asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to make a statement about granting financial assistance towards trade union residential courses held in Scotland.

I discussed trade union education with representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 21st January and I am considering how it will be possible for my Department to give assistance direct to the STUC to supplement the grant already available to the TUC for this purpose under the existing arrangements.

Ego, de meo senso judicio—in my judgment, that is a helpful answer.

We are living in an era lacking a past. The reason for my Question is the new dimension in Scotland arising from the complexities of the oil situation. To that degree, national leaders should be reinforced by educational resources in Scotland applied to that new dimension, so that they may negotiate in terms of the requirements of a modern society. To that end, can my hon. Friend tell me what the STUC's estimate is of the initial requirements for such a project?

May I request other hon. Members not to feel that they must explain their question as well as ask it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me early notice of that quotation. Suffice it to say that it does not guarantee him an early place in the trade union college.

The amount that the STUC hopes to get for next year is about £26,000. That would cover the residential courses for a year. As I said earlier, I met the STUC last Friday and explained that certain legal and administrative difficulties arose on the question of doing this but that we were looking at the problem and hoped to get round it. We would then try, for one year only, namely, 1977–78, to meet the sum required.

Will the Minister take all possible steps, in respect of trade union courses, to ensure that the proposed EEC trade union institute should come to Glasgow, the cradle of industrial democracy? We have seen many institutions go to other countries in the EEC. Could not the Minister try to get this one for Glasgow?

That is a most interesting suggestion. I shall certainly examine it and report back to the hon. Lady.

Will my hon. Friend say what response he has had to the valuable proposal that he made in his recent letter to hon. Members on the question of industrial relations training in our schools in Scotland?

I raised this matter with the STUC, which was unanimous in supporting the scheme. I also met the Schools Industry Liaison Committee, on which members of the CBI and STUC serve. The members of that committee were at one in saying that they fully supported the principle of teaching industrial relations, albeit that the opinion is that we must also concentrate on the core curriculum. The matter has now gone to the CCC—that is, the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum—because we do not control the curriculum in schools. That committee will consider the suggestion shortly.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that although Government money is involved there will never be any sign of interference in the content of courses run by the STUC?

I give that assurance to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effects he expects the withdrawal of the regional employment premium to have on the employment potential and profitability of Scottish firms.

The withdrawal of REP will result in a small loss of employment in Scotland over this year. However, the Government expect that any such loss will be more than offset by additional jobs provided by the further measures to encourage industry and employment, which were announced at the same time as the decision to withdraw REP.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he is a member of the Government—with responsibility, in this case, for Scotland—who have just produced an economic package that bears more hardly on Scotland than any other part of the United Kingdom, due to the withdrawal of REP'? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this may not be unrelated to the fact that the highest percentage rate of unemployment increase has just been announced for Scotland?

I do not accept that description of the December package. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government intended to withdraw REP in the autumn of 1974.

Is the Secretary of State telling us that he had made no assessment of the financial impact on firms in Scotland of the withdrawal of REP, carried out so suddenly and without notice? Is he aware that industry requires to plan over a longer period than simply the next eight weeks?

I did not say that we had made no assessment of the impact. What I said in my answer was that we made an assessment that this, by itself, would be bound to result in a certain loss of jobs. But it had to be taken in conjunction with the other measures that were announced in December.

As for the REP specifically, the studies that have been made of that as a regional incentive, including one by the House of Commons Expenditure Committee in 1973, suggest that compared with other regional incentives this was not a particularly effective way of attracting and retaining industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures of unemployed in my constituency, announced this week, are the highest for 10 years? Was it not also stated that when REP was withdrawn it would be replaced by something that would be equally effective? Can my right hon. Friend tell me that this is so?

On the last point, my hon. Friend, I think, is overlooking the fact that the Government have announced and introduced many other employment-retaining measures, including, for example, the temporary employment subsidy and the job creation scheme. These and other schemes, taken together, have already saved about 43,000 jobs in Scotland. So it is not true that REP is the only measure that the Government have taken to help Scotland.

I expressed yesterday to the House, and I express again today, my extreme concern about the very high level of unemployment in Scotland.

If the Secretary of State has made calculations of the effect of his measures, will he publish them, because, as he will be aware, on 11th January the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his reply to me said about the measures announced in December:

"No separate estimates have been made of the effects on employment in Scotland." [Official Report, 11th January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 470.]

Is the Secretary of State not ashamed that, while we have had the announcement of the appalling unemployment figures, he has sat in the Cabinet and agreed to the withdrawal of the REP, which will take £60 million a year from Scottish industry, as well as to national insurance surcharges that will add £100 million to its costs?

I have already said that Opposition Members intended to withdraw REP as far back as 1974. If they had intended to replace it with something else, they did not let the House or anyone else know what that new measure was. In fact, there was a definite commitment on their part to withdraw the REP in the autumn of 1974. It was this Government who retained the REP as one of their regional employment measures at that time. I have made certain calculations, so far as I can, about the effect of the various measures on Scotland. I would simply rest on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said for the United Kingdom as a whole as also applying, as far as can be estimated, for Scotland, namely, that the net effect of the measures announced in December will be a small additional increase in employment in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had over the past six weeks with the CBI and TUC relating to the level of unemployment in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the STUC.

With my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other colleagues I met the STUC on 8th and 9th December. I have at present no plans for a further meeting.

The CBI has not recently approached me for similar discussions.

Are not the post-war record unemployment figures a devastating condemnation of the Labour Government's policy? Will the Secretary of State tell us just how many new jobs—and I emphasise "new jobs"—the Scottish Development Agency has provided in the past 12 months?

On the general question, I would simply say that it is absolute humbug for Opposition Members, who have been calling for massive cuts in public expenditure and who voted against the Chrysler operation, now to shed crocodile tears about the level of unemployment in Scotland. If they can demonstrate to me and to the House how the savage cuts in public expenditure and the other measures that they have advocated would help to save employment in Scotland, I shall be ready to listen to them with some respect. But at the moment I am not.

Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's view that the withdrawal of the REP will have an effect on unemployment, will he also take into account the fact that the decision to withdraw it on 2nd January was published only in a Written Answer and was not notified to the firms until very close to 12th January, the last date for which they are allowed to claim in arrear? Will he undertake to convey to the Treasury that payment of late claims should be sympathetically considered, since this will affect very seriously the prospects of families in my constituency?

I shall certainly look at that, but I think that it has been the general practice in any case for the REP to be paid a little later than the actual period to which my hon. Friend refers. We expect in the normal course of events to be paying the premium until the end of March. I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point.

In the absence of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of the timetable also, which is raised by my Question No. 32 referring to discussions with the STUC? What explanation will he give to the STUC for the rise in unemployment to 183,000 in Scotland?

I have had numerous meetings with the STUC, and the Under-Secretary met it only last Friday. I think that it understands the Government's position on this matter very well.

When he met the STUC did my right hon. Friend raise the question of the heavy electrical engineering industry in Scotland? Is he aware of the immediate crisis that we are facing, for example, in Babcock and Wilcox, and will he press, as a matter of extreme urgency, for the immediate ordering of the Drax B project and for at least one other power station to be phased forward?

I recognise the urgency of the point that my hon. Friend has made. It was one of the matters discussed with the STUC at the December meeting. We are certainly hoping to be able to make an announcement on the future of the power plant industry very soon now.

The Secretary of State cannot shrug off his responsibility for the disastrous unemployment figures. Is he not aware that every economic commentator has agreed that if the right hon. Gentleman had made smaller cuts in public expenditure two years ago than he is being faced with today we should not be in this position? Is he asking the House to believe that the Government's adverse measures on industry—high interest rates, national insurance levy, increased taxation and the other increased burdens that have been put on every business in Scotland—have had no effect in producing this disastrous level of unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that measures of the kind which the Opposition are advocating to the Government, such as the reductions in public expenditure, are bound to have an absolutely disastrous effect on unemployment in Scotland. With regard to the general economic situation, there has been a considerable improvement in the position of the pound over recent weeks. We have been able to reduce the minimum lending rate from the peak of 15 per cent. to 13¼ per cent. We are expecting investment in manufacturing to increase, and there are increasing signs of a growth in business confidence, as I know from many meetings with industry in Scotland.

In view of the incredibly incompetent reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the fishing industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of fish stocks available to the Scottish fishing industry in 1977; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the inshore fishing industry in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend and I are always available to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss specific or general questions and in fact have had meetings with them on a number of occasions in recent months.

The prospects for the fishing industry depend upon a successful outcome of the discussions in the European Community on various issues relating to the common fisheries policy. Nevertheless, it is satisfactory that the economic position of the industry in Scotland improved substantially in 1976, and I am hopeful that, despite uncertainties about future fishing levels, this welcome trend will continue.

Is the Minister aware of the deep discontent in the industry over the way in which the Government are allowing fishing matters to drift? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State's conservation measures, announced the other day—good as far as they go—are totally inadequate, and that what is needed is a much tighter control over industrial fishing and over the activities of individual and freezer trawlers?

The hon. Gentleman's alliteration is good—"deep discontent" and "drift"—but the content is poor. If he was not present, he should re-read the statement made by my right hon. Friend last week. There was general acceptance that we were on the right lines with regard to priorities on conservation measures.

In what way did the hon. Gentleman attempt to answer Question No. 16? Is he not trying to hide his own incompetence in standing up for the fishing industry by trying to give one answer to a series of different Questions? Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Under-Secretary that, if he is prepared to stand up—

Order. This is not the time for speeches. It is Question Time.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I wish that the hon. Gentleman would attempt to answer the Questions in the first place. Will the hon. Gentleman be assured that he will have the support of the Opposition if he will stand up with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in protecting British interests in the North Sea?

The one thing I congratulate the hon. Member on is that he, at least, has the guts to criticise me in the House, unlike some of his hon. Friends from non-fishing constituencies. But he, better than anyone else—I have complimented him in the past on the marginal efforts that he put in at the time of the Treaty of Accession—should know that we have been left with this negotiating position because of his Government's incompetence.

Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the fishing industry cannot survive, let alone thrive, in the present uncertain conditions, and will he seriously apply himself to giving the industry some reassurance about its prospects in the immediate future and the date on which the Government intend to complete their negotiations on the new common fisheries policy?

The hon. Gentleman, who is very knowledgeable in European matters, will know that he has not convinced one member of any Christian Democratic Party in Europe of the merit of 50-mile exclusive limits.

indicated dissent.

There is no point in the hon. Gentleman shaking his head and trying to shrug off the political atmosphere in which we are conducting debates in the EEC in general terms. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Government are aware of the uncertainty because of these interim arrangements. In the light of statements made by both of my right hon. Friends last week I am confident that we are making progress, and that is understood by the fishing industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware of EEC proposals to lift Customs duty on certain species of prime fish? If he is, will the Government oppose that?

That is a separate matter, which has been reported in the Press only today, following a statement by the British Fishermen's Federation. All that I am prepared to say is that I agree with the general trend of the statement by the federation that we should use the economic power of the European Community in the interests of its members. If that means taking action against liberal imports, I personally am in favour of that.

May I speak to the Minister about the lower end of the fleet, the smaller boats—

Order. The hon. Lady may ask a question.

May I ask the Minister whether he considers that the lower end of the fleet could be an easier matter in his negotiations than the upper end of the fleet? It does not cover all the constituencies in Scotland, but it concerns some—namely, boats of 50 feet to 65 feet or, alternatively, measured by 250 h.p. Is the Minister aware that Commissioner Gundelach is most sympathetic to the possibility that such boats should be totally exempt from quotas? Does he agree, therefore, that we could deal satisfactorily with that area of negotiation?

There are so many members of the SNP speaking on fishing policy that I am not clear whether that is an official statement on behalf of the party—[HON. MEMBERS "Answer the question."] I shall answer it. I must say that I have never heard the phrase "the lower end of the fishing fleet". I am not too clear what that means. But if it means, generally, the inshore industry—

indicated dissent.

Then I do not know what the hon. Lady is talking about. If she is making a constructive comment, I shall give it the consideration due to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why it was necessary to introduce a new system of controlling local authority expenditure by means of block allocations to local authorities and granting them the discretion to decide their own priorities with regard to individual projects; and if he will make a statement.

The new system was introduced with the agreement of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It will give authorities more freedom to determine their own capital expenditure priorities and afford better control over total capital expenditure.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the block allocation scheme appears to give him and his Department the opportunity to shed their responsibility with regard to allocations for certain projects, and that means that district councils will have the power to decide priorities? How will that effect Dunfermline's borrowing application for its sports complex? Can my right hon. Friend do something to grant a portion of the borrowing power requirement to enable Dunfermline to commence the first stage of the project?

The whole purpose of the new scheme is to allow priorities to be decided by local authorities and not by central Government. That is what local authorities want.

It is difficult to introduce the new scheme where the amount of capital expenditure is limited, but the authorities—I met them on this matter—specifically wish the scheme to go ahead despite the current difficulties. I could not, therefore, within the new allocations, set aside a part of an authority's allocation for a particular project.

If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue other aspects of this important project, which I know is very dear to him, perhaps he will do that with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

As the discretion appears to mitigate against the increasing provision for the mentally handicapped, will the right hon. Gentleman watch the position closely to ensure that as much as possible is done in this needy held?

Hon. Members must accept that if I reduce central Government intervention—and incidentally, save staff when the scheme is in operation—and give local authorities the right to decide priorities I cannot be responsible for the individual decisions that a local authority makes.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern felt amongst the careers service people that this discretionary power for local authorities may mean a decrease in expenditure on this vital service at a time of high unemployment? Will the Secretary of State therefore undertake to issue a directive similar to the one issued last year in England and Wales, whereby expenditure on this aspect is guaranteed at a minimum level?

Again, I think that my answer must be the same. The House has to decide whether it wants me to make all the individual decisions or to allow local authorities to make the decisions for themselves. I am constantly told that central Departments and the Secretary of State are interfering in matters that ought to be decided by local authorities. I have made an important step forward by taking central Government out of whole areas of decision-making and passing that responsibility to local authorities. That having been done, I cannot answer for individual local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on homelessness in Scotland.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) yesterday. It is the Government's policy in Scotland strongly to encourage the local authorities and bodies concerned to develop close practical working arrangements for dealing humanely and effectively with homelessness and associated problems.

I accept that this encouragement represents progress, but does my hon. Friend recognise that Scottish housing authorities have a sad record of ignoring circulars on management matters, such as letting or the provision of sheltered housing? In view of past experience, would it not be wise to take advantage of the Bill currently before the House on this matter to give statutory authority to any code of practice that may be introduced, especially as that was recommended by the Morris Committee?

Yes, but, as my hon. Friend knows better than anybody else, we have had detailed consultations with the local authority associations in Scotland, and it is one of the differences that might work to our advantage in Scotland. We have always worked on the basis of getting voluntary agreement from the local authorities. I am not ruling out the question of legislation but, clearly, the Government have no control over a Private Member's Bill, and we are considering what our attitude should be on this at the moment.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that he has been informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who is introducing his Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill next month, that in response to many representations from Scotland he intends to include Scotland within its ambit? In that circumstance, will he give the same helpful Government support to its provisions north of the border as his colleagues in the Department of the Environment have already promised for England and Wales?

As the right hon. Member knows, there are differences. I take it that he shares with me the view that when we have a Scottish problem we should tackle it in a Scottish way, based on our own experience. I had discussions with the right hon. Member's hon. Friend this morning, and I put him in the picture on the matter. I cannot give a categorical assurance that we shall want Scotland to be included in the Bill, but I have not ruled it out. We are now in discussion with the local authority associations.

May I stress to the Minister that there is all-party support for the Private Member's Bill on housing the homeless, sponsored by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)? In view of past Labour Party and Government commitments that are being fulfilled in England, may I encourage him to bring this legislation into being for Scotland, too?

I know that, fortunately for the people of Scotland, the SNP does not control any housing authority in Scotland.

It does.

My hon. Friend reminds me that I am incorrect. I had better put it in another way. There is nothing outstanding about the performance of the one or two housing authorities controlled by the SNP which would denote that that party has operated any more successfully than has any other authority on the problem of homelessness. The Labour Party in Scotland gave no commitment to legislation, unlike the Government in England and Wales. There is, therefore, no breach of faith on our part concerning Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Perth.

My right hon. Friend plans to be in Perth in March, during the annual conference of the Labour Party in Scotland.

In asking the Minister a question about the M90 motorway between Perth and Edinburgh, I place on record the fact that very little blame attaches to either himself or his Department for the delay in starting the construction of the road between Bridge of Earn and Glen Farg. He knows as well as I do that extraneous matters have intervened. Will he now, however, bring forward to 1978 the starting date for that gap on the M90 motorway between Bridge of Earn and Glen Farg?

If the hon. Gentleman wants a specific answer to a question of that kind, he must table a specific Question.

When the Minister next visits Scotland, will he investigate the extent to which gas explosions and gas leaks have taken place in that country and persuade the Scottish Gas Council not to follow the pernicious example of the English gas boards in charging people who report gas leaks to them?

Both my right hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends at the Scottish Office are there every weekend, and, indeed, a great deal more often. My hon. Friend's point about gas explosions is, of course, a matter of great concern to us, and the procedures are currently being examined.

When at Perth, will the Secretary of State call at the successful Scottish enterprise, the General Accident Insurance Company, and ask that company whether it agrees with the Scottish Life Offices that the Scottish National Party's economic plans for independence could ruin their business and put at risk many thousands of Scottish jobs?

My right hon. Friend's time may not permit him to make such a visit during that weekend, but I think that the hon. Gentleman's point has been taken by all of us on the Government Front Bench.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official visits he has made to Brussels in the last 12 months.

I have been twice to Brussels and Luxembourg, and my predecessor also made two visits in that period.

Is the Minister aware that that is a fairly abysmal record? The withdrawal of the Scottish Commissioner from Brussels has caused great concern within Scotland. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, because of the removal of a Scot at the higher reaches of the Common Market and the fact that, statistically speaking, it may be many more years before one is reappointed to that position, he will give priority to attending whatever meetings at Council Minister level take place at Brussels to represent the Scottish interests until the Scottish Assembly takes over these direct links?

As far as I am aware, the Scottish Assembly is not taking over any direct links. George Thomson was not a Scottish Commissioner; he was a Scot who was a United Kingdom Commissioner.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish Ministers and Scottish regional authorities have created a very favourable impression in their work in the Commission? Might there not be a return ticket, as Commissioner Gundelach was a great success when he visited Bathgate in June, particularly with the shop stewards at British Leyland? Now that he has the sensitive agricultural and fishing portfolio, could not arrangements be made for perhaps two or three public meetings to explain these sensitive and delicate issues in public?

That would be a matter for Mr. Gundelach. I have already discussed with Mr. Gundelach fishing problems as they affect Scotland.

Reverting to the first question that the Secretary of State answered, will he say—if and when a Scottish Assembly is established—when he or his office visualises exclusively representing Scottish interests in Brussels, or whether he sees the Assembly developing some sort of relationship comparable to that made by the German Länder?

Formal relationships will remain with the United Kingdom Government. No doubt the United Kingdom Government, as appropriate, will want to involve members of the Executive of the Scottish Assembly. Nothing in the Bill would exclude them from doing that. But the formal relationship will remain with the United Kingdom and there can be no question of the Assembly's being directly represented in Brussels in that way.

Is the Minister aware how wide of the mark is the question put to him by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)? Is it not a fact that not only is the British judge in Luxembourg a Scotsman but that the British Ambassador to the Common Market is also a Scotsman?

Yes, I am well aware of that. Both are very estimable Scotsmen and do a good job. I have met them both.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Glasgow.

On Friday 28th January 1977.

Will the Secretary of State, on Friday, take the opportunity of speaking to the CBI and the chambers of commerce and discussing with them the very real dangers that they see in the combination of the Government's economic policies and high rates doing great damage to industry and commerce in the city of Glasgow? Will he also, on Friday, be able to announce a new date for the beginning of the building of the Ministry of Defence office in Glasgow which, under this Government, has been postponed several times and for which we now have no commencement date?

I shall not be seeing the CBI in Glasgow on Friday, but I shall be having lunch with a number of distinguished leaders of the Scottish business community. I am looking forward to that.

There is no change in the position on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs. The matter has been explained on numerous occasions, not least by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, on Monday of this week. Hon. Gentlemen in any part of the House should not call into question the Government's absolute commitment to the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Glasgow.

rose—

We are moving too slowly. I must press on.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Kintyre.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Does the Minister appreciate that a visit to Kintyre would help to dissipate the impression held by many of my constituents that the Secretary of State does not exist? Does he agree that a visit to such an area would be a great boost to the morale of all his ex-supporters in that part of my constituency?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's attempts to put Questions to my right hon. Friend would, were they better phrased, succeed in securing some answers from my right hon. Friend himself. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the problems of Kintyre, and if they were put frequently enough by hon. Members in the House would be even more aware.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Cunninghame District Council's industrial development committee on industrial development; and if he will make a statement.

The chairman of the district council wrote to me in November about the development of the Hunterston peninsula. The ore terminal that is under construction there, at a cost of £70 million, is expected to be operational early next year. BSC has now received outline planning permission for two direct reduction units costing £55 million, and it is hoped that these, too, will be operational in 1978.

Does the Minister realise that his answer shows an extreme degree of complacency in view of yesterday's published figures on unemployment, which show that there are now 4,660 people unemployed in the Irvine, Kilwinning and Saltcoats areas of the Cunninghame district? Is it not time that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend took some positive steps to encourage oil companies to develop oil refining capacity in the Cunninghame district, as requested by the industrial development committee?

The first point that I want to make is that my right hon. Friend and I are in no way complacent, as my right hon. Friend indicated a few minutes ago. I hope that when my hon. Friend is thinking about the problems of unemployment he will bear in mind the positive suggestions that have been made and the actions that have been taken by the Government in regard to industry schemes, selective financial assistance and issues of this kind.

Secondly, oil development is a matter on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) gave his views in 1974, and so far the oil companies have not taken the opportunity of asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a hearing on this matter.

Will the Minister remember that Hunterston lies in the constituency of Bute and North Ayrshire and not in the constituency of Central Ayrshire? The people in that area have different views from those of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). Their real worry is that a petrochemical works could be put beside a nuclear power station.

I am sure that no matter who makes the representations in the House, the point has been made to the Government. We accept it and we shall do everything that we can to ensure that the Hunterston peninsula is developed in the best way possible to ensure the maximum number of jobs for the people in that part of Ayrshire.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies the Scottish Economic Planning Department has made of the place of banking in the future economic development of Scotland.

The Government have always taken the view that the availability of satisfactory financial services is vital to the development of Scottish industry. We are in no doubt of the important contribution made by financial institutions in Scotland to industrial development and the Scottish economy as a whole.

Has the Minister's Department examined the curious banking policy of the Scottish National Party and, in particular, the extraordinary claim by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) that the banking community favours separatism and a separate Scottish Parliament? Is the Minister aware that following that claim leading members of the banking community in Scotland immediately declared that the Scottish National Party's policies would be disastrous for jobs, employment and prosperity in Scotland?

I must say that if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) understands the financial and banking policies of the SNP I envy him very much, because in recent times I have tried to understand them—as others have—but I have concluded that I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. That view is well backed up by the recent pronouncement by important people in the banking world that the talk of a Scottish hound, and so on, would do irreparable damage to the Scottish economy.

May I inform the Minister that the sub-committee appointed by the Committee of the Scottish Clearing Banks, when commenting on our financial policy, stated that the document was "well prepared"? May I ask him whether he would prefer to have a strong currency, as we shall have in a self-governing Scotland, and low interest rates or the high interest rates of today? May I also tell him that if he is very good—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—he might be one of the candidates for Governor of the National Bank of Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman says that the statement was "well prepared". All I can say is that it must have been typed and issued in a better form than one sees in the usual Press notices issued by the SNP.

I am not quite clear about the present attitude of the hon. Gentleman and his friends, following the assurances that they have been giving to some of the British insurance companies, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) referred. I am not sure whether the statement that he is issuing now is the same as the one he issued in November. It is all a trifle confused. All I am certain of is that Scottish banking interests have already declared that they think that the hon. Gentleman's policy is nonsense.

From a Socialist point of view, people in the Labour movement in Scotland have always been concerned about the rôle of the banks and investment institutions in lending their contribution to solving the problems of the Scottish economy. Is it not the case that if we are to overcome the economic problems and unemployment in the Scottish economy a Labour Government will have to take control of the banks and investment institutions and direct their capital into the country from which they draw it?

We have already made our policy in this regard crystal clear. We believe that the best way of assisting industry is through the Industry Act and the Scottish Development Agency. The relationship that we have with banks and industry at present seems to me to be very satisfactory, and I do not think that there could be any great improvement in it.

Is the Minister aware that the Scottish banks will shortly be facing severe demands from their customers, whose cash flow will be very adversely affected by the abrupt withdrawal of the REP, as proposed by the Government? Does he recall that the Labour Party strongly objected to the previous proposal to phase out the REP when unemployment was below 100,000? Why is it now supporting a move to remove the REP overnight when unemployment is very nearly 200,000?

My hon. Friend dealt perfectly adequately with these questions earlier. I can only repeat what he said, that we are naturally anxious to ensure that the money spent by the Government is used to the best possible advantage of the Scottish people, and the Chancellor's measures for schemes for improving industry, money for the SDA, and so forth, are a much better way of using money than was the REP.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available adequate resources for improving safety standards on the A80.

A study of accidents on the A80 has been carried out, and my right hon. Friend is considering what measures to improve safety can be given priority.

Will the Minister accept that that inquiry will be greatly welcomed by the people in my constituency? Will he give a guarantee that, whatever recommendations the Scottish Development Department comes up with in terms of improving safety standards on the A80, the Government will meet the expenditure necessary to ensure that no further lives are lost on this stretch of road?

I assure the hon. Lady that, while the accident record of the A80 is below the national average per trunk road mile, we are not complacent about the problem. We realise that it is serious. A number of improvements are being made, especially at Mollinsburn and Condorrat, where a number of accidents have taken place. I shall tell my noble Friend at the Scottish Office who has responsibility for roads that there is urgency about this. As far as I understand it, measures to relieve the particular right turn that is causing the problem are in the contract-letting stage for 1977-78.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the level of pigmeat production in Scotland in 1977.

I regret that no estimate of Scottish pigmeat production is available for the calendar year. The production of pigmeat in Scotland for the year to May 1977 is estimated to be 62,700 tonnes, representing an increase of 5,100 tonnes over actual production in the year to May 1976.

Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture on Thursday last week, of a 50p per score subsidy, will increase pig production and so save imports of pigmeat from EEC countries?

I am satisfied that it is enough to bring efficient producers back into reasonable profit, and, therefore, on the assumption that there will be a continuing expansion in production, yes, I think that it will.

Does the Minister realise that "go nowhere" and "do nothing" replies this afternoon are worthy only of a resignation? As for increasing pig production, what specific steps is he taking to implement the findings of the Strutt Committee?

The power struggle in the SNP must be becoming very acute. The hon. Member may know something about raspberry growing, although I doubt it, but can I tell him that the subsidy that we announced last week is worth £3·50 per pig and is of considerable benefit to United Kingdom pig producers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what ways he intends to mark World Rheumatism Year.

I understand that the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council (Scotland) is planning certain special events in 1977, and if any other interested organisation has plans to draw to my attention I shall be pleased to hear from it. My right hon. Friend has no plans of his own in this connection.

Is that answer not surprising in view of the fact that Scotland's weather, together with the deprivation in West Central Scotland, means that there is a higher incidence of these diseases in that area? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the Baird Street Centre for Rheumatic Diseases in Glasgow stays open the whole year, since that would be a most useful contribution to World Rheumatism Year?

There are two questions there. First, it is not correct to say that the incidence of rheumatism is increasing. Records show that the incidence is decreasing. It is really out of character for the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) to become involved in the SNP's annual campaign about people dying, last year from hypothermia and this year because of the lack of renal dialysis treatment.

The question about the Baird Clinic is a local management matter. If a decision is taken to close the clinic for the Fair fortnight, it will be against a background of much less use during that fortnight in past years and, therefore, the uneconomic use of the available resources. However, in-patients would be transferred to the nearby Glasgow Royal Infirmary.

asked the Lord Advocate if he will place in the Library a copy of the report by Assistant Chief Constable Arthur Bell and Detective Chief Superintendent John McDougall on the Meehan and Waddell cases.

I do not propose to do so. At my instance Assistant Chief Constable Bell and Detective Chief Superintendent McDougall commenced a course of inquiries into the Meehan and Waddell cases and submitted several reports to me. In accordance with normal practice in the investigation of crime, such reports are not for publication.

While I appreciate the Lord Advocate's position in giving that answer, may I ask him whether he agrees that those reports contain many facts that are still unknown to the public and that, in some form or another, in the interests of justice must eventually be made known to the public?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is tempting me to make a reply that is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has these matters very much under consideration.

Will the Lord Advocate tell us when we may learn of any progress, either on his Hart or on the part of his right hon. Friend. in consideration of the Meehan case? It is now many months since Meehan was released from prison. An inquiry was promised, and the full compensation that is due is yet to be settled.

Without accepting the comment that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, I stress that this is a matter for serious concern. He will appreciate that. It is not a matter in which a hasty decision can and should be made. I can say that my right hon. Friend has the matter under urgent consideration.

With regard to the question of compensation to Patrick Meehan, does the Lord Advocate recall that on Meehan's own evidence he was indulging in criminal activity elsewhere in Scotland on the night of Mrs. Ross's death? Can he give an assurance that this will be taken into account when the amount of compensation is determined, otherwise there will be great resentment?

That is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend, who will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Will the Lord Advocate take account of the considerable public disquiet and say whether, in the reports available to him, it is within his knowledge that a Crown medical expert is suffering considerable worry because, in the Waddell trial, he was not permitted to disclose the fact that he had a near-identical case of ammonia being thrown into the face of a woman victim, who was tied up, and that the suspect was "Tank" McGuinness? Is the Lord Advocate willing to say whether that information has been within Crown knowledge all this time? In the light of public disquiet, is it not time that we had a public inquiry?

It would be inappropriate for me to make any comment, in confirmation or otherwise, on what the hon. Lady has said. The hon. Lady, as a practising lawyer, must be aware that there are such things as the rules of evidence. Unless courts are conducted according to the rules of evidence, it will be the end of British justice.

Referring to the original Question, can my right hon. and learned Friend say how many inquiries his Department has conducted into this matter over the years?

I am not in a position to say how many inquiries there have been, but it may be of assistance to my hon. Friend if I disclose to him and to the House the extent of the inquiries that have been made by my Department.

In May 1974, shortly after I came to office, I meticulously examined all the documents in the Crown Office relating to this case. I reached the view that there was no ground for my reaching a different conclusion from that of my predecessor as Lord Advocate, who had investigated the matter on his own behalf in 1970 and 1973.

In October 1974 I instructed further inquiries into the case and certain persons were precognosced by the Crown Agent on my behalf. In January and February 1975 he made further inquiries of the same general type. In September 1975 additional inquiries were made after I had received a pre-publication script of Ludovic Kennedy's book.

In November 1975 the Strathclyde police were asked to undertake on my behalf certain detailed investigations.

From then until March 1976 a series of inquiries were carried out on my behalf, either by Strathclyde police or by the Crown Agent. All these inquiries led to inconclusive results until March 1976.

asked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied that the police have adequate powers to bring to justice vehicle drivers from the Republic of Ireland and from Northern Ireland who commit traffic offences in Scotland.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 18th June 1975, when I informed him that this matter was under active consideration by a Home Office committee. The committee has not yet completed its consideration of this problem.

The problem of citing accused persons in the United Kingdom generally was considered by the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure in Scotland and it recommended discussions to establish a simple method of citation that would apply throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Such discussions are now taking place.

Is it not quite unsatisfactory that the Thomson Committee reported in October 1975 and that these discussions and negotiations are still going on? Is the Lord Advocate aware that in Dumfries and Galloway public respect for the law will diminish if so many offenders are seen to flout the law with impunity? Is he aware that this also will have an effect on police morale in that region? Will he undertake to consider carefully the report of the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway which has been sent to the Scottish Office?

I have in fact read the report by the chief constable, and I found it useful. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that I am very well aware of the difficulties that arise in his constituency and elsewhere on this route, which has become the Euro-route between Ireland and the Continent. Therefore, it will grow in the future.

I also stress to the hon. Gentleman that the problems are very difficult to resolve. There are two aspects that he highlights in his Question. There is the aspect relating to Northern Ireland, on the one hand, and the aspect relating to the Republic of Ireland, on the other.

The problem relating to Northern Ireland is twofold. The problem for us is the problem of drivers who go to Northern Ireland and do not come back to face criminal charges. Equally, there must be a problem in Northern Ireland the other way round. It is a bilateral problem, and the solution would probably lie in a system of citation similar to that which Scotland enjoys with regard to England and Wales. But that requires considerable consultation and agreement, and also legislation.

In the wider field of international complications—the Republic of Ireland clearly comes into that category—we must wait for an international multilateral agreement. That would obviously take even longer, and we are bound to wait for legislation.

There are possible short-term expedients, such as detaining an offender until his charge can be dealt with, but as, in the vast bulk of the cases, we are considering relatively trivial road traffic offences, the public would probably rebel against such a heavy hammer.

Is the Lord Advocate aware that we must have action before the summer tourist traffic begins? Is he further aware that the road from Stranraer to the Scottish border is clogged with Irish container traffic throughout the year? Unless the police have some control over the Irish drivers this problem can only get worse. I feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answers today are far too complacent, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation.

My answers must be couched with due modesty because in this aspect I am merely the public prosecutor. Whereas public prosecution has a rôle to play, I do not think that it can make a substantial contribution to controlling the vast load of traffic on that road—a load that is likely to increase.

In considering this urgent matter, will the Minister bear in mind, first, that whilst the Stranraer roads may be clogged with Irish drivers, the courts are clogged with motoring cases? Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes steps to add to that burden, will he look at the situation, particularly in the Glasgow Sheriff Court, where there are very long delays because of the clogging up of the courts?

The hon. Gentleman has made a useful contribution. One must strike a balance in these matters. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a question with you? I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland at the appropriate time for answer today. I was sent a letter by the Scottish Office on 18th January saying that my Question had been transferred to the Secretary of State for Energy. My Question related to underground storage of nuclear waste. This morning I received a letter saying that it had been transferred back to the Secretary of State for Scotland but that it was for Written Answer on Monday. Surely it is totally unfair that a Back Bench Member should be denied the opportunity to put an Oral Question to the Minister in question in this Chamber.

The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that I cannot control the transfer of Questions between Ministers, but I hope that Ministers will have noted what has been said, because anyone would have a sense of injustice when the Question had been put down so early.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on industrial democracy.

The departmental committee of inquiry, which was announced by my predecessor on 5th August 1975 and which came into being during December of that year under the chairmanship of Lord Bullock, submitted its report to me on 14th December. I am arranging for it to be published today and copies have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

The report of the Committee is not unanimous. There is a majority report signed by the chairman and six members of the Committee but with a note of dissent by one of the six. In addition, there is a minority report signed by the remaining three members. Nevertheless, I welcome the work that the Committee as a whole has done and I pay tribute in particular to its chairman, Lord Bullock, for the vast amount that has been accomplished in the course of 12 months. The Committee has greatly advanced the consideration of this complex subject by analysing the issues and clarifying the choices.

The majority of the Committee recommend the introduction of legislation to give employees a right to representation on the boards of companies employing 2,000 or more. This right would be triggered by an application from a recognised trade union, confirmed by a ballot of all employees. The reconstituted board would consist of three elements—that is to say, equal numbers of employee and shareholder representatives, who would co-opt a further small uneven number of directors. All directors would have the same duties and responsibilities. If the trade unions representing the employees, and the representatives of shareholders and management, agree that other arrangements to develop industrial democracy are more appropriate in their company, there is nothing in the majority report which would prevent the introduction of those arrangements.

The minority report favours the prior development of participation below board level and proposes that if employee representation is to be introduced it should be on a supervisory board in a two-tier system. The employee representatives would not necessarily be selected through trade union machinery.

The minority report also criticises the terms of reference of the Committee, which presupposed a commitment to employee representation on company boards. I should therefore make it clear that the Government are committed, as we were when we set up the Committee, to a radical extension of industrial democracy by representation of the work force on company boards and to the essential rôle of trade unions in this process. The minority report would not be consistent with this approach. It is the Government's view—a view widely shared in Europe—that arrangements for joint decision-making at all levels, including board level, will represent a fundamental change which should make a major contribution to an improvement in labour relations and industrial efficiency.

The Government now intend to undertake consultations with the TUC and the CBI in order that as much common ground as possible may be identified. Other organisations will be able to express their views to the Government. We shall consult on the general basis of the recommendations contained in the majority report and we shall bring forward legislative proposals this Session. I very much hope that the consultations can take place in a positive and constructive atmosphere and with recognition by both sides of industry of the need to seek a lasting settlement.

The terms of reference of the Bullock Committee were confined to private sector companies: the legislative proposals will also cover companies in which the Government have a shareholding. The Government have also been giving separate consideration to the development of industrial democracy in the nationalised industries and have decided that employees in these industries should be given the right to representation at board level. Consultations about this will take place in parallel with the consultations on the Bullock Report, and the Government's conclusions will be embodied in the legislative proposals to which I have referred.

Special considerations apply to the development of participation in central and local government. It is fundamental to the working of our democracy that elected representatives take decisions and act in the interests of the community as a whole. There are, however, many matters on which employees can legitimately expect to contribute their views. The Government have put in hand, and are continuing, a series of studies in consultation with the appropriate unions and management, into the scope for the extension of participation in the public services within the accepted principles which govern the operations of elected bodies.

The Government's aim is to see democracy extended from our political to our industrial life. That is an essential ingredient of the social contract. Just as political democracy has been accepted by all our people, so we believe that industrial democracy—at all levels from the shop floor to the board itself—will come to be regarded as part of the accepted fabric of our national life and open a new chapter in industrial relations and a continuing improvement in our industrial performance.

May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and ask him the following questions? First, is he aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends share a commitment to extend the opportunities for people to participate in and influence the decisions of their own companies and the places where they work, so long as this involves all employees and not just the members of trade unions? It must, however, be part of an evolutionary process which is flexible between different companies and which stems genuinely from the shop floor up through companies rather than being imposed by legislation from the board down.

Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in our opinion, the majority report of the Bullock Committee is unrealistic and destructive? It is a political tract which makes a mockery of genuine democracy in British industry. Moreover, it would undermine most of the progress painstakingly made by the best companies over the last few years and will set genuine participation back by a decade.

Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority proposals would further destroy the authority and the confidence of junior and middle management who look to career prospects in their companies based on merit rather than on the patronage of a trade union?

Finally, we noted the Prime Minister's comments yesterday that soundly-based progress in this important area can be made only by agreement with both sides of industry. The statement, however, is a denial of this position since it commits the Government to legislative proposals on the general basis only of the majority report. Is the Minister aware that the process of consultation which is now to take place can mean nothing unless it goes far wider than the majority recommendation and the original terms of reference of the Committee, both of which we utterly condemn?

The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has made the typical sort of exaggerated statement that precedes any major reform in this country which, when implemented, has been found, as has been found in Europe, to be a positive contribution to industrial relations and the efficiency of the operation of companies. It is particularly an exaggerated statement bearing in mind the emphasis in my statement on the need to find a lasting settlement. Nothing in my statement differs from or contradicts what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in reply to a question about the need for agreement if we are to get a lasting settlement. The object of the consultation is to seek agreement if that is possible.

I noted the hon. Gentleman's reference to the commitment of his party. It seems to be a commitment which is likely to reach effectiveness over so long a period that, fortunately, it will not be left to him or his party to implement it.

As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about trade unions, he will have observed that under the recommendations of the majority report no system of industrial democracy such as is recommended and about which we will consult can be implemented unless, first, there is a ballot of all employees of the company and, secondly, there has been a positive result supported by not less than 33⅓ per cent. of the work force. That is the minimum qualification and a safeguard which goes beyond that provided in much of European legislation to ensure a minimum commitment to this process.

As for the need to impose this system by legislation, in Europe it has always ben necessary to make progress by legislation. The majority report is not unrealistic and unconstructive. One of the valuable things about the Bullock Report is that, as a result of consultations and discussions within that Committee, there has been some approximation of views between the two sides represented there, which gives me confidence that it will be possible to secure a lasting settlement of this problem based on agreement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I and many of my hon. Friends consider that the Bullock Report is a well argued and constructive contribution to the debate and forms a basis for the Government's consultations? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to misleading leaks that have occurred over the past two weeks, Bullock is proposing an optional rather than a mandatory system—as my right hon. Friend has said, an optional system which must receive the support of the majority of employees in the company?

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need a flexible system which makes room for participation agreements between managements and trade unions as well as providing for worker directors in both private and public industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the emphases of the Bullock Report is on the need for flexibility in this process, and, as I said, it would be possible within the proposals to develop flexible systems which, if necessary, would be short of representation of workers on boards of directors. Therefore, the sort of flexibility which my hon. Friend requires is provided for within the report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of us on this side of the House have argued the case for participation from the shop floor to the board room over a number of years—indeed, in a period when the trade union movement was strongly opposed to it, and in my own case as early as 1948–49? Does he agree that there is a very strong case for establishing the maximum consensus in this matter? Will he avoid committing the Government too strongly to any part of the detail of the Bullock Report, which is highly controversial, so that we may arrive at an agreed basis on which worker directors can be established?

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for those remarks. I remember that he himself welcomed the terms of reference when they were announced in the House. It is certainly our intention to achieve, if it is possible, the maximum consensus in developing this legislation. That is our view because we want a permanent settlement of this issue, not the sort of industrial relations legislation that was introduced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Certainly we intend to consult on the detail of the majority report of the Bullock Committee. Our commitment is in the terms of reference, which I have repeated today—that is, to the radical extension of industrial democracy by the representation of workers on the boards of directors. That is our commitment, and we shall consult further about the matter in the majority report, as well as the minority report, to attempt to find agreement on the basis for legislation.

The Liberal Bench wants to see an extension of industrial democracy and has done so for about 50 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the question?"]—so the book tells us. Cannot the Minister appreciate that the idea of directors elected by trade union members only is simply not acceptable to the Liberal Bench? Could he let us know in detail why only three out of 337 submissions made to the Committee were considered? Also, what is the logic or the magic about the number 2,000 below which there will, apparently, be no democracy or hint of democracy at all?

It is for the Committee to say why it considers particular representations made to it. I am sure that it considered all the representations made to it, though, naturally, it does not refer to them all. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this process is confined to trade unions, I repeat that the system cannot be triggered without a vote to all the employees. As for the trade union channel which is recommended in the report, in that matter too it is obviously necessary for the Government to consult so that we can find a basis of agreement there, if it is possible.

The right hon. Gentleman is reneging on the statement.

The hon. Gentleman says that I am reneging on the statement. That is obviously false. When he has studied the majority report, the hon. Gentleman may see that one of the suggestions made within the report is that the joint representation committee of trade unions might well decide that the appropriate way of selecting worker directors would be by a 100 per cent. vote of all the employees. That is one suggestion which is made as to a method by which that could be operated. This, too, is an area in which we shall have to consult.

I accept the principle of the report. However, could the Minister enlighten me on the required alterations in the Companies Act in terms of existing company law and how this would affect the multinationals and the oil majors operating in the North Sea?

Some of the alterations in company legislation will affect the responsibilities of directors. Clearly, one point on which there was general agreement is that it is necessary to alter the responsibilities of directors to embody employees as well as shareholders. As to the effect of multinationals, the report makes certain proposals for the organisation of industrial democracy within multinationals. This is something that we shall have to consider, because, of course, we wish to continue to encourage inward investment in this country.

Is it a precondition of the Government's consultations to which the Minister has referred that industry and management must accept the statutory imposition of trade union or employee directors?

We have a commitment, and that commitment is justified not merely by the needs of this country but by experience elsewhere. So far as I know, every country which has developed along this course has found it necessary to do so on the basis of statutory provision.

Answer.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the contribution which we have had from Tory Front Bench Members shows that, however many discussions they may have with the TUC, they have totally failed to understand working people, and will he take it that there will be support for his idea that there should be the fullest possible consultation on this matter? In addition to consulting the CBI, the TUC and numerous other outside bodies, will he give an undertaking to consult other parties within the House in the preparation of the legislation?

I shall be glad to consult other parties in the House. The House will obviously have the final word on the legislation; the House alone has the veto on it. Of course, we shall be prepared so to consult.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the Government intend to stand firm against the industrial Luddites on the Opposition Benches? Will he call on the CBI and others who oppose these proposals to observe the decencies, the proprieties, the rule of law and the supremacy of Parliament during the coming clash?

We always resist the industrial Luddites on the Opposition Benches. We wish to enter into serious consultation with the CBI because we wish to find a consensus on the basis on which to make a lasting settlement of the problem.

Does the Secretary of State realise that he has used the term "commitment" a number of times in his answers? Does he realise also that there is a commitment from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to get the country out of its financial and economic problems, to see a greater working together of the CBI, management, workpeople and the whole of industry? Does he realise that the report, if adopted in the terms of the majority report, will go a long way to undermining that co-operation?

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the last paragraph of the report refers to

"The fears expressed in the nineteenth century in face of proposals to give more people the right to vote"?

In fact everybody, not just an exclusive few, was given the right to vote, which is immensely important.

It took a long time to persuade the Conservative Party in the nineteenth century of the need to give everyone the right to vote. I have already dealt with that point, and I have said that that will be an element in consultation. I believe that it is vitally necessary to reduce confrontation in industry. The development of industrial democracy will help so to do and thereby will help industrial performance. That is the reason why we are taking this legislation far more seriously than many Opposition Members seem to be taking it today.

Will the Minister accept that Plaid Cymru regards the report as visionary in going to the heart of our industrial problems? Will he, however, accept that if there is discrimination, cutting out non-trade union employees, it could raise an unnecessary bogy since the vast majority are unionised anyway and, to that extent, it would be wiser to allow every employee to vote in any elections?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the threshold of 2,000 is much too high, implying that perhaps only 100 or so companies out of 3,000 in Wales will be affected, and compares with thresholds of, I believe, zero in Austria, 25 in Sweden and 100 in the Netherlands? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment, in referring to legislative proposals, that the Government will bring forward a Bill to implement the report, or a revised Companies Bill, during the present parliamentary Session?

On the last point, our commitment, as was said in the Gracious Speech, is to bring forward legislative proposals in this Session. I certainly hope that it will be possible to do that in the form of a Bill. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the time constraints. I note what he says about the system of representation which would operate to select worker directors. I have already indicated that this is a matter for consultation.

rose—

Order. In view of the large number of hon. Members standing up, it would be a very great help if those who were called would try hard to limit themselves to one question. That will increase the number that I shall be able to call.

Few hon. Members will disagree with the objectives of industrial democracy, improved industrial relations, improved efficiency and improved productivity. Will my right hon. Friend take into account, however, the efforts of the previous Government to improve industrial relations? The message that I want to get across is that one can drive a horse to water but one cannot make it drink.

In the trade union movement there are many who want to retain the "them and us" attitude. On the employers' side and among industrialists there are many who do not want to know this. I have seen industrial democracy working in Germany. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to take into consideration the record of the previous Government. Let us aim for co-determination, but let us introduce it at a lower level and carry both sides of industry with us.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. On the other hand it would appear that the Opposition do not agree. We wish to seek a basis of consensus in this legislation.

As regards a lower level of participation, again the majority report emphasises the importance of that, and in a statement issued today Lord Bullock personally emphasised its importance. Nothing in the proposals of the majority report is inconsistent with that. The argument in the majority report is that, if these arrangements are made in respect of a board of directors, that will encourage the development of participation at lower levels within the company.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many who are on record as being in favour of employee participation believe that this can be satisfactorily achieved only by a two-tier system in companies, by a proper demarcation of function between the supervisory board and the board of management, and by the use of fully democratic procedures for the election of employee representatives?

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give close and sympathetic consideration to the recommendations of the minority report in this regard—particularly those on pages 178 to 181—during the transitional period which is likely to be prescribed by the Fifth Company Directive of the Community, keeping in mind the goal of the two-tier system which that revised directive is almost certain to prescribe?

We shall certainly consider the two-tier system as one option in these consultations. We do not rule that out. On the other hand, if there is to be a two-tier system there will need to be significant responsibilities attached to the upper tier. The majority report, after consideration of a two-tier system, and for reasons that were explained in some detail, came out against it. The minority report was in favour of it. We shall consider that argument. There may be merit in it. This, however, is a subject for consultation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the attitude adopted by the Conservative Party and by employers will be clearly noted among industrial workers? Does he agree that, as usual, the Conservative Party and, I am afraid, employers, have proved once again that their attitude towards industrial relations is in the last century and not this century?

Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the point that not only should there be a ballot on the first basis for having such a system in any company but that the workers should elect their representatives to the management board? Further, will he ensure that in discussions with the trade unions we get the rôle of the trade unions correct? Trade unions are not in our society to run industry; they are here to protect the workers' interests. That must be taken into consideration. Finally, can we begin by introducing participation in the industries we already control—namely, the publicly-owned industries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He has no doubt noted what I said about industrial democracy in the nationalised industries. There is nothing inconsistent, and I do not think my hon. Friend thinks that there is anything inconsistent, in developments of this kind and the protection of workers' interests—quite the contrary. I note what my hon. Friend says about elections to the boards of directors. That is a matter for consultation.

Does the Secretary of State agree that for a Labour Government representing less than 30 per cent. of the electorate to facilitate worker control by trade unions representing only 40 per cent. of the working people is scarcely democracy by any definition? How can he hope to achieve a genuinely democratic, lasting settlement involving such a fundamental change in time to introduce a Bill this Session?

Our intention is to have consultations with the CBI and the TUC to find out whether there is any basis of consensus on which we can build. I think there is, and I hope that we shall find it. I hope that the time constraints to which the hon. Gentleman appropriately refers will not prevent our introducing a Bill this Session. Certainly we are committed to introducing legislative proposals to the House this Session, and that is our objective.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the legislation which the Government introduce will embody the principles of the majority report of the Bullock Committee—namely, to give employees through their worker directors the opportunity to influence the strategic decisions of the company and in such a way that capital and labour are on equal terms? Does he further agree that the opposition so far shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by the CBI to the majority report of the Bullock Committee show, on the one hand, that they are afraid of true democracy in the workplace and, secondly, that in trying to circumvent the trade union machinery in electing worker directors they showed that they do not understand industrial relations any better than they did when—

Order. I ask hon. Members not to argue the case today but to ask their questions.

Certainly, the object of this process is to give workers an opportunity to influence strategic decisions of their companies. As for the proposal of the majority report that the constitution of the board of directors shall involve parity between worker and shareholder representatives, I remind the House that, in a sense, a proposal of a form of parity is equally to be found in the minority report. However, it is certainly open to the CBI or representatives of industry or to any other party to argue that parity is inappropriate in this case. That will be part of the consultations which we shall now undertake with a view to finding the consensus that we are seeking.

Will the Secretary of State in his consultations remember that the CBI does not fully represent the whole of industry? Will he also consult the institutions which own a large number of shares in quoted companies largely representing pension funds and other small shareholders indirectly? Will he show that he takes seriously the whole concept of industrial democracy by trying to link the recommendations of the Bullock Report, by an extension of industrial democracy, by encouraging through the tax system the ownership of shares by employees?

Of course, a number of companies encourage share ownership through various arrangements that they have made. Certainly, if institutions wish to make representations about the report they will be heard. There is no problem about that.

Would my right hon. Friend say a few more words about his thinking on the nationalised industries, and in particular steel? Would he also profit from past experience in the arrangements that are made? There is not the expectancy that there was in the past for all the worker representatives to have to break all their links with the trade union movement and, indeed, that there should be the right of recall for those representatives for the trade unions concerned.

The majority report suggests a system of recall for the whole system if it is once implemented and has been operating for five years. As for the nationalised industries, as I said in my statement the right to worker directors is equally to be extended to nationalised industries on a basis which we shall establish through parallel consultations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the terms of reference given to the Bullock Committee were so constrained and so loaded that the majority recommendation is hardly surprising? Is he, therefore, aware that the report carries little authority as a definitive statement on industrial participation?

The terms of reference raised the question of how industrial democracy, by which was meant the representation of workers on boards of directors, should be introduced in this country. It also raised the question of what the economic effects of so doing were likely to be. The question "How?" is the question that has been asked and answered in a whole series of European countries, and this was the appropriate question to which we had to ask the Bullock Committee to address itself because that is a relevant question at this time.

In preparing the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the overwhelming opinion of the trade union movement is in favour of a single-tier board? Secondly, during that preparation will my right hon. Friend undertake also to consider any changes in company law that will facilitate the full concept of planning agreements being brought into being, because many of those who submitted evidence to the Bullock Committee did so on the basis that worker directors elected to a board should be so elected to enable effective planning agreements to be brought about?

Planning agreements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I do not know to what precise changes in company law my hon. Friend refers, but the intention has always been, and still is, that these should remain voluntary.

I note what my hon. Friend said about the overwhelming opinion of the trade union movement on the question of a single-tier board. I am not sure that the trade union movement is unanimous on that. Certainly trade union representatives on the Bullock Committee, as a result of the arguments advanced, seem to have changed their view on this subject. A single-tier board is plainly an option. It is well argued in the Committee's report that that should be the course to take. Nevertheless, at this stage I do not believe that we should rule out the possibility of a two-tier board.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his opening remarks were reminiscent of the remarks that preceded the Industrial Relations Act—that is to say, that he implied that there were a large number of non-negotiable parts in his consultation? Is he further aware that his subsequent remarks softened that impression? Which was the correct impression? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that the Bill in respect of the publicly-owned industries and that for the private sector are brought forward together?

When the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to read my statement, he will see that I did not put down a long list of non-negotiable parts. What I did was to repeat the Government's commitment in respect of the process towards industrial democracy in the form of representation of workers on boards of directors and the essential rôle of trade unions in that process. That was what I repeated. My answer emphasised the importance of consultation on the subject, and in answer to supplementary questions I indicated that that consultation would cover many of the matters that have been raised during questions today.

The Government hope to be able to introduce the legislative proposals in respect of the nationalised industries at the same time as those dealing with the private sector.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement reaffirming the Government's commitment to industrial democracy will be welcomed not only by the majority in the House but by the bulk of employees in the country, as revealed by a Market Research Society poll published in the newspapers this morning? Does he agree that it is a pity that the three company chairmen who signed the minority report did not follow their own plea that

"all should be prepared to abandon prejudice, pre-conception and dogma, and to weigh sectional interests against national imperatives"?

In the spirit of that plea, will the Government try to direct the attention of all concerned to the content and not merely the form of the work of industrial representatives?

Yes, certainly. I note, too, what my hon. Friend said about the Market Research Society report. I suggest that one of the most important developments that we should look for now is a public debate on the issues raised by the publication of that report. That, too, will help to get agreement on the subject and to show that in this area the issue is reconcilable, just as in our history we have found many other difficult issues to be reconcilable.

Why were the Government afraid to give the Committee terms of reference that did not prejudge the main issue? Does not the Secretary of State understand that a system in which a single vote restricts all subsequent votes to trade unionists cannot conceivably be regarded as democratic? Further, can he tell us whether he accepts the view that all directors must have the same legal rights and liabilities? Will he say whether that is the Government's view and whether that point will be open for discussion?

In my statement I laid stress on the point that the Bullock majority report emphasised the need for all directors to have the same responsibilities. I believe that that is right. That was the majority report's conclusion. We were not afraid to have the wider question discussed. The point was that we thought that the relevant question was how—not whether—this process should be implemented. It was a matter on which we thought it was right to make a commitment, and it was supported in the election. I have already indicated that there will be consultations regarding the procedures for selecting worker directors.

rose—

Order. In view of the interest in this matter I have allowed the debate to run for 40 minutes. I propose to allow another three questions from both sides. We will then have to come to a conclusion.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if industrial democracy is to develop there must be a favourable climate for it to do so, and does he agree that that climate will not exist as long as trade unions are forced into the defensive position of having to fight rearguard actions to safeguard their members' jobs rather than being able to develop a positive rôle which industrial democracy implies?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I entirely accept what he said about the need for a favourable climate. That is why I should like to see an element of public debate on this issue, because I think that public debate would gather a great deal of support for industrial democracy of this kind.

What changes in company law does the Secretary of State contemplate to encourage the other forms of employee participation to which he referred in his statement?

That is a matter that we can consider. However, the majority report says that forms of consultative mechanism lower than the board should not be established by enactment. It also says that such systems can be developed by companies by agreement. This is what the report says. Again, this is something that will have to be considered. It may be that other provisions are necessary. We will listen to arguments on that point. However, the majority report, after considering this question, came to the conclusion that the best way of encouraging participation at lower levels within the company was to develop representation of workers on boards of directors. I think it would be admitted throughout much of industry that, in the development of participatory processes below board level, this country has been unfortunately slow and that we need some encouragement of that process.

Will my right hon. Friend give us on this side of the House an assurance that in framing the legislation we start from the premise that we are committed to a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and that the minority report's proposals go nowhere near to meeting that? Indeed, they leave out any form of decision-making policy and so on. They also make clear that the organisation and structure of companies will remain exactly the same. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the essential reason why trade union representatives only should be on these boards is that they are the only ones with the back-up service from an effective organisation to do the job that is required to be done?

The aspect of this that I should like to emphasise is responsibility. In my view, one of the objects of industrial democracy is to ensure that responsibility for the successful operation of companies is spread throughout the country and that it is not limited to people elected by the shareholders but it is spread to people who represent all the employees of a country. That is the object, and I hope that that is the object that we can achieve.

As for the reasons for the trade union channel, as it is described, this is a matter which is discussed in the majority report. I have explained the view of the Government on this subject. We shall consult about this issue.

In view of what the Secretary of State has said about industrial democracy, can he say whether the Government will be giving a favourable passage to the Employee Investment Bill, which has its Second Reading on 4th February?

When I have found out what that Bill says, I shall contact the hon. Gentleman.

As worker participation legislation is now absolutely inevitable, will my right hon. Friend advise industry not to wait for the legislation but to get cracking and provide industrial democracy in its own units now in its own good time?

There is nothing to prevent companies from developing the consultative and participatory procedures which they say in their public statements are necessary but which, unfortunately, have been too little developed within British companies so far. Nothing exists to prevent that from happening. We intend to give further encouragement to that process.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the favourable climate that he and all hon. Members seek is not likely to be enhanced by the kind of statement he has made today? His remarks in answer to questions have been a good deal more helpful than the original statement.

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement that we shall consult on the general basis of the recommendations contained in the majority report with what he has subsequently said about considering the minority report and the two-tier board? Will he confirm that consultations will allow full and open discussion of other methods of non-statutory imposition of consultative machinery? Will he also confirm that the Government are not committed to statutory imposition of worker directors, as he seemed to imply in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel)

Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman understand that this proposal, if carried through in the form proposed in the Bullock Report or anything like the majority report, is likely to set back industrial confidence and industrial investment for many years?