asked the Secretary of State for Industry what progress has been made in discussions between his Department and representatives of Sona Consultants Ltd. abut re-equipment of their Moderna plant in West Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

Officials from my Department have been in frequent contact with Sona Consultants during the past two months. The company has explained the possibilities which are being explored for various combinations of products to continue to be manufactured at the Moderna plant. Re-equipment of the plant will depend to some extent on the product range which is linked to current negotiations with potential custmers, including export customers, and I understand that Sona Consultants have written to my hon. Friend on 25th January with a further declaration that they intend to reorganise, re-equip and re-establish manufacturing.

What form of production is proposed by the new owners of the firm? Does the Minister agree with the workers at Moderna that there are reasonable grounds for optimism about the export potential of British-made blankets and that there is, therefore, no reason why the firm should be closed for a period of up to one year and why 332 jobs should be scrapped, particularly in an area with little alternative employment?

It is difficult for us to make a judgment about the sort of production facilities that Sona Consultants intend to embark upon, since my Department has not received an application from them. As my hon. Friend knows, when the subject was raised in a recent Adjournment debate the Government made it clear that we were anxious to receive such an application, because we should then be able to make a better judgment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement about the remuneration of the directors of Cable and Wireless Limited.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement about the salaries to be paid in future to the directors of Cable and Wireless Limited.

I have nothing to add to the answers which my hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on 13th January.

Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the directors of Cable and Wireless, which has had a post-tax profit increase of about 400 per cent. over the past six years? Is it not ludicrous that there should be more than 20 employees of Cable and Wireless whose salaries are in excess of those of the directors?

I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to a public company which has been so successful. As the hon. Member was told on 13th January, Cable and Wireless put certain proposals to me but they were unacceptable to the Government and I told the directors that.

Has the Minister yet grasped the point that Cable and Wireless will not continue to be successful if its management is not properly rewarded? Does he not realise that what is necessary, instead of his absurd industrial strategy, is to pay managers properly for doing a good job?

I am in favour of paying everybody properly. As the hon. Gentleman knows—although he may not necessarily accept it—the Government have a prices and incomes policy, and if we had agreed to the proposals put by Cable and Wireless we would have violated that policy.

Is not Cable and Wireless having difficulty in filling the post of finance director? Instead of rushing to apply for the post, will the Ministear bear in mind that the company is considering having to appoint someone at sub-board level? Could not this experience be multiplied many times in the private sector? Since it is important that the best people should be tempted into the most important jobs, will the Minister persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the next stage of the incomes policy or in his next Budget, to give some overdue recognition to management?

I will draw the Chancellor's attention to that point. It is the Government's intention to look at all these matters in relation to our policy for the next phase of the incomes policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next plans to meet the leaders of the CBI.

asked the Secretary of Sate for Industry when he next proposes to hold talks with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry.

I shall meet CBI representatives at the next NEDC meeting on 2nd February.

When my right hon. Friend next meets CBI leaders, will he tell them that it is their obsessive hatred of the concept of planning agreements that has led to the situation that British Leyland is now considering sending abroad the work of making tools for its body-building programme over the next four years?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in squeezing a question on British Leyland into a Question on the CBI. I have said on many occasions that the Government are disappointed with the progress of planning agreements, and to some extent my hon. Friend is right. The CBI should have given the policy more backing, and it has over-reacted to the system. As to British Leyland, I have seen reports in the newspapers that my hon. Friend plans to submit evidence to the National Enterprise Board. That is the right approach.

In view of the recommendation of the majority report of the Bullock Committee, and in view of the sharp but understandable reactions of the CBI, would it not be better if the Government did not publish the draft Bill during the current session and gave more time for discussion? Is not the draft fifth directive of the EEC on worker participation to be republished in March? Should not more time be given and the draft Bill published in the following Session?

Ministerial responsibility for the Bullock proposals rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. All that I wish to add is that the Government are committed to a radical extension of industrial democracy, and I have made plain on more than one occasion that we shall lay legislative proposals before the House in this Session.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the CBI, will he emphasise that the nation is scandalised by its reaction to the Bullock Report and that the nation regards the democratic participation of workers in the development of their firms and organisations as being just as right as the so-called share-holder democracy?

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. We are committed to an extension of industrial democracy. Much of Britain's industrial problem arises from not getting enough out of our investment and our existing resources. Involving workers in decision-taking much more than in the past will help.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, together with the Secretary of State for Trade if necessary, meet the British Institute of Management and explain whether the hard-pressed managers in British industry can expect to gain if the majority report of the Bullock Committee is implemented?

Sir Derek Ezra is President of the British Institute of Management, and I know that he is committed to extending industrial democracy within the National Coal Board. I do not know whether his views are shared within the institute, but everything that I have said in relation to the CBI applies equally to the institute.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Department of Industry will have an important part to play in the debate arising out of the Bullock Report and that, if constructive consultations on employee participation are to proceed, they must be on the widest possible basis? Would he agree that they should not be restricted merely to the concept of trade union representation on a unitary board?

When my right hon. Friend made his statement last week, he said that consultations would take place immediately with all interested parties and that the majority report of the Committee would be the basis of the discussions. I do not think that I can add very much until those consultations have taken place.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he proposes to announce his decisions in regard to the British Steel Corporation's 10-year modernisation and capital re-equipment programme.

The Government remain committed to the principles of the 10-year development strategy. My right hon. Friend intends to announce decisions on outstanding specific proposals as soon as possible after receiving specific recommendations from the British Steel Corporation.

I appreciate the complexity of the matter, but does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, due to delays over some years, the cost of the modernisation programme has risen from £3,000 million when it was first published to perhaps £6,000 million now? Where is all that money coming from? Would it not be far better for the Government and the BSC quickly to agree on a modified programme and for the Corporation to be allowed to get on with it?

We should not have had that money at all if the House had accepted the Tory Party's attempt to delete the financial provisions from the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Act in the last Session. When the 10-year development programme was published in July 1973, no one—including the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who sponsored it—envisaged that it could be implemented in one year. It was built in that inflation should be taken into account because inflation was soaring under the then Government. Steel investment this year is more than £600 million, which, as the responsible European Commissioner acknowledged to me, is the highest level in any EEC country.

One of the issues which still remains to be decided is the plate mill in the Consett works in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that we have been told for the past three years that we shall be given a decision as soon as possible? May we have something fairly specific fairly quickly?

My hon. Friend could have had an adverse decision fairly quickly, but we thought that the matter should be considered in order to give Consett and Hartlepool, together with Redcar, a chance of getting the plate mill. That is why the decision has not been made as quickly as some people may have wished. The BSC is re-examining the matter carefully and I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall give a decision as soon as we can after receiving the Corporation's proposals. Following my visit to Consett under my hon. Friend's sponsorship, I am well aware of its claims.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the consequences of the repeated deferment of a decision on Shotton is that the corresponding decision on whether the area should be given full development area status, which it needs so badly, has also been deferred? Will he take this into account in assessing the need for an early decision?

If the hon. Gentleman's vote on the steel development White Paper had been successful, Shotton would now be closing and there would be no uncertainty. The BSC has given evidence of the seriousness with which it is reexamining this issue by the fact that it is doing so in such depth, but a decision will be made as soon as possible. I received many letters from local authorities and others in the area paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) for the way in which he has advanced the case of his constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will issue a general direction to the British Steel Corporation to present him with proposals for the reorganisation of management on industrial common ownership principles.

No, but the Government have decided in principle that employees should have the right to representation at board level.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we are talking not about the Bullock Report but about industrial common ownership? Is he further aware that management in the steel industry often appears to be almost as hierarchical as in the days of private lack of enterprise? Is it not time that something was done to make it more democratically accountable to all those involved in the industry?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Industrial Common Ownership Act and on his excellent speech on 19th January against the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I shall certainly bear in mind what he says. I am sure he will appreciate that the Government envisage the widest possible consultation on the Bullock Report.

If the Government are so keen to implement the Bullock Report for the undemocratic extension of trade union power and patronage, why do they not start the process in the public sector so that we can see whether the Government's proposals can really work before inflicting them on the rest of industry?

As the Government have already said, we accept the position in principle of the right to board membership on behalf of trade unionists. Obviously we wish to have the widest possible discussion of the issues involved. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman's contribution does not take us much further in that discussion.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British Steel Corporation already has working directors at divisional level and that trade unionists are already on the main board of the Corporation? If the hon. Gentleman is to carry forward the argument of Bullock, as he is now doing, he must recognise that certain companies have already made arrangements that seem to have struck the right balance. Does not this illustrate perfectly that legislation is not required and that it is much better for different companies and industries to make decisions that suit their own needs?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's line, but I am sure he will accept that the Government have said that they wish to proceed along the lines of the majority report. Obviously that does not rule out much of the flexibility that he has described.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the nationalised industries are suitable for the principles of common ownership?

That is a rather separate question which I hope the hon. Gentleman may table one day. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), we shall bear in mind the aspirations of what he has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what discussions he has had with the British Steel Corporation on the effects of cuts in public sector capital expenditure on the concrete and iron pipe sector of the Corporation.

Representations have been made to me by the chairman of the Corporation and by managers and the work force of BSC's Stanton and Staveley Group. Following discussions, the group management has indicated that the situation is more encouraging than was first intimated.

Has anyone told the Minister that British Steel has only this weekend announced short-time working at Stanton and Staveley on the concrete and the cast iron pipe plant as a direct result of the Government's announcement of capital expenditure cuts, which are hitting the building and construction industry harder than any other industry? Why have not the Government given a higher priority to maintaining capital expenditure and, instead of cutting that, cutting some of their public expenditure in other directions?

That supplementary question was a bit difficult to follow. However, it would seem that the hon. Member, who is always up and down at Question Time like a jack-in-the-box asking for public expenditure to be cut, is against public expenditure being cut when it affects his own constituency. He should realise that Labour Members appreciate that public expenditure can have effects such as those he describes. That is why several meetings have taken place recently to ameliorate the situation.

Is there not a need for very considerable investment in the production of offshore pipes, which we have no capacity to manufacture at present?

I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter because he has tabled a Question on it previously. Over the weekend, the British Steel Corporation has announced its intention to go ahead and expand its capacity at Hartlepool for just this purpose.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek the earliest opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with industrial progress in the Northern Region.

We shall continue to promote industrial development in the Northern Region.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the regional employment premium, coming as it does at a time when industry in the Northern Region is extremely depressed and when there is also the threat from devolution, makes the case for a northern development agency even stronger than before?

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not necessarily accept his conclusion. He should bear in mind that the temporary employment subsidy gives a far more realistic form of assistance to firms that are really under pressure, and the switch to a more selective approach will be more advantageous to the Northern Region. I also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the consultative document in relation to devolution within England and ask him to consider how far it would be to the advantage of the North if the development agencies which he envisages were set up for every region. I am not sure that it would be to the advantage of the North.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that no industrial investment in the Northern Region has been at the expense of the West Midlands? When he next meets the CBI, will he consider with it the Government's input, particularly the recommendations of the sectoral working parties on industrial strategy?

The hon. Gentleman will know that few IDCs have been refused in the West Midlands. The difficulty of recent years is that, because of the international recession, there has been little mobile or new industry created here or in Western Europe. That is why there is understandable pressure in the West Midlands against regional policy. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look again, however, at the context in which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) asked his question and to consider the level of unemployment in the Northern Region. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is essential to retain regional priorities.

Will my right hon. Friend look again at the question of replacing the general blanket aid of the regional employment premium by more specific industrial aids, since this is a matter of major concern in an area such as mine? Will he also consider the inadequacy of the temporary employment subsidy, particularly as a means of encouraging major investment in my area?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for focusing attention on the fact that, in addition to the temporary employment subsidy, funds have been made available for a more selective approach to industrial development. I am sure he will appreciate that this will be extremely helpful in meeting the specific needs of firms that are considering setting up in the Northern Region.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what action he has taken over the past three months to help small businesses.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps have been taken to assist small firms since the Minister responsible for them took office.

In the course of the last three months the Government have announced changes in, and additions to, most of the sectoral schemes currently in operation under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. They now contain special provisions for assistance to small firms towards the cost of consultancy studies, and in the case of the clothing industry scheme the minimum value of a project eligible for help has been reduced from £30,000 to £10,000. In addition, I have inaugurated a pilot counselling scheme for small firms in the South-West Region which, subject to our experience, we will extend in due course to the rest of the country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much more would be served if he looked at the fact that the flood of Government legislation, departmental bumf and bureaucratic intervention is killing off not only small businesses but the incentive to grow and to provide more jobs for many more people? If he is to protect small firms, will he consider setting up a strong interdepartmental committee to scrutinise all legislation and major regulations before they come to this House in order to exempt small businesses from those which are not appropriate to them?

I am sorry that my answer took so long, but there has been a wealth of activity in the Department of Industry regarding small firms.

Is the Minister aware that, in view of the greatly increased numbers of liquidations from bankruptcies, his efforts so far have been feeble in the extreme? Does he recall a resolution passed by the House exactly one year ago today calling upon the Government to alleviate the taxation and other burdens that were threatening the existence of small firms? When does he propose to comply with the wishes expressed by Parliament?

Such changes have already been made. For example, corporation tax on profits up to £30,000 is levied at a lower rate. Quite recently, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, although his question does not exactly indicate the fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced changes in capital transfer tax to allow for easier transfer of small businesses.

What advice is the Department giving to local authorities, such as the Merseyside County Council, which are anxious to enter into arrangements with the National Enterprise Board to assist small firms in safeguarding and promoting employment?

My hon. Friend will know that we are looking at the whole question of the development of small firms in inner city areas. A committee is looking at that matter with a great deal of urgency. We are alive to the problem.

That is all right then.

It is no use the hon. Gentleman shouting from a sedentary position. The fact of the matter is that the situation is being examined in great detail. Indeed, in Liverpool we are constructing 16 terrace units for small businesses among the 82 units which the Government are currently having constructed in using public expenditure. I do not suppose that the Opposition would jib at that.

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Prime Minister's remarks at the Labour local government conference last week about the decline of small businesses and employment potential in inner cities were almost a repeat of the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment on the same subject in September last year and that they both expressed it better than he did in reply to the last question? When will all the window-dressing be translated into a statement on Government policy for reversing the trend leading to the decline of small businesses in inner city areas and removing the restraints on small businesses which have been described?

The hon. Gentleman's comments demonstrate the strong sense of unity which prevails in the Labour Government. Those statements indicate that there are two elements in encouraging and preserving small firms. One element is central Government. I indicated earlier that the Department of Industry does not regard the whole matter as completely perfect. Nevertheless, we are encouraging small firms to the best of our ability in difficult economic circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the current rate of industrial investment.

No, but it is now improving and is expected to pick up substantially over the next year or so.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that overseas investment in this country is likely to be severely damaged by the proposals in the Bullock Report if it should be implemented? Does he regard the principle as being more important than the jobs which may be lost?

The hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions in suggesting that confidence is being harmed by proposals in the Bullock Report. Companies which are considering investing in the United Kingdom—in particular the overseas companies which I have contacted during the last 12 months—regard the prospects for investment as very encouraging.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the damage that is being done to investment in the shipbuilding industry in Newcastle upon Tyne, and particularly on Tyneside, by the impasse which currently surrounds the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? Is he also aware of the investment which C. A. Parsons has made in the development of the steam generating heavy water reactor and the problems which are created for that company by the present difficulties in the power plant industry? Will he comment on both those industrial problems affecting the Northern Region?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper on the power plant industry. I think that I had better reserve my comments until I reach that Question.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the greatest factors in discouraging investment in industry is instability of policy and that, as a result, certain companies have not taken account of regional incentives in calculating whether to invest? Does he accept that the cut-off of regional employment premium does incalculable harm to the encouragement of investment in areas such as Wales?

I do not agree that it does harm. In fact the REP, when it was in operation, represented only 2 per cent. in Wales. Many firms have told me and the Government that they were disregarding it as an incentive. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State explained earlier today, in terms of preserving jobs the temporary employment subsidy is a more important incentive.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) is quite right and that nothing could be more damaging to confidence in invest-ment than the unqualified introduction of the Bullock Committee's recommendations in the face of the unqualified opposition of management? As the Secretary of State for Energy tried to reassure management over the weekend by saying that the introduction of industrial democracy was not more alarming than the introduction of the vote, will the right hon. Gentleman point out to his right hon. Friend that the introduction of universal suffrage was not restricted to trade union members?

If the hon. Gentleman really wants to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, he should find a way of doing so and not put them through me. I do not know why he is getting excited and alarmed about industrial democracy. I always thought that an extension of industrial democracy and participation had some support within the Conservative Party. However, Conservative Members are getting themselves worked up into a lather over these matters. They should be examining the proposals carefully instead of jumping to these hasty conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what estimate he has made of the total cost to public funds of the British Aerospace Organising Committee during the financial year 1976–77.

£145,000.

I thank the Minister for telling us that figure, but does he think that it is in the public interest that they should not know the details of how the money is being spent? In particular, what would be the damage to the security of the State that might arise if the public were to know how much of the money paid in emoluments to the members of the Committee is taxable and how much is non-taxable? Why will he not tell us that?

Even by his own standards the hon. Gentleman is being pretty bizarre. The fact is that the salaries of those who have been appointed salaried members of the Organising Committee are taxable. They have other expenses, of which we have given details in the House, which they have been using to try to compensate for the delay with the Bill caused by the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friends.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most of us are much more concerned with the actual problems with which the Organising Committee has to deal than with the details of its finances? Has he yet received the views of the members of the Organising Committee on the current proposals for full-scale funding of the HS146? When are we to have a decision, which is much needed in my constituency and elsewhere?

I can tell my hon. Friend that if there is one project above all others the prospects of which have been damaged by what the House of Lords has done to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill it is the HS146, the prospects of which have been placed in jeopardy by the delay. If Opposition Members doubt my words, perhaps they will accept the words of the air correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, Air Commodore E. M. Donaldson, who said:

"Whether Britain's industry is nationalised or not, its top air firms, BAC and Hawker Siddeley, plus their missile divisions, will need to be merged and reorganised. Nationalisation seems to be the best way of accomplishing this. Some 200,000 jobs are at stake over the next 15 years and there are signs that other international air firms are not prepared to wait for Britain to sort itself out."

I ask the Minister to try to be a little more truthful or accurate in his replies. He knows, does he not, that the Bill would have been passed by now if it had not been for the stubbornness of the Secretary of State in not accepting the removal of the ship repairing clauses? That is the truth. As the Organising Committee of British Shipbuilders does not now exist because of all the resignations, what action does the Minister propose to take? Will he make a statement about the proposed State holding company for holding the existing State-owned companies? That could have been done a year ago and could have solved all the industry's problems without all this trouble.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has a Question on the Order Paper about the shipbuilding industry Organising Committee, and that will be dealt with in due order. As for the question of our being able to have an Act, of course we could have had an emasculated Act if we had wished, but we had introduced a Bill fulfilling our pledges at the previous two General Elections to the effect that we would nationalise ship repairing. The Bill must include ship repairing if it is to be enacted.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many orders he has made under Section 28 of the Industry Act 1975.

None, Sir.

May I ask why? Is it that the Secretary of State is totally satisfied with the information supplied through the National Economic Development Council, or is it that he is not so satisfied? If he is not so satisfied, what steps is he taking to ensure that the provisions about disclosure of information are implemented and that information is available to the trade unions?

Section 28 was always envisaged as a reserve power. I bear in mind what my right hon. Friend has said about the need to disclose information. I also bear in mind what she says about the need to give that information to the trade union movement. It is a section that has always been regarded, since the 1975 White Power, as a reserve power.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that, while the exchange of information to trade unions about decisions taken at board level and about industrial participation is important, the real power nowadays in British industry tends to lie with trade unions? What is he doing to ensure that information about what goes on in trade unions and at trade union meetings is made available to management?

The hon. Gentleman can always join a trade union and find out.

I have tried twice and been turned down.

I do not know who they were, but they made an excellent decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he plans to increase the amount of financial aid available under the Ferrous Foundry Scheme; and whether he intends any amendments to the terms of the scheme.

I shall be considering in due course whether to increase the financial allocation to the scheme. The scheme closed for applications on 31st December and I have no plans to amend its terms.

Why is there so much secrecy about the amount of financial aid that is given out to individual companies when surely the general public and the workers within the industry are entitled to know how much public money is going to the employers? Will the Government also consider lowering the scheme's minimum investment from its present level of £25,000 in order to try to help employment prospects of workers in small foundries in places such as Denny and Dunipace, where most of the foundry workers are on short time?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is no question of secrecy concerning public funds. We are following the general practice in this as in all industry schemes of making the names available in the first quarter after the first payment is made. That is standard procedure, so the information will be available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how appreciative most of the foundries are that have benefited under the scheme and that an early statement of the projections would be much appreciated by everyone? Does he also agree that one of the most important aspects in helping ferrous industries would be for the Government to reverse their policy on public expenditure cuts whereby orders coming through the construction industry and bodies such as the Post Office have affected the foundries in my constituency, for one area?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her initial comments. I am sure that in Scotland the scheme has been of considerable benefit. £5 million of the £31 million already allocated has gone to Scotland. The hon. Lady will appreciate that the ferrous foundry industry will benefit most from our getting the economy generally on to a sound footing. Indeed, it was indicative at the time of the last upturn that this was one of the industries that was earliest to show its shortage of capacity. We believe that the scheme will enable it to take full advantage of any upturn that takes place.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to conclude the consultations arising from the CPRS Report into the power generating industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the power plant manufacturing industry.

The consultations arising from the CPRS Report are being conducted with all possible speed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the essence of this problem that a steady forward ordering policy from the CEGB should be announced as soon as possible for the future if the whole industry is to survive? Will he also bear in mind particularly the question of some of the firms in the industry, such as Clark Chapman in my constituency, which have interests not only within but also outside the boiler-making industry? If my right hon. Friend is looking at further proposals by the CPRS, will he bear in mind firms such as that, because it is their buoyancy both inside and outside the industry that must be taken into account?

The consultations are going ahead as quickly as possible, as I have already indicated, and the point that my hon. Friend has raised will certainly be taken into consideration. I can confirm that one of the factors being taken into consideration is the possibility of a firm ordering programme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the House must sympathise with the problems of the power plant manufacturing industry, it is none the less not the answer to oblige the CEGB to indulge in a firm forward ordering programme for which there is no prospect of real demand for perhaps a decade? Does he not accept that a much better way would be to try to do more to promote the export prospects of the industry to ensure that it has a real chance in catching some overseas markets?

I think that it is within the interests of the CEGB and the two Scottish boards to have a power plant manufacturing industry in this country. There is no doubt that if the Government were not to take action at all the industry would go down; it would be knocked into the ground. It employs about 34,000 people directly. Therefore, one element is a firm ordering programme as far as the CEGB is concerned. However, I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says about the possibility of winning export orders, and that will be considered also.

Will my right hon. Friend have consultations with the Secretary of State for Energy in view of the need for Drax B? As we shall need extra power in the 1980s, will he bear in mind that it will take at least eight years to construct?

I confirm that consultations are taking place, and discussions are taking place between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and the CEGB about Drax B.

Will the right hon. Gentleman spell out to his hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) the cost in terms of increased prices to consumers of electricity if the CEGB is obliged to order coal-fired power stations in advance of any need when we already have a considerable excess of generating capacity in this country?

I cannot point that out to my hon. Friend because we do not know the full details and the full implications. Certainly the cost and the prices will have to be considered, but it is too early to go into them at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he proposes to proceed with the Government's proposed £25 million industry aid scheme for instruments and automation.

Yes, as soon as it has received EEC approval.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will resist any proposals from the EEC to abandon aid to this important industry?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we intend to press this proposal as hard as we can. He will be aware that this is the first occasion, I believe, when the Article 93(2) procedure has been applied to one of our proposals, whereas all the other member countries of the Common Market have had their aid proposals referred on numerous occasions for consultation.

Is it not a fact that, while many of the other Government aids to industry have been allowed, this one has been blocked under Article 93 of the Treaty of Rome? Will the Minister please indicate whether he is satisfied that some of the new and prospective reported proposals of the Government that will be put to the meeting of the NEDC on Wednesday for new specific sectoral assistance do not conflict with Article 93 as well, because many of us have serious doubts that this is a very unfair form of competition?

It is in the interests of member countries that competition is on a fair basis between member countries, but equally we have to ensure that we are protecting the interests of our own industries, particularly those in areas of rapidly evolving technology, such as this, and we try to strike a reasonable balance. I think that the fact that this is the first application which has been referred shows that we carry out adequate consultations and go into adequate detail in our studies before putting schemes forward.

asked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with the enforcement of the law in so far as it is within his responsibility.

asked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the enforcement of the law so far as it lies within his official responsibility.

asked the Attorney General if he remains satisfied with the workings of the legal system, in so far as it lies within his responsibilities.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the Questions for Written Answer from the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on 24th January.

Is it true that it was the Attorney-General who advised the Government on the implications of the law in the Tameside case and got it wrong, that it was he who advised them on the law in the Laker case and got it wrong, and that it was he who advised them on the procedures in the hybridity affair on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and got it wrong? Does not the fact that Mr. Gouriet's recent action prevented a breach of the law in the Post Office affair suggest that he was wrong in that case as well? Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman insist on giving this bad advice?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question embraced several different subjects, but, taking them as a whole, the answer is "No, I am not the only person who advises." I turn now to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Having studied the judgments, which, as I said last Thursday, I had not at that stage been able to do, I can say that on the two major constitutional questions involved the court decided in my favour by two to one, with Lord Denning as the dissenting minority.

Reverting to the discussion on Thursday, does my right hon. and learned Friend remember that every newspaper in the country got the matter totally wrong by concentrating upon Lord Denning? Will he now confirm that, on the major issues facing him when he first considered the application, the two appeal judges came down firmly in his favour, therefore ruling out the necessity for him now to go to the House of Lords?

It certainly at least appeared that some representatives of the Press must have made their exit from the court when Lord Denning finished his judgment and they did not stay to hear the rest of the judgments, as a result of which Lord Denning was in a minority on the main questions. I am still considering with my advisers the question of an appeal to the House of Lords, because there were decided by the Court of Appeal matters of importance though outside the major constitutional matters upon which I attended before the court. I hope to give those the fullest possible consideration and then make up my mind.

Will the Attorney-General confirm that in the recent Post Office affair his decision was in no way influenced by the fact that the defendant was a powerful trade union?

Of course I confirm that. I gave my reasons in full on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman was not present, he can study Hansard. That certainly did not figure among my reasons.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why in 1971 the previous Government took absolutely no action, and will he take it that many of us are getting fed up with judges instead of the House of Commons trying to decide the law of the land?

I take it that by his reference to 1971 my hon. Friend is referring to the postal workers' strike for three weeks. Rightly or wrongly, at least one member of the Court of Appeal made a distinction between a complete strike and carrying on working but discriminating against some particular person. If that is a correct distinction, it is an encouragement to people to go on full strike rather than to discriminate. As regards the other part of my hon. Friend's question, it is not for me to comment upon the judgments of the judges and I refrain from doing so.

asked the Attorney-General how long the papers in the Bryant Builders (Birmingham) case have now been with the Director of Public Prosecutions; and when he expects the Director of Public Prosecutions to announce his decision as to what action he intends to take.

asked the Attorney-General how long the papers in the Bryant Builders (Birmingham) case have now been with the Director of Public Prosecutions; and when he expects the Director of Public Prosecutions to announce his decision as to what action he intends to take.

So far as the first part of the Questions are concerned, I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on 22nd November, 13th December 1976 and 10th January this year. So far as the second part is concerned, a further police report of the further inquiries into this matter has been received and considered by counsel. The Director of Public Prosecutions is now considering counsel's advice.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the time during which this matter has been under investigation by the police and consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions is appallingly long, which suggests to some people that there is a cover-up going on and to others that the whole system of the police investigating and then the Director giving consideration needs major overhaul?

I agree that it is a long time since this matter was first before the police and before the Director. Unfortunately, very complex inquiries have had to be made. Counsel has advised from time to time on the state of the inquiries to date and asked for further inquiries to be made. Long as this process has been—I agree entirely that is unfortunate that it should take so long—I assure my hon. Friend that I have myself had control over the last part of the matter and that it is being dealt with as rapidly as possible.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that among those who think that a cover-up is going on are the West Midlands police themselves? If such people think that a cover-up is going on, is it not cause for great concern? My right hon. and learned Friend has assured the House, of course, that there is no cover-up, but will he make sure that the matter is brought to a speedy conclusion, as the office of the Director is now chock-a-block with reports from the West Midlands police?

In case I did not make it clear before, I do so now. There is absolutely no question of any cover-up going on. It is a question of the evidence, and counsel are advising on the evidence. Counsel are fully aware of all the facts, as is the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no scope for a cover-up, even if one were wanted, which it is not.

asked the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.

asked the Attorney-General what recent communication he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

asked the Attorney-General when he next intends to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.

asked the Attorney-General when he next proposes to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions and receive communications from him as often as the need arises.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions do not extend to Scotland, and will he confirm that the recent injunction granted by the Court of Appeal does not extend to Post Office workers in Scotland? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us in the Labour movement who wholeheartedly supported him in his efforts to defend the rights of this House against the court would also defend the rights of Scottish Post Office workers to demonstrate against the apartheid régime in South Africa?

Fortunately, I am not responsible for Scots law. That is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I hope that I am fulfilling my duty to defend both the proper rôle of Parliament and the proper rôle of the courts.

Did the Attorney-General consult the Director of Public Prosecutions about his decision in the case of the Post Office union, and has he yet decided whether he will exercise the right that has been given to him to appeal to another place?

My answer to the first part of the question is "No", because we were not concerned with a criminal prosecution. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the case involved a civil remedy for an injunction. I consulted all the advisers that I normally consult in relation to such issues. I have already answered the second part of the question. I am still considering it.

Is the Attorney-General aware that there is grave dissatisfaction both with the length of time that the DPP's office takes to consider some of these cases and with the adequacy with which the office seems to have considered them? When he next meets Sir Norman Skelhorn or his successor, will he discuss with him Government plans for a full, independent prosecution process in England which is independent of the police? Will he also say something about how such preparations are going?

It would be going too far to say that the Government have such plans, but of course there have been a number of suggestions, including those by the organisation Justice, about the prosecution processes in general. That is a matter with which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is closely concerned, and he and I, when necessary, discuss the matter, as we do with the DPP. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no complacency. But there are staff and other difficulties which we are trying to overcome as best we can, pending, perhaps, a final decision about what the prosecution process should be.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the proceedings that have been mentioned today, the Attorney-General said that he was responsible to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone, for giving his reasons for prosecutions and related matters in the courts. We have an opportunity of 10 minutes every month to cross-examine the right hon. and learned Gentleman on these reasons which, he says, he is willing to give to the House of Commons. Indeed, he has said that he is anxious to give them. Through no fault of his, a number of Questions have remained unanswered today. Could you, Mr. Speaker, bring to the notice of the authorities concerned that in future, thanks to the Attorney-General's admission to the Court of Appeal, we shall require longer to cross-examine him about his motives?

That is a matter for someone other than myself. I am sure that others will have heard the hon. and learned Member's point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We now have a different situation. In view of what has happened with the present Attorney-General and the way in which he has performed his duties, could arrangements be changed so that, instead of starting some other departmental Minister's Questions at 2.30 p.m. and ending up with 10 minutes for the Attorney-General at 3.20 p.m., we did it the other way round? It is time that we had a proper opportunity to check the Attorney-General's accountability which he is putting forward as his reason for not going before the courts.

I am sure that those suggestions will be considered by the usual channels.