made it clear that there was nothing additional to the measures which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 24th September and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but we agreed to consider the matter further and to have another meeting with the Wales TUC in the autumn and the early part of the new year to monitor progress.

What representations, if any, has the Secretary of State had from both farmers' unions in Wales about unemployment?

I have recently met one of the farming unions in Wales. It is deeply concerned about the problems of the milk industry but in the course of the discussions it raised a number of other issues. I hope fairly soon to meet the other union, and I am sure that it will set out its concern about milk and other issues.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state his estimate of economic prospects in Wales during the next year.

During the next year the economic prospects in Wales as for the United Kingdom as a whole will depend very largely on the success of the Government's measures to reduce the rate of inflation.

In view of the answers given by the Secretary of State for Wales to my hon. Friends the Members for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he and his colleagues, and the Government in general, accept any responsibility for the terrible plight, terrible economic position and grotesquely high level of unemployment which the country now faces?

The problem is world wide, and the nature of the question indicated that at least in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman some of the blame for some of the problems to date rests with Members on the benches opposite. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman a little cheer. As a Member for South Wales, he should not forget the momentum of the M4 road building programme there. By the end of this year £90 million worth of road works will be taking place on 30 miles of motorway in South Wales, and this must inevitably help employment prospects in the road haulage and quarrying areas.

Is not the time opportune for the Government to engage in a massive housing drive, bearing in mind that materials are available which do not have to be imported, and many men are in the dole queue? Such a drive would have the effect of taking men out of the dole queue and at the same time curing a social and economic problem.

There is a housing drive. The Government recognise the problem as it exists in Wales, and in particular in Newport.

Will the hon. Gentleman say how many miles of motorway are planned for North Wales?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the A55 proposal in terms of the Colwyn Bay area is going to a public inquiry, and when the M4 is finished in South Wales the Welsh Office road priority will be in North Wales, and the dualling of the A55.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has met representatives of the Society of British Aerospace Constructors during the recess.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State held a meeting with representatives of the society on 2nd September and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the council on 24th September.

Were any of those gentlemen able to persuade the SBAC that the cancellation of British missile systems in favour of foreign competitors and the Government's failure to make any constructive comment to the EEC on the future of the British aerospace industry are good omens for the future of our industry under the possible management of this Government?

I cannot reveal the matters that were discussed when my right hon. Friend met the SBAC. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we were able to persuade the Society. We were able to persuade the electorate that the aircraft industry should be nationalised.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the representations received from the Society of British Aero-space Constructors included proposals about the future of Scottish Aviation Limited? Will he say when he will give his decision on the proposals that he has received from Scottish Aviation Limited on the future of the Jet-stream, to maintain the Scottish aerospace industry?

I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the point made by my hon. Friend, and we shall respond as soon as we can.

What will the hon. Gentleman do to make the aerospace industry aware that its export prospects will greatly improve if it will get into the habit of manufacturing quieter aircraft?

If the hon. Gentleman is implying that Concorde is not a good export prospect he had better travel in that plane with many distinguished foreign and Commonwealth statesmen and see how favourably they react to it.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his intention to publish the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill some time in this coming December? If that is the case, will he invite the trade unions involved to submit their ideas for the inclusion of both Westland and Rolls-Royce in the future structure of the nationalised industry?

December is a good deal later than we intended. We intend to publish the Bill very soon, with the intention of getting the industry into public ownership as quickly as possible. We have been in regular contact with the trade unions and others about the form of the Bill and the future form of the industry.

On the Government's present plans, can the hon. Gentleman say how many people at the moment employed in the British aircraft industry expect to lose their jobs by this time next year?

It is difficult to speculate on how many would lose their jobs if we did not take the necessary and progressive step of putting the industry into public ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent representations he has received asking him to abandon his proposals to nationalise the aircraft industry.

Since the Bill was published, my right hon. Friend has had some half a dozen such letters. He has received many more from those who favour the Bill and wish it to be enacted as soon as possible.

So as to ascertain fully the views of the industry, why does not the Minister conduct a referendum among those who work in it and discover whether they want this plan? Is he not aware that this irrelevant measure will do nothing to solve the crisis created by this Government? Is he further aware that when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was appointed many people hoped that we would see the end of "Bemifoolery", and are disappointed now to see that it has been replaced by "extra-Varley-ganza"?

The hon. Gentleman maintains his normal level of wit and charm. The present Secretary of State is pursuing policies identical to those of his predecessor—policies which were endorsed by the British people at two General Elections. As for the wishes of the trade unionists, if those who work in the industry had had their way it would have been nationalised in the last Session.

If the Minister removed his blinkers, would he not be aware that there is great uneasiness among a number of the smaller companies which will be affected, on the fringe of the main industry, including several in East Anglia? In view of the Government's failure to make out a convincing case for this measure, would it not be better now to leave it for good in the pigeon hole?

We made out the case and it was accepted by the electorate.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on the position of the motor car industry.

I have as yet nothing to add to previous statements.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the trade deficit is serious and the car industry faces a major crisis it is ludicrous and unpatriotic for public authorities, financed by rates and taxes, to spend a great deal of money buying foreign cars? If so, what will he do about it? Will he tell my constituents working in the motor industry whether the Government are free, if they wish, to put import controls on foreign cars, or whether it will first be necessary to get the permission of the Common Market?

I hope that all public authorities will ensure that they buy British cars. The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience that the Government cannot compel them to do so, but their good sense should compel them to buy British. There has been discussion of import controls, and the Secretary of State for Trade has discussed these matters in Japan. We shall clear whatever we have to with the EEC, the vote having gone the way it did last June, but we shall act independently as and when we need to and as and when we can.

As strategic decisions on the future of the automotive industry depend in part on discussions that my hon. Friend has been having with that industry on future energy-saving proposals, will he say whether the discussions that he has been having since the beginning of the year, and which he last said—on 13th June—were continuing, have yet been concluded?

I have nothing to add at present, but I shall keep my hon. Friend informed.

Since the future of Leyland is so important to the well-being of the motor industry as a whole, now that the new chairman has been appointed, will the Minister confirm that the board, which has the legal responsibility for the conduct of the company's affairs, will be free to pursue policies which it considers in the company's long-term interests, and will not be restricted to implementing the recommendations of the Ryder Report if it wishes to depart from them?

The hon. Gentleman should study the statement by Sir Ronald Edwards when he was appointed. It was made clear that the board of Leyland has freedom of action, but he made it clear that he would take fully into account what the Prime Minister said when he made his statement about Leyland earlier this year, namely, that the Ryder Report should form the basis of the re-organisation.

On the subject of the Secretary of State for Trade's discussions in Japan this summer on the import of Japanese cars and the voluntary agreement he obtained to restrict those imports, will my hon. Friend confirm that if that voluntary agreement fails his Department will lend support to the view that there should be some form of compulsory restriction?

The question of import restrictions is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade, in consultation with his colleagues. We shall make whatever recommendations we regard as appropriate in the light of the situation, but the very best thing is that the British motor industry—Leyland and the other companies—should be competitive and should sell goods that people wish to buy at prices they can afford. In that way we shall have a fully competitive industry, which can beat world competition.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to make a statement about the future of steel making at BSC Shotton.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now make a statement on the future of Shotton Steel Works.

An announcement will be made as soon as the Government have completed their consideration of all the issues involved.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statistics on which the British Steel Corporation bases its case for transferring Shotton's steel-making capacity to Port Talbot have now been utterly discredited? If the BSC relies not on those discredited figures but on the fact that Shotton is too far removed from deep water to merit further expansion, when, none the less, both strike-torn Llanwern and Scunthorpe are much further from deep water, what possible justification is there for the Government's endorsing this aspect of BSC strategy?

I read the hon. Gentleman's interesting letter in The Times to this effect the other day. These are matters which are being taken into account in considering this problem, but we must remember that under the previous administration's White Paper Shotton's iron and steel making was due to close in the second half of this decade. I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman voted for that White Paper.

Is the Minister aware that if a full social costing of this project were undertaken it would be found that the cost of keeping the works open and the cost of closing it were not much different, and that the benefit which would come from keeping it open would give additional steel capacity which might be needed in times of expansion? Will he give favourable and early consideration to a definite announcement that the works will be kept open?

The matters which both hon. Members have mentioned are arguable. It is because we need to consider matters like this and all other relevant considerations that we are waiting until the right decision is made rather than hurrying into any decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make arrangements to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the industrial situation.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 10th October, when, among other things, the industrial situation was discussed.

Does my hon. Friend know that the STUC held a special conference on 24th September to discuss unemployment in Scotland, where, for example, in Kilsyth, in my constituency, a total of 14·5 per cent. of males are unemployed? On that same day, the multi-national company, Coats-Paton, which ruthlessly closed down its factory in Kilsyth at the turn of the year, announced a further 550 redundancies in the Central Region. Is it not about time that the Government started taking some radical Socialist initiatives with regard to the ownership and management of industry, so as to stop this exploitation of workers and continue support for the Labour Government in Scotland?

I was of course well aware of the STUC conference, which, unhappily, I was not able to attend. I also know of some of the issues discussed there, which I understand were also discussed with the Secretary of State for Scotland when he met the STUC just the other day. As to what are or are not radical measures, I should have thought that some of those which we have introduced, in the shape of the Industry Bill—to set up planning agreements and the National Enterprise Board and, above all, we hope, by the end of this year, the Scottish Development Agency—would be a considerable help in alleviating the unemployment in Scotland.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one industry in Scotland for which we have tried a number of radical Socialist initiatives is shipbuilding, and that we are facing an acute crisis in that industry? Did he discuss shipbuilding with the STUC, and has he any plans to deal with the acute problem affecting a large number of jobs in areas of high unemployment?

We are all conscious of the problems of shipbuilding. Those of us, like the hon. Gentleman and me, who represent Clydeside constituencies, have been concerned about it all our adult lives. Some of the measures we now propose will help the industry. That is why we are continuing to press ahead—against the wishes, I know, of hon. Members opposite—with taking part of this industry and the aircraft industry into public ownership.

Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of curing unemployment in Scotland would be to give the Scottish Development Agency a proper budget of about £300 million a year, as has been suggested by my party? Does he further agree that it is humbug for representatives of the Labour Party to call for a policy of reflation because the vast majority of them voted against such a policy in Scotland during the Counter-inflation measures?

The hon. Gentleman is asking questions which should be directed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The budget of the SDA is ongoing.

Will the Minister of State explain to those facing unemployment in the shipbuilding industry that there is a positive deterrent to investment in that industry because the Government have published their Bill for nationalisation with totally inadequate terms of compensation for future investment?

I have studied the shipbuilding industry for many years. The deficiencies in that industry have not arisen because of the publication of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. They existed a long time before that. The problem of under-investment in shipbuilding existed for a number of years when the Opposition were in office.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action has he taken subsequent to his last statement on the motor cycle industry to safeguard public funds committed to Norton Villiers Triumph and the Meriden Co-operative; and if he will make a statement.

It is not the practice to disclose details of the Department's commercial relationships with industry, for reasons of commercial security. The Department is receiving regular monitoring returns from these two companies.

Is the Minister aware that my constituents who work in the Small Heath factory are considerably alarmed by the fact that no decision has been reached on the future of that enterprise which, in turn, depends upon a Government decision? The matter has been rotating for three months between merchant bankers, Government Departments and the firms concerned. When shall we have a decision?

We announced our decision before the Summer Recess.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members would do far more for the British motor cycle industry if they occasionally stood up and congratulated Meriden Co-operative on its resumption of exports to the United States—exports which would have been lost had the Conservatives had their way?

Meriden Co-operative is a brave venture, which deserves every encouragement. The present state of the British motor cycle industry goes back at least to the actions of Mr. Christopher Chataway when he was Minister for Industrial Development, and cannot be laid at the door of this Government.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what restrictions are placed on the movement of individual civil servants who wish to transfer from London to the provinces on comparable work.

:There are no service-wide restrictions, and Departments endeavour to meet all reasonable requests, having regard to the availability of replacement staff and the need to provide an effective service. In general, priority is given to cases where there is hardship or domestic or other distress.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. As it is the policy of the Government to decentralise Civil Service activities from London to the provinces, what is the point of putting obstacles in the way of individuals who, for personal reasons, wish to go from London to, say, Sheffield?

My hon. Friend has expressed an understandable point of view. People find difficulty in differentiating between the dispersal of Civil Service posts and the transfer of individual civil servants. The transfer of individual civil servants depends on the availability of posts at Sheffield and other provincial locations.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a further statement on the Government's plans for devolution.

The Government hope to publish a further White Paper on devolution next month, which will set out conprehensively the constitutional machinery for the assemblies and the powers they will exercise. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate now the decisions which will be announced in the White Paper.

Although there are differences of opinion about what specific powers the Scottish Assembly should have, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the setting up of such an assembly is the policy of the Labour Party, the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, that it was included in the Labour Party Manifesto and the Queen's Speech earlier this Session, and that the overwhelming majority of opinion among the Scottish people is that the Government must not renege on this promise and must proceed with as much haste as possible to set up a meaningful assembly with meaningful devolution rather than separatism?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour Party fought the General Election on the clearest promises about this matter, as did all the parties. Every party went to the last General Election with a clear promise that it would set up an elected Scottish Assembly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish Office civil servants would like guidance or assurance on the question whether it is likely that they will be answerable to the assembly or to the Secretary of State, or whether there will be two Scottish officers doing the same job and probably conflicting with each other?

That point will be dealt with in clear terms in the White Paper. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited Scotland three weeks ago and had discussions with the staff of the Scottish Office.

Does the Lord President recall that he indicated to the House that the White Paper would be published by the time we resumed? He is now talking of a further delay. Will he give a definite date when the legislation will be placed before the House?

I am not aware that I promised that the White Paper would be published before the House reassembled. I said that the White Paper would be published in the autumn. It will be published in November. That is, in a sense, still autumn. It will probably be the most important constitutional document of this century, and it is important that we get it right and allow people sufficient time to consider it.

Will the Minister agree that, by tradition, White Papers have been discussion documents? Do I gather from what he has said, which would appear to confirm the rumours which are widely held, that the White Paper will set out in wholly inflexible detail what the Government propose to do and will offer the public no choice—even, if I may say so, down to the shape of the Chamber—least of all on the question of electoral reform despite the recent polls in the Sun? Would it not therefore be more sensible to proceed directly to a Bill on devolution and to allow that a full and proper time for debate?

No, Sir. This matter affects the future and cohesion of the United Kingdom, and it is extremely important that we proceed carefully. The White Paper will set out a carefully devised plan which is one coherent whole. Although it represents firm Government decisions, it is certainly not inflexible. We shall hear what everyone has to say about it and will, as far as possible, take into account all the substantial and significant comments made upon it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members will welcome the flat statement that at long last the White Paper will be published in November? Does he agree that no White Paper in history has been leaked more voluminously than this over the past 12 months, and that perhaps a short period of silence should be welcomed by all parties until we see the Bill in the flesh? We shall then be able to deal with the main problem, which is the real crisis facing this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if an acceptable form of devolution to Northern Ireland is agreed it will not be kept waiting because of the time it might take to reach agreement on schemes of devolution to Scotland and Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman remove apprehensions felt in Northern Ireland on this point?

Yes, I can certainly give that assurance.

Will the Lord President give an assurance that the further delay in the publication of this White Paper in no way reflects a change of policy by the Government brought about by pressure by the Civil Service, as has been suggested in some newspapers?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the article in The SundayTimes in which the conclusions were completely false and untrue. It is true that the article was based upon a leak which was extremely serious and which is being investigated. However, the conclusions, which were drawn from an old official paper, were completely false and untrue. I can give that assurance. There is no change of policy. The slight delay—it is not a great delay—is due entirely, first, to the complexity of the Bill and, secondly, to the length of the White Paper.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just said that the White Paper will be a major constitutional document, affecting the whole of the United Kingdom? Will he therefore accept that in these circumstances it is extremely important that this House should have the opportunity of considering what the White Paper says and that the Government should have the opportunity of considering what the House thinks of the White Paper before legislation is placed before it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any other course could be counter-productive, and could lead to grave difficulties in the House of Commons?

I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. This will be done. There will be an opportunity to debate the White Paper before Christmas and the Bill will be published after that, in the light not only of the debate in the House but of any significant comments received from any quarters.

asked the Lord President of the Council when he plans to move to set up a Select Committee to examine the workings of Parliament.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on 7th July.—[Vol. 894, c. 23.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have had the Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, that it was an abortive report because of the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 19th May, and that the House is waiting for action on the promised radical look at the way in which the House of Commons is doing its business? Hon. Members will not be patient for much longer in waiting for details of the Select Committee which is to do what was promised several months ago.

I promised a Select Committee in the new Session of Parliament. That Select Committee will be set up in the new Session of Parliament.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing much wrong with the workings of the House of Commons but there is a great deal wrong with the workings of Government? If the Government would legislate less we should not need to set up a Committee, because we should have less work to do, and that would be to the benefit of the country as well as the House of Commons.

There is a great deal wrong with the working of the Opposition, also, from what I saw on television last week.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question of the proceedings of the House is for the Select Committee on Procedure, with appropriate terms of reference?

That is a point of view, but I suggested—and I asked any hon. Members who were interested to discuss it with me—that as this was a major radical view it might be worth considering the possibility of a mixed Committee of eminent outsiders and a majority of Members of the House.

I hope that the Leader of the House will not too lightly dismiss the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). Will he give careful consideration to the idea of examining the whole working of Government, the Departments of which have become more and more swollen and more and more inept as time has gone on? I am not blaming individual civil servants. The organisation of Government has not been looked at for far too long, and far too often Parliament is made the scapegoat for the Government's ineptitude.

That is a different question, which is for the Prime Minister and not for me. I am concerned with the working of the House. I am not entirely satisfied about it at present. There is a case for a radical review of the way we do our work and the functioning of Parliament in a modern democracy in the last quarter of the twentieth century.

asked the Lord President of the Council how many British tenders were requested before the order was given for House of Commons china; and whether tenders were asked from countries other than Germany.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a House of Commons matter? Which other hon. Members endorsed the decision? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great public interest in this matter and the possible effect of the decision on our exports? Is it not possible to have a system whereby crockery is ordered in stages rather than all at once? As the Lord President is present, will he say whether he will consider the setting up of a Committee to look into the whole matter, so that it can be cleared up once and for all?

To take the last matter first, a special committee has already been set up to inquire into and recommend to the House on the future and the re-organisation of the Refreshment Department. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the responsibility for purchasing all the requirements of the Department rests upon the management, and because the situation has never been clearly defined some problems have arisen. I would prefer a proper tendering system in which specifications were issued, quotations requested and tenders received, tabulated and opened independently. The recommendation could then be made to the appropriate Officers of the House. We do not have the specialised staff or the accommodation to enable us to undertake that at present.

Is my hon. Friend able to confirm a Press report that the contract was for £20, 000 and that £300 was saved? If so, was the £20, 000 paid in hard currency and was the saving made in soft currency? If so, was it a saving?

The purchase was for £12, 200, which was paid in sterling. There was no problem over conversion.

May we know why only two British firms were asked to tender? Were those responsible unaware of the existence of others?

They were not asked to tender in that way. The management made inquiries as to operative prices. These were tabulated and a cost analysis was undertaken and presented. I can give the figures if the right hon. Gentleman so requires. On the basis of the first assessment these figures would have meant, for Royal Tuscan Wedgwood, £14, 197 and for Rosenthal, £12, 579. Taking into account the discount systems which are operative, and applying the highest discount system, the Royal Tuscan figure came out at £12, 423 and the Rosenthal at £12, 201·63.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this is a House of Commons matter would it be within your discretion to allow the Lord President to say something on the last part of my supplementary question?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman meant by his question, but if it will help the House I shall ensure that a report on this matter from the Services Committee is presented to the House.

asked the Lord President of the Council what is the cost of the printing and distribution of the Government's publication concerning their inflation policy which has been distributed to all householders.

The total cost for printing and distributing the Counter-inflation booklet was about £850,000. Supplementary Estimates provision will be sought at the earliest opportunity.

What justification can there be for this expenditure? Is the Minister aware of the public indignation at party propaganda being put across to the country at taxpayers' expense?

I was under the impression that this policy had the broad support of the House, which is more than can be said for the Fair Rent Act, upon which the Conservative Government spent £852, 000 of public money on advertising—a figure which today would almost certainly be £1¼ million. I have looked very hard but I can find no evidence that the hon. Gentleman complained on that occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what conclusions he has reached on the future development of Luton Airport following his recent visit there; and if he will make a statement.

No conclusions about the future development of Luton Airport will be taken in advance of the consultations with local authorities and other organisations which will follow the publication shortly of a consultation document on London airports.

May we take it from that answer that in spite of the Maplin decision the Government will refuse to finance development of a second runway at Luton? Does the Minister feel that there should be more restrictions, particularly at night, on movements at Luton Airport in the meantime?

Any question affecting the further development of Luton is a matter for the airport authority, and I discussed this when I visited Luton in September. The authority would be well advised to await the result of the consultations which will follow the publication of the consultative document very shortly. I am glad to say that noise has recently been a reducing factor. I think that the hon. Gentleman will bear that out.

When he is considering the future of the airport will the Minister remember, first, that it is a very important airport to many trade unionists who like to take their package holidays to Spain from there and, secondly, that it is an important employer and an important industry to its owners, the local Corporation of Luton? The need is to encourage more traffic rather than to discriminate against it in any way.

The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to prejudge the consultations affecting Luton. Of course it is an important airport, but it would be wrong for me to make an advance announcement of the Government's thinking about it.

Surely by talking about a falling off in the number of flights from Luton the Minister is merely taking advantage of the fact, or hiding behind the fact, of the Court Line collapse and the smaller number of flights from Luton as a result from that. What is he doing to prevent a further increase, in fact, a return to the very high rate of night flights, in particular from Luton, which affect a vast number of people, not merely in the area of Luton Corporation?

The situation affecting the development of the airport is not a matter I am seeking to hide behind. I agree with the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that Luton is a very important airport. I have taken very much into account the fact that as a result of the Court Line collapse there has been a reduced use of Luton airport, but I am perfectly entitled to say that I believe that there has been a marked reduction in noise. However, that is insufficient for the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) who has constituency interests.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does the point of order arise out of Questions?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a point of order arising from Questions? The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had two Questions down for today—Nos. 29 and 30—in which many of us were interested. Would you, Mr. Speaker, deem it appropriate to remind hon. Members who are members of the European Assembly as well that when they table Questions in this House they should be here to ask them?

It is not for me to remind hon. Members of such matters. I may have quite a lot to remind them of, but it is not for me to do so.